|
| Thread: "Iran is a Threat Because It Doesn't Follow Orders" |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 · «PREV |
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
posted August 06, 2010 08:09 PM |
|
|
Conquering Britain was a logistical nightmare. Hitler wasn't a brilliant man but he understood that much. Tanks just don't do very well driving over water. Given his attitude, I'd say he had long-term goals towards the isle, but he was gambling to invade Poland and hope the UK would back down on their guarantee of its independence, which they didn't.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted August 08, 2010 10:38 PM |
|
|
Essentially my point on Iran was that nations that fund Terror are plentiful, really all of them do it. Half the European governments deal with the Mafia to cheaply dispose of Nuclear waste for example, which gets dumped in lawless (Somalian) waters and poisons people en masse. That's terrorism too.
Quote:
Quote:
The United States DOES fund terrorism, it funded the Khmer Rouge and supplied them weapons.
Sorry, but that is false. The US backed the government of Cambodia over the atheist Pol Pot and his communist thugs. Blame the killing fields on Pol Pot. If you must blame a political system, blame communism. If you must blame a religion, blame atheism.
Pol Pot came to power for multiple reasons, for one, the government the Americans originally backed against him was undermined by having its population centres terror bombed by the United States, the Khmer Rouge at the time looked better than the corrupt government letting foreign powers bomb innocents and pretending it's okay. (They were a wolf in sheeps clothing basically, it would not have been possible for them to have such an image without the civilian targetting murders from the sky.) If a civil war happened in the United States and a person sympathetic to one side and another country (say, France?) bombed your neighbourhood to kill that man and made your family explode in front of your eyes, would you still trust your government? Or would you prefer to join the Rebel Alliance?
I don't know why so many Pundits say America won in Iraq too, the Iraqi government voted unanimously to kick the invading forces out. The main reason they did it was because they knew that the continued presence of coalition forces was poisonous and they would eventually be faced with a second Islamic Revolution if they did not. The Taliban took control of Afghanistan BECAUSE the Russian military was there where it shouldn't have been killing the wrong people. The North Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge won the hearts of the people BECAUSE the American military was where it shouldn't have been, killing the wrong people.
What's more, you ignored the fact that the American Government DID support the Khmer Rouge. When the Vietnam war came to a close, the Vietnamese were sickened by what the (then only Chinese supported) Khmer Rouge were doing to their own country and invaded. That's when America started providing arms, supplies and money to the Communists and supplying the Killing Fields for years to come. Because the Khmer Rouge were now suddenly against Vietnam, which was supplied by Russia (America's Government couldn't give a hoot at the time who China supplies, still doesn't. Hell, the Chinese own the second largest chunk of America at this point).
Thanks for acknowledging that I was not lying, because like you, I believe that lying to make a point is pointless in and of itself, right?
Quote:
Quote:
An eye for an eye makes the world blind and revenge is not the path taken by the enlightened or the truly righteous.
There simply can't be peace with terrorists because they are not reasonable people. Jihadists say convert to Islam or die. Terrorists can't be ignored, they have to be fought.
Then perhaps we need to find the right country invade first and not the one that had less ties to the attack than your allies, and don't bankrupt yourself invading more countries than even the best economy can handle. We're making enemies where we had some, but far fewer. The sad fact is that "convert or die" is worse than "hope that you don't get blown up for living next to a terrorist", but for all of the people that are already Muslim and would normally be opposed to terrorism due to the religion actually saying murder would send you to hell; hoping you don't get blown up or having soldiers surround your house and shoot everybody during your baby shower and claim you are insurgents despite being bystanders definitely sounds like the worse option.
Quote:
In the example you put forward of British concentration camps, the Brits were gathering the people to keep them from starving to death while they ferreted out military forces.
Canada's dirty little secret #3 (I think I've said 2 others before):
I confirm that the concentration camps were not to keep people from starving but rather to make people submit by forcing them into sub-hovelish conditions (leading to many deaths, intentionally). Canada was part of the British Empire at the time, so we have records of first hand accounts. We participated in the human rights travesty of the Boer war, which also sadly lead to the rise of Apartheid. We learn this is history class. If you can't admit your country's mistakes how are you supposed to avoid them in the future? Plow through it doing the same thing again and set up a reality distortion field?
