Death of Al-Zarqawi: the effects on Iraq and its people?

Shampoo and more Shampoo
User avatar
bhs_pirates
n00b Geek
Posts: 45
Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 12:50 pm
Location: B.F.E., KY

Death of Al-Zarqawi: the effects on Iraq and its people?

Postby bhs_pirates » Fri Jun 09, 2006 12:11 am

With today's (well, yesterday's) Abu Musab al-Zarqawi confirmation of the death of Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, the al Qaeda leader in Iraq, how does everyone feel this will effect the current situation in Iraq?

Personally, I feel that the Iraqis will feel somewhat relieved, but all they know is violence anyway, so that guy is just another fly on the wall to them and al Qaeda...They will have a new leader by the end of the week...lol..if not tomorrow...

As for the so-called War on Terror, it marches on...Vietnam II is basically what this war has become....so to the pilots that dropped the two 500 lb. bombs on that farmhouse yesterday, THANK YOU...one al Qaeda down, thousands to go...
User avatar
Lexon Avery
Richard Cranium
Posts: 1566
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 9:57 pm
Location: Morehead
Contact:

Re: Death of Al-Zarqawi: the effects on Iraq and its people?

Postby Lexon Avery » Fri Jun 09, 2006 8:05 am

bhs_pirates wrote:With today's (well, yesterday's) Abu Musab al-Zarqawi confirmation of the death of Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, the al Qaeda leader in Iraq, how does everyone feel this will effect the current situation in Iraq?

Personally, I feel that the Iraqis will feel somewhat relieved, but all they know is violence anyway, so that guy is just another fly on the wall to them and al Qaeda...They will have a new leader by the end of the week...lol..if not tomorrow...

As for the so-called War on Terror, it marches on...Vietnam II is basically what this war has become....so to the pilots that dropped the two 500 lb. bombs on that farmhouse yesterday, THANK YOU...one al Qaeda down, thousands to go...


You have got to be shampoo stupid. Do have any clue how many terrorist we have killed scene the war on terror started around the world…?? Do you have a clue in how many died in Vietnam? And you say its Vietnam 2? You have to be stupid, or just watch liberal TV all the time. I welling to bet you’re the type of guy that would say our troops are killing innocent civilians in cold blood and that this war has gone on long enough.

FYI reports show that over 320,000 terrorist have been taken out from 2001-2003 world wide.
FYI some 55,000 troops died in Vietnam.
FYI killing any terrorist is a hell yeah.

You should be ashamed of yourself to say something like that, and as for how does everyone feel this will effect the current situation in Iraq?

you do realize the situation in iraq is not what you think it is. You do realize that the troops no what the hell they are doing and this only boosts there moral. As for Iraqies themselves, some 11 million took to the poles so id think if there was an election tomorrow over 17 million would head to the poles. (iraq had a population of around 26 million before the war started I think.)

Al quade ill be pissed, but when are they not. When your heart is that filled with anger that you have to kill someone and many times yourself, you are pissed all the time. And how there are going to take is well yes they will have a new leader, but well he be even half the villain that Zarqawi was, hellz no.

How the American public will take it…about the same way you do. By posting really stupid comments, they think that we aren’t winning… at all. They thing progress isn’t being made and that our troops are evil. Now im not talking about weather going into iraq was right thing to do our not im talking about some dam support for the men and women that are willing to fight, to protect and serve the country with their lives. I’m talking about reporting good news, not negatives, not oh a reporter died today in Iraq on veterans day.


(most of this is me venting (i watched tv for the first time in like 2 or 3 weeks, and i began to cry) so dont get made at me most of it isnt directed to you at all)
Intel i7-2600K @ 4.6ghz
ASRock Z77 Extreme6
16GB of Corsair Dominator GT
Evga GTX 780
Seasonic X-850
Kingston HyperX 3k 240GB
3x 2TB Hitachi Raid 0
User avatar
Guess Who?
purple drank in da house
Posts: 627
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2005 6:33 pm
Location: The Twilight Zone
Contact:

Re: Death of Al-Zarqawi: the effects on Iraq and its people?

Postby Guess Who? » Sun Jun 11, 2006 2:45 pm

bhs_pirates wrote:With today's (well, yesterday's) Abu Musab al-Zarqawi confirmation of the death of Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, the al Qaeda leader in Iraq, how does everyone feel this will effect the current situation in Iraq?

