Pre-emptive Strike in Iraq

[spillmind]

probably because i misspelled it, while juggling setting up meetings, adding new records to databases, and chatting in about three windows...?

jeez, the guys figures out how to set up a forum, and then make a self-statement with the new emoticons. umm... power to the people, dude. what exactly are you getting at with those anyway?

 

[janeeng]

Does Jim know something we don't about you spill? hahaha!

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by spillmind
probably because i misspelled it, while juggling setting up meetings, adding new records to databases, and chatting in about three windows...?

jeez, the guys figures out how to set up a forum, and then make a self-statement with the new emoticons. umm... power to the people, dude. what exactly are you getting at with those anyway?

For Christ's sake, if you are going to try and insult someones intelligence, AT LEAST try to spell properly while doing so. It's fundamental skills, not even on an IQ test!

 

[spillmind]

i wasn't trying. however, you don't find it ironic?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by spillmind
i wasn't trying. however, you don't find it ironic?

Yes, I find it ironic that your intelligence is lacking when you try to use *big* words to insult someone else.

You do realize you would get a ZERO on an IQ test, don't you? It requires the proper spelling of your name in order to completely process your results.

 

[spillmind]

*yawn*

i guess you missed the question. so you do find yourself an anomaly, agree it is ironic about your emoticons, but you would rather try to direct the attention of it on me...? yeah, a zero, dude....

and go ahead and get the last word if it boosts your ego for another second. bwahahahahahahaha

i notice you always give debate a shot, and then digress to this style of elocution... why do you think that is?

 

[jimnyc]

Here's my parting shot then, all I have at the moment when I think of your pathetic self:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/spill.wav

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by spillmind
[Bi notice you always give debate a shot, and then digress to this style of elocution... why do you think that is? [/B]

Since elocution is widely used to say someone has a suitable and impressive writing style, I'll just say "Thank you"

 

[spillmind]

who's whipped now? hahahah you people are hilarious.

hypocritical, but funny as hell.

 

[spillmind]

http://www.ohyahmon.com/soundbytes/mp3s/DESLAF.wav

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by spillmind
who's whipped now? hahahah you people are hilarious.

hypocritical, but funny as hell.

YOU ARE! LOL

You made an interesting thread and I respectfully responded to it. You broke down to throwing crap again. I responded in kind, and made you look foolish AGAIN.

Sure sucks to be you!

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by spillmind
http://www.ohyahmon.com/soundbytes/mp3s/DESLAF.wav

Oh my, that was perhaps the gayest thing I've ever heard! Not surprising it would be something you would have though!

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by spillmind
...i suggest you make a case for attacking everyone and anyone who had these kind of ties to al-qaeda, or it looks a lot like hypocrisy.

I should make a case for attacking al-Qaeda... OK, here goes:
1. al-Qaeda attacked the US on 9/11/01, killing about 3,000.
2. al-Qaeda has not relented in pursuing its war on America, and continues to threaten to kill more Americans, with no distinction drawn between civilian and military.
3. The U.S. military's primary purpose is to provide for the common defense of all Americans.
THEREFORE, the US military should attack al-Qaeda wherever they decide to hide.
Now, it is no secret that we are after al-Qaeda. So if a country willingly harbor al-Qaeda groups/cells/training camps/etc., they should not be surprised when we tell them that you are either for us or you are for the terrorists.

america simply does not have enough FUNDS to go around knocking out terrorist harboring countries, let alone deal with the repercussions from them. most of you are still in denail about anybody harboring a sense of revenge for iraq!

You are right, GWOT is going to cost a lot. And we don't have the funds to fight every terrorist organization in the world. However, I believe that $87B is worth it, if at the end of the day, we have made the world a safer place for America, rid the world of terrosists, and oh-by-the-way liberated two countries with millions of people in each from some of the most despotic governments around and made them potential allies, both militarily and economically.
As far as revenge for Iraq... we kicked their ass the first time, there wasn't really any revenge to take!

