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

Shampoo and more Shampoo
Richard Cranium
Posts: 1566
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 9:57 pm
Location: Morehead

Post by Lexon Avery »

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 2:14 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
antique farm machinery sold here
Posts: 931
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 2:17 pm

Post by nighthawk101 »

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 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
Richard Cranium
Posts: 1566
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 9:57 pm
Location: Morehead

Post by Lexon Avery »

Well nighthawk if you keep wanting to talk politics even thought that was a strategic view on the war the situation that is accruing is the one I depicted if you would read the whole post then come with your rebuttals you would not look so foolish in many peoples eye.

How I know what I just wrote about the justification was right and could not better be said by Zarqawi himself.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/libra ... arqawi.htm

And that the last will.

Zarqawi was a terrorist we are fighting terrorist in Iraq not iraqi’s As I sais this was with iraq really has nothing to do with WMD or freedom its about fighting terrorist making them network together.

---Zarqawi---letter--from the link above, im looking for a better link.
If we fight them {and we must fight them}, we will confront one of two things. Either:

1 - We fight them, and this is difficult because of the gap that will emerge between us and the people of the land. How can we fight their cousins and their sons and under what pretext after the Americans, who hold the reins of power from their rear bases, pull back? The real sons of this land will decide the matter through experience. Democracy is coming, and there will be no excuse thereafter.

2 - We pack our bags and search for another land, as is the sad, recurrent story in the arenas of jihad, because our enemy is growing stronger and his intelligence data are increasing day by day. By the Lord of the Ka`ba, [this] is suffocation and then wearing down the roads. People follow the religion of their kings. Their hearts are with you and their swords are with Bani Umayya (the Umayyads), i.e., with power, victory, and security. God have mercy.
WE ARE WINNING and there is an END insight by taking this evil man out of power out of influence show even he is giving up.

And look at the economy for faith.

And attacks on USfrom 93 to 2001? I guess you just talking about from the world trade towers truck bomb to 9/11

So to that I can aid what?

September 1995 a RPG what fired at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow for the retaliation of the US strikes on Serb’s in Bosnia.

Or
1996 with the US embassy in Athens

and in 1998 The US Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar-es-Salem, Tanzania where heavily bombed by a Saudi group linked to Bin Laden himself.

In 2000 The USS Cole was bombed and said to be another bin laden act.

How many do I need to list….????? Terrorism is a problem world wide and there is a good reason that im not going to dive in to just because you are being so unreasonable
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
antique farm machinery sold here
Posts: 931
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 2:17 pm

Post by nighthawk101 »

Lexon Avery wrote: Zarqawi was a terrorist we are fighting terrorist in Iraq not iraqi’s As I sais this was with iraq really has nothing to do with WMD or freedom its about fighting terrorist making them network together.
President Bush says its about freedom of the Iraqi people....
Lexon Avery wrote:WE ARE WINNING and there is an END insight by taking this evil man out of power out of influence show even he is giving up.
Where is the evidence that we are winning?
Lexon Avery wrote:And look at the economy for faith.
What about it? Its improving but still sluggish. But that doesnt matter... this administration isnt committed to the American worker.
Lexon Avery wrote:And attacks on USfrom 93 to 2001? I guess you just talking about from the world trade towers truck bomb to 9/11

So to that I can aid what?

September 1995 a RPG what fired at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow for the retaliation of the US strikes on Serb’s in Bosnia.

Or
1996 with the US embassy in Athens

and in 1998 The US Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar-es-Salem, Tanzania where heavily bombed by a Saudi group linked to Bin Laden himself.

In 2000 The USS Cole was bombed and said to be another bin laden act.
That is all on foreign soil. Our homeland defense policies do little to protect our embassy is Nairobi.
Lexon Avery wrote:How many do I need to list….????? Terrorism is a problem world wide and there is a good reason that im not going to dive in to just because you are being so unreasonable
It is a world wide problem... but why not we just deal with the parts of the problem that affect us? Why concern ourselves with terrorists in Somolia for example?
Im not being agressive, im being dominant
Richard Cranium
Posts: 1566
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 9:57 pm
Location: Morehead

Post by Lexon Avery »

Nighthawk if you haven’t figured it out yet, I’m the only one your talking to and I don’t need to read what I wrote.

with that being said Terrorist are the ones stopping Iraq from being free not just al Quada, but a mass number of other terrorist groups are also a large role in this war. Secondly U.S. embassies are on US soil did you not know that? It is not soil located in the “homeland”, but soil owned by the US in a foreign territory there by making it US soil.

