Moderator: Jesus H Christ
Rack!BSmack wrote:Lots of Muslims in Viet Nam?Atomic Punk wrote:I was told from the real Vietnam guys that the Muzzies respect power. We haven't shown it.
Yeh, when will your pussy ass fucking support a war vs those that actually mean something? Stay cowering behind your computer you "Im going to post big on a message board about a war I will never fight in a country I will never go to with children that I dont have" you pathetic piece of shit.smackaholic wrote:The problem is we no longer have any balls as a nation. During WWII we knew we were in a fight and the entire fukking country treated it that way. We fukking played it to win. We absolutely crushed both the japs and krauts and they in no uncertain terms knew that they were on the wrong end of a serious asswhuppin.
As a result of our strong pimp hand they got in line pretty fukking magnificently.
With the muzzies things are different. we aren't there to slap them the fukk down. We are there to help them. When you need a pimp, you send in clint eastwood. We send in richard simmons.
The entire middle eastern muzzie/western debate could be solved tomorrow. If we just sat them down and said muzzies, it's like this. You got played by the jews, fair and square. They have a rather small, resource poor chunk of sand and are willing to share a rather important historical religious place, jerusalem, with you. You, get a piece of jerusalem, and the rest of the sand much of which is floating on a sea of earl.
Overall, despite being ohfer in wars over the last century or 5, you STILL pretty much have 'bode. Praise the fukk outta allah. Continue with the bullshit and [borat] we will CRAAAAAOOOOOOOSSSHHHH you.[/BORAT]
Then we sit back and wait. As soon as achmed steps to us, we put a very harsh pimp slap on him and a little bit of sand gets new ownership.
Repeat as necessary. Eventually the muzzies figure out that they loose everytime they play and they stop playing.
Problem is, being a good pimp takes balls and we have lost them. Where is Harry Truman when you need him?
mvscal wrote:The answer is no.Goober McTuber wrote:I don't know. It was your justification.mvscal wrote: Is that supposed to have any relevance?
Try to actually think for yourself a bit here. You have no idea what the administration is attempting to accomplish. That isn't entirely your fault. This administration has very poorly articulated its objectives and methods.
The mission is to combat Islam practiced as a radical political ideology. Bush Administration fuck up #1: They failed to clearly articulate precisely what it is we are fighting. Terrorism is a tactic. A War on Terrorism is semantic nonsense. No surprise to see that message garbled.
I understand the reasoning behind it. Namely to avoid inflaming Muslims and provide political cover to the Muslim nations which are assisting us in the war. The unfortunate downside to that bit of moral cowardice is that we as a nation aren't clear on what we're fighting.
Being that this is primarily an ideological conflict, the method chosen to confront this challenge was to present an workable alternative ideology: Democracy and with it personal and economic freedom. This meant abandoning our Cold War Real Politik support for thuggish dictators who could keep the craziness down to a dull roar.
Now given the mission and the method, who is likely to offer armed resistance to that program and where do you begin?
You are fucking retarded.RadioFan wrote:RACKmvscal wrote:The answer is no.Goober McTuber wrote: I don't know. It was your justification.
Try to actually think for yourself a bit here. You have no idea what the administration is attempting to accomplish. That isn't entirely your fault. This administration has very poorly articulated its objectives and methods.
The mission is to combat Islam practiced as a radical political ideology. Bush Administration fuck up #1: They failed to clearly articulate precisely what it is we are fighting. Terrorism is a tactic. A War on Terrorism is semantic nonsense. No surprise to see that message garbled.
I understand the reasoning behind it. Namely to avoid inflaming Muslims and provide political cover to the Muslim nations which are assisting us in the war. The unfortunate downside to that bit of moral cowardice is that we as a nation aren't clear on what we're fighting.
Being that this is primarily an ideological conflict, the method chosen to confront this challenge was to present an workable alternative ideology: Democracy and with it personal and economic freedom. This meant abandoning our Cold War Real Politik support for thuggish dictators who could keep the craziness down to a dull roar.
Now given the mission and the method, who is likely to offer armed resistance to that program and where do you begin?
RACK
RACK
The WWII analogies are both correct and incorrect.
And as importantly, that "bit of moral cowardice" is also a major factor in the "enemy," because, obviously, we're not fighting a standing army, nor even a nation-state.mvscal wrote:The unfortunate downside to that bit of moral cowardice is that we as a nation aren't clear on what we're fighting.