Personally, I feel that the Iraqis will feel somewhat relieved, but all they know is violence anyway, so that guy is just another fly on the wall to them and al Qaeda...They will have a new leader by the end of the week...lol..if not tomorrow...

As for the so-called War on Terror, it marches on...Vietnam II is basically what this war has become....so to the pilots that dropped the two 500 lb. bombs on that farmhouse yesterday, THANK YOU...one al Qaeda down, thousands to go...


I'm with lexon, you seriously are retarded. Like he said the death count in Vietnam is astronomically higher than that of Iraqi Freedom. There is no way you can even justify that statement. You sound like one of those idiot hippies that called nam veterans "baby killers" and then spit on them. You clearly lean pretty far to the left, and this only proves it.

The casualties in Iraqi Freedom has barely passed 2,000 (last time I checked). That's baby numbers in comparison to other wars that this country has had. We lost that many men (maybe even more) at the first day of Iwo Jima. Maybe if your kind would support more than you complain then we might be doing a little better.

This thread needs to be one of rejoice, not your nonsense take on the war.
Image
User avatar
Lexon Avery
Richard Cranium
Posts: 1566
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 9:57 pm
Location: Morehead
Contact:

Postby Lexon Avery » Sun Jun 11, 2006 11:35 pm

killing Zarqawi, is like taking prozac, it makes you feel good inside
Intel i7-2600K @ 4.6ghz
ASRock Z77 Extreme6
16GB of Corsair Dominator GT
Evga GTX 780
Seasonic X-850
Kingston HyperX 3k 240GB
3x 2TB Hitachi Raid 0
User avatar
nighthawk101
antique farm machinery sold here
Posts: 931
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 2:17 pm

Postby nighthawk101 » Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:52 pm

the fact that we have no clear objective other than "stay the course" and there is no real end in sight... I think that the Vietnam 2 tag is warranted.

The death toll is radically different... but that NVA was a professional army with professional leadership. The results, however, are the same. No planning, no objective, no nothing. Just "stay the course". Stay the course for WHAT? What is the objective?
Im not being agressive, im being dominant
User avatar
LORD MANN
I like to fart on people.
Posts: 539
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 7:13 pm
Location: shampoo

Postby LORD MANN » Tue Jun 13, 2006 3:59 pm

to fight the war on terror… now where are the weapons of mass destruction? let me guess up Bin laden ass now where is he? not in Iraq
"I want you to pull the trigger til they don't get up"

brilliant!!!!!!!!
Image
http://www.chadsmom.com/
User avatar
Lexon Avery
Richard Cranium
Posts: 1566
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 9:57 pm
Location: Morehead
Contact:

Postby Lexon Avery » Tue Jun 13, 2006 7:41 pm

Our objective and our course is to make Iraq a “free” beacon to the rest of the middle east (like bush has been saying from… day one). Most likely we may set up a base of operations there to send troops into other near by countries coff cooff Iran coff cooff.

And yes the NVA were real killing machines but the problem with Vietnam was not staying the course. The President’s cabinet was more less split on bomb building, or send in troop for troop. They had no clue how to fight a real army in there own ground with out lots of deaths. Deaths that the media made clear where for “no real cause”

Iraq we could go in a blow every military building up and call it a day, send in the troop and clear out any resistance. Just like we were trying to do with Vietnam, and let the SVA government take over all of Vietnam. Iraq is ageing not close to Vietnam and we are not doing that. Iraq is making a government and is taking a role into the removal of insurgents/terrorist.

Ageing its not about if the war was right or wrong at this point, but that we are making progress. Taking out Zarqawi is a sign our plan (that we have had from the start) is working. The media wants date they want to know when everything is going to happen so when it doesn’t happen on that date they can blame someone, why now they just say “no plan” what’s wrong nighthawk, don’t you have faith in our “under achieving” president?

