Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Mar 5th, 2003, 11:30 AM        At least we're not arrogant
U.S. Plans Heavy Bombing Campaign in Iraq

By PAULINE JELINEK, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - In a strategy Pentagon officials are calling "shock and awe," U.S. forces plan to drop 10 times the bombs in the opening days of the air campaign in Iraq than they did in the first Persian Gulf war , officials said Wednesday.





Shocking, sure, but 'Awe'? Is 'Awe' really a good word to decribe the reaction to really effectively blowing up lots of things and people? Shouldn't 'Awe' be reserved for Sunsets and the Grand Canyon and Tornadoes and you know, God? Is man made destruction really Awesome?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Anonymous Anonymous is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Anonymous is probably a spambot
Old Mar 5th, 2003, 11:36 AM       
awe ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ô)
n.
A mixed emotion of reverence, respect, dread, and wonder inspired by authority, genius, great beauty, sublimity, or might: We felt awe when contemplating the works of Bach. The observers were in awe of the destructive power of the new weapon. ,
Archaic.
The power to inspire dread.
Dread.


tr.v. awed, aw·ing, awes
To inspire with awe.


Looks proper to me. Let's bomb the fuck out of them and get our asses over to N. Korea.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Mar 5th, 2003, 11:51 AM       
Was that Websters, the O.E.D. or the Official Pentagon Dictionary?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
sspadowsky sspadowsky is offline
Will chop you good.
sspadowsky's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Thrill World
sspadowsky is probably a spambot
Old Mar 5th, 2003, 11:51 AM       
The Head Nigga may be right in the strictest sense, but I'm still inclined to agree with Burbank. I think we mostly use the word "awe" in a positive context.

For instance, compare these two conversations:

Steve: "I just got a $10,000 raise."
Jim: "Oh, man, that's AWEsome!"

Steve: "We're going to massacre about 100,000 innocent people!"
Jim: "AWEsome!"

They don't have quite the same ring. Like I said, I see what HNIC is saying, but that's one of those "letter of the law/spirit of the law" things.
________
Vaporizerinfo.com

Last edited by sspadowsky : Apr 18th, 2011 at 05:28 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Anonymous Anonymous is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Anonymous is probably a spambot
Old Mar 5th, 2003, 11:58 AM       
Awe can and should be used to describe anything that would appear extraordinary.

In much the same way that a volcano destroying an entire city would be an awesome site, I'm sure the display of might the United States military displays is a fairly "awesome" sight.

Destruction, nature, life, death... anything can be an awe inspiring site.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Mar 5th, 2003, 12:01 PM       
Arguably, but this is self describe awesomeness

As in

STEVE
Hey, Jim, when I kill your family and set fire to your house, you'll just stand there in Awe.

JIM
Wow, Steve. I always knew you were a fucking sack of crap.


STEVE
NO, Man, you're in AWE of the stuff I'm doing to you.

JIM
I guess how much I hate you is awesome.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Mar 5th, 2003, 12:05 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by mburbank
JIM
Wow, Steve. I always knew you were a fucking sack of crap.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Anonymous Anonymous is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Anonymous is probably a spambot
Old Mar 5th, 2003, 12:14 PM       
Although we clearly disagree on the politics of the war, I don't understand how you can argue with the fact that the site of the United States military could be considered awesome.

"Te power of the Germans during the years prior to WWII was truly awesome. Their might far exceeded that of any other force in Europe."

Although Hitler was a lunatic, and one of the most evil dictators to ever rise in modern history, he put together an "awesome" force.

We clearly needed to go show them who was boss too

In the end, the world will come to understand... we say who does what... period. Thank God we have the frredom to be as spoiled and as arrogant as we are .
Reply With Quote
  #9  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Mar 5th, 2003, 12:19 PM       
"we say who does what" is our national policy. As a stragtegy it's worked out really well for all the other powers who've tried it.

And you're right, I'll back off, the use of the word 'Awe' for man made destruction is legitame.

I think my objection is WE are using them word to describe OURSELVES destroying things.

It's not enough to do it. We have to brag about how big it's going to be. We can't say, "we will defeat you", we have to say "You will hold us in Awe". I think it's a poor choice of words. I think if our actions inspire awe at all it will be short lived.

