Bush Terrorists and the war.

hahahha right i didint know that you are a fucking tool. of course thier are guys in afghanistan, do you know the # of them thier NAH DIDINT THINK SO. the majority of our military is in iraq, the guy responsible is not in iraq
 
just so you know, soldiers are not always informed about everything happening in the war. sure they are there and are witness to a lot of things, but so are reporters. in WWI the german soldiers all thought that germany was winning.

i'm not saying your friend is a liar, and i respect him for fighting in case you wanted to discredit me that way
 
i feel sorry for you...do you know easily a u.s. residing member of al-queida could obtain a weapon and just let loose on a heavy populated area? Just as easily they could plant a dirty bomb and kill hundreds on dailey basis just like what happened in europe. Al-zarqawi is qouted explaining that thier attacks on the united states will be conducted to create the greatest impact and most bloodshed...the patriot act has accomplished little, the capabilities of terrorism are unavoidable, and we ill experience them again...realize that
 
cause they kinda were at one point.. they were able to cross through belgium and take over the capitol of Paris kinda easily.. it was until US got involved that shit hit the fan for them
 
ummm, it takes time to plan a terrorist attack, especially on Us soil, so my answer to your question is no

and you're in the wrong forum, you want non-ski gabber
 
no actually you're wrong. i believe you're thinking of WWII. there was a stalemate on the western front for basically the entire war. actually you are kind of right, germany was winning in russia, but that is it. german soldiers didn't realize they had lost even when the ceasefire was called.

also you're wrong about the US involvement turning the tide. most US troops didn't arrive until the summer of 1918. the armistice was signed in november 1918. sure it helped but it wasn't as significant as americans like to think.
 
i believe its the other way around because Russia dropped out of the war and signed a treety with germant.. and since belgium was neutral germant could easily use them as a crossroad to get to france.. no i am right just learned this in global..
 
but what about the (estimated) 35000 iraqi civilians killed? do you think that's worth it? mind you, these are civilians, not the military. that is more than 10 times the number of civilians killed in 9/11. tell me what we are doing is not terrorism.
 
actually i did say that germany won on the eastern front. germany was able to go through belgium and into france, where they were stopped (battle of the Marne) and were caught in a stalemate for much of the war. the french and british had more casualties until 1917 (im pretty sure) but neither side had any real advantage. i learned this in global too.

but the point to the argument was that German soldiers at the end of the war believed they were winning, even when everyone in charge knew they were beaten. what i'm trying to say is that soldiers do not always have the best perspective.
 
that movie also has made-up conversations with people that swear they have never spoken to micheal moore...
 
Exactly the point I was going to point out.

I mean let's think about it. There have been how many terrorist attacks prior to 9/11 on US soil? One or two maybe? Before you go off ranting about how Bush saved America from the evil islamic radicalists, get your facts.
 
Just so you know, saddam's rule in Iraq was about to end after the gulf war. We encouraged the Iraqis to throw him out, and they began too. 15 out of the 18 Iraqi provinces were under the control of the rebels. Then, during the terms of surrender negotiations, George Bush Sr gave Saddam permission to fly helicopters in Iraq, and specifically, Gunship Helicopters. Hussein then used these helicopters to deploy the Chemical weapons which he purchased from us, the USA, and kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

Had we simply denied him the use of Gunships, we most likely would not be facing this situation today. And people wonder why the Iraqi people aren't excited that we "liberated" them. Maybe it's because our own monumental stupidity allowed Saddam to massacre their family members, and put him back in power.

So please tell me why the fuck we should ever vote for someone who has any affiliation with George Herbert Walker Bush.

P.S. You know what's also a hoot? Donald Rumsfeld handled negotiations with Saddam Hussein while we were staunchly supporting him during the Iran-Iraq war, and Rumsfeld didn't do shit about Saddam's constant buildup of Chemical and Biological weapons technology.
 
Well basically it comes down to this.

US govt: Hey Russia...what's up guys. Yeah we were thinking maybe we could come over to your country and secure your nukes for you?

Russia: Fuck off capitalist pig.

US gov: Yeah well we were just worried that maybe they might fall into the wrong hands.

Russia: Fuck off capitalist pig...we sell our weapons to who we want!

You think Russia will just let us protect their nuclear arms? I have a news flash...they SELL nuclear capabilities to Iran. You think Iranian scientists are down in the caves working on nuclear projects? Wrong! Soviet profesors are offered so much money to go over there.

An attack on US soil from a nuclear missle is unlikely for this reason: There is no way any middle eastern country can launch an undeteced missle (nevermind even having the technology to even hit us) across the atlantic ocean into one of our cities. It's basically too much time and impossible for that type of flight. This means one will have to be smuggled in. That is a pretty hard job to do but not impossible. This is the way I think we will ever be attacked by nuclearic means.
 
actually it's anywhere between 300,000 and 1,000,000 in 24+ years, varying between sources. i dont doubt that that is terrorism, but is what we are doing so much better?
 
arre you serious? guess who was there, in the midst of the war, actualy fighting for what is going on over there.... the soldier. and guess what the biggest news station in the world is trying to do....make money.

-and if that news station is Al gezzera, yea they obviously have a bias. do you realize how whenever there are insurgents with videos, they go in that news station, if they were trying to help the situation, they'd help to tell us where the hell they are.

- and if this huge huge news corperation is CBS, I only need remind you of dan rather.