Quote:
I said "the US did not invent slavery" as one of the many counters to leftists saying the US is evil because it once had slaves.
I'm certainly not a leftist, and I certainly never said the US was evil. I can't speak for others. But I have said that the US and its founding father all have human flaws, just like everybody else.
Doesn't stop the US from being one of the top countries of the world by any stretch of the imagination.
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted August 16, 2010 05:02 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Pol Pot came to power for multiple reasons, for one, the government the Americans originally backed against him was undermined by having its population centres terror bombed by the United States, the Khmer Rouge at the time looked better than the corrupt government letting foreign powers bomb innocents and pretending it's okay.
Pol Pot and his fellow communists were struggling with the government for a decade before the US became involved with Vietnam. The Vietcong set up bases in Cambodia and the governemnt allowed the US to bomb those bases becasue they did not want the Vietcong communists within their borders.
Sorry, the US did not terror bomb anyone. But the atheist Pol Pot was a good propagandist and was tried to paint the US that way. Pol Pot was busy murdering civiilians who opposed communism while the US was bombing Vietcong bases. Of course we saw what happened when he was able to overthrow the goverment, what always happens when atheists rise to power.
Quote:
I don't know why so many Pundits say America won in Iraq too, the Iraqi government voted unanimously to kick the invading forces out.
Huh? The US never intended to stay in Iraq forever and the Iraqi people have been glad to have them there. They have an opportunity for freedom that I hope they don't squander.
Of course the loony left has been screaming "the war is lost" practicly from day one and the wacky Obama opposed the surge, the strategy that won the war.
Also, that bastion of liberalism, CNN, reports that Iraq wants the US to stay longer if Iraq still need US assistance.
CNN report
Quote:
"This depends on the future, on whether the established Iraqi army and police would be enough or not," he said, "so this issue is depending on the developments of the circumstances, and regulated by the Strategic Framework Agreement between the United States and Iraq."
He has not previously said he would consider asking U.S. forces to extend any of their withdrawal deadlines.
"So just to clarify," Damon asked, "if the situation dictated it, you would be willing to have U.S. forces extend their stay in Iraq?"
"Absolutely," al-Maliki said.
The United States plans to withdraw all of its combat troops by the end of August, leaving 50,000 in advisory roles, and then withdraw those by the end of 2011.
Quote:
Then perhaps we need to find the right country invade first and not the one that had less ties to the attack than your allies
Sorry, but Saddam's ties to terrorism are quite well established. He funded, supplied, and trained Islamic terrorists. The US went after Islamic terrorism. Saddam refused to live up to his terms of surrender from the previous Gulf War and the US removed him.
Saddam and terrorism
Quote:
I confirm that the concentration camps were not to keep people from starving but rather to make people submit by forcing them into sub-hovelish conditions (leading to many deaths, intentionally).
Sorry, but your "confirmation" is not confirmed by historical facts.
Clicky
Quote:
During the second phase of the conflict variously known as the Boer War, the Second Anglo-Boer War or the Second War of Independence, the British army defeated their Boer adversaries and occupied the capitals of Pretoria and Bloemfontein, thus bringing the war to an end. Or so they hoped. As it happens the Boer commando regarded the British occupation of the Transvaal and Orange River republics as simply an inconvenience and began fighting a guerilla war.
In order to counter these guerilla tactics, the commander of the British forces in South Africa, Lord Kitchener1, instituted what was known as the Blockhouse system. This involved constructing a series of concrete blockhouses linked with barbed wire across the country, thereby inhibiting the movement of guerrillas. The British army then conducted a series of 'drives' across the country between these barriers with the intention of either capturing or killing any Boer fighters they came across or persuading them to surrender. As it happens these drives were not that successful at achieving these primary aims, but they were particularly effective in clearing the country of livestock. Coupled with a scorched earth policy, whereby farms and crops were routinely burned, the British essentially cleared the land of any sustenance.