The proof that we are winning was in the link to the Zarqawi letter did you bother to read that....?? The massive turn out of Iraqis voting in there election is proof as well. You still fail to view this as a strategic war on terror and that is likely where your doubt is coming from. Politically stating this war ,as with any war, could be view anyways any one wants to look at it. Knowing you I figured by now that you know wars, and politics of policy are two different things.

Do you call 2500 dead troops really losing...??? When there are 17000 Americans murdered here in the US a year...?? 2500 over 3 years is a great ratio for a WAR. I’m sure you are one to note how many troops we lost on D-day or at the Battle of the Bulge. Or wait the war with Germany we can’t talk about here in relation to the war on terror. Even thought it was a US effort that turned the war around.

As for Islamic countries being fascist? Islam is a War culture, they where the first culture to ever fight for a non-physical idea in history. That being said there is several forms for there government to take with their War based cultures. In turn their governments aren’t set around the religion as it is set around the view of war. Western analysis views this as fascism not a theocracy.

And ill also add not all Islamic religions are warlike.

We are wining because terrorist don’t want to fight there own family, they would rater have live safely like we do in the US.(ZARQAWI LETTER) Zarqawi gave up there was no way to win. I thought it was funny because after translation he sounded like you talking about or forces.

The economy is kicking ass, its hardly if ever gets as good as it does now, and that with all these corrupted scandals going on we are still booming. High gas prices nope doesn’t effect the economy it fact its gotten better.
Somalia was a UN action operation something “hope” that the US took part in (along with other countries) and anything more then that is speculation. This is also likely to be another Clinton bad hand.
Here’s a question I want you to answer, Dose it give US citizens more freedom to occupy other countries with a military force then build great walls and limit/restricted transportation to deter a war, and why?
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
antique farm machinery sold here
Posts: 931
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 2:17 pm

Post by nighthawk101 »

Lexon Avery wrote:Nighthawk if you haven’t figured it out yet, I’m the only one your talking to and I don’t need to read what I wrote.
Its so I can address each thing individually instead of one massive, non coherent response.
Lexon Avery wrote:with that being said Terrorist are the ones stopping Iraq from being free not just al Quada, but a mass number of other terrorist groups are also a large role in this war.
Ok... point?
Lexon Avery wrote:Secondly U.S. embassies are on US soil did you not know that? It is not soil located in the “homeland”, but soil owned by the US in a foreign territory there by making it US soil.
Yes, that technically considered US soil... but its really not. Nairobi security policies control how Nairobi and its populace will act.... not US policies.
Lexon Avery wrote:The proof that we are winning was in the link to the Zarqawi letter did you bother to read that....??
No. Please give me your reasons as to why we are winning

Lexon Avery wrote:The massive turn out of Iraqis voting in there election is proof as well.
Anyone can vote... it doesnt mean that a stable govt is in place and it still doesnt validate our crusade to change every govt we dont agree with.
Lexon Avery wrote:You still fail to view this as a strategic war on terror and that is likely where your doubt is coming from.
I look at this as how does this affect our country... it is definitely not positive.
Lexon Avery wrote:Politically stating this war ,as with any war, could be view anyways any one wants to look at it. Knowing you I figured by now that you know wars, and politics of policy are two different things.
But policy conducts how wars are run... the two are quite intertwined.
Lexon Avery wrote:Do you call 2500 dead troops really losing...???
2500 dead and over 20,000 casualties. Is that losing? Depends. In this case, when there is no progress being made and Iraq is LESS stable than it was under the previous regime.... and has not shown any improvement in that department in 3 years, it makes me wonder.
Lexon Avery wrote:2500 over 3 years is a great ratio for a WAR.
This, however, is not a war... its more like gang violence... and they are winning in that department.
Lexon Avery wrote:I’m sure you are one to note how many troops we lost on D-day or at the Battle of the Bulge. Or wait the war with Germany we can’t talk about here in relation to the war on terror. Even thought it was a US effort that turned the war around.
But what does WWII have to do with this? Two different things.

