the surge is working!

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
struckpx said:
so al qaeda had nothing to do w/ 9/11?? funny. check your facts.

:huh: Nobody said that. Somebody did mention that 9/11 has nothing to do with Iraq, which I believe to be true.

struckpx said:
saddam hussein murdered more than 1/2 million people. for anyone to defend him here is pathetic and should be axed as well. that is like defending hitler.

This is absolutely ridiculous! Who defended Saddam????? No one!

struckpx said:
there's evidence that al qaeda was working in iraq before hussein was relieved of power.

Oh yeah? Where's the proof?
 
struckpx said:


so al qaeda had nothing to do w/ 9/11?? funny. check your facts.
:banghead: Once again, how much of Al Qaeda was in Iraq, is this the reason congress signed on? Maybe you should check facts.

struckpx said:

saddam hussein murdered more than 1/2 million people. for anyone to defend him here is pathetic and should be axed as well. that is like defending hitler.
Who the hell is defending him?




You should really turn off the Fox news and open up a newspaper, and the history teacher that taught you about Nixon and Vietnam should be fired...

I'd take this summer to catch up, for college is going to be full of people who are actually up on their current events and history...
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:

:banghead: Once again, how much of Al Qaeda was in Iraq, is this the reason congress signed on? Maybe you should check facts.


Who the hell is defending him?




You should really turn off the Fox news and open up a newspaper, and the history teacher that taught you about Nixon and Vietnam should be fired...

I'd take this summer to catch up, for college is going to be full of people who are actually up on their current events and history...

Nixon was a good President. He just had bad people around him. He did some great things.

I don't watch FOX. I watch Tucker. He is the man.
 
struckpx said:


well, you see, there is a difference. liberation is where you free someone or a group of people from something. al qaeda generally straps on a bomb and blows up something. that is hardly liberation. maybe for the jihadist, but that is going against the muslim cause and most muslims would agree in that statement.

i encourage all foreign armies to bring it. i will be happy to send your ass back to where you came from. that would unite all of us under the common cause. as much as we disagree here, try and attack us, we will come together.
Yes, removing Saddam was liberating the Iraqi people from a terrible tyranny - and the bodycount and violence inflicted by Saddam was on par if not greater than that in Iraq today with the benefit (for the rest of us) that nobody had to see and Iraqi's weren't able to leave the country as easily.

Removing Saddam does not equate to fighting Al Qaeda, removing troops from Saudi Arabia and then from Iraq does, having an Iraqi state with representation from the population helps fight Al Qaeda (support for AQ in Iraq is very low - blowing up children doesn't endear them to the population, the sectarian problems in Iraq are effectively unstoppable with a unified Iraq - if partition is the path forward how many lives does it take to get there?
 
A_Wanderer said:
Yes, removing Saddam was liberating the Iraqi people from a terrible tyranny - and the bodycount and violence inflicted by Saddam was on par if not greater than that in Iraq today with the benefit (for the rest of us) that nobody had to see and Iraqi's weren't able to leave the country as easily.

Removing Saddam does not equate to fighting Al Qaeda, removing troops from Saudi Arabia and then from Iraq does, having an Iraqi state with representation from the population helps fight Al Qaeda (support for AQ in Iraq is very low - blowing up children doesn't endear them to the population, the sectarian problems in Iraq are effectively unstoppable with a unified Iraq - if partition is the path forward how many lives does it take to get there?

where do you live? I am guessing not the US, and that is why you want us to pull out from everywhere. Even the "so called man" Barack Obama has said openly he would not pull troops out of Iraq immediately. Iraq is a strategic center for the US.
 
struckpx said:
i encourage all foreign armies to bring it. i will be happy to send your ass back to where you came from. that would unite all of us under the common cause. as much as we disagree here, try and attack us, we will come together.

That boldfaced part just reeks of ignorance about the world! Sounds like something Bush would say.
 
Staying in Iraq will always have a level of violence, it is a question of when that baseline level of violence exceeds that which would exist when the US leaves. In peaceful areas like Kurdistan it isn't an issue, it was an autonomous region to start with, southern Iraq has powerful friends to guarantee protection, the middle class has dissapeared (and with them the shot at a peaceful unified nation), for most of the country it could be better off without foreign forces, in the ethnically mixed areas not so much.