A better name for this startegy would be "Shock and Murderous Rage". It describes what we're doing and what the reaction will almost certainly be.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Anonymous Anonymous is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Anonymous is probably a spambot
Old Mar 5th, 2003, 12:31 PM       
A large part of our strategy, since Vietnam, has been to puff out our chests and spread the word of our stregnth, much like the largest animal in a pack, or the head nigga of a gang.

Our "talking shit" is what causes Iraqis to carry white flags in their pants, and feed us info when captured. Our "talking shit" helps tremendously when reestablishing government after a regime change.

And, on a somewhat related subject...

When it comes down to it, we are the most civilized military on the planet (barring our tactics in the Revolution - but the British were asking for it). What military drops an equal amount of food, supplies and medicine, as it does artillery, besides the United States? Who else cares about establishing a new regime in the interest of the people of that country? What other country would HOLD the oil for when the new regime is in place. Screw that, EVERYONE else would take it.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
slavemason slavemason is offline
Senior Member
slavemason's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
slavemason is probably a spambot
Old Mar 5th, 2003, 12:31 PM       
Living in the south, I often hear "Awe, Shit!". It seems applicable in this situation as well.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Mar 5th, 2003, 12:46 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by HNICPantitude
When it comes down to it, we are the most civilized military on the planet (barring our tactics in the Revolution - but the British were asking for it).
It isn't the good, inate nature of our military that makes them that way. The military, thank God, abides by certain mores and regulations because it is demanded by the people of America.

But see, this is why we'll gladly allow an "enemy combatant" to be held for questioning in Pakistan, or caged up in Cuba. THESE actions reflect the true wishes of our military leaders, not their forced civility.


Quote:
What military drops an equal amount of food, supplies and medicine, as it does artillery, besides the United States? Who else cares about establishing a new regime in the interest of the people of that country?
Yeah, the Afghanis are lining up to thank us. :/


Quote:
What other country would HOLD the oil for when the new regime is in place. Screw that, EVERYONE else would take it.
What is this in reference to? Do you think the U.S. won't turn Iraqi oil into its own little project, ESPECIALLY if we attack with no UN support...?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Protoclown Protoclown is offline
The Goddamned Batman
Protoclown's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Richmond, VA
Protoclown is probably a spambot
Old Mar 5th, 2003, 12:50 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by slavemason
Living in the south, I often hear "Awe, Shit!". It seems applicable in this situation as well.
No, what you're hearing is "Aww, shit!" unless the person who said it is surfing from the bathroom on a fecal tide.
__________________
"It's like I'm livin' in a stinkin' poop rainbow." - Cordelia Burbank
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Anonymous Anonymous is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Anonymous is probably a spambot
Old Mar 5th, 2003, 01:15 PM       
Hey... Herbivore Bitch...

Yeah, the Afghanis are lining up to thank us.

http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20030225-2105526.htm

A national communications network? Better than eating rocks and beating women to death? hmmmmmm??? mayyyyybe

http://www.irna.com/en/head/030305165740.ehe.shtml

Afghan Transit trade..... better than riding the camel to the local tent for some opium and grain???? hmmmmmm? Mayyyyybe

http://www.paknews.com/flash.php?id=23&date1=2003-03-05


Billions and billions to build a country...... or praying Rambo films its next sequel there for $85,000 (USD) fee?

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/603127

Returning home to your home country after fleeing for fear of persecution..... nahhh.... who cares? shitting in a hole in the ground was much better

http://www.irinnews.org/report.asp?R...ry=AFGHANISTAN
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Anonymous Anonymous is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Anonymous is probably a spambot
Old Mar 5th, 2003, 01:21 PM       
What is this in reference to? Do you think the U.S. won't turn Iraqi oil into its own little project, ESPECIALLY if we attack with no UN support...?

__________________________________

Reuters 01/23/03

Original Link: http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=2090281

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Secretary of State Colin Powell promised that a U.S. military occupation would hold Iraq's oilfields "in trust" for the Iraqi people.

In an interview with U.S. newspapers on Tuesday, released by the State Department on Wednesday, Powell said the Bush administration was studying different models for managing the Iraqi oil industry if the United States invades.

"If we are the occupying power, it will be held for the benefit of the Iraqi people and it will be operated for the benefit of the Iraqi people," he said.