Having adopted such tactics in order to starve the Boer guerilla army into submission, the British could hardly leave the civilian population to suffer. Since they had already set up a number of camps to house and protect the families of the Boers that had surrendered and taken an oath of neutrality, they decided to expand the camp system and took to herding any civilians they came across to the nearest railway station and transporting them to a refugee camp.
It as at this point that we need to get one thing clear. Despite what you may have read (for example in Concentration Camps, A British Idea), the British did not invent the concentration camp. That particular accolade goes to the Spanish, in particular one General Valeriano Weyler who, when faced with a rebellion in Cuba in 1895, began removing the Cuban peasants from their land and placing them in 'reconcentrados'. In English 'reconcentrado' became concentration camp, and earned a certain odious reputation for ill-treatment. When the British army first began constructing camps during their South African war, no one called them concentration camps, they were simply called refugee camps or laagers. It was not until March 1901 that the term 'concentration camp' was first used to describe the British refugee camps in South Africa by the Liberal MPs Charles Prestwich Scott and John Ellis, who were engaged in a piece of (fairly justifiable) political mud slinging directed against the government. The designation of concentration camp stuck, and quite rightly, since it was clearly the intention of the British to concentrate the Boer civilian population in a number of distinct and controllable locations.
In total some 26,730 Boers died in the concentration camps, and of these at least 20,000 were avoidable deaths. Although official government figures showed almost 15,000 deaths in the native camps, the current view is that a truer figure was in excess of 20,000.
In the end the Blockhouse system worked, and the Boer guerilla armies were eventually starved into surrendering, although the eventual terms of the peace agreed at Vereeniging turned out favourably for the Boers, as by then the British were becoming tired of the war. At the time, curiously enough many Boers bore little resentment towards the British as regards the concentration camp policy. Louis Botha is even on record as saying of the camps that "one is only too thankful nowadays to know that our wives are under English protection". The point being that conditions for those women and children who hadn't been rounded up and interned by the British were much worse. However such feelings were not universal and resentment against the British continued in some quarters for many years thereafter. As recently as 1999, certain Afrikaners were calling for Queen Elizabeth II to issue a formal apology for the camps.
____________
Revelation
|
|
shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted August 17, 2010 03:01 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Pol Pot came to power for multiple reasons, for one, the government the Americans originally backed against him was undermined by having its population centres terror bombed by the United States, the Khmer Rouge at the time looked better than the corrupt government letting foreign powers bomb innocents and pretending it's okay.
Pol Pot and his fellow communists were struggling with the government for a decade before the US became involved with Vietnam. The Vietcong set up bases in Cambodia and the governemnt allowed the US to bomb those bases becasue they did not want the Vietcong communists within their borders.
Sorry, the US did not terror bomb anyone.
By "Bases" you mean towns and villiages. As you mentioned. This "isn't the Homm battlefield"
You'll never know what it's like to experience being in the middle of a conflict you have nothing to do with. You'll never know what it's like to have family killed by a foreign power called in by the corrupt government. That is why you're able to speak to coldly, so callously about what happened to my family. If you want to prevent terrible things from happening, you need to make sure the cure does not look worse than the problem to start.
My point was that even without any propaganda from the brutal rebel side, how easy do you think it would be for a government to pretend inviting people in to kill its own people is acceptable?
I find it hard to believe that you'd just take it lying down if you had to wipe your family's entrails off your face. Bombings also did not happen only at the border. They were a lot further in than people realize.
It may have been obvious if you stepped back and looked at it rationally that Pol Pot was a liar, an idiot and the wrong choice. But if your countrymen and family are in immediate danger you tend to go with the lesser evil (or just give up an die).
That's what most countries try, to choose the lesser evil. In the US' case, terror bombing appeared to be the lesser evil and the propagandists at home got to spin at as being "bases" and only "viet cong" that were killed. Just like how these days soldiers can surround a house with a baby shower, kill 5 people who were unarmed, claim the women among them were killed before they got there and claim the 2 men were "insurgents". You know the pentagon lies to you and propagandizes the news constantly right? That's why the news organizations are mostly against wikileaks. Because it exposes them as parrots or outright liars when the opposite comes to light as being true.