But that calculation is impossible since it is all political and the 2008 election says that you will be stewing in malaise during your college years.
 
Last edited:
struckpx said:


where do you live? I am guessing not the US, and that is why you want us to pull out from everywhere. Even the "so called man" Barack Obama has said openly he would not pull troops out of Iraq immediately. Iraq is a strategic center for the US.

A_W was actually one of this war's biggest supporters when it started, it just took him awhile to realize this war has done nothing but head down the drain...

"so called man"?

What does this mean?
 
struckpx said:


Nixon was a good President. He just had bad people around him. He did some great things.

I don't watch FOX. I watch Tucker. He is the man.

Revisionist and false...

But nice try avoiding the real questions of that post.








what a joke...
 
:lol: Oooooh, BVS :wink:



Seriously though, struckpx, don't let FYM ruin your experience of interference. We in here are a particularly crazy lot regardless of political affiliation (i'm sure you've noticed...and i hope none of the regulars mind me calling them crazy :wink: )


Sometimes it just gets too intense in here and there's a time when people need to take a break before it gets too personal.


BTW I've met Tucker many times, very nice guy, disagree with him a lot though.
 
Last edited:
BonoVoxSupastar said:


A_W was actually one of this war's biggest supporters when it started, it just took him awhile to realize this war has done nothing but head down the drain...

"so called man"?

What does this mean?
Past tense is a mistake, Saddam or his concequences would have come to a head at some stage anyway and under sanctions the bodycount was going strong.

Oh well, im sure that the Mullahs should appreciate a while of American isolationism and the absence of a fascist dictator on their doorstep (same with the Saudies for that matter).

One can't just disown views, situations change as do ones opinions of them.
 
Last edited:
Zootlesque said:


That boldfaced part just reeks of ignorance about the world! Sounds like something Bush would say.

Actually, it's exactly what Bush said. "Bring it on."
Well, they did. And we have over 3,000 less people in this country because of it.

struckinamoment lol said:
saddam hussein murdered more than 1/2 million people. for anyone to defend him here is pathetic and should be axed as well. that is like defending hitler.

Your jab at anyone who disagrees with Bush's war policy is pathetic. We can't expect more from the hardcore right-wing people who are so set in their ways that they'd defend Bush and everything he does out of principle. There's nothing patriotic about the lie we made to get into Iraq. Sure, Saddam Hussein was an asshole, I don't think anyone here would ever say anything otherwise. But the world is full of asshole dictators who are equally deserving to be removed from power. Why don't we do it? Because of the repercussions we are seeing with what we did in Iraq. It is in chaos, no matter the fluctuations in death tolls (they will drop and rise like the tide, much like everything else). It has become, as one poster said before, a breeding ground for terrorist groups who wish to retain control of a loose cannon country. All the while trying to find a way to get rid of Israel and all its allies (us).
The same thing would happen to any other country in which we would topple a dictator without any plan or backup from the United Nations to make sure that the type of government the people of said country (what! there are more choices than democracy?!) want.

And before you get all hussy about all the Democrats jumping down your throat about this, know that I'm not a Democrat, like phillyfan. It's such deep beliefs in a single party instead of the issue or the actual person that have divided this country and made us sit back and take a passerby approach at politics. We can't think of anything on our own, it just has to be told to us from one source of media, whether it be FOX or the alleged "liberal press," etc.

Anyway, I'll go back into FYM lurking right now, but I felt feisty enough to post all of this after reading most of the long, long discussions here last week. :wink:
 
Last edited:
struckpx said:
so al qaeda had nothing to do w/ 9/11?? funny. check your facts.

Hilarious. Read my statement again:

Originally posted by Me:
The barbarians who did that had absolutely nothing to do with Iraq, and if we hadn't invaded it, wouldn't even BE in Iraq.

Now how does that statement even come close to me saying Al Qaeda had nothing to do with 9/11? There was no significant Al Qaeda activity in Iraq prior to our invading it. All the "evidence" that has been presented so far has never been verified by anyone outside the Bush administration, and even those inside have not provided any solid evidence.
 