"How will we operate it? How best to do that? We are studying different models. But the one thing I can assure you of is that it will be held in trust for the Iraqi people, to benefit the Iraqi people. That is a legal obligation that the occupying power will have," he added.

Powell said the U.S. military would not want to run Iraq for long after a possible invasion but he declined to speculate how long U.S. troops would stay in the country.

"There is no desire for the United States armed forces to remain in charge or to run a country for any length of time beyond that which is necessary to make sure that there is an appropriate form of government to take over from the initial military occupation," he said.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Mar 5th, 2003, 01:28 PM       
Hey Pantitude bitch....

I'm glad your citation source is Colin Powell, of COURSE he'd saying anything to the contrary. Not to mention it's a dated article.....

You think it's solely (if even at all) the U.S. spearheading those reforms?????

http://www.i-mockery.net/viewtopic.php?t=1170

What about child molestation in Kandahar?
What about the increase in heroin?
What about Karzai BEGGING us to stay???

Keep your retarded ass in the General Blabber board.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Anonymous Anonymous is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Anonymous is probably a spambot
Old Mar 5th, 2003, 01:43 PM       
Get your fucking retarded ass back in General Blabber moron. We provide the foundation. Now they are like every other country on this fucking planet and want MORE.

It is not the United States' responsibility to hold their hand while they get a grip on their own society. What we did do is oust the Taliban control, which was the force holding them down. Nor was it our responsibility to be over there in the first place. It is however our responsibility to provide national security and a safe home for generations ahead.

The regime formerly in control of Afghanistan harbored terrorists, period. Granted, terrorists exist in every country, but not every countries controlling pseudeo-government funds them.

By planting the seeds of democracy in Afghanastan and iraq, which were both under extremely unstable dictatorships, we place pressure on other key countries in the Middle East, which is, in the end, the primary reason for our involvement.

The problem countries in the region are not, nor have they ever been Iraq, or Afghanistan, outside of the money and resources they provide in a pathetic "holy" war. The countries, again... are not even theocracies (so people that claim this is an anti-muslim war... think again).

The theocracies in the Middle East are Saudi Arabia, and more importantly, Iran. These countries will collapse in upon themselves, as we, in your thoughts, so unjustly force a changed regime in Iraq.

The entire region is not stable enough to withstand our presence there, and is therefore, very pliable at this point.


Read this... your spoiled American ass might learn something...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MARCH 3, 2003
By Nick Robertson

PORTLAND, Oregon, 3 March 2003 — Suppose Islam lost a great war. What would the consequences be? Some believe it will cause terrorism to erupt, disrupt the globe’s largest reserves of oil — the life-blood of the modern age — and plunge the Arab world into an age of fanaticism and darkness. But as we verge on a controversial war with Iraq, there is a fascinating — and surprising — lesson to be learned from another great battle in history.

On May 28, 1453, two of the greatest armies in the world ended an epic 52-day battle on the border of Europe and Asia. On one side the 100,000-man army of Sultan Mehmed II of the Ottoman Empire and the forces of Islam were attempting to capture one of the world’s greatest cities — Constantinople (now Istanbul). On the other side, behind the supposedly impenetrable walls of the city, were the defensive forces of the west — the 10,000 man force led by Byzantine Emperor Constantine XI.

Dragases. The battle for Constantinople is considered one of the greatest and most important confrontations in history.

Constantinople was one of the most vital possessions of the Christian world. The city was the capital of the East Roman — or Byzantine — Empire ever since the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great selected it as his new capital in 324 AD. Constantinople was the gateway between Europe and Asia, Christianity and Islam.

The city rested by the Bosporus, a watery straight which was the most important artery of international trade. Trade ships from Venice, Genoa, England, France, and much of Europe traveled past Constantinople to the eastern Black Sea ports which connected the European continent to the major trade centers of India and China. The wealth that traveled on this route built the economic power of the Western world — a 15th century version of today’s globalization of trade.

As the battle for Constantinople began, the Ottomans unleashed man’s newest weapon, artillery, to breach the city’s massive walls. Shortly after the shocking breakthrough, the Ottomans accomplished what had been deemed impossible for over a millennium — the fall of Constantinople. There was horror and disbelief as the forces of Islam routed the Western army. Panic swept across Europe. The vital trade routes to the East were now under enemy control, and an alien army with strange beliefs threatened to march through Europe.

