The War on Terror
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 2455
- Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 6:09 pm
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 627
- Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 6:18 am
barrelomonkeys wrote:Wow. I definitely know I'm smaller than Mr. Coffee's excrement.
No doubt.
And you just had to say something, little mrs. "i have not a goddamned bit of relevant exeriance" to offer.
I and who I am. I give the same damned bit for everything.
if a weakdick, no-load, pussdy CIVILIAN likew you has a damned word to say to me, then damned say it.
On Mathematics: I divided by zero! Oh SHI....
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 627
- Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 6:18 am
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 3004
- Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2007 7:00 pm
Mr. Coffee wrote:barrelomonkeys wrote:Wow. I definitely know I'm smaller than Mr. Coffee's excrement.
No doubt.
And you just had to say something, little mrs. "I have not a goddamned bit of relevant exeriance" to offer.
I and who I am. I give the same damned bit for everything.
if a weakdick, no-load, pussdy CIVILIAN likew you has a damned word to say to me, then damned say it.
I grew up listening to these rants. No lie. Did the push ups. Did my time. Until I was 18 I was drafted in the military. My dad was POW, two tours Vietnam, Purple Heart Recepient.
Calm down.
I have no problem with who you are. As a matter of fact, I imagine we probably agree on quite a bit. Just stop the blustering. Been there. Lived through that. See him every weekend. Don't need it from you. I'm full up on military shoved down my throat.[
***Oh, just reread your very well put together post. Very easy to decipher your meaning and yet it was lost on me. :)
You think that I give the same damned thing for everything. In that you would be wrong. I just don't give a damn about any of this.
Last edited by Guest on Fri Jun 22, 2007 10:50 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 3004
- Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2007 7:00 pm
Mr. Coffee wrote:barrelomonkeys wrote:Wow. I definitely know I'm smaller than Mr. Coffee's excrement.
No doubt.
Then step your worthless ass up and stand tall, Cunt.
You can use others to make yourself bewtter, but you fail.
Now all of you stand forth and take me.
Did you drink too much robotussin earlier?
by the way. My ass is not worthless. It brings much joy to my husband.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1593
- Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:04 pm
Nonsense
Mr. Coffee stated:
Yeah, we could very easilly win (war on terror). The only thing that stops us is that we simply do not have the will to do what ever it takes to achieve victory.
Incorrect. The “goals” for “victory” are ever-changing. First, it was to remove weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
Since there were no WMDs, it was necessary to have a different and new goal. --Remove Saddam Hussein. After a lengthy expenditure of American wealth and human life, Saddam was found and subsequently executed. But the mission once again shifts. Failure to capture, let alone kill Osama bin Laden led to yet another mission (mission impossible). The constantly changing mission expanded and extended the war. On what the war is being waged is nebulous. Bush calls it “war on terror.” However, Guantanimo and the fact that the US invaded for a false cause makes most of the world question just who is the terrorist or who are the terrorists.
While it’s not possible in fact, just imagine that a country many more times powerful than the United States invaded the United States with some major alteration of the United States. Imagining that, how do you expect the United States would react?
Suppose further that the invasion was based on a false claim. Bush claimed that Saddam had WMDs. The claim was false. But, the war is real in that tens of thousands die and hundreds of thousands (Iraqis) have post-traumatic-stress syndrome..
Of course we worry about US soldiers who have post-traumatic-stress syndrome.. A sad reality: an incompetent, uninformed, misguided President of the United States began a war which now costs US citizens two billion dollars a month to continue.
And Bush talks of “terrorism.” Is it any wonder that there should be an insurgency against the mentality and the killing power of G.W. Bush? I think not.
Your answer is misguided. We cannot “easily win.” The probability is that we cannot win anything -- certainly not world respect. We, by authority of the Bush lies invaded a country on false pretense. There were no WMDs. Most of the world’s nations know that and know that the pretext was false.
The world also knows the pretext was constructed by arguably the most powerful country in the world. The US has nuclear weapons and wants to prevent anyone who does not now have them from getting them. Why? Well, it’s because other nations might be dangerous. Imagine that other nations. Of course, WE the US are not dangerous. Oh, no. We just start a war, kill tens of thousands, displace hundreds of thousands, borrow and spend while attacking others for “tax and spend.” What hypocrisy!!
“We could easily win” says Mr. Coffee. Win what??
JAK
Yeah, we could very easilly win (war on terror). The only thing that stops us is that we simply do not have the will to do what ever it takes to achieve victory.
Incorrect. The “goals” for “victory” are ever-changing. First, it was to remove weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
Since there were no WMDs, it was necessary to have a different and new goal. --Remove Saddam Hussein. After a lengthy expenditure of American wealth and human life, Saddam was found and subsequently executed. But the mission once again shifts. Failure to capture, let alone kill Osama bin Laden led to yet another mission (mission impossible). The constantly changing mission expanded and extended the war. On what the war is being waged is nebulous. Bush calls it “war on terror.” However, Guantanimo and the fact that the US invaded for a false cause makes most of the world question just who is the terrorist or who are the terrorists.
While it’s not possible in fact, just imagine that a country many more times powerful than the United States invaded the United States with some major alteration of the United States. Imagining that, how do you expect the United States would react?
Suppose further that the invasion was based on a false claim. Bush claimed that Saddam had WMDs. The claim was false. But, the war is real in that tens of thousands die and hundreds of thousands (Iraqis) have post-traumatic-stress syndrome..
Of course we worry about US soldiers who have post-traumatic-stress syndrome.. A sad reality: an incompetent, uninformed, misguided President of the United States began a war which now costs US citizens two billion dollars a month to continue.