Last edited:
When the 9/11 commission themselves stated that there is no connection whatsoever between Iraq and 9/11, what more proof do we want???
 
PlaTheGreat said:


Actually, it's exactly what Bush said. "Bring it on."
Well, they did. And we have over 3,000 less people in this country because of it.



Your jab at anyone who disagrees with Bush's war policy is pathetic. We can't expect more from the hardcore right-wing people who are so set in their ways that they'd defend Bush and everything he does out of principle. There's nothing patriotic about the lie we made to get into Iraq. Sure, Saddam Hussein was an asshole, I don't think anyone here would ever say anything otherwise. But the world is full of asshole dictators who are equally deserving to be removed from power. Why don't we do it? Because of the repercussions we are seeing with what we did in Iraq. It is in chaos, no matter the fluctuations in death tolls (they will drop and rise like the tide, much like everything else). It has become, as one poster said before, a breeding ground for terrorist groups who wish to retain control of a loose cannon country. All the while trying to find a way to get rid of Israel and all its allies (us).
The same thing would happen to any other country in which we would topple a dictator without any plan or backup from the United Nations to make sure that the type of government the people of said country (what! there are more choices than democracy?!) want.

And before you get all hussy about all the Democrats jumping down your throat about this, know that I'm not a Democrat, like phillyfan. It's such deep beliefs in a single party instead of the issue or the actual person that have divided this country and made us sit back and take a passerby approach at politics. We can't think of anything on our own, it just has to be told to us from one source of media, whether it be FOX or the alleged "liberal press," etc.

Anyway, I'll go back into FYM lurking right now, but I felt feisty enough to post all of this after reading most of the long, long discussions here last week. :wink:

I am not far-right, lmao. I am not affiliated with any party. I just go w/ what I think is right, a.k.a. independent. Next time don't label me, which you asked for me to not do as well.
 
struckpx said:


I am not far-right, lmao. I am not affiliated with any party. I just go w/ what I think is right, a.k.a. independent. Next time don't label me, which you asked for me to not do as well.

Uhh, I didn't call you one.

I'm merely making my conclusions about what you have said about phillyfan in the past, as well as other liberals on this forum. You seem to hate liberals enough.

Are you ready to address my post now?
 
Stupidity trumps malevolence every time, I bet 40% of Americans believe N-Korea had something to do with 9/11 let alone the numbers that pin it on their own government.
 
struckpx said:
I am not far-right, lmao. I am not affiliated with any party.

:lmao:

You don't have to be affiliated with a party to be politically far-right, and your posts here - well, maybe you aren't far-right; you've flown past that and gone off the charts. This is insane. I somewhat suspect that you are a troll, especially due to your amazing ability to avoid the substance of all posts to which you respond. What will you pull from my post? That I am actually an employee of Moqtada al-Sadr's propaganda department?

And let's be honest, what is considered even moderately left by US standards is centre-right in many other parts of the world. I don't think it's incorrect to say that the average person who identifies as right wing in a US context would be considered far-right in many other countries. I know that is certainly true about my native New Zealand. You? You'd be laughed out of the country as a warmonger.
 
PlaTheGreat said:


Uhh, I didn't call you one.

I'm merely making my conclusions about what you have said about phillyfan in the past, as well as other liberals on this forum. You seem to hate liberals enough.

Are you ready to address my post now?

Have you even seen the latest readings from the last few weeks since the latest rounds of troops of arrived? Crime has decreased by 30% in the areas that they have gone through. Don't tell me that it is not working. It takes longer than a few years to build up a new government from scratch. We got a leader in place who isn't ideal as well, and are now leaning towards the Sunni's, which has been very beneficial for us.

Who cares if al Qaeda was in or not in Iraq when the coalition of forces invaded it. That is not why it was invaded. So, to bring that argument up is immature. That was one of the reason's why we felt it necessary, for Saddam was supporting armed groups of that nature. He also had the capability of providing al-Qaeda nuclear technology, which would have been catastrophical.

