bush_cheney2004 Posted July 22, 2010 Report Share Posted July 22, 2010 War it is. Don't hurt him too bad.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted July 22, 2010 Report Share Posted July 22, 2010 Don't hurt him too bad.... It always amazes me when folks volunteer... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted July 22, 2010 Report Share Posted July 22, 2010 Well that explains all the Viet-Namese in Canada and the US.which wouldn't have happen had there been no civil war...Fact: Had North Viet-Nam left South Viet-Nam alone...there would have been no war. But it sent division sized units down through Laos and Cambodia to attack South Viet-Nam starting in 1959...but that's okie-dokie in yours and others opinions.Like Viet-Nam, those that want us out no matter what will get their wish...at least re: Canada. The deaths that follow are on their heads. it was their country and the US prevented unification so ya it's absolutely okay to do that...what was not okay was interfering in the domestic politics of another country...if Quebec or Alberta were to separate or if we elected an government not favored by the US it would be okay for the US to send in troops to prevent that?... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted July 22, 2010 Report Share Posted July 22, 2010 It always amazes me when folks volunteer... I never started this but I'm perfectly happy hitting back if that's where you want to go... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted July 22, 2010 Report Share Posted July 22, 2010 I never started this but I'm perfectly happy hitting back if that's where you want to go... Of course you didn't start this...lame dick. Was that the name you picked up in prison? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted July 22, 2010 Report Share Posted July 22, 2010 I know folks in the US and Canada get some sort of spastic reaction when Somalia is mentioned, but our lack of will in dealing with the monsters in that country has lead inevitably to the point of high seas piracy, attacks on neighboring countries and a rapid movement towards terrorist groups setting up shop with the help of local friendlies. What high-seas monsters? These perhaps? In 1991, the government of Somalia collapsed. Its nine million people have been teetering on starvation ever since – and the ugliest forces in the Western world have seen this as a great opportunity to steal the country's food supply and dump our nuclear waste in their seas. Story Somalia’s coastline has been used as a dumping ground for other countries nuclear and hazardous wastes for many years as a result of the long civil war and, thus, the inability of the authorities to police shipments or handle the wastes.“The impact of the tsunami stirred up hazardous waste deposits on beaches around North Hobyo and Warsheik, south of Benadir. Contamination from the waste deposits has, thus, caused health and environmental problems to the surrounding local fishing communities”, says the report. Many people in Somalia’s impacted areas are complaining of unusual health problems, including acute respiratory infections, mouth bleeds and skin conditions. Source How about Canada sets up shop with local Somali fishermen by helping them combat the pirate nations that are raping and pillaging the oceans they depend on? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted July 22, 2010 Report Share Posted July 22, 2010 Of course you didn't start this...lame dick. Was that the name you picked up in prison? really...I'm involved in a civil discussion and out of nowhere comes an unprovoked personal swipe from someone I'm not even conversing with... You really need to brush up on your world history. then anotherObviously you are suffering from delusions as well as a lack of historical knowledge. then you throw your supporting quips in and it was my fault??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted July 22, 2010 Report Share Posted July 22, 2010 really...I'm involved in a civil discussion and out of nowhere comes an unprovoked personal swipe from someone I'm not even conversing with... then another then you throw your supporting quips in and it was my fault??? Thank-you for backing down. Now tell BC-2004 you're sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted July 22, 2010 Report Share Posted July 22, 2010 What high-seas monsters? These perhaps? How about Canada sets up shop with local Somali fishermen by helping them combat the pirate nations that are raping and pillaging the oceans they depend on? how are you going to get fishermen to go back to fishing after they've experienced the easy profits of piracy?... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted July 22, 2010 Report Share Posted July 22, 2010 delusions are all yours, my experience with americans is most wouldn't pass an eight grade history exam in Canada...I've probably forgotten more since I got up this morning than you have learned in your entire life... You know, I'm having a hard time believing that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted July 22, 2010 Report Share Posted July 22, 2010 it was their country and the US prevented unification so ya it's absolutely okay to do that...what was not okay was interfering in the domestic politics of another country...if Quebec or Alberta were to separate or if we elected an government not favored by the US it would be okay for the US to send in troops to prevent that?... Judging by the number of South Vietnamese that got the hell out of there, I think maybe a lot of them weren't too thrilled about unification either. It's hard to defend the South Vietnamese regime, but what you wrote sounds like the beginning of a rather ridiculous form of historical revisionism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted July 22, 2010 Report Share Posted July 22, 2010 Judging by the number of South Vietnamese that got the hell out of there, I think maybe a lot of them weren't too thrilled about unification either. It's hard to defend the South Vietnamese regime, but what you wrote sounds like the beginning of a rather ridiculous form of historical revisionism. Not to mention it wasn't just the Americans fighting this war against N. Viet-Nam/Soviet Union. South Korea, Thailand, Australia, New Zealand, the Philippines plus others I've forgotten all fought in South Viet-Nam trying to keep the Communists from taking over at gunpoint. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted July 22, 2010 Report Share Posted July 22, 2010 ...oh and we know now that the Soviets did have troops in Viet-Nam...most of the air defence was run and manned by Soviet advisors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted July 22, 2010 Report Share Posted July 22, 2010 how are you going to get fishermen to go back to fishing after they've experienced the easy profits of piracy?... I have a hard time imagining the profits and living are that easy. If you read the links I provided you'll find some of the so-called pirates are activist fishermen who are trying to get the illegal fishing and dumping to stop. No doubt some gangsters and warlords have taken advantage of the lawlessness of a failed state to set up shop and I suspect asking them to take up an honest trade will be like asking gangsters in Afghanistan to stop exporting heroin. Speaking of gangsters and easy profits, I bet the real money is in illegally dumping European wastes. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to find the same ships bringing in the heroin are taking nuclear wastes out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted July 22, 2010 Report Share Posted July 22, 2010 (edited) I have a hard time imagining the profits and living are that easy. If you read the links I provided you'll find some of the so-called pirates are activist fishermen who are trying to get the illegal fishing and dumping to stop. No doubt some gangsters and warlords have taken advantage of the lawlessness of a failed state to set up shop and I suspect asking them to take up an honest trade will be like asking gangsters in Afghanistan to stop exporting heroin. Speaking of gangsters and easy profits, I bet the real money is in illegally dumping European wastes. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to find the same ships bringing in the heroin are taking nuclear wastes out. It should be noted that allegations of dumping include European, Asian and other African companies...not nations. It's something like 1000 Euros plus per ton to get rid of waste in Europe...less than 3 Euros the illegal way. Edited July 22, 2010 by DogOnPorch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remiel Posted July 22, 2010 Report Share Posted July 22, 2010 I don't see how the Taliban are nationalistic. They are tribalistic, and so far as anyone can tell, the border with Pakistan is sufficiently porous that the Taliban seem quite capable of hopping back and forth. Either way. Nation is merely tribe on a larger scale. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted July 23, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 23, 2010 However, in this particular case, cutting and running from Afghanistan would be a show of weakness on the part of NATO and the West. Fundamentalist Islamic groups would think they can so easily defeat us. Now that we have set ourselves the objective of building Afghanistan into a functional state, no matter how foolish and hard that task may be, we must persevere and finish it, even if it does take 100 years. Showing weakness would only invite more attacks against us. I agree it would be a show of weakness. However, remaining there would continue to weaken us as well as we waste money, resources, and lives. As i also said, the longer we occupy middle-eastern countries, the more reason we give them to attack us. I think leaving Afghanistan shows we can't just go into any country and hold/control and occupy it. However, if terrorists return to Afghanistan we should surely show them that we will blow them to hell if they try to set-up camp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted July 23, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 23, 2010 I dunno to answer the question I need to know if you like Allah and mohomads interpretation of him, and various individuals interpretation of him. huh?? please clarify. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted July 23, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 23, 2010 (edited) It would signify that the terrorists can launch anywhere in the world and be successful Rather fight them there than here We aren't teaching terrorists anything. You do realize that there are are hardly any al-Qaeda left in Afghanistan, right? I'd rather have them return to Afghanistan and blow them to hell in one of the supremely poorest nations on earth than ramping up strikes at them in nuclear-armed Pakistan. Edited July 23, 2010 by Moonlight Graham Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted July 23, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 23, 2010 I'm not talking about the Russians, but about Islamic terrorist groups. If they feel that they can repel a full scale invasion, committed to by the entire alliance of the West, the great Satan and all its minions, they will only be further spurred on in their jihad. Al-Qaeda have not repelled this invasion, the Taliban has. And as i stated before, no my knowledge the Taliban have not attacked the West other than on Muslim territory in defense of their own country. Yes they did harbour al-Qaeda, but the Taliban did not hijack any planes on 9/11 or attempt attacks any other Western cities. The Taliban has shown little to no sign of being a major threat to launch transnational terrorist attacks against the West. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted July 23, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 23, 2010 So you honestly believe that every attack people have been subjected to in the world was because of cause and effect. The people making the attacks were always just innocent hamsters, so to speak, getting poked by the people they attacked. You really need to brush up on your world history. He/she didn't refer to "every attack" in the world, but was referring to 9/11. 9/11 occurred partly because of blowback, but also because of wacko radical Qutbist beliefs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 23, 2010 Report Share Posted July 23, 2010 He/she didn't refer to "every attack" in the world, but was referring to 9/11. 9/11 occurred partly because of blowback, but also because of wacko radical Qutbist beliefs. Hey....I like that...and it follows that the invasion of Iraq was still more "blowback". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted July 23, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 23, 2010 I tend to agree with you about bombing if the Taliban harours Al Qaeda, but the saving civilian lives is incorrect. If you wanna know the worst thing that could happen if NATO left Afghanistan. It would be a complete purging of any and all Afghans who cooperated or were at all affiliated with anything involving NATO. In other words, a slaughter of tens of thousnads of people in a very short period of time. See Vietnam and Cambodia as examples. Millions of people were killed. Holy freaking crap i think you actually made a good point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted July 23, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 23, 2010 Like Viet-Nam, those that want us out no matter what will get their wish...at least re: Canada. The deaths that follow are on their heads. But what's the alternative? Stay another 10 years, then leave? Stay until we crush the Taliban, which could take 50 years? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 23, 2010 Report Share Posted July 23, 2010 But what's the alternative? Stay another 10 years, then leave? Stay until we crush the Taliban, which could take 50 years? What's your hurry? Cyprus was 29 years...right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.