Quote:
Also, that bastion of liberalism, CNN, reports that Iraq wants the US to stay longer if Iraq still need US assistance.
CNN report
The President of Iraq perhaps, but it was a unanimous vote by all of the parties. The President doesn't have a say.
Quote:
Quote:
Then perhaps we need to find the right country invade first and not the one that had less ties to the attack than your allies
Sorry, but Saddam's ties to terrorism are quite well established. He funded, supplied, and trained Islamic terrorists. The US went after Islamic terrorism. Saddam refused to live up to his terms of surrender from the previous Gulf War and the US removed him.
Saddam and terrorism
There are much worse supporters of terror that could have been attacked or deposed. You know that most of the money flowing into terrorist organizations and many training camps are in Saudi Arabia right? You know that Bin Laden was a Saudi prince right? His family is royalty. You know that most of the hijackers are Saudi right? Oh, but then, the Iraqis don't own major chunks of the organizations deflecting the attention to the Iraqis, Iranians and others. (Saudis own at least small chunks of most major organizations in the country, it's why you never really hear anti-saudi news stories from the major news outhouses)
I'm not defending Saddam Hussein (greedy, selfish man who was ruthless in dealing with people who disagreed with him), but there are far worse organizations out there. For example, the IRA still randomly blows things up and their combined deathtoll over the years in Northern Ireland and England is higher than Al Quaeda. Why not fight the IRA? They may not be muslim terrorists but they are terrorists with a longer history and higher deathtoll. Why isn't the US helping its closest ally Britain then? Also, since Britain kicked Ireland's butt shouldn't they own the whole land by your logic in previous threads? Shouldn't they be blockading the country to prevent arms from getting in?
Quote:
Quote:
I confirm that the concentration camps were not to keep people from starving but rather to make people submit by forcing them into sub-hovelish conditions (leading to many deaths, intentionally).
Sorry, but your "confirmation" is not confirmed by historical facts.
Sorry, but your quote proves me right. Look at the numbers:
Quote:
In total some 26,730 Boers died in the concentration camps, and of these at least 20,000 were avoidable deaths. Although official government figures showed almost 15,000 deaths in the native camps, the current view is that a truer figure was in excess of 20,000.
20,000 out of nearly 27,000 were avoidable deaths. That's 70% of the deaths that could have been avoided by providing better conditions.
The war also was before the world wars ballooned army sizes and casualty sizes. 27,000 deaths was considered enormous in the 19th century!
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted August 20, 2010 11:28 AM |
|
|
Haven't you guys -still- figured out that presenting basic historical facts is pointless against Elodin?
____________
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted August 22, 2010 08:09 PM |
|
|
@
Moonlith
Quote:
Haven't you guys -still- figured out that presenting basic historical facts is pointless against Elodin?
It is unfortunate that you chose to continue to slur me and spout falsehoods.
@ Shyranis
Quote:
By "Bases" you mean towns and villiages. As you mentioned.
No, I meant bases. The US bombed Vietcong bases in Cambodia with permission from the Cambodian government.
Quote:
My point was that even without any propaganda from the brutal rebel side, how easy do you think it would be for a government to pretend inviting people in to kill its own people is acceptable?
I think it would foolish to think the US said, "Hey, king of Cambodia, "We want to murder some of your people. Mind if we come terror bomb some villages?"
The US bombed Vietcong bases set up by Vietnam in Cambodia.
Quote:
I find it hard to believe that you'd just take it lying down if you had to wipe your family's entrails off your face. Bombings also did not happen only at the border. They were a lot further in than people realize
The bombings were successful, and also the US and South Vietname sent in troops in an offensive that drove the Vietcong deeper into Cambodia. The offensive was with the permission of Cambodia.
I find it hard to fathom taht you seem to think that the US should just have allowed the Vietcong to operate "untouchable" bases.