Was this the end of the Western world? Quite the opposite. What seemed at the moment a knockout punch to Europe ended up causing great change. It literally forced the discovery of a new world.

Constantinople had been Europe’s center for intellectual studies for centuries. Its leaders promoted and encouraged classical studies and art. Many who lived inside the city’s walls devoted their lives to studying and preserving history’s classical past. When the Ottomans conquered the city, many of these intellectuals fled to Italy. This flight from war was directly responsible for the acceleration of one of the most important periods in Europe’s history, the Renaissance.

Classic ideas, locked inside the walls of Constantinople for centuries, broke free and spread out across Europe. Isolated city-states began to gradually dissolve. For the first time in history, nation states — like Spain and Portugal — emerged. The Renaissance brought Europe into an age of light after an age of darkness.

It also changed the shape of the world.

Since Constantinople’s fall blocked overland trade routes to the spice markets of South and East Asia, the emerging nation states needed new routes to the riches of the East. The Great Age of Exploration began. Brave men such as Christopher Columbus, Vasco da Gama, and Magellan circumnavigated the globe to find new routes across vast, unknown oceans. In the process they discovered the world — and many of its secrets, treasures and mysteries.

Now we face another important battle. Hopefully it can be avoided. But in the long run the result of a victory for the US and its allies may not cause havoc and a new dark age in the Arab world as many fear. As with the battle for Constantinople, it may in fact cause the opposite.

If liberated from their intellectual and physical imprisonment, the Iraqi people may well take full advantage of their new-found freedom. Iraq has the potential to become the center of a Renaissance for the Middle East. With a new regime focused on human rights and freedom, and with the financial security of 100 billion barrels of oil beneath their desert, a new Iraq can lead the Islamic world into an age of cultural and intellectual renewal. From repression can emerge an age of ingenuity and invention worthy of a country that was once the cradle of civilization.

Repression creates anger. Anger with little hope of change creates radicalism. Radicalism can destroy civilizations. The liberation of Iraq could break this dangerous cycle. Like the movement of Constantinople’s intellectuals coming into Italy in 1453, a liberated Iraq’s influence on the people throughout the region could be tremendous.

As with Europe in the 15th century Renaissance, Iraq’s people could begin to focus on the freedom, dignity and worth of the individual, man or woman. These ideals would spread through the Arab world.

The fall of Constantinople triggered some of the greatest changes in human history. Though both sides suffered great human loses, defeat at the hands of the Ottomans ushered in Europe’s great age of reason and the exploration of the world. The same might well occur in the Middle East as a post-Saddam Iraq leads the exploration of a brave new world of human freedom.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Vibecrewangel Vibecrewangel is offline
Member
Vibecrewangel's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Vibecrewangel is probably a spambot
Old Mar 5th, 2003, 02:02 PM       
Quote:
If liberated from their intellectual and physical imprisonment, the Iraqi people may well take full advantage of their new-found freedom. Iraq has the potential to become the center of a Renaissance for the Middle East. With a new regime focused on human rights and freedom, and with the financial security of 100 billion barrels of oil beneath their desert, a new Iraq can lead the Islamic world into an age of cultural and intellectual renewal. From repression can emerge an age of ingenuity and invention worthy of a country that was once the cradle of civilization.
I like this section. I like to believe this may be true.
I am hopefull.
__________________
Normally, we do not so much look at things as overlook them.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
FS FS is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Fribbulus Xax
FS is probably a spambot
Old Mar 5th, 2003, 02:21 PM       
Quote:
By planting the seeds of democracy in Afghanastan and iraq
You mean "dropping the bombs of democracy", right?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Anonymous Anonymous is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Anonymous is probably a spambot
Old Mar 5th, 2003, 02:36 PM       
As opposed to little one-liners FatSatan... tell me, what would YOU propose we do to remove dictators who finance terrorism against our country, (and I know your Scottish, or French, or some shit), but, in this instance, I refer to the United States.

We could wait until someone can implement the delivery of a dirty bomb, or bio/chem.

