Shrubbie and Maineman

Thing1 said:
How do you know? How can you say it's a "lie"?

Once you unleash the dogs of war, things get messy & unpredictable. Always, without fail.
Click to expand...



your about a decade too late to take that postion now huh?


funny to see all you rightys FLOP and FLIP about military actions
 
evince said:
see what happens when you aid a dictator for political reasons.


Reagan sold them to him and watched him kill people with them
Click to expand...

What is this never ending compunction of yours to spew such incredible lies? You are not only the forums most hyper partisan loony tune, but the forums most prolific liar.
 
Truth Detector said:
What the fuck do you think happens in a global war where millions were gassed by a despotic megalomaniac who bombed civilians with little conscience? How old are you to even make such an amazingly stupid comment?

Yes folks, according to Minamoto here, the allies in World War II were wrong to bomb cities and factories to end the war early and should have taken extreme care not to hurt civilians in Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.

What a moron. You think war is nice? You think civilians won't get hurt? Tell it to the despots, tyrants and dictators of the world who would then laugh at your naive point of view and shove a spike through that empty skull of yours.

If not for Americas efforts, millions more could have died and the European Continent would be using Nazi currency. If not for Americas efforts, half of Asia would be speaking Japanese.
Click to expand...

Yes...we should have. You certainly wouldn't (well, I hope you wouldn't) support the idea of sending infantry into those cities to bayonet all the civilians. So why does bombing them help? Please, explain to me the rational behind killing MILLIONS of CIVILIANS.
 
I apposed the Iraq war because it was NOT good for the world including us and it was commensed on fucking lies to the people.



This one is completely true,.

truth matters
 
Montessa said:
Great analysis, but you left out that unlike conventional weapons, chemical WMD can be more easily used by terrorists. In that they are easier to conceal and transport, and that as you note, small amounts can do massive harm- how likely is it that a terrorist could get away with smuggling an AC-130 aerial gunship; 'bunker buster' bombs; laser-guided bombs; etc.?

The questions about going to war are always important. Most people on both sides of the argument generally do not like war. But this does not mean war is never necessary.
Click to expand...

When it will not accomplish anything positive (as in this case) it is not necessary.
 
Minamoto Yoshitsune said:
Yes...we should have. You certainly wouldn't (well, I hope you wouldn't) support the idea of sending infantry into those cities to bayonet all the civilians. So why does bombing them help? Please, explain to me the rational behind killing MILLIONS of CIVILIANS.
Click to expand...

It is really hard to take your dense rhetoric serious. Do you really think that the efforts of the allies in WWII were directed at the civilians and not factories, railheads and production facilities within those cities?

Explain to me how WWII could have been won without strategic bombing? Tell me how the Japanese Imperial Army tried to avoid civilian casualties. Tell me how the Nazis desperately tried to avoid civilian casualties.

The only thing dumber than your rhetoric are those who claim the holocaust never occurred.
 
Minamoto Yoshitsune said:
When it will not accomplish anything positive (as in this case) it is not necessary.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree- My point was being made to the analysis of Mott The Hoople (should have quoted him).

WMD, especially the chemical kind, are a unique category of weaponry that might give necessary rise to aggression, in order to prevent its proliferation or its falling into the hands of terrorists.
 
Thing1 said:
You're a total moron. I was against both Iraq Wars.

You're really a fool, and a hypocrite.
Click to expand...

So you felt that Saddams Kuwait invasion and subsequent atrocities of an ally and member state should have been ignored?

And you think others are morons??? At least you aren't a hypocrite; you're just an incredibly naive fool whereas evince is both.
 
BTW guys Sryian oil fields are producing less and less.

they are not the big oil prize your pretending they are
 
Thing1 said:
I was initially for Afghanistan, but that position was wrong & I regret it.

Afghanistan was harboring those who planned 9/11, which was a direct attack on the U.S.
Click to expand...


The hit of afganistan was a decent move.


unfortunately to the Bush team it was just a reason to do Iraq built on lies
 
Montessa said:
I don't disagree- My point was being made to the analysis of Mott The Hoople (should have quoted him).

WMD, especially the chemical kind, are a unique category of weaponry that might give necessary rise to aggression, in order to prevent its proliferation or its falling into the hands of terrorists.
Click to expand...

Yet the global community did and said little about Saddams use of them killing far more than those in Syria; why is that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top