Lexon Avery wrote:As for Islamic countries being fascist? Islam is a War culture, they where the first culture to ever fight for a non-physical idea in history. That being said there is several forms for there government to take with their War based cultures. In turn their governments aren’t set around the religion as it is set around the view of war. Western analysis views this as fascism not a theocracy.
I view them as a authoritative theocratic state... again 1922-1944 Italy and Iraq do NOT compare.
Lexon Avery wrote:We are wining because terrorist don’t want to fight there own family, they would rater have live safely like we do in the US.
What are you basing this on? Voters were being shot/blown up walking into the polls.
Lexon Avery wrote:The economy is kicking ass, its hardly if ever gets as good as it does now,
That is a statement that is completely wrong. The economy from 94-99 was much better than now. I will say that the stock did begin to crash at the beginning of 2000. However, that does not make up for the continued slug.
Lexon Avery wrote:High gas prices nope doesn’t effect the economy it fact its gotten better.
High gas prices affect the worker immensely and does have a major impact on spending habits.
Lexon Avery wrote:Somalia was a UN action operation something “hope” that the US took part in (along with other countries) and anything more then that is speculation. This is also likely to be another Clinton bad hand.
As it seems with all "UN" actions... we take the brunt of it. We went in there after the un food drops to secure the areas and made sure food got to the right spots. Why do we care? Somolia is not a country of signifigance even when not war torn.
Lexon Avery wrote:Here’s a question I want you to answer, Dose it give US citizens more freedom to occupy other countries with a military force then build great walls and limit/restricted transportation to deter a war, and why?
Thats the thing... if we actually conquered countries and used them for our benefit (you know...like every other power who has conquered since the dawn of man has done) I would have no problem with it. We dont... we invade, conquer, build back up, and give back... entirely at OUR expense.
Im not being agressive, im being dominant
Richard Cranium
Posts: 1566
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 9:57 pm
Location: Morehead

Post by Lexon Avery »

I’m sorry your mind can yet process “none coherent” thought, maybe that’s why people think you’re a racist? (I’m not saying you are but plenty of people have, and people matter) Maybe this lack of understanding none coherent ness is where you can’t understand that there is a difference between WAR and Talking. And that, as it is in every real WAR, people die.

Future more if you don’t read that letter to see what they (the terrorist) are thinking then you may never

1. Understand the enemy
2. Understand what losing a war means… I don’t think you really get the difference between braking people and conquering them as you seem to want to do.
3. Comprehend my defense into why we are winning the WAR.

This, however, is a war, or do you not think we “officially” declared it yet..?? Maybe we should wait for a nuke to go off in D.C. then call it “war”. Its like your “shampoo footing” You have yet to say anything to me that make me think we are losing. Anyone can vote, unless your under a dictatorship, is very true. Anyone can commit suicide but the difference in dominate influences is where things happen or they don’t. You are not going to make me think other wise without explaining yourself to me, as I have been trying to do you.

I don’t see why you think 21 per day is a better number dead then 70 per day under Saddam?? So 1095 days(3 years) 22,500 deaths (the number you gave me) is how I get 21 a day(thats being nice). And yes 70 is the number that most people think is right and there is the 125 number out there, so ill give you the lower (that does not count coming to power or the wars). Let us do 70 a day for close to 8,000 days in power? I’m getting some odd numbers here that just don’t support what you are saying. I can do the same with the stock market too. (and 44 per day is the number of murders in the US if it wasn’t for an education id rather be in Iraq, that and something else)

And finally how many “powers that conquer” are still “powers” and how did they get that way…??

I am going to agree with you that we shouldn’t take part in foreign affairs, but because in the past we have, it will always come up in the future. Making this war effort the best thing we can do. And as for faith in the administration goes, I have faith in the War and in the economy, but as for immigration and the little action they do with lance bass rights I stand aside.


You know nighthawk This would be a whole lot more fun if you where to give me something…. I am having a good time with this though.

note: i laught for a hour with this
Yes, that technically considered US soil... but its really not
in refernce to US embassy's being US soil.
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
antique farm machinery sold here
Posts: 931
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 2:17 pm

Post by nighthawk101 »

Lexon Avery wrote:I’m sorry your mind can yet process “none coherent” thought, maybe that’s why people think you’re a racist? (I’m not saying you are but plenty of people have, and people matter)
If prefering company/caring for more of my own... then yes.
Lexon Avery wrote:Maybe this lack of understanding none coherent ness is where you can’t understand that there is a difference between WAR and Talking. And that, as it is in every real WAR, people die.
True, but if the war is unecessary than those people died for nothing.
Lexon Avery wrote:Future more if you don’t read that letter to see what they (the terrorist) are thinking then you may never

1. Understand the enemy
2. Understand what losing a war means… I don’t think you really get the difference between braking people and conquering them as you seem to want to do.
3. Comprehend my defense into why we are winning the WAR.
I believe I do understand the enemy. And a population can be broken with the proper techniques... we dont use them and we wont. We wish to babysit the country and build it back up. Its a hell hole anyway, even when at full strength. But... we will still spend our money on it, for them.