And Bush talks of “terrorism.” Is it any wonder that there should be an insurgency against the mentality and the killing power of G.W. Bush? I think not.
Your answer is misguided. We cannot “easily win.” The probability is that we cannot win anything -- certainly not world respect. We, by authority of the Bush lies invaded a country on false pretense. There were no WMDs. Most of the world’s nations know that and know that the pretext was false.
The world also knows the pretext was constructed by arguably the most powerful country in the world. The US has nuclear weapons and wants to prevent anyone who does not now have them from getting them. Why? Well, it’s because other nations might be dangerous. Imagine that other nations. Of course, WE the US are not dangerous. Oh, no. We just start a war, kill tens of thousands, displace hundreds of thousands, borrow and spend while attacking others for “tax and spend.” What hypocrisy!!
“We could easily win” says Mr. Coffee. Win what??
JAK
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 627
- Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 6:18 am
Re: Nonsense
JAK wrote:Incorrect. The “goals” for “victory” are ever-changing. First, it was to remove weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
Are you damned simple or did you not see where I said "Do what is necessary" to win? That means "If they look at us funny after we ask nicely, kill them all".
JAK wrote:Since there were no WMDs, it was necessary to have a different and new goal. --Remove Saddam Hussein
It was politically expedient to do so. Nothing more. Don't damned atrribute more to the reasoning than is necessary.
JAK wrote:After a lengthy expenditure of American wealth and human life,
And hear we have the true reason why the US will FAIL any mission to kill its enemies or influence the politics of other nations...
Because some simplering bitch says "To much money" or "To many lives (not our own soldiers) killed)".
People who think this way need to either shut the “F” up or earn the right to stand the line and serve before they say a goddamned word.
JAK wrote: Saddam was found and subsequently executed.
Yeah, with a giant asshole monkey-assed trail. He should have been summerly executed by a commander in the field to save time.
But the mission once again shifts. Failure to capture, let alone kill Osama bin Laden led to yet another mission (mission impossible).
Yes, because killing one man will dramatically or even noticably reduce attacks.
ARE YOU damned HIGH, SON?
I ask this, because you are actually stupid enough to believe that kjilling or capturing one man will have a net effect on ANYTHING.
The net effect is achieved by KILLING everyone, from the youngest man to the eldest woman that has jack and crap, up to an including just having the bad luck to be around that day, when we dropp a few thousand pounds of bombs on the objective.
We are fighting an enemy that has declared TOTAL WAR on us. it's about goddamned time we sahowed them what that term means.
The constantly changing mission expanded and extended the war. On what the war is being waged is nebulous. Bush calls it “war on terror.” However, Guantanimo and the fact that the US invaded for a false cause makes most of the world question just who is the terrorist or who are the terrorists.
So according to you, just because they said we should remofe spider webs because all spiders are evil, then we should do nothing...
Shut the “F” up, boy.
You kill your enemy. You kill him by whatever means is available. All elses is a secondary consideration.
While it’s not possible in fact, just imagine that a country many more times powerful than the United States
And I can imagine what it'sike to fart broken glass. But since that's not something that will actually be a reality, I don't bother damned modeling it.
Here's a clue, idiot, model and worry about things that have an actual net effect on nations instead of worrying about possible political outcomes that are meaningless.
JAK wrote:invaded the United States with some major alteration of the United States. Imagining that, how do you expect the United States would react?
Because imagining a situation that has ZERO chance of happening produces what besides net dumbass gains?
JAK wrote:Of course we worry about US soldiers who have post-traumatic-stress syndrome..
yeah, sorry enough for them having it, but not sorry enough to force your senator or congressman to vote for actually aiding them.
JAK, don't damned talk to me about helping those men if you are not or have not done anything to measuably help them.
I AM one of them and to see some worthless CIVILIAN use those men's memories or service as a way to pad out his bid for political office is grounds for justifiable hoimicide where I come fome. If you don't actually help them, then don't you dare use them as a way to bolster your own damned campaign, shitbird.
Misuse my brothers at your own goddamned peril.
JAK wrote: A sad reality: an incompetent, uninformed, misguided President of the United States began a war which now costs US citizens two billion dollars a month to continue.
Here we go again...
The President is evil, therefore lets “F” over the poor sons of bitches that are charged with fighting his war!
Moron.
JAK wrote:Your answer is misguided. We cannot “easily win.”
Spoken like a true pussy that did not listen toa word I said.
We can win easilly. It all depends on the willingness we have as a people to win.
And judgiung by weak dick pussies like yourself, we're doomed as a goddamned race.
JAK wrote:“We could easily win” says Mr. Coffee. Win what??JAK
Define win, you dishonest piece of crap.
If by "win" you mean that there is NO ONE left alive to stand against us or that anyone who is able to do so is so damned scared that they fail to stands against us...
Then we won.
otherwise, define what the “F” the word "win" means, asshole.
On Mathematics: I divided by zero! Oh SHI....
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 627
- Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 6:18 am
barrelomonkeys wrote:Wow. I definitely know I'm smaller than Mr. Coffee's excrement.
No doubt.
Worse, i'll make fun of you for being the dumbass that broke the fields of the entire damned site by using a retardedly huge Avatar.
NOW HEAR THIS... I don't care who you are, if your a mod or not, or if you sy you support the military or not...
If you say anythign salong the lines of "TYhe administration is wrong, therefore the US military is wrong" you ar a goddamned idiot and I hope you get hit by a bus. Infact, if you think the abopve then do me and the rest of the free world a favor and go eat a gun barrel. You are not part of the solution. You ar an asshole that is using my brothers in arms as a political tool to bolster your own agenda.
On Mathematics: I divided by zero! Oh SHI....
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 34407
- Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 627
- Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 6:18 am