- Joined
- Mar 28, 2006
- Messages
- 13,119
- Reaction score
- 1
different arguments with different people fuckface
So calm, me thinks not
different arguments with different people fuckface
Im not talking about the entire history of the middle east.... Im talking about who fucked up the region as it is now? and that would be you goons
You can't be serious. Sadam was a real piece of work, and a horrible human being, but the region is far more unstable without him than when he was still in power.
And don't act like we removed sadam because he was evil and did bad things to people. Plently of evil people in this world that still hold way more power than they should. We removed Sadam from power in the name of corprate interests.
na Im cool.... listening to Tim talk for any longer than 2 seconds makes my ears bleed
benefited more than anyone else? and Im not from England ya goofThe guy you responded to obviously was talking about the entire history of the ME. You missed that, or just think that England's entire envolvement in the region started in 2003. And please stop acting like the UK didn't benefit more than anyone else in that deal. If you don;t see that you're more naive than I had imagined.
remaining ignorant? he has shown himself to be a republican who at least in some way supports Donald Trump..... which is all I need to know about that goofSo remaining ignorant is cool with you. I'm not suprised.
As a non-american - you're stupid.
It doesn't matter if the war is conquest or protection. A soldier does his duty. To a soldier it doesn't matter. That's the difference between you and a man like Tim Kennedy.
He does what his country asks him to, without questioning the authority or the reasoning behind it. If every soldier questioned their superior then your army would be useless, not the greatest army in the world. Just a bunch of undisciplined cowards, which is obviously what you're glorifying.
Of course the US occupy and invade - and as a result ISIS exists. But that is not the soldiers fault and not the general's fault and not the army's fault - it's the fault of politics and politicians. And a soldier chooses to serve his country, in good or in bad times. If you abandon your service just because you don't agree with the agenda of the current(!) man in charge, then you deserve nothing but a dishonorable discharge.
benefited more than anyone else? and Im not from England ya goof
remaining ignorant? he has shown himself to be a republican who at least in some way supports Donald Trump..... which is all I need to know about that goof
also Rand Paul? that guy is an embarrassment to what his father stood for
Yes, a soldier is very much a mindless tool. An occupying Nazi soldier is the same as, say, a Polish soldier that was defending his country because they both follow orders.
And I don't give a shit about being "the greatest army in the world." I give a shit about fairness and justice. It's much more courageous to be principled and stand up for what's right than to mindlessly follow orders from your superiors.
Nazi soldiers that blindly followed orders, even when they didn't agree with what was being done, are a million times more cowardly than the ones that deserted and risked incarceration or death.
He's also one of the white liberals dripping with guilt who admitted to being on Stormfront (but only for "research" of course).I wish I could be the unbending, principaled bad ass in my real life that you are on the internet.
He's also one of the white liberals dripping with guilt who admitted to being on Stormfront (but only for "research" of course).
I do think the region would be more stable if we didn't take out Saddam and Qaddafi(who wasn't mentioned in your conversation but is seen in a similar light as Saddam nowadays) but man has their stabilizing effect been wildly exaggerated since their downfall. Qaddafi was a nut who pissed off Shias, Sunnis, and everyone else in the world for funding insurgencies and terrorists everywhere like a cunt. Saddam within like a fucking year of taking the office of the presidency invaded Iran and then went on to invade Kuwait only a few years after his first little adventure ended in failure and of course there's also the genocide against the Iraqi Kurds his regime committed.
His career hardly screams stability to me. If the guy was left to run Iraq I bet there's a good chance the country would burst into civil war after he died. I doubt his lunatic sons would've just taken over smoothly, there would probably a lot of resistence to their takeover by older regime elements and I bet a contest between the two of them as well not to mention that Saddam's death could've been seen as an opportunity by the Kurds and/or Shiites to revolt again.
So your saying that defense contractors didn't get filthy rich off the blood of American Soldiers engaged in OIF?The region is more unstable without American/Western Troops, not without Saddam. Yes, corporate interests and whatnot. That was the only, single reason. I love people like you.
So your saying that defense contractors didn't get filthy rich off the blood of American Soldiers engaged in OIF?
Are you saying that the Vice president of the United States at the time of OIF wasn't a majority stock holder in the defense contractor company Halliburton and that they didn't profit 39.5 billion dollars off of that conflict?
The region is far more unstable post OIF then pre OIF, to say otherwise is pure ignorance.
Are you stupid? Nothing had to happen for them to make money, they just pushed some bullshit about Iraq having WMD's to scare everyone into thinking invading that shithole was a good idea. And who do you think was pushing this agenda? Right, the same people that held interests in the defense industry. Look it up.1.) I'm not saying that at all. People have always profited from war. To expect something else, or to even get mad about it at this point in human history is idiotic. How long did it take that profiting to start? What had to happen before the government was willing to spend money in the first place?
2.) What destabilized the region? Actually think critically on that point, don't just act like you're thinking critically.
Are you stupid? Nothing had to happen for them to make money, they just pushed some bullshit about Iraq having WMD's to scare everyone into thinking invading that shithole was a good idea. And who do you think was pushing this agenda? Right, the same people that held interests in the defense industry. Look it up
I don't need to think critically on this point, I'll just tell you about a little experience of mine, and then you can draw your own conclusion.
When I was mobilizing to deploy to Iraq in in 2008, we were put through dozens of training sessions, mostly weapons training and EOF training. However I remember one class was specifically teaching us about the different kinds of people we were expected to interact with in our AO, and they were telling us about the insurgents we would be encountering. The NCOIC of this particular class told us, "the insurgents you may encounter at this point of OIF, will have no ties to the old Saddam regime. Insurgents at that point were either hard core jihadists or just disgruntled and pissed off family of the people that had been getting clipped since the war started.
The folks on that side of the world need little excuse to perpetuate violence, you really think we can just throw missiles into that region and these people are just going to let that shit slide? What rock have you been living under?
Best to cut ties to that part of the world and let them sort it out themselves. Eventually one of those clowns is going to get a hold of a real WMD, best to not be on anyone's hit list when that happens.
I wish I could be the unbending, principaled bad ass in my real life that you are on the internet.