Lexon Avery wrote:This, however, is a war, or do you not think we “officially” declared it yet..??
We have not officially been in war since 1945. No declaration of war has been made since then.
Lexon Avery wrote:Maybe we should wait for a nuke to go off in D.C. then call it “war”. Its like your “shampoo footing” You have yet to say anything to me that make me think we are losing.
Who are we at war with? "Terrorist" is a broad term that encompasses most of the 3rd world. Thats the problem... we cant even define our enemy. Its not a country or a government. You knock down one and little has been done.

Ill comment on the rest of the message soon... Im pressed for time.
Im not being agressive, im being dominant
antique farm machinery sold here
Posts: 931
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 2:17 pm

Post by nighthawk101 »

Alright... back to the rest of the message

Lexon Avery wrote:I don’t see why you think 21 per day is a better number dead then 70 per day under Saddam?? So 1095 days(3 years) 22,500 deaths (the number you gave me) is how I get 21 a day(thats being nice). And yes 70 is the number that most people think is right and there is the 125 number out there, so ill give you the lower (that does not count coming to power or the wars). Let us do 70 a day for close to 8,000 days in power? I’m getting some odd numbers here that just don’t support what you are saying. I can do the same with the stock market too. (and 44 per day is the number of murders in the US if it wasn’t for an education id rather be in Iraq, that and something else)
I dont understand any of what you are saying here? 21 a day of what? US soldiers dead? Iraqis dead? Something else? What?
Lexon Avery wrote:And finally how many “powers that conquer” are still “powers” and how did they get that way…??
All countries eventually fall in power... its impossible not to.
Lexon Avery wrote:I am going to agree with you that we shouldn’t take part in foreign affairs, but because in the past we have, it will always come up in the future.
That doesnt mean it must continue. Our first foreign action that I can think of was in 1898... before that we were concerned with ourselves.
Lexon Avery wrote:Making this war effort the best thing we can do. And as for faith in the administration goes, I have faith in the War and in the economy, but as for immigration and the little action they do with lance bass rights I stand aside.
We are already in this... so yes.. A valiant effort must be made. The effort must be to pull out. American money and blood are not worth this foreign cause.

Lexon Avery wrote:You know nighthawk This would be a whole lot more fun if you where to give me something
I have given you something. I have given my reasoning for why I think that this is not in our best interest. What else is there to show you?
Lexon Avery wrote:in refernce to US embassy's being US soil.
It is technically US soil... but NONE of America's defense policies affect them. The area around the US embassy in Nairobi(for example) is still just as dangerous.

This is the point I am trying to make. I dont feel that we should spend the trillions we do and lose the lives that we meddling in foreign affairs. THose trillions of dollars could be much better spent on homeland defense... if nothing else. Perhaps something to help Americans for a change. People I care MUCH more about than some Iraqis.
Im not being agressive, im being dominant
Richard Cranium
Posts: 1566
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 9:57 pm
Location: Morehead

Post by Lexon Avery »

I have given you something. I have given my reasoning for why I think that this is not in our best interest. What else is there to show you?
Blood and money, think I spelled out the blood pretty easy, you not making scene of the numbers you gave me has to be where you lack comprehending how stupid a reason that is.

Why is it you say you think you “understand the enemy” then say we don’t have an enemy then say our enemy is every 3rd world countries? I wish it was every 3-rd world country then maybe we could attack Mexico for a change.
America is still a power to think it will fall is losing hope, and quite frankly all anyone has in this world is hope. And we don’t need a declaration to be at war it can be authorized by Congress, like this one has been.
As for money, that was just a bad move by congress, not the administration. They are both at fault; however, I blame congress more then bush.
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
antique farm machinery sold here
Posts: 931
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 2:17 pm

Post by nighthawk101 »

Lexon Avery wrote: Blood and money, think I spelled out the blood pretty easy, you not making scene of the numbers you gave me has to be where you lack comprehending how stupid a reason that is.
Me not making a scene about the numbers? Casualties in the range of over 20,000 is a large loss. Its an even bigger loss when they arent even dying for the interests of their country.
Lexon Avery wrote:Why is it you say you think you “understand the enemy” then say we don’t have an enemy then say our enemy is every 3rd world countries? I wish it was every 3-rd world country then maybe we could attack Mexico for a change.