So, you are telling me, in your opinion, that; 1) Saddam is not, nor has he ever supported financially, or provided other resources to Al Qaueda, or any other terrorist group?, 2) He does not practice mass genocide within his own country to his own people, 3) He has lived up to the very simple, and minimal ruleset provided him by a very cooperative United Nations (whom I think is a bullshit organization) - but nevertheless - he broke evry aspect of 1441.

So, in my estimation, your argument states that the big, bad United States is attacking preemptively and without cause???

Or, am I missing your lackluster sarcastic point?
Reply With Quote
  #21  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Mar 5th, 2003, 03:42 PM       
Pantydude.... whoah. Is your niche here going to be a slightly more articulate Naldo?

A few quick points;
"Our "talking shit" helps tremendously when reestablishing government after a regime change. "
-Have we done this since the Marshal Plan?

Here's the lead on the story you linked to under your comment
"Billions and billions to build a country......"

"KABUL (Reuters) - The Afghan government said on Wednesday it would launch a new bid this month to raise more international financial assistance, saying it had received far less than several other countries recovering from conflict."

Hey! Pantydude? Can I have a billion Dollars? Look now I'm a Billionaire. Oh, crap, I forgot that 'launching a bid' and 'getting money' were different. Check the article I posted in Whoops! Afghansitan may indeed get money from us, but W. forgot to budget ANYTHING AT ALL for his 'Marshall Plan'.

"It is not the United States' responsibility to hold their hand while they get a grip on their own society."

Actually, it would be not only enlightened but in our own interest to 'Hold their hand' as you put it or as I think of it 'Do what we can to keep their country from slipping into the sort of anarchy that made it ripe for takeover by the Taliban in the first place'. It would also be the decent, American thing to do, seeing as while overthrowing the Taliban we killed a whole bunch of civillians, interupted a very nice wedding and destroyed what little was left of their infrastructure.

"By planting the seeds of democracy in Afghanastan"

I assume you are refering to our round the clock bodygaurds for Karzi. 'Cause aside from keeping him alive, I'm kind of missing the 'seeds'. Although I'm not sure we should plant any Democracy their. Democracy is majority rules kind of deal, and a whole lot of those folks hate us. Oh, wait! I be5t you mean a deomcracy like Turkey, where 90% of the people don't want us there, but the leadership will probably invite us anyway becuase we're payimng them a lot of money and we might give them Northern Iraq.

As for Powells process that the oil in Iraq will belong to and be run by the Iraqi people, I'll believe it IF I see it. Since we haven't even invaded yet, this seems a little premature. Here's the thing though, just in case it goes down? Haliburton? Not an Iraqi company. You never know though. I'd be happier than you can imagine to eat those words.

Here's the lead from your link on Afghans lining up to thank us.
" An Afghan dentist and professional cyclist who rode across the Mideast and Europe in the past 10 months arrived in Washington yesterday to meet with his nation's ambassador to the United States."

Dude. This isn't even four out of five Afghan Dentists. I'm guessing he wasn't a guest at that wedding we blew up.

Your link under them getting a national communications network is about what INDIA says they'll do for them. INDIA! Plus the article is bout talks, not actions or even commitments. AND its the largess and self interest of INDIA, not us. Maybe the ouster of the Taliban made this possible, or maybe the Taliban would have made a similar deal with Pakistan. Your argument, such as it is, works better for the Opium trade, which has doubled since the Taliban fell.

Speaking of Pakistan, that's what your article linked under Trade is all about. Not us, PAKISTAN. Pakistan active trade with Afghanistan under the Taliban. The only way for it to grow will be if Karzi gets some money from Congress, becuase Bush forgot to give him any.

Your basic argument that our war machine is way nicer than other war machines... I find that like saying "You're grateful I didn't kill you, though, right?" as I bandage you up and spoon feed you soup after breaking your nose. We're SUPPOSED to be the good guys, that's what America is all about and patting ourselves on the back for being less brutal than other people falls way short.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
FS FS is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Fribbulus Xax
FS is probably a spambot
Old Mar 5th, 2003, 04:09 PM       
Well, I've heard of a picture saying thousand words, but a single remark?

Pants, hold your horses. Though I'm not exactly waving my miniature American flag at the current state of affairs in your country, I'm not burning it either. I don't hate Americans as a whole, but I'm pretty sure I hate Bush and most of his administration.