 

[spillmind]

jim: any response yet? thought not. when you guys tried to proclaim victory, i was still challenging! you haven't replied to a simple question, and it's obvious to everyone it's ironic.

that said, the sample was taken from star blazers cartoon from way back when. just a sample from hip pop culture, but of course your response was: 'that was the the gayest thing i've ever heard!' how stunningly insightful.

enough of that nonsense:

jeff:

87$ billion is not the REAL price tag. and this is ONLY IRAQ! this is the (public statement) current cost, about half of what economists predict to be the actual cost. even this is a conservative estimate. i mean, we've got an election coming up!

let's look at some of the 'good' news from afghanistan:

http://www.irinnews.org/AsiaFP.asp?SelectRegion=Central_Asia&SelectCountry=Afghanistan

http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/0,1284,548335,00.html

boy, sounds like we really squashed the taliban huh? get real, man.

the assertion that america is safer is pure speculation. because there hasn't been a terror strike in the last 2 years is a very short line to be towing. think years, decades into the future. you agree that we simply cannot finance this GW war on terror at it's current rate.

i was referring to those people of iraq that will harbor resentment for whatever reason, there will be terror to fear for years to come. if we are bent on domination, we better not be half ass. iraq is a mess that will not go away in my lifetime.

that is, unless jimnyc gets his hands on a nuke and gets all the terrorists in one country and blows the shit out of it! ...sounds pretty realistic to me. yah right

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by spillmind
jeff: 87$ billion is not the REAL price tag. and this is ONLY IRAQ! this is the (public statement) current cost, about half of what economists predict to be the actual cost. even this is a conservative estimate. i mean, we've got an election coming up!

I'll have to re-read the stories... I'm pretty sure, though, that $87B is the cost for all the GWOT. And let's not forget, this is a WAR, where enemies fight back and no plan survives the first contact. So I'm sure that the price could easily be higher. But again, I think that the benefits outweigh the costs.

boy, sounds like we really squashed the taliban huh? get real, man.

So let's see... jimnyc wants to nuke everyone, but that would be too radical for you, but the present rate of eliminating the Taliban is not fast enough for you. What course of action would you suggest?
Afghanistan is slowly, but surely, stabilizing under a democratic government. You'll remember that it took the US four years from Yorktown until the ratification of the Constitution in 1787, and that was without British holdovers terrorizing local governments. It is naive to expect Afghanistan to stabilize overnight.

the assertion that america is safer is pure speculation. because there hasn't been a terror strike in the last 2 years is a very short line to be towing. think years, decades into the future.

Let's see... in '96, we had a terrorist strike against US servicemen in Saudi Arabia, in '98, we had two of our African embassies bombed, in 2000, a terrorist boat blew a hole in the USS Cole, then there was 9/11. so one would expect that they would have at least tried another terrorist attack since then - if they were able. The point is that we are out to rid the world of al-Qaeda, so that 'decades' in the future, there will be no al-Qaeda left to threaten us, and no other organization would take the chance of screwing with us because they don't want the same thing to happen.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by spillmind
jim: any response yet? thought not. when you guys tried to proclaim victory, i was still challenging! you haven't replied to a simple question, and it's obvious to everyone it's ironic.

that said, the sample was taken from star blazers cartoon from way back when. just a sample from hip pop culture, but of course your response was: 'that was the the gayest thing i've ever heard!' how stunningly insightful.

You asked "however, you don't find it ironic?" I believe I gave you an answer. In fact, I think I answered every question you have ever made directly to me. Were they not the answers you were looking for? Tough shit! It's obvious to everyone? I'll wait and see who chimes in to defend you on that issue...

I tried answering quite a few of your questions in the past several weeks with a civil tongue. I posted relevant facts. I offered my honest opinions. You just have a differing opinion and choose not to see things in the same light as I do. The problem is that when you reply, you always have to do it in a way where you think you are talking down to someone. I am not the first to point this out. I'm far from a patient man, you can suck my left testicle if you think I'm gonna play your little word games. You offered your opinion, I offered mine, we disagree.