What? I never said we dont have an enemy... I asked you to define the enemy. That is this "world wide threat to the US" enemy that you see.

The enemy in Iraq is obviously the guerrilla fighters... but it is a difficult enemy and one we have never faced like this before. Like I said, its not a country or a government, it small factions of the population. Its impossible to chase the world looking for them. It would never end.
Lexon Avery wrote:America is still a power to think it will fall is losing hope, and quite frankly all anyone has in this world is hope.
I never said America was NOT a power and never said they were falling. I stated that all powers fall at some point... in response to you asking me "how many “powers that conquer” are still “powers”"
Lexon Avery wrote:And we don’t need a declaration to be at war it can be authorized by Congress, like this one has been.
Congress DOES authorize the declaration of war... which it has NOT. Money ( that we dont have) has been authorized for use in this operation... but no declaration of war has been made.
Lexon Avery wrote:As for money, that was just a bad move by congress, not the administration. They are both at fault; however, I blame congress more then bush.
The administration is JUST if not MORE to blame for the money.

President Bush has not vetoed a single spending bill.... period. It doesnt matter what it is. He has not vetoed a SINGLE one. He continues to spend spend spend and in the mean time is cutting taxes. One or the other.. you cant bring in less money and spend more. It doesnt work that way.

But why even bother to blame anything on congress? Or any other government branch... it wont get you anywhere. There can be no finger pointing to the other side of the isle as all 3 branches of the govt are controlled by the GOP.


Now, please, respond to more of what I have said. I quote each thing you state so that I can adequately address it. You either dont 1)address any of my rebuttal and make a new argument or 2) continue with your previous argument with, again, no response to my rebuttal.
Im not being agressive, im being dominant
Richard Cranium
Posts: 1566
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 9:57 pm
Location: Morehead

Post by Lexon Avery »

To those of you that have been following this, and for some reason care, I attribute this to you.

I’ll spell this out for you.
We did not enter WWII officially until AFTER Pearl Harbor... and still we only declared war on the Japs.
What 3 days…?? Jap’s to Croat’s come on congress as we know it that might as well be the same day lol
We have not officially been in war since 1945. No declaration of war has been made since then.
Congress DOES authorize the declaration of war... which it has NOT. Money ( that we dont have) has been authorized for use in this operation... but no declaration of war has been made.
Yes June 1942, we declared war on hungry, Romania, Bulgaria, but that doesn’t mean we have to declarer war to go to one, or call it one like Vietnam. But congress authorizes Executive action like money or an over amount of Troops. I think the number was 15,000 troops, without congress, well we are way past that in Iraq and Afghanistan.
That doesnt mean it must continue. Our first foreign action that I can think of was in 1898... before that we were concerned with ourselves.
1801 the Barbary war, it wasn’t declared a war either, but Jefferson basically built the Navy and kicked some ass, then we had to come back and do it ageing in the second Barbary war. If anything I would call the war on terror the 2nd Barbary conflict lol
But why even bother to blame anything on congress? Or any other government branch... it wont get you anywhere. There can be no finger pointing to the other side of the isle as all 3 branches of the govt are controlled by the GOP.
Is that enough for you to see why its congress and the administration you should be blaming, and moreover the congress more then the administration. Congress gave him the ability to wage this war and the money to do it with. All but one senator, if I recall, voted yes to do so, just don’t go blaming the GOP.
President Bush has not vetoed a single spending bill.... period. It doesnt matter what it is. He has not vetoed a SINGLE one. He continues to spend spend spend and in the mean time is cutting taxes. One or the other.. you cant bring in less money and spend more. It doesnt work that way.
Yes he does, but we had Katrina*, along with the tsunami that doesn’t effect the US either. But also this goes back to caring, Americans care for some reason to give money like its got no limit, this year alone US charity to foreign causes jumped up 2 billion dollars, so its not just the government that is throwing these people money , its all over the US.