All I'm saying is, maybe you need to let go of the fantastic myth that American soldiers spread joy and happiness wherever they go, which lights up their surroundings with a glow of warmth that lasts for centuries to come. "Collateral damage" is just a hip phrase for "sorry we bombed your hospital".

A while ago, I nearly got into a heated debate with Helm because he was reading into my remarks about Afghanistan wrongly. GRANTED, the removal of the Taliban has already done a lot of good over there, but half the battle is yet to come. Everyone's far too eager to forget about the Afghanis who are now walking through a country that was already outdated, and now crushed and mined on top of it. You can pat yourself on the back for the few pennies that people now fob at them, but I believe that taking the liberty of bombing them automatically demands you fix them up again. And no shit about the bombings on Afghanistan being nothing more than "sending a message" to the Taliban for harboring terrorists. We're supposed to be the civilized ones.

Lastly, I need to add that I'm not just bashing the US here. The UN and other such international organizations are still doing far too less on their own accord for my taste.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #23  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Mar 5th, 2003, 08:31 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by HNICPantitude
Get your fucking retarded ass back in General Blabber moron. We provide the foundation. Now they are like every other country on this fucking planet and want MORE.
Even if this were true, which it isn't, it still doesn't support your ASSumption that "WE" are the sole facilitators of democracy around the world. The fact of the matter is that Great Britain has played a MUCH more key, hands on role in the restoration of Afghanistan.


Quote:
It is not the United States' responsibility to hold their hand while they get a grip on their own society. What we did do is oust the Taliban control, which was the force holding them down. Nor was it our responsibility to be over there in the first place. It is however our responsibility to provide national security and a safe home for generations ahead.
Fine, but this isn't the same thing as being the puritan crusaders that you have made us out to be. I'm glad you pulled your head out of you ass long enough to admit that EVEN the saintly U.S. acts out of its own self-interest on an international scale.

Quote:
The regime formerly in control of Afghanistan harbored terrorists, period. Granted, terrorists exist in every country, but not every countries controlling pseudeo-government funds them.
What about Qatar and Saudi Arabia? Don't even start this, it's off topic, and you're a moron.

Quote:
By planting the seeds of democracy in Afghanastan and iraq, which were both under extremely unstable dictatorships, we place pressure on other key countries in the Middle East, which is, in the end, the primary reason for our involvement.
1. What did we do to instill "democracy" in Afghanistan?
2. How democratic and free will the Kurds be if we bow to Turkey?
3. If you think are main reason for invading Iraq right now is to instill democracy, than please, find me a trained chimp to hold a conversation with. It'll go better.

Quote:
The problem countries in the region are not, nor have they ever been Iraq, or Afghanistan, outside of the money and resources they provide in a pathetic "holy" war. The countries, again... are not even theocracies (so people that claim this is an anti-muslim war... think again).
Barely coherent, not the point, la-ditty-frickin-da. The argument was whether or not the U.S. Military is an army of white knights, why, and is any other military/government similar? England and Canada have already answered "yes" to that question. Your comic book perspective of the world is incorrect.

Quote:
The theocracies in the Middle East are Saudi Arabia, and more importantly, Iran. These countries will collapse in upon themselves, as we, in your thoughts, so unjustly force a changed regime in Iraq.
Again, maybe I agree or disagree with this statement, not the point, lay off the drugs.

Even NOW, after the Gulf War, and DESPITE Hussein being a son of a bitch, Iraq HAS been, and CONTINUES to be rated as one of the most progressive Arab states.

Before 1991, women attended college, they had more rights than in many other overly-Islamic states, Iraq had a water/sewage system that made even Europe envious. If our main goal in the Middle East was to bring freedom and civility, we maybe should've focused on some of our "allies," such Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, and even Kuwait.

Quote:
Read this... your spoiled American ass might learn something...
Wah, wah, wah, Pantitudde thought the world was the never ending fight against Cobra and got upset when his dreams were crushed.

I am proud of America. I'm glad to live in America. But that doesn't mean I'm going to sit back and be a mindless droid such as yourself.

THE ARTICLE:

Great piece on why America should be Rome....