That bit of moral cowardice is the suicide bomber, obviously. Even in the Muslim world, some understand it, only they are in no position to do anything about it, other than "advise," which in many cases, probably means a lot.
The suicide bomber ... Where he comes from and why -- the root of the problem -- the Madrasses in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Indonesia and the Palestinian territories.
Hell, in many of these countries, during the first day of school for kids, the first thing they learn is the chant, "Death to America." It doesn't mean they believe any of that bullshit, but they're still indoctrinated from day 1.
mvscal is right: We can't possibly wage this war when our own definitions of what we're fighting are fucked up from the beginning. Simplistic bullshit from another time. Upgrade the rhetoric from our side, mensas. That would be a nice start.
Not what I meant. I should have said it was Vietnam era USN pilots that later moved onto leadership positions like a Skipper of the USS Ranger in later years said in reference to Muzzies. They know what we're capable of doing and they haven't seen us lay down the hammer. Their strategy partly revolves around what we won't do like going into their places of worship and lighting them up, as an example.BSmack wrote:Lots of Muslims in Viet Nam?Atomic Punk wrote:I was told from the real Vietnam guys that the Muzzies respect power. We haven't shown it.
BSmack wrote:Best. AP take. Ever.
Seriously. I don't disagree with a word of it.
When Islamic leaders vow to wipe Israel off the planet then yeah, I would too. It's not there are these Hellbound parasites called "suicide bombers" around either, right? None of your views are acceptable but rather foolish tirades from a true tard.LTShit TRollN 2 wrote:
Right now the city of Gaza is surrounded by ten times the razor-wire, trigger-happy guards, sensors and mines that surrounded Aushwitz, Treblinka, Sobidor, Dachau and Bergen-Belson COMBINED.
BSmack wrote:Best. AP take. Ever.
Seriously. I don't disagree with a word of it.
But to be fair, it has 0 times the gas chambers.LTS TRN 2 wrote:Smack, what's this nonsense?
"The entire middle eastern muzzie/western debate could be solved tomorrow. If we just sat them down and said muzzies, it's like this. You got played by the jews, fair and square. They have a rather small, resource poor chunk of sand and are willing to share a rather important historical religious place, jerusalem, with you. You, get a piece of jerusalem, and the rest of the sand much of which is floating on a sea of earl. "
"Played fair and square"..? Say's who?
Right now the city of Gaza is surrounded by ten times the razor-wire, trigger-happy guards, sensors and mines that surrounded Aushwitz, Treblinka, Sobidor, Dachau and Bergen-Belson COMBINED.
WW
says me, dumbass. the muzzies called them out. they threw down and the muzzies got played. this happened multiple times. yeah, we backed the jews, so what. the arabs had the backing of the soviet union. the bottomline is, they had a dispute, they threw down, the jews got 'bode. the reason hasn't been settled is that even when they get played, the arabs don't lose anything other than lives and materiel, which they could give a shit about. if it cost them in territory, they would quickly go to the no mas card.LTS TRN 2 wrote:Smack, what's this nonsense?
"The entire middle eastern muzzie/western debate could be solved tomorrow. If we just sat them down and said muzzies, it's like this. You got played by the jews, fair and square. They have a rather small, resource poor chunk of sand and are willing to share a rather important historical religious place, jerusalem, with you. You, get a piece of jerusalem, and the rest of the sand much of which is floating on a sea of earl. "
"Played fair and square"..? Say's who?
Right now the city of Gaza is surrounded by ten times the razor-wire, trigger-happy guards, sensors and mines that surrounded Aushwitz, Treblinka, Sobidor, Dachau and Bergen-Belson COMBINED.
WW
mvscal wrote:The only precious metals in a SHTF scenario are lead and brass.
One of the great fallacies of the last, oh... 30 years or so, is that "terrorists" aren't state-sponsored. Of course they are. To admit this, however, would require actually doing something about it. It's much easier- especially for the Euros- to pretend otherwiseRadioFan wrote:[And as importantly, that "bit of moral cowardice" is also a major factor in the "enemy," because, obviously, we're not fighting a standing army, nor even a nation-state.
WacoFan wrote:Flying any airplane that you can hear the radio over the roaring radial engine is just ghey anyway.... Of course, Cirri are the Miata of airplanes..