Weapons of mass destruction? Define your definition to what a WMD is…the international community can’t define one so what the heck is one… the tones of gas and ground to air missiles that the UN said IRAQ could not have… or the mass tones of weapons that before the war started where shipped into Syria and Iran. (that is the confession of Iraq’s former air force general) There’s a whole dam book about it, ill find the title if you want it.
Intel i7-2600K @ 4.6ghz
ASRock Z77 Extreme6
16GB of Corsair Dominator GT
Evga GTX 780
Seasonic X-850
Kingston HyperX 3k 240GB
3x 2TB Hitachi Raid 0
User avatar
bhs_pirates
n00b Geek
Posts: 45
Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 12:50 pm
Location: B.F.E., KY

Postby bhs_pirates » Tue Jun 13, 2006 10:38 pm

Weapons of mass destruction? Define your definition to what a WMD is…the international community can’t define one so what the heck is one… the tones of gas and ground to air missiles that the UN said IRAQ could not have… or the mass tones of weapons that before the war started where shipped into Syria and Iran. (that is the confession of Iraq’s former air force general) There’s a whole dam book about it, ill find the title if you want it.


Lexon, this just goes against you're whole argument of "progress?" WMD's is another key reason we went to Iraq, but what the heck is a WMD? Undoubtedly we don't know, cause we sure haven't found any?
User avatar
Lexon Avery
Richard Cranium
Posts: 1566
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 9:57 pm
Location: Morehead
Contact:

Postby Lexon Avery » Wed Jun 14, 2006 8:56 am

Did you even read that....??

We have found tones of gas and ground to air missiles that the UN said IRAQ could not have…(WMD) or the mass tones of weapons that before the war started where shipped into Syria and Iran. Well because Saddam knew there was going to be a war, if we would have just dived in head first (and not listened to the sorry ass UN like Lib’s wanted) we would have the weapons as it stands. The confession of Iraq’s former air force general proves that Iraq had WMD

Ageing I’m not talking about was the war right or wrong I’m talking about lord mann’s stupid post. (I.E. what this topic is about) Is a good thing that Zarqawi is dead and it is part of the staying a course. Killing any terrorist over there is progressive; having them kill Americans in America is not!

If you want to debate the war its self make a topic about it. If you want to get off topic and shoot ever good thing we have done in Iraq, like killing Zarqawi, down just because you think the war is wrong—you are sorry.

Zarqawi was a terrorist
Zarqawi was a terrorist
Zarqawi was a terrorist
Zarqawi was a terrorist

We killed Zarqawi
We killed Zarqawi
We killed Zarqawi
We killed Zarqawi

BE HAPPY!!!
Last edited by Lexon Avery on Wed Jun 14, 2006 2:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Intel i7-2600K @ 4.6ghz
ASRock Z77 Extreme6
16GB of Corsair Dominator GT
Evga GTX 780
Seasonic X-850
Kingston HyperX 3k 240GB
3x 2TB Hitachi Raid 0
User avatar
nighthawk101
antique farm machinery sold here
Posts: 931
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 2:17 pm

Postby nighthawk101 » Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:12 am

Lexon Avery wrote:Our objective and our course is to make Iraq a “free” beacon to the rest of the middle east


Why is our job to make another country a becon of freedom? We've tried this before... it doesnt work.

Lexon Avery wrote:we may set up a base of operations there to send troops into other near by countries coff cooff Iran coff cooff.


1) Where will we get the soldiers to attack Iran?
2) Why will we be attacking Iran?

Lexon Avery wrote:And yes the NVA were real killing machines but the problem with Vietnam was not staying the course. The President’s cabinet was more less split on bomb building, or send in troop for troop. They had no clue how to fight a real army in there own ground with out lots of deaths. Deaths that the media made clear where for “no real cause”


The cause was to keep South Vietnam free... if South Vietnam was free, then the thought was the North would eventually see the light. It didnt work.. and we've had great relations with Vietnam for the last 30 years.

Lexon Avery wrote:Taking out Zarqawi is a sign our plan (that we have had from the start) is working.


The plan was to remove WMDs because the thought was Iraq was conspiring with Al Queda. Both have been proven wrong.

Lexon Avery wrote:what’s wrong nighthawk, don’t you have faith in our “under achieving” president?


No... whats he done to give me faith in him?
Im not being agressive, im being dominant
User avatar
nighthawk101
antique farm machinery sold here
Posts: 931
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 2:17 pm

Postby nighthawk101 » Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:34 am

Lexon Avery wrote:
We have found tones of gas and ground to air missiles that the UN said IRAQ could not have…(WMD)


Since when have you cared about the UN?