Quote:
Was this the end of the Western world? Quite the opposite. What seemed at the moment a knockout punch to Europe ended up causing great change. It literally forced the discovery of a new world.
Quote:
If liberated from their intellectual and physical imprisonment, the Iraqi people may well take full advantage of their new-found freedom. Iraq has the potential to become the center of a Renaissance for the Middle East.
Do you know anything about Baghdad? Have you ever talked to anybody who has been there? Ever spoken to an Iraqi?? Do you REALLY think that Baghdad is culturally polarized from the rest of the world?? You're a dolt.

Baghdad has a blossoming art society, films, people in Iraq read the NY Times and watch CNN. Your article only proves that you are a xenophobic fool who would rather take a guy from Portland's opinion on Iraq over an actual Iraqi, or at least someone who has spent time there.

Quote:
new regime focused on human rights and freedom, and with the financial security of 100 billion barrels of oil beneath their desert, a new Iraq can lead the Islamic world into an age of cultural and intellectual renewal. From repression can emerge an age of ingenuity and invention worthy of a country that was once the cradle of civilization.
Funny, as I already mentioned, Iraq was closer to this in 1990 than they are now, or will be after this war....

Why have we opened up markets with an oppressive nation like China? Has it been for reasons similar to this? Do you think SANCTIONS for a decade help create an "Islamic renaissance"??? I'm interested in your thoughts on these matters, Panty waiste.

Quote:
ion creates anger. Anger with little hope of change creates radicalism. Radicalism can destroy civilizations. The liberation of Iraq could break this dangerous cycle. Like the movement of Constantinople’s intellectuals coming into Italy in 1453, a liberated Iraq’s influence on the people throughout the region could be tremendous.
Somewhere, Thomas Friedman is crying.

I wonder what Khabul's art houses are like these days.....

The rest was sanctimonious bullshit. Thanks for wasting my time, jackass.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
GAsux GAsux is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Las Vegas
GAsux is probably a spambot
Old Mar 5th, 2003, 09:47 PM        Yes, and yes....
I agree actually that the U.S. does make considerable efforts to avoid unnecessary damage, in spite what it may seem to some of you. Given the nature and sophisticaion of our weapons systems, they could easily wreak heaps more havoc than they do.

So on that point, I do agree with Max that to some degree that's not much to be proud of. But it depends on your point of view. From a non-military standpoint, it's true that perhaps there isn't much honor in saying our bombs are "nicer" than most peoples bombs. But from a soldiers standpoint, there is some honor in the fact that FOR THE MOST PART, every attempt is made to keep from abusing the lethality of those weapons.

It's probably a seperate issue entirely but I suppose we could have a discussion as to WHY military tactics employed by the U.S. these days is what it is. In my opinion, since Vietnam, military tactics are dictated far less by strategy than by politics.

The Allied Force air campaign was a perfect example. Since Vietnam, we've been deathly afraid of military casualties. Politicians and military leaders alike learned that the American public would not long stand for protracted campaigns that cost lots of American lives. Every war we've fought since has been planned around a minimal risk strategy.

In Bosnia, we were flying at 30,000 feet to avoid the extensive air defense network to protect our fliers. However, flying at such heights made accurate and effective bombing of individual targets like tanks, tracked vehicles, etc virtually impossible. Particularly when they were well placed by Milosovic.

In my opinion, the "shock and awe" strategy is another direct reflection of the attitude. The administration knows that public opinion will not support war for long. Therefore, war must be fought quickly, decisively, and in such a way that ensures minimal risk for U.S. forces.

In their mind, the public would much rather see 500 cruise missiles an hour fired at a long, far away country, than see their friends, neighbors, and co-workers come home in body bags.

Unfortunately war is ugly business and sometimes you just can't have it all. You can't effectively fight a risky battle, and do it right (ie. not indiscriminate bombing)without placing your own forces at risk.

But I dunno, that's just me.

EDIT: Stupid spelling. Grammar sucks.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
AChimp AChimp is offline
Resident Chimp
AChimp's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: The Jungles of Borneo
AChimp is probably a real personAChimp is probably a real person
Old Mar 5th, 2003, 10:44 PM       
I think by "awesome" they mean that it'll be a wicked explosion to watch from outer space.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:32 AM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.