I asked how many “powers that conquer” are still “powers” and how did they get that way…??
All countries eventually fall in power... its impossible not to.
America is still a power to think it will fall is losing hope, and quite frankly all anyone has in this world is hope.
I never said America was NOT a power and never said they were falling. I stated that all powers fall at some point... in response to you asking me "how many “powers that conquer” are still “powers”"
That’s the point we still are but we don’t conquer like England did (whom more-or-less gave back all the countries they took over.) So in saying “it’s impossible” You dam the US to failure because we are a super power.

Ok let’s take a break and review. We are a super "power" that "cares" about other countries, and congress gave the administration to run the war we are currently in. But who is our enemy is the next step to the debate.

What? I never said we dont have an enemy... I asked you to define the enemy. That is this "world wide threat to the US" enemy that you see.
No you never have asked me that, in turn all you say is.
The enemy in Iraq is obviously the guerrilla fighters... but it is a difficult enemy and one we have never faced like this before. Like I said, its not a country or a government, it small factions of the population. Its impossible to chase the world looking for them. It would never end.
Who are we at war with? "Terrorist" is a broad term that encompasses most of the 3rd world. Thats the problem... we cant even define our enemy. Its not a country or a government. You knock down one and little has been done.
You ask me who we are at war with and then you answer…?? So did you really ask me who “this ‘world wide threat to the US’ enemy that” I see is…? NO, but to answer the question now, if you have not said it already.

Our Enemy are radical nongovernmental organizations who utilizes the systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve political, economic, religious, or ideological objectives employing this “terror” as their primary weapon, while disguised as a civilian non-combatant. (I think that is pretty clear I should send that one to the white house lol.) Further more they employ stereotypes, or group affiliations to identify the enemy and to encourage their type of terrorist acts. These actions however are never carried out by the radical heads of the organization.

Zarquwi was a leader, he needed help to fire an AK-47… every home in middle east has an AK in it(thanks to USSR and the cold war,) and he doesn’t know how to use one….?? What does that mean? Well it doesn’t mean he’s stupid, it just mean he’s not willing to get close enough to the battle to fire a gun. This also means he has a bigger plan past killing and terror; it could be political, or economic. But as when you read his letters or just watch his videos he is a very religious man (bin laden said the same thing,) So there is a goal beyond this terror isn't there not…control the oil, destroy the US, something like that right? They just don’t want to die, but they don’t care if Kazzem goes and blows himself up along with 4 other civilians, because it all helps towards their (faction leaders) goal.

Now what is the goal….??? Destroy the US and Israel? So they entice these “cells” to kill themselves just to kill Jews and Americans (bonus point to those that kill American Jews lol.) They attack our Embassies, our Olympic games, the abduct civilians. These thing unit the world, and signify the greater good. Our Embassies can bring tourists to their countries (I.E. civilians) bring aid to environmental tragedies, can increase trade, and bring higher education to there soils. The Games, promote peaceful competition, and can bring money to their country when they hold the games. Good things that America and the rest of the civilized world enjoy…and some a little too much lol. Their target over the years has been the world trade towers because, if the name doesn’t say it, it had represented world trade. All of these attacks accrue for two reasons, 1) highly populated places that normally have media coverage 2) places that unite the world.

Ok let’s take a rest and expand the topic again
The enemy in Iraq is obviously the guerrilla fighters... but it is a difficult enemy and one we have never faced like this before. Like I said, its not a country or a government, it small factions of the population. Its impossible to chase the world looking for them. It would never end.
It is impossible to do this “which hunt” yes, couldn’t agree more on that. We learned that in Afghanistan when we didn’t find bin laden. Right?
BTW, Wheres Osama? We forgot about him.
Ok you still care where he is, just like I do, just the administration does, just like the rest of America does. How do we get the bastard??

I have more but maybe if you answer that question we will see what the heck I was talking about in this post

viewtopic.php?t=442&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=13
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
antique farm machinery sold here
Posts: 931
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 2:17 pm

Post by nighthawk101 »

Lexon Avery wrote: What 3 days…?? Jap’s to Croat’s come on congress as we know it that might as well be the same day lol
We only declared war on the Japs after the bombing.... What are you trying to say here?
Lexon Avery wrote:Yes June 1942, we declared war on hungry, Romania, Bulgaria, but that doesn’t mean we have to declarer war to go to one, or call it one like Vietnam. But congress authorizes Executive action like money or an over amount of Troops. I think the number was 15,000 troops, without congress, well we are way past that in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Yes... congress has authorized money for the operation... why? I dont know. But, if we are going to get into it, the President does have full use of the military without congressional approval for a period of 60 days or so (may be 90.. I dont remember exactly).
Lexon Avery wrote: 1801 the Barbary war, it wasn’t declared a war either, but Jefferson basically built the Navy and kicked some ass, then we had to come back and do it ageing in the second Barbary war. If anything I would call the war on terror the 2nd Barbary conflict lol
Then I was wrong.