Lexon Avery wrote:or the mass tones of weapons that before the war started where shipped into Syria and Iran. Well because Saddam knew there was going to be a war, if we would have just dived in head first (and not listened to the sorry ass UN like Lib’s wanted) we would have the weapons as it stands. The confession of Iraq’s former air force general proves that Iraq had WMD


That sounds like pretty convincing evidence. President Bush should use that in a press conference to tell America we found evidence. Im still waiting on that.

Lexon Avery wrote:Ageing I’m not talking about was the war right or wrong I’m talking about lord mann’s stupid post. (I.E. what this topic is about) Is a good thing that Zarqawi is dead and it is part of the staying a course. Killing any terrorist over there is progressive; having them kill Americans in America is not!


Eliminating threats to America are a great thing. Whats hard to identify is whehter or not our actions in the middle east towards insurgents are because they were a threat or because we made them a threat.

Lexon Avery wrote:Zarqawi was a terrorist
Zarqawi was a terrorist
Zarqawi was a terrorist
Zarqawi was a terrorist

We killer Zarqawi
We killer Zarqawi
We killer Zarqawi
We killer Zarqawi

BE HAPPY!!!


Im not upset about that. Thats a good thing that he is dead.

However, the cost (men, money, etc) of the war is not justified to "free" another country.

BTW, Wheres Osama? We forgot about him.
Im not being agressive, im being dominant
User avatar
Lexon Avery
Richard Cranium
Posts: 1566
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 9:57 pm
Location: Morehead
Contact:

Postby Lexon Avery » Wed Jun 14, 2006 2:52 pm

nighthawk101 wrote: Im not upset about that. Thats a good thing that he is dead.

However, the cost (men, money, etc) of the war is not justified to "free" another country.

BTW, Wheres Osama? We forgot about him.


I wasn’t directing that part to you like most of my post are never toward you... I’m directing that to the sorry ass num nut that started this tread on a really really bad foot (in my mind).

money men etc worth freeing a country.. plz justify WW2??

I will be the first to admit there is never a good reason to invade a country and wage a war. But I will also not stand by and let others bring foolishly harm someone for there differences. May it be looks or religion? And then you might think well what about all the lance bass bashing and drug dealing stuff. Well last time I checked both are harmful and self-inflicted harm I.E. they are foolish towards themselves and I must step in to protect.

And Osama the man on everyone’s mind for the past 6 years, I would say 10 but Clinton never gave a rat’s ass about this countries safety or anyone else’s lively hood for that manner. Where is he…. I think your asking the wrong person that.

nighthawk101 wrote: The cause was to keep South Vietnam free... if South Vietnam was free, then the thought was the North would eventually see the light. It didnt work.. and we've had great relations with Vietnam for the last 30 years.


When was I talking about cause… I was talking about course of actions… bomb NVA or fight them one on one they didn’t know which to do.

Doesn’t the cause also signify how stupid a comment like “its Vietnam 2” now that you bring it up…??

And as all the quote ripping you do of me…why don’t you just say something not comment about everything I say???

Like the only real thing you said in that post what “Im not upset about that. Thats a good thing that he is dead.” Why don’t you just say HELLZ YEAH WE GOT THE shampoo??? I don’t mean to be hypercrititical like it might seem I’m being, but why not add to things I say(if you are I cant tell)…that why I asked where’s the faith nighthawk it just sounds like you are trying to become more liberal to get an A in an English class lol j/k


Can anyone tell me why we haven’t discussed the war yet, but we all want to from how we are drifting off topic here??? I know Im to fault for most of that.
Intel i7-2600K @ 4.6ghz
ASRock Z77 Extreme6
16GB of Corsair Dominator GT
Evga GTX 780
Seasonic X-850
Kingston HyperX 3k 240GB
3x 2TB Hitachi Raid 0
User avatar
nighthawk101
antique farm machinery sold here
Posts: 931
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 2:17 pm

Postby nighthawk101 » Wed Jun 14, 2006 3:09 pm

Lexon Avery wrote:
money men etc worth freeing a country.. plz justify WW2??


We did not enter WWII officially until AFTER Pearl Harbor... and still we only declared war on the Japs.

Lexon Avery wrote:I will be the first to admit there is never a good reason to invade a country and wage a war. But I will also not stand by and let others bring foolishly harm someone for there differences. May it be looks or religion? And then you might think well what about all the lance bass bashing and drug dealing stuff. Well last time I checked both are harmful and self-inflicted harm I.E. they are foolish towards themselves and I must step in to protect.