I could care less where you got the gay .wav file from! The fact that you consider a clip of a guy laughing, "cultural", is funny! Have you saved all the Pokemon clips too?

that is, unless jimnyc gets his hands on a nuke and gets all the terrorists in one country and blows the shit out of it! ...sounds pretty realistic to me.

Sounds like a damn good plan!

 

[janeeng]

Lookie lookie!!! I think that underground has finally found his true love, and it is Spillmind!!! you two will make a beautiful couple!!!!!

 

[Man of 1951]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
The point is that we are out to rid the world of al-Qaeda, so that 'decades' in the future, there will be no al-Qaeda left to threaten us, and no other organization would take the chance of screwing with us because they don't want the same thing to happen.

It's not like people who are part of Al-qaeda go around with pins on their shirts saying 'I'm a member of Al-Qaeda"......if you want to stop terrorisim you have to understand where terrorism comes from, why they hate america. Because i can tell you one thing, they don't hate america simply out of spite. Actually the root of all mid east terrorism comes from the anti-americanism that sprouted when america toppled the democratically elected government of Iran in 1953, and replaced it with a ruthless dictator. Since then, they have hated america because of the way they control the world.....read how many democratic goernments america has toppled, and also how many people (as in civilians...not trained-to-kill civilians, but simply civilians) have died as a direct result of american imperialism (call it what you like...i call it imperialism along with many other intellectuals around the world). They don't attack america because its a free country or because they hate liberty. Its not that at all, its the fact that america has relentlessly stretched out its hands to dominate the world through militaristic means. Read some stuff about central america, mid east and some other stuff they have done in other countries. I'm not saying america should stop this stuff just to please al-qaeda....im saying america should stop this stuff because what they've (they as in government...american people are some of the nicest around the world............and some of the meanest....) been doing is wrong and immoral (search some stuff, and you'll see what i mean). if america tries this approache, al-qaeda will be dead and gone before you know......if thats the real objective........

 

[NightTrain]

I disagree.

Bill Clinton did nothing during the '90s, and the terrorist attacks did what?

Yep, that's right. They skyrocketed and grew more bold with every operation, culminating in 9/11.

Why would this be? I'd have to say that it was because there was no real and punishing response to the attacks, so they figured they had a paper tiger.

I'd say OBL is wondering what the hell went wrong - America never pulled out all the stops before against terrorists.

My theory is that OBL didn't consider the new President, and assumed he'd take whatever was handed out, similar to how the previous President reacted to attacks on America.

Come on, 1951. Because a few lefties want to distort the definition of the word Imperialism, you'll follow suit? It's dishonest, and you know it.

 

[Man of 1951]

Originally posted by NightTrain
I disagree.

Bill Clinton did nothing during the '90s, and the terrorist attacks did what?

Yep, that's right. They skyrocketed and grew more bold with every operation, culminating in 9/11.

Why would this be? I'd have to say that it was because there was no real and punishing response to the attacks, so they figured they had a paper tiger.

I'd say OBL is wondering what the hell went wrong - America never pulled out all the stops before against terrorists.

My theory is that OBL didn't consider the new President, and assumed he'd take whatever was handed out, similar to how the previous President reacted to attacks on America.

Come on, 1951. Because a few lefties want to distort the definition of the word Imperialism, you'll follow suit? It's dishonest, and you know it.

Even during the clinton adminstration, http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/index.html#cold im not saying everything america did was bad, but look at the top part, all the things america did while clinton was president. Just cuz it usually never hit the news, doesn't mean nothing happened. Alsoin 98' america bombed a weapons factory in sudan......oh wait sorry it turned out to be making aspirin.
Also, america has been constantly giving weapons and technology and support to israel, which the weapons and pwoer has been used to oppress a people, and keep them under military occupation for several decades (but thats another story).

Clinton did try to make peace and he was a better president, but things did happen.


Imperialism: The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.
I dont know about you, but that sounds a lot like what America is doing. America has been doing this for several decades.....so in my humble opinion along with several intellectuals, lefties or not, america has been acting like a imperial nation.