Quote:
That's what most countries try, to choose the lesser evil. In the US' case, terror bombing appeared to be the lesser evil and the propagandists at home got to spin at as being "bases" and only "viet cong" that were killed. Just like how these days soldiers can surround a house with a baby shower, kill 5 people who were unarmed, claim the women among them were killed before they got there and claim the 2 men were "insurgents". You know the pentagon lies to you and propagandizes the news constantly right? That's why the news organizations are mostly against wikileaks. Because it exposes them as parrots or outright liars when the opposite comes to light as being true.
Sorry, but some loony tunes anti-American liberal has filled your head with lies which you seem to enjoy repeating. The US is not a terrorist. The US does not surround weddings to murder the bride, groom, and guests. You seem to believe the loony and cowardly Islamic terrorist propaganda.
America has often sent her own people to shed their blood for others and loony anti-Americah leftists accuse America of being the murdere. Please don't believe the leftist propaganda.
Also, amost all of the media in the US is controlled by loony leftist, most of whom are Marxists who hate America with a passion. They would gladly expose such plots by the US government. And surelyl you've seen Obama's "Bash America" tours?
Wikileaks doesn't mind at all that they released the names of Muslims who helped the US against terrorists and that those moderated Muslims will now be murdered by extremist Muslims.
Quote:
The President of Iraq perhaps, but it was a unanimous vote by all of the parties. The President doesn't have a say.
You can't believe everything Chris Matthews tells you.
Clicky
As sectarian violence soars, many Sunni Arab political and religious leaders once staunchly opposed to the American presence here are now saying they need American troops to protect them from the rampages of Shiite militias and Shiite-run government forces.
The pleas from the Sunni Arab leaders have been growing in intensity since an eruption of sectarian bloodletting in February, but they have reached a new pitch in recent days as Shiite militiamen have brazenly shot dead groups of Sunni civilians in broad daylight in Baghdad and other mixed areas of central Iraq.
The Sunnis also view the Americans as a “bulwark against Iranian actions here,” a senior American diplomat said. Sunni politicians have made their viewpoints known to the Americans through informal discussions in recent weeks.
......
So when an American convoy rolled in recently, a remarkable message rang out from the loudspeakers of the Abu Hanifa Mosque, where Saddam Hussein made his last public appearance before the fall of Baghdad in 2003.
“The American Army is coming with the Iraqi Army — do not shoot,” the voice said, echoing through streets still filled with supporters of Mr. Hussein. “They are here to help you.”
[url=http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/08/12/iraqi_general_to_us_military_stay_longer]
Quote:
First Tareq Aziz, Saddam Hussein's former deputy, said that the planned U.S. troop withdrawal was "leaving the country to the wolves." Now, the chief of staff of the Iraqi military, Lt. Gen. Babaker Zebari, says that the U.S. pullout was "too soon" -- and that his forces might not be able to secure the country for another decade. Well, at least the representatives of Iraq's old guard and its new regime are able to agree about something.
Anyways, now the US combat forces have left and hopefully Iraq can keep the freedom the US and her allies won for it.
Quote:
There are much worse supporters of terror that could have been attacked or deposed.
Saddam was financing and training Islamic terrorists, who pose a threat to the US and Saddam was not living up to the termos of surrender of the first Gulf War.
The IRA has not attacked the US nor has Britian ever asked for the US to aid it against the IRA, that I am aware of.
Quote:
Also, since Britain kicked Ireland's butt shouldn't they own the whole land by your logic in previous threads?
Sorry, but I've never said that just because a nation conquers another nation it has a right to keep the land it conquered. That would depend on the situation.
Quote:
Sorry, but your quote proves me right.
That is false. The article confirms that the goal was to starve out the guerilla armies and that the civilians were placed in concentration camps to keep them from starving. However, the camps were initially poorly managed and so some people starved. Britian did imporve the camps.
Sorry, the British internment camps were not death camps like the German concentration camps were.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted August 22, 2010 08:12 PM |
|
|
|
dragontooth2
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted August 23, 2010 08:02 PM |
|
|
My dad is Sir_Stiven and he doesnt follow orders. Like father, like son.
____________
|
|
Darkshadow
Legendary Hero
Cerise Princess
|
|
posted August 23, 2010 08:49 PM |
|
|
| |
|
|