See... I dont care. Its their country, its their problems, its their responsibility to fix them. Not ours! We cannot go off correct EVERYONE (like we try). Its not in our best interest.

Lexon Avery wrote:And Osama the man on everyone’s mind for the past 6 years Where is he…. I think your asking the wrong person that.


I dont think the administration cares

Lexon Avery wrote:Doesn’t the cause also signify how stupid a comment like “its Vietnam 2” now that you bring it up…??


No... 1) We both wanted countries to be a freedom beacon or what not.

2) After several years a massive stale mate ensued with no end in sight.

Lexon Avery wrote:And as all the quote ripping you do of me…why don’t you just say something not comment about everything I say???


So I can address each thing individually

Lexon Avery wrote:Like the only real thing you said in that post what “Im not upset about that. Thats a good thing that he is dead.” Why don’t you just say HELLZ YEAH WE GOT THE shampoo??? I don’t mean to be hypercrititical like it might seem I’m being, but why not add to things I say(if you are I cant tell)…


Im glad we got him... but he'll be replaced... its not like we wont face another like him... say, right now. The thing is, we arent fighting a country or a govt or what not. We are fighting and enemy that is world wide. It does NOT end. Terrorism will never end. Should we fight it? Of course. But go on a witch hunt for it? No. If it does NOT affect the US, let other countries deal with their problems.


Lexon Avery wrote:that why I asked where’s the faith nighthawk it just sounds like you are trying to become more liberal to get an A in an English class lol j/k


I have no more faith in this administration.

Disagreeing with this war is liberal? News to me. Explain that one please.


Lexon Avery wrote:Can anyone tell me why we haven’t discussed the war yet, but we all want to from how we are drifting off topic here??? I know Im to fault for most of that.


We are discussing the war.
Im not being agressive, im being dominant
User avatar
Lexon Avery
Richard Cranium
Posts: 1566
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 9:57 pm
Location: Morehead
Contact:

Postby Lexon Avery » Wed Jun 14, 2006 7:33 pm

I edited this becuase the quotes

bhs_pirates wrote:With today's (well, yesterday's) Abu Musab al-Zarqawi confirmation of the death of Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, the al Qaeda leader in Iraq, how does everyone feel this will effect the current situation in Iraq?


Is the discussion original topic, and yes you would be discussing the war so I guess we might as well change it to THE WAR.

We did not enter WWII officially until AFTER Pearl Harbor... and still we only declared war on the Japs.


Oh so the fact that we DID send troops in to fight Germany doesn’t matter?

See... I dont care. Its their country, its their problems, its their responsibility to fix them. Not ours! We cannot go off correct EVERYONE (like we try). Its not in our best interest.


It’s not in our best interest, It’s not in our best interest?? When was the last time a terrorist flew a shampoo plan into an AMERICAN BUILDING??? Killing AMERICAN CIVILIONS??? We cannot go off correct EVERYONE, seems like you don’t have a problem trying to correct (which doesn’t seem to be happening) me.

I dont think the administration cares.

You know what a terrorist primary goal is?? TERROR hint: You give Osama power by talking about him?? Why not wage a war where we can free countries that are under the same hell driving idea to “destroy AMERICA”?

No... 1) We both wanted countries to be a freedom beacon or what not.

2) After several years a massive stale mate ensued with no end in sight.


…We invaded and took out an evil regime in IRAQ… we were trying to keep the south Vietnamese free??

So I can address each thing individually


I’m not going to defend anything I say because I said it. I am how ever going to try to get you to “think positive” or just think. By saying he’ll be replaced by someone just like him… is negative, and he wont be just like him, they never are. They are always more foolish, or more filled with hate to plan effective attacks.

The thing is, we arent fighting a country or a govt or what not. We are fighting and enemy that is world wide. It does NOT end. Terrorism will never end. Should we fight it? Of course. But go on a witch hunt for it? No. If it does NOT affect the US, let other countries deal with their problems.


At this point I am going to stop speaking politically. And I am likely to kill the thread so there is probably no need to read this if you don’t want to waste your time.