I still consider the Spanish American war as the turning point in our foreign meddling. It was a much larger event that has shaped our policy since.
Lexon Avery wrote:Is that enough for you to see why its congress and the administration you should be blaming, and moreover the congress more then the administration. Congress gave him the ability to wage this war and the money to do it with. All but one senator, if I recall, voted yes to do so, just don’t go blaming the GOP.
Again, the President CAN wage war with out congress. However, I still blame the administration because they made the decision. Nearly all of congress voted its support initially because of the whole WMDs and imminent threat talk. It much more split now, but, the GOP still controlls congress. As long as it does, not much will change.
Lexon Avery wrote: Yes he does, but we had Katrina*, along with the tsunami that doesn’t effect the US either.
We were in record debt long before that.
Lexon Avery wrote:But also this goes back to caring, Americans care for some reason to give money like its got no limit, this year alone US charity to foreign causes jumped up 2 billion dollars, so its not just the government that is throwing these people money , its all over the US.
You cant give money you dont have... unless you're the US govt I guess.
Lexon Avery wrote:I asked how many “powers that conquer” are still “powers” and how did they get that way…??
And I thought I answered that.
Lexon Avery wrote:America is still a power to think it will fall is losing hope, and quite frankly all anyone has in this world is hope.
It is still a power... and I did not say it would fall now, 50 years from now or 100 years from now (although it could). It will fall EVENTUALLY though. All powers do... its inevitable. Its just the leadership ability and luck that decides whether you last a year or 600.
Lexon Avery wrote: That’s the point we still are but we don’t conquer like England did
Unfortunately.... this conquering, building back up with our money, giving it back and getting nothing in return stuff doesnt bode to well.
Lexon Avery wrote:So in saying “it’s impossible” You dam the US to failure because we are a super power.


Huh?
Lexon Avery wrote:Ok let’s take a break and review. We are a super "power" that "cares" about other countries
Much more than our own country, yes.
Lexon Avery wrote:and congress gave the administration to run the war we are currently in.
Yes, they did.

Lexon Avery wrote:Our Enemy are radical nongovernmental organizations who utilizes the systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve political, economic, religious, or ideological objectives employing this “terror” as their primary weapon, while disguised as a civilian non-combatant. (I think that is pretty clear I should send that one to the white house lol.) Further more they employ stereotypes, or group affiliations to identify the enemy and to encourage their type of terrorist acts. These actions however are never carried out by the radical heads of the organization.
Excellent definition and it should be sent to the white house. Problem being, with that type of enemy, is that it truly never ends. You arent defeating a country or a govt... these are people spread across the globe. Cut off one head and there are thousands more.
Lexon Avery wrote:So there is a goal beyond this terror isn't there not…control the oil, destroy the US, something like that right? They just don’t want to die, but they don’t care if Kazzem goes and blows himself up along with 4 other civilians, because it all helps towards their (faction leaders) goal.
Their goal in Iraq is to remove the invaders.

The hatred towards the US is because of Israel and because we press our values upon them.
Lexon Avery wrote:Now what is the goal….??? Destroy the US and Israel? So they entice these “cells” to kill themselves just to kill Jews and Americans (bonus point to those that kill American Jews lol.)
Yes.. and our name could easily be removed from that list.

Lexon Avery wrote: It is impossible to do this “which hunt” yes, couldn’t agree more on that. We learned that in Afghanistan when we didn’t find bin laden. Right?
Yes
Lexon Avery wrote:Ok you still care where he is, just like I do, just the administration does, just like the rest of America does.
Im not so sure the administration does. They are more concerned with other things at the moment..
Im not being agressive, im being dominant
I like to fart on people.
Posts: 539
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 7:13 pm
Location: shampoo

Post by LORD MANN »

we need to make a war theard
"I want you to pull the trigger til they don't get up"

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

Post by Lexon Avery »

how do we get bin laden if a witch hunt is impossible?
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
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests