Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 64
  1. #31
    Jakko's Avatar
    Jakko is offline Senior Member Community Builder
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    North Carolina, US
    Posts
    4,503

    Default

    I am amazed by your highly intellectual and well-reasoned post, drinkingfool, where you tied in the phrase "A life is a life, dead is dead," with your original idea, that both Presidents ( I would assume you mean Bush and Johnson, though, as Johnson is dead, you can't really refer to him in present tense, can you?) are "dumbasses," and that the war is wrong. Really, it was tied in so well, I couldn't see how they were related!

    Despite the fact that you never explained why they are "dumbasses."
    Or why the war(you can only be referring to the current war, and not the Vietnam war as well, because of how you phrased it) is wrong.
    And despite the fact that you sound like a "dumbass."

  2. #32
    kesun15 is offline Senior Member Frequent Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    105

    Default

    but anyways middle east is always a mass...and from what i heard it's all because of fighting for territories that's occupied by the Jews after the fall of Nazi Germany. Is it?
    OMG!! Kill me now!!!

  3. #33
    Ashtray is offline Member Frequent Poster
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Center.
    Posts
    67

    Default

    It's kind of funny how Americans are the invader in Iraq but the Iraqis who defend themselves are called "enemy insurgents" and "terrorists" in the media, and how most of you get angry about the Iraqis who kill American troops, but really, why do you expect them not to? They've just had their country set back 100 or so years since half of it was levelled by bombing raids, and citizen casualties are estimated between 40,000 and 600,000.

    I guess the coalition forces in Iraq are doing a good job of freeing Iraqis from their mortal coils if anything. Yay for Operation: Iraqi Freedom! Under Saddam there was all that waiting and wondering, but at least the Americans bring it to you straight with a bullet to your brain or napalm to your village!

  4. #34
    rabidfuzzybunny is offline Senior Member Long Time Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Bishiville
    Posts
    606

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashtray View Post
    It's kind of funny how Americans are the invader in Iraq but the Iraqis who defend themselves are called "enemy insurgents" and "terrorists" in the media, and how most of you get angry about the Iraqis who kill American troops, but really, why do you expect them not to? They've just had their country set back 100 or so years since half of it was levelled by bombing raids, and citizen casualties are estimated between 40,000 and 600,000.
    Not really so funny when you consider that the Shiite religious faction in Iraq has outside support from Iran. Fighters and weapons have been crossing over the Iran/Iraq border to help the Shiites fight both the Sunnis and the Americans. Why, because Iran would be overjoyed to see a religious theocracy come to power in Iraq similar to the one that formed in Iran after the 1979 Iranian Revolution. This would also serve to eliminate the military threat that Iraq posed to Iran while Saddam was in power.

  5. #35
    martyr3810's Avatar
    martyr3810 is offline Banned Community Builder
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    An Unmarked Grave
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jakko View Post
    I always was fond of the tactic the British used when they were in the Middle East. They dipped their bullets in pig blood(unclean to Muslims), and killed captured terrorists by firing squad, and buried all terrorists they found(those killed by firing squad and those not) in pig blood and entrails. Nipped the attacks in the bud, with the message, "You attack our people, you go to hell."
    I loved this tactic. Of course I'm british too so sneaky, underhanded and effective things like that just make me grin too XD Cause hey its polite, technically.

    Quote Originally Posted by dna2playboy View Post
    I knew from the begining america went after iraq partly because they wanted their oil, but America never announced that was their primary goal. I know countries are selfish and only help others when there's good for themselves, so why do they bother pretending to be righteous. I'll answer my own question: so they can tame the population into following them like sheep.

    countries like Britain and America should help Africa though since they are the source of Africa's problems today.

    Basically i'm saying i'm tired of the propaganda.
    I'm sorry, did I hear you right, Britain and AMERICA are the source of Africa's problems today? You mean its NOT their own dictators, their stupid tribal wars and their unwillingness to get involved with the world market or the fact that they're too busy DESTROYING any kind of business that pops up to actually help their own goddamn selves?

    Quote Originally Posted by coolpuprocks View Post
    I was tempted to put Canada on that list.

    hehehehe.

    Sorry, we were discussing Canada & Mexico in class. There's lots of problems/issues with Mexican governments. Like, Americas don't want them crossing into American soil so Congress wants to build a giant wall. In class I was like "Why don't we build a wall blocking Canadians as well?" and the answer I got was "Cause that's CANADA. Nobody cares about Canada."

    *giggles*
    Umm, there is the small fact that more than 170 billion dollars worth of trade (on both sides) occurs yearly between Canada and the U.S. and that Canada and the U.S. are more codependent on each other than any other two countries in the entire world?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashtray View Post
    Doesn't matter... doesn't matter... doesn't matter...
    Didn't I ban you? *Goes to fix that, with a irritated fucking look at whoever unbanned him*
    Oh, and for anyone wanting a dose of ignorance, go read Ashtray's post. Use NAPALM, in IRAQ? Are you stupid man?

  6. #36
    98abaile's Avatar
    98abaile is offline Senior Member Community Builder
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    An Englishman in a shithole somewhere in Wales.
    Posts
    7,892

    Default

    I didn't know you were British mart, cool.

    Anyway, I doubt that the British army dipped their bullets in pigs blood, we have a shit load of bureaucracy over here, so anything politically incorect or even slightly racist wouldn't be allowed (although it wouldn't surprise me if a few blind eyes had been turned), also it would take ages to dip so many bullets in pigs blood, in a country where I would imagine pigs blood is pretty rare, it would also seriously fucking foul up the barrel and the SA-80 is not very well known for its reliability (although from what I've heard, the A2 rarely jams). I think it might have just been a rumour spread by the British troops to scare the locals.

  7. #37
    rabidfuzzybunny is offline Senior Member Long Time Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Bishiville
    Posts
    606

    Default

    Perhaps he might have been referring to a tactic used by the British during their occupation of Iraq after WWI? If I recall correctly, they tried a little of everything including mustard gas on Iraqi's to try and pacify rebellion.

  8. #38
    martyr3810's Avatar
    martyr3810 is offline Banned Community Builder
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    An Unmarked Grave
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 98abaile View Post
    I didn't know you were British mart, cool.

    Anyway, I doubt that the British army dipped their bullets in pigs blood, we have a shit load of bureaucracy over here, so anything politically incorect or even slightly racist wouldn't be allowed (although it wouldn't surprise me if a few blind eyes had been turned), also it would take ages to dip so many bullets in pigs blood, in a country where I would imagine pigs blood is pretty rare, it would also seriously fucking foul up the barrel and the SA-80 is not very well known for its reliability (although from what I've heard, the A2 rarely jams). I think it might have just been a rumour spread by the British troops to scare the locals.
    Confession time: I'm half brit. (Father's side), didn't mean to make it sound like I was full brit.

  9. #39
    Nighthawk18 is offline Senior Member Respected Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    475

    Default

    even if they had just told every1 the bullets were dipped in pig blood that would b enough cos once u've bin shot u cant go and find out if the bullet that it u had pig blood on it
    If uve gotta draw the line sumwhere, make sure its drawn in pencil

  10. #40
    Saizou is offline Senior Member Always Around
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Helsinki, Finland
    Posts
    1,279

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jakko View Post
    I always was fond of the tactic the British used when they were in the Middle East. They dipped their bullets in pig blood(unclean to Muslims), and killed captured terrorists by firing squad, and buried all terrorists they found(those killed by firing squad and those not) in pig blood and entrails. Nipped the attacks in the bud, with the message, "You attack our people, you go to hell."
    Brutal Imperialism for teh win?

    Quote Originally Posted by martyr3810
    I'm sorry, did I hear you right, Britain and AMERICA are the source of Africa's problems today? You mean its NOT their own dictators, their stupid tribal wars and their unwillingness to get involved with the world market or the fact that they're too busy DESTROYING any kind of business that pops up to actually help their own goddamn selves?
    Actually it would primarily be the fault of Britain and France, with a few smaller European countries (e.g. Belgium or Portugal) sharing some of the blame. Nearly a half-century of imperialism followed by what basically amounted to leaving overnight doesn't really help a continent's prospects, you know.

    As for the Iraq/Vietnam comparison, I find it accurate. Both wars are waged between an modern, well trained and equipped army and an guerilla force relying on stealth and attirition to gradually weaken their enemy. The big difference would obviously be that the guerillas in Vietnam were an highly disciplined and organized force commanded directly from Hanoi, while the Iraqi insurgents are literally hundreds of different groups who hate each other as much as they hate the west.

    Of course, the similarity that is going to be remembered is probably going to be that the US lost both wars.

 

 
Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
vBulletin Skin by: ForumThemes.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0
Copyright © 2014 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162