As a strategic stand point the US really stopped witch hunting, notice how all the terrorist are coming to IRAQ to kill American troops….??? You could look at that two ways that’s what the terrorist want so they don’t have to do real planning and attack the US when the troops are in Iraq, so we should pull out. Call it like “bee’s to honey”. The trick we pulled was “bee’s to honey” to get them out of the US and get them to network together so we could root out a large vain of terrorism world wide. And that my friend is what is happening and what is accruing in Iraq currently.

The hopes to that strategy is one of time and research, where we can make the connection between the terrorist and there leaders before a second large and deadly attack accurse. It seems to be working because we haven’t had a second 9/11 attack to terrorize THIS nation.
The down side to this strategy would be that A. US troops are dying. B. That this will not put an end to the problem as a whole.
My last statement paired with the fact that the terrorist leaders that replace them will not have a greater understanding of what is accruing around them is the highlight here. By going into Iraq we can kill 3 birds with one stone. I’ll explain this.

For this strategy to accrue we have to go and invade a middle eastern country under a notion that we are not there to fight terrorist, or else the terrorist will run and hide Afghanistan for example we went in for a fight and sure enough all the big heads of Al Quada and other factions left because they knew we wanted revenge.

So we need the fish to bite if we are going to get our blood do we not…??
Invade Iraq under the notion of “WMD” and that of “adding terrorism” in the name or “Iraqi Freedom” under Saddam’s evil rain. This action is to intise* the terrorist. We all know that bin laden hated Saddam and thought poorly on him, so linking them together is what we want to make them feel insulted.

This insult will make them ban together, enlist fresh hands, and fight us. What we do in Afghanistan is somewhat meaning less now, because we are creating a raising problem in Iraq. This is due to the fact that this plan is working. With that in mind we need to take care of Iraq give it a government that is free and a government that fights terrorism. This will make Iraq look like a western culture in the Middle east as well all knows Islamic terrorist hate western culture… “women voting…??” The terrorist rage to a fellow Islamic country will divert the terrorist minds for a good while and making them no longer attack American soil. This time frame is however a questionable gap, with that being said it could be a year it could be 40. This effort to build up Iraq and let them taste freedom like we know it is the primary influence to how long it will last. So educate Iraqi’s, empower Iraqi women, and deluding Middle Eastern Islamic Fascism are the 3 primary goals for Iraq’s future role of freedom to maintain as a terrorist target.

Mean while terrorist nations like Iran are becoming angry at the US, it’s like they are jealousy that we thought Saddam was a bigger threat then they where. This act is foolish as well because on an international level it makes them look more aggressive and highly volatile state. Meaning a UN supported war if the threat rises, which means send in the Euro-Forces boys, backed by the U.S. Air Force.

It’s a magic trick that is very easy to pull off when people are anger and mindless. Make them looks one way and come at them another. By keeping the war in another country were terrorist are willing to fight keeps America safe. As its been said before, the fact that I have to repeat this and more less spell out is sorry and show not only how little faith you have in the administration but also in the minds of our Leading US military officials. And nighthawk I think those guys are your boss….
So the 3 birds with one stone?

1. Take out the evil regime that stood and add to the fire of terrorism and helped educate terrorist in the art of terror.
2. The chance to fight terrorist not wait for them.
3. Create a middle eastern country that has to protect itself from other middle eastern countries.


Disagreeing with this war is liberal? News to me. Explain that one please.


Yes for different reason, that would be why that state meant was a joke, I guess you don’t watch the news anymore, or you could be Hillary and be for and against it all in one sentence.

We are discussing the war.


No now we are discussing war before we were politically slamming each other.

Unsure Add-ons plz do not discuss because I have no way of telling.

1. Bush looking stupid makes this plan seem unlikely making it run smoother.

2. Losing faith with American people makes terrorist happy

3. Giving illegal aliens citizenship to make income terrorist easier to track down (I really don’t think so but hey y not)

4. Bush speaking like a religious who ha it infuriate terrorist more.

5. Bush laughing at liberals priceless

6. Bush going to Iraq unannounced recently and praising Iraqi development adds to the transfer of target, this could just be john snow doing his job so idk.

7. Chaney shooting friend in face, makes it seem like this cabinet is foolish and could not come up with this plan.

8. Given so much money to Iraq to rebuild and redevelop could fund Iraq’s future war against other middle eastern country.