So, for all of you to sit around here and defend him is outrageous. Would you rather live in a world w/ or w/out him? I am glad that he is dead, glad that there is a democrat government, and some sign of hope in Iraq. Although it might not appear yet, there is a famous Prophet in Iraq by the name of al-Sistan i. He is the future of Iraq. He is much more popular than Al-Sadr, who by the way is the same as Bush, both puppet's of their father's, and preaches the moderate tone. Everyone should look into his preachings for he is the true leader of Iraq's Shiite-Sunni coalition. He is what keeps Iraq from all-out civil war, and that is why it will not happen. While it may appear that way, and Iran and others may want it, the Iraqi familiy that lives close to me says it won't happen b/c of the long history the two have w/ each other. The Preachings of al-Sistani, a beautiful thing.
 
struckpx said:
Who cares if al Qaeda was in or not in Iraq when the coalition of forces invaded it. That is not why it was invaded. So, to bring that argument up is immature. That was one of the reason's why we felt it necessary, for Saddam was supporting armed groups of that nature. He also had the capability of providing al-Qaeda nuclear technology, which would have been catastrophical.

:lol:

Where is the logic in any of this statement?

You just seem really confused about everything.
I was confused at your age too. Then an election came along and I began to realize that you shouldn't trust your government completely.
 
PlaTheGreat said:


:lol:

Where is the logic in any of this statement?

You just seem really confused about everything.
I was confused at your age too. Then an election came along and I began to realize that you shouldn't trust your government completely.

What logic do you need? Saddam was capable of supporting terrorist groups that could have hurt our national interests, which is most important.
 
PlaTheGreat said:


:lol:

Where is the logic in any of this statement?

You just seem really confused about everything.
I was confused at your age too. Then an election came along and I began to realize that you shouldn't trust your government completely.

And stop bringing up my age. I am 68.
 
We got a leader in place who isn't ideal as well, and are now leaning towards the Sunni's, which has been very beneficial for us.
No, you have an elected government that has it's own sectarian security service, sort of a department of religious genocide; the only reason that the Sunnis are cooperating is because of Al Qaeda alliances proved nothing but trouble and as soon as the US leaves they are at the mercy of the formerly opressed.

Your contempt towards democracy (lip service really, since you apparently have no problem subverting it when the guy in charge isn't to your liking) may well be matched by a contempt for liberty. Bush has no problem when democracy leans towards theocracy, in the absence of liberty and guarantees on those liberties democracy is mob rule.

As for Sistani your rose coloured glassed may well be tinted with blood. I for one don't find much beauty in the fatwa that Sistani put condemning gays to death through "the worst, most severe way of killing"
 
struckpx said:


Who cares if al Qaeda was in or not in Iraq when the coalition of forces invaded it. That is not why it was invaded. So, to bring that argument up is immature.

Um, you brought up 9/11. You made the immature and uninformed comment, everyone else just questioned you about it.


struckpx said:

So, for all of you to sit around here and defend him is outrageous.

Too much ignorance for me, I'm outta here.:|
 
A_Wanderer said:


As for Sistani your rose coloured glassed may well be tinted with blood. I for one don't find much beauty in the fatwa that Sistani put condemning gays to death through "the worst, most severe way of killing"

Well, tell me anywhere other than Israel, in the Middle East where it isn't that way??

Sistani is pro-US, anti al-Sadr, and very moderate. He does not preach the idea of fanatacism as well.
 
struckpx said:


What logic do you need? Saddam was capable of supporting terrorist groups that could have hurt our national interests, which is most important.
I am capable of killing you and your family, do I deserve to be procecuted for it?

Saddam did support suicide bombers in Palestine, he did give santuary to terrorists like Abu Nidal and Zarqawi was in Iraq before the war began (as were many other irregular militants who were absorbed into the Fedayeen Saddam - of course in different parts of the country, the key distinction).
 
A_Wanderer said:
I am capable of killing you and your family, do I deserve to be procecuted for it?

Saddam did support suicide bombers in Palestine, he did give santuary to terrorists like Abu Nidal and Zarqawi was in Iraq before the war began (as were many other irregular militants who were absorbed into the Fedayeen Saddam - of course in different parts of the country, the key distinction).

There's a difference between someone who had knowingly killed hundreds of thousands of his own, and then you or me. Don't compare the two.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom