Macfistowannabe
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Nazism?Irvine511 said:
and the "war" movement has never resulted in peace either.
war is good for business.
Communism?
Nazism?Irvine511 said:
and the "war" movement has never resulted in peace either.
war is good for business.
Macfistowannabe said:Nazism?
Communism?
Macfistowannabe said:Okay, you ignored pretty much every point I made.
Macfistowannabe said:The anti-war sentiment was bred in media, academia, and eventually Capitol Hill.
Macfistowannabe said:Unless you can prove otherwise, the "peace" movement has NEVER resulted in peace.
And what was our "exit strategy" in World War II, or any war for that matter?AliEnvy said:there was no clear exit strategy
Macfistowannabe said:
ANSWER THE QUESTION!
Was 9/11 funded by the Saudi government?
If so, can you back it up?
It influenced Capitol Hill Democrats to turn against Hubert Humphrey - who also pledged to win the war honorably, and it gave Lyndon Johnson all the more reason to keep the troops in guerilla warfare rather than bombing military targets. Once the Watergate Scandal broke out, the Democrats used it as an excuse to surrender in Vietnam and turn their backs on a faithful Ally - South Vietnam. As a result, we got Khmer Rogue.AliEnvy said:Did that make it wrong?
History is repeating itself in the sense that we don't have the balls to defend ourselves. What history could tell you from WWI (Vote for Woodrow Wilson, he kept us out of war!) and WWII (the naive public who believed that WWI was a hoax) is that we should have stopped the Nazis in the 1930s, rather than waiting until 1941 to get involved. Nearly 300,000 US soldiers lost their lives in that war, in case you like death tolls.AliEnvy said:I'm not arguing that it has. But I did ask what was learned from Vietnam now that history has repeated itself and how that learning can be applied to winning...
Look back - I did.BonoVoxSupastar said:
You never asked that?
That's not what you stated. You are now changing your criteria. Sign of weak logic.
Macfistowannabe said:Look back - I did.
You're dodging the question because you can't answer it.
America fought:Irvine511 said:
and we still have enemies today. we're still fighting.
the "war" movement is always looking for an enemy, gotta justify spending all that $$$ on all those bombs.
Page 2:BonoVoxSupastar said:
I just looked back before I stated that and you are wrong you never did. You may want to follow our discussion before you embarass yourself.
But go ahead and believe otherwise if you want to.Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
They're harboring more terrorist than Iraq was, where have you been?
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
Who - the Saudi government? Do you have anything to back this up?
Interesting you would say that. My dad was in B2B sales at the time of the Iraq war selling security cameras. His sales flopped as a result of invading Iraq.Irvine511 said:war is good for business.
Macfistowannabe said:And what was our "exit strategy" in World War II, or any war for that matter?
We'll negotiate with Al Qaida after they waive the white flag on an unconditional surrender - by putting them all on trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity just like the Nuremberg Trials.
Macfistowannabe said:Page 2:
But go ahead and believe otherwise if you want to.
Macfistowannabe said:
ANSWER THE QUESTION!
Was 9/11 funded by the Saudi government?
If so, can you back it up?
Macfistowannabe said:Interesting you would say that. My dad was in B2B sales at the time of the Iraq war selling security cameras. His sales flopped as a result of invading Iraq.
Again, way to dodge the question.BonoVoxSupastar said:Those questions seem to be different don't they?
Boy did Eisenhower have a brain. He's dead on about how a world power has no choice but to have strong national defense in order to prevent attacks.Irvine511 said:and your single anecdote proves what?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_industrial_complex
Eisenhower:
[q]A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction...
[/q]
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastarBonoVoxSupastar said:Those questions seem to be different don't they?
Macfistowannabe said:The very title of this thread is hilarious.
"Iraq has made us less safe, end of story"
Last time I checked, we haven't had an attack on US soil since 9/11.
Macfistowannabe said:Boy did Eisenhower have a brain. He's dead on about how a world power has no choice but to have strong national defense in order to prevent attacks.
But to dismiss personal testimonials altogether dismisses any that you have used on this forum.
Honestly, Irvine - you think all those attacks are America's fault?Irvine511 said:i'm sure the Australians in Bali, the citizens of London and Madrid, the Iraqis and the Turks, are all happy for us.
read. the. report.
Iraq has given angry young men a "cause celebre" that is drawing more and more and more of them to Jihadism.
Macfistowannabe said:Honestly, Irvine - you think all those attacks are America's fault?
Or do you think that there IS in fact a result of Islamic Jihad against infidels and Muslims who don't convert by the sword?
Macfistowannabe said:Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
They're harboring more terrorist than Iraq was, where have you been?
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
Who - the Saudi government? Do you have anything to back this up?
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
ANSWER THE QUESTION!
Was 9/11 funded by the Saudi government?
If so, can you back it up?
JUST WHAT IS SO DIFFERENT ABOUT THESE QUESTIONS?
The Islamic Militant movement is nothing new, it's been around for centuries.Irvine511 said:i think there are a variety of factors, but one undeniable factor is the American response since 9-11, the ceterpiece of which is Iraq, that has rallied thousands of angry young men to the Jihadist movement against the west and resulted in the bombings i've highlighted (and Morocco, i forgot about the Morocco bombings).
http://www.military.com/Resources/ResourceFileView?file=AlQaida-Organization.htm
There have been no attacks on U.S. soil since September 11, but al Qaeda appears to be persevering in its efforts. The New York Times quotes a U.S. intelligence official who says that six Arab men have been secretly arrested in the U.S. on suspicion that they were scouting new targets to hit. The chief worry remains that al Qaeda will somehow obtain weapons of mass destruction and strike a major blow within the U.S.
How about harboring by funding?BonoVoxSupastar said:
You don't see a difference in harboring and funding?
Macfistowannabe said:How about harboring by funding?
Do you believe that the Saudi government had anything to do with 9/11?
What can you prove?
Macfistowannabe said:The Islamic Militant movement is nothing new, it's been around for centuries.
It is time to realize what we're up against.
Exactly - so why the bloody hell would you invade a country just because 19 Al Qaida hijackers were responsible for 9/11 - without government involvement?!BonoVoxSupastar said:I never stated the Saudi government had any direct part in 9/11.
If you can't comprehend that Saddam did in fact fund Islamic Terrorism, then that explains just about everything.BonoVoxSupastar said:But this wasn't the original issue. The original issue was you said we went after those who harbored terrorist. That is indeed not the case.
Macfistowannabe said:Exactly - so why the bloody hell would you invade a country just because 19 Al Qaida hijackers were responsible for 9/11 - without government involvement?!
If you can't comprehend that Saddam did in fact fund Islamic Terrorism, then that explains just about everything.