9. (This one is highly, highly likely) to stop the “food for oil” program to not fun Hilleary Clintons election. MARC RICH

10. To have Saddam where we can control him.


Oh and for a war that does not have an end…? What about the “war on drugs” and the troops we have in Columbia right now, they have been there scene the 70’s it’s the forgotten American war that no one ever talks about.[/quote]
Last edited by Lexon Avery on Thu Jun 15, 2006 1:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Intel i7-2600K @ 4.6ghz
ASRock Z77 Extreme6
16GB of Corsair Dominator GT
Evga GTX 780
Seasonic X-850
Kingston HyperX 3k 240GB
3x 2TB Hitachi Raid 0
User avatar
nighthawk101
antique farm machinery sold here
Posts: 931
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 2:17 pm

Postby nighthawk101 » Thu Jun 15, 2006 10:19 am

Lexon Avery wrote:
Oh so the fact that we DID send troops in to fight Germany doesn’t matter?


Not when you look at what we were discussing. Germany was not attacked by America until after Germany declared war... not before (although America did prod the situation... which is why I said "officially")

Lexon Avery wrote:It’s not in our best interest, It’s not in our best interest?? When was the last time a terrorist flew a shampoo plan into an AMERICAN BUILDING??? Killing AMERICAN CIVILIONS??? We cannot go off correct EVERYONE, seems like you don’t have a problem trying to correct (which doesn’t seem to be happening) me.


No... its not in our best interest to go off on a witch hunt chaning every govt we dont agree with. Let other countries deal with their OWN problems.

2001 was the last time a foreign attack on US soil occured. However, using that as an example of success is not the best way to go. There were no foreign attacks on American soil from '93 to '01 and that was under Clinton... where defense was not a strong point.

Lexon Avery wrote:You know what a terrorist primary goal is?? TERROR hint: You give Osama power by talking about him?? Why not wage a war where we can free countries that are under the same hell driving idea to “destroy AMERICA”?


Well, they arent terrifying me.. so I guess they arent doing their job.

Osama gets power by talking about him? The problem does not get any better by FORGETTING about him. He is one of the main causes for this mess and needs to be a top priority... not #495499933/forgotten.

Lexon Avery wrote:…We invaded and took out an evil regime in IRAQ… we were trying to keep the south Vietnamese free??


Yes, we invaded and took an evil regime... keep in mind I couldnt care less what other countries do with their citizens. Its not our concern. Our concern is with our country.

Lexon Avery wrote:I’m not going to defend anything I say because I said it. I am how ever going to try to get you to “think positive” or just think. By saying he’ll be replaced by someone just like him… is negative


Perhaps it is negative... but it is realistic.

Lexon Avery wrote:As a [u]strategic stand point[\u] the US really stopped witch hunting, notice how all the terrorist are coming to IRAQ to kill American troops….??? You could look at that two ways that’s what the terrorist want so they don’t have to do real planning and attack the US when the troops are in Iraq, so we should pull out. Call it like “bee’s to honey”. The trick we pulled was “bee’s to honey” to get them out of the US and get them to network together so we could root out a large vain of terrorism world wide. And that my friend is what is happening and what is accruing in Iraq currently.


What is occurring is the waste of American life and blood for another country's freedom.

Lexon Avery wrote:The hopes to that strategy is one of time and research, where we can make the connection between the terrorist and there leaders before a second large and deadly attack accurse. It seems to be working because we haven’t had a second 9/11 attack to terrorize THIS nation.


There is NO connection between Iraq and Al-queda though.. the 9/11 commission has confirmed this already.

As to the "we havent had a second 9/11" talk... see above. There was no attacks between '93-'01 either.. a longer stretch. So whats your point?

The down side to this strategy would be that A. US troops are dying. B. That this will not put an end to the problem as a whole.

Lexon Avery wrote:So we need the fish to bite if we are going to get our blood do we not…??
Invade Iraq under the notion of “WMD” and that of “adding terrorism” in the name or “Iraqi Freedom” under Saddam’s evil rain. This action is to intise* the terrorist. We all know that bin laden hated Saddam and thought poorly on him, so linking them together is what we want to make them feel insulted.


Keep in mind... I dont care about Saddam's evil reign... what he does to his citizens does NOT conern me.

Linking Saddam and Al-queda was done to make them mad? Lol.. I think NOT. It was to convince the American people that Iraq helped Al-queda plan and carry out the attacks.