....SMACK
 
Pearl Harbor was not a terrorist attack. It was an atatck on a military base. There was a bombing at the WTC before 9/11. What about the DC snipers? What about Oaklahoma City? Just because they aren't muslim doesn't mean it's not a terrorist attack. Funny, now that there's a muslim attack it becomes a holy war. What happens when trailer trash make a bomb and kill almost 200 people? Nothing. They are given a death sentence and that's that.
 
WOW. so the big news stations know more about the war, then the military itself? pleeease do explain.

...and dont even begin to compare the U.S. right now to WWI Germany
 
I agree that the Russians won't let us do much, but we could certainly persuade them. We are the most powerful country in the world, with huge economic resources, while Russia is a struggling new country that happens to have unsecured nuclear material. I think we could work something out if we really wanted too don't you?

I agree with you that an attack by nuclear missile is unlikely, but i never said that i thought that was likely. considering the constant advances in technology and the availability of nuclear materials, i think it is entirely within the realm of possibility, and in fact relatively likely that we get nailed with a nuclear attack in the next 100 years.

Considering that we have found several tunnels under our borders large enough for trucks to drive through, i don't think it would that tough to get a small nuclear weapon into the US, or even just smuggle in the necessary materials and then construct one inside the USA.
 
What is wrong with you? Anti-Americans like you make me so mad, and it's even better cause you are an American too! lol

People like you always like to look at the negatives of war and never the positives. You love to see failure in the progress of Iraq just to show that you could have been right. Sure, there are going to be deaths, but in the long run there will be democracy for Iraqis. Start looking at the good stuff and not the bad things you get from the liberal media.
 
maybe not the military itself, that's not what i was saying. but individual soldiers are not the most informed about every part of the war. soldiers take orders. soldiers do not ask questions. at least that's my understanding. i would trust news stations to give a better informed report on the war than a single soldier, who no doubt has biases about the military to begin with. see, news stations have many reporters all over reporting what goes on. these reporters went to school for journalism, and should know that giving false information is wrong, even though i'm sure some do it anyways. news stations also have fact checkers so they don't misprint anything. i would say this is more credible than a single soldier.

i was using an example in history where soldiers did not know the status in the war they were in, and what was really going on elsewhere. i am not comparing the US to WWI germany in any other way.
 
uhh so STAR and the ENQUIRER can't ever report false statements?? lol so that cat really is the devil?!?!? damn.. that sucks.. looks jsut like my cat
 
letting people have freedom unforttunatly comes with a cost, and casualties are inevitable. but we are re-building a feakin' government, a society. and thats a hell of a lot beeter than people being killed at soccer games for the fuck of it, and having no say in THEYRE lives whatsoever.
 
please tell me where you get your information, and what are all those great things that are being done that could balance out the 30,000 iraqi civilian deaths?
 
yes journalists know that false information is wrong, but in the end which do they care more about, the facts? or a good story?
 
dude, i only addressed your incorrect assertion that there hadnt been any foreign terror attacks on US soil because it needed correcting. since you were wrong. not two ways about it. it was the first piece in your rhetoric. i dont really care about the rest of your post since its your opinion. i just didnt want you going around making false statments. and are you saying the anthrax letters arent terroism? um... i dont know about that. im not sure who made you the definer of what terrorism is or isnt, but thats a different post for a different thread.

i dont really care what else you think youre going to 'whip out' here, since so far youre not shooting a very high percentage. its probably not worth it if youre just going to continue making yourself look foolish.
 
i have no idea what you're trying to say. if you think i, or anyone for that matter, get our news from STAR and the ENQUIRER then you are not worth arguing with.
 
wow, my friend.... freedom, and domocracy is what balances this out. without us, guess how many more iraqis would have been killed. a helll of alot more than any number that result from the current iraq war
 
i like to think that journalists use facts all the time. i know that's not true, but most of the time i believe they are credible. that is what fact checkers are for. and if you can't believe the free press, then who can you believe?
 
let me guess... fox

haha and no i don't get my news from the NBA

actually i usually get global news from the BBC, i also read more articles from different sources than i watch on tv, i find it's more informative than bill o'reiley ranting about the french
 
and I like to think that the girl whos waiting for me every night, in my room is Jessica Simpson. but its actually my dog who is laying on my bed. Fact checkers are once again not credible. they work for the news companies.
 
yea fox bro fair and balanced... Hannity and Colmes lol check spelling but they have some very good stuff to say..

my bad.. NBC
 
fair and balanced, or we report you decide.... which do you prefer?

Nahh but yea. they do seem much more reliable than most other news spots
 
there are thousnads of soldiers who are against the war, and there are thousands for the war. You cant take the opinion of one soldier and say its the absolute truth just because they were fighting.
 
im not just talking about one soldier... I personally know many soldiers over there, and have seen many interviews, the moajority agree with the reason that we are over there. obviously there are those against the war, thats what proves that they are speaking what they truthfully think, and not what the military is telling them too.
 
but dont forget the existing bias im sure many soldiers had (JD May said something about this in another thread) wouldnt it make sense that soldiers who volunteered for the military be supportive of the military in the first place? they had believed that military action was right from the beginning. so please don't go talking about media biases while taking the soldier's biases as truth.
 
why, because you agree with their bias? fox news can say they give fair and open minded coverage as much as they want, but that doesn't make it true.
 
does it hit you that the liberal media has a liberal bias? it does me.. which is why i can't listen to much to the media, there is not going to be any less bias there and a soldier would have
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top