Lexon Avery wrote:This is due to the fact that this plan is working. With that in mind we need to take care of Iraq give it a government that is free and a government that fights terrorism.

The plan is working?? The no progress stale mate plan?

We need to give Iraq a free govt? Why? Why is that OUR responsibility. They should have fought for their own freedom.

P.S. Iraq was a much more stable country under the fist of Saddam then under the anarchy it has now.


Lexon Avery wrote:This will make Iraq look like a western culture in the Middle east as well all knows Islamic terrorist hate western culture… “women voting…??”


The middle east will NEVER resemble a western country... ever. They cannot!

Women having rights? Well... lol.

Lexon Avery wrote:The terrorist rage to a fellow Islamic country will divert the terrorist minds for a good while and making them no longer attack American soil.


A "free" govt will not supercede Islam. It will be a theocratic govt meaning that women will be treated the exact same.

Lexon Avery wrote:This effort to build up Iraq and let them taste freedom like we know it is the primary influence to how long it will last.


What is the big deal with freedom? Do you have to be "free" to be a successfull/good country.

The Roman empire was an EMPIRE for over 400 years and was a great place to live... even more so than under the republic.

Lexon Avery wrote:So educate Iraqi’s, empower Iraqi women, and deluding Middle Eastern Islamic Fascism are the 3 primary goals for Iraq’s future role of freedom to maintain as a terrorist target


Got part 1.... I dont think women having power or not will influence a state that greatly... look at basically EVERY other country until about 50 years ago. I think they all did fine.

Also, what is the deal with Islamic countries are fascist? Far from it. These countries are theocratic states with everything revolving around Allah.
I do not compare 1922-1944 Italy to Iraq. The two do NOT mix

Lexon Avery wrote:Mean while terrorist nations like Iran are becoming angry at the US, it’s like they are jealousy that we thought Saddam was a bigger threat then they where.


I think its more because 1) we meddle in their affairs and everyone elses for that fact 2) we ally ourselves with Israel... a hated enemy of theirs and everyone else in that region.

Lexon Avery wrote:This act is foolish as well because on an international level it makes them look more aggressive and highly volatile state. Meaning a UN supported war if the threat rises, which means send in the Euro-Forces boys, backed by the U.S. Air Force.


Because we make them volatile. How would Americans feel if another country came over here and "said stop doing something.... we dont agree with it and we are half way across the world."

Lexon Avery wrote:As its been said before, the fact that I have to repeat this and more less spell out is sorry and show not only how little faith you have in the administration but also in the minds of our Leading US military officials. And nighthawk I think those guys are your boss….


Correct... no faith at all in this administration... they have shown me NOTHING to make me have some. Not just in this... but in ANYTHING.

Faith in the US military... my faith in the ability to wage war has never waivered... it is the politicians and this administration, however, that governs what the military can do and how it can fight.

Lexon Avery wrote:So the 3 birds with one stone?

1. Take out the evil regime that stood and add to the fire of terrorism and helped educate terrorist in the art of terror.


An "evil" regime does not bother me. Its not my country

Lexon Avery wrote:2. The chance to fight terrorist not wait for them.
Does it affect us? If so... then act. If not, let others deal with their own problems.

Lexon Avery wrote:3. Create a middle eastern country that has to protect itself from other middle eastern countries.


I dont see how this should be an issue.


Lexon Avery wrote:Yes for different reason, that would be why that state meant was a joke, I guess you don’t watch the news anymore, or you could be Hillary and be for and against it all in one sentence.


I dont watch the news much anymore.... no. Depending on what station you are on, depends on what party's talking line you will get. I get most of my news over the web now.


Lexon Avery wrote:Oh and for a war that does not have an end…? What about the “war on drugs”


Whats to stop someone from doing drugs... its a damn slap on the wrist. There is no success here because 1) Laws for this are a joke 2) This type of lifestyle is highly promoted and made to seem cool. As teens we all have to fit in and look cool.

Lexon Avery wrote:and the troops we have in Columbia right now

Hell, we have soldiers in over 120 countries... that should NOT be the case. What are they doing there?

Lexon Avery wrote:the forgotten American war that no one ever talks about.
The Korean War? Thats the "forgotten war".
Im not being agressive, im being dominant

Return to “Political Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest