|
Post by Sidhe on Mar 8, 2006 2:56:51 GMT -5
I'm talking about we as a people this war over here is about as popular in our country as in yours. honestly I had no say in my countries historical decisions or the current ones and your still missing the point, saying that you are right because someones country did bad things and so you have no say on anything is at best naive at the worst ignorant. Believe it or not, not everyone is some sort of media led puppet. The US is a political child with little or no real subtelty. It's good that you love your country but your government sucks, it's like watching a group of children squable over who gets the last biscuit( it's the biggest child that whinges the loudest and offers to punch anyone who doesn't agree with them strategy) Machaeveli must be looking up from Hell and laughing his nads off. If you insist on using reputation as any guide to the veracity of an argument then I sugest you look at your own, since 1950 the US has stumbled from one pointless and politicaly damaging conflict to another. Ever heard of the expression softly softly catchy monkey?
|
|
|
Post by MMV on Mar 8, 2006 7:46:35 GMT -5
No oppinions were expressed on this side of the argument, only historical fact.
No "sidhe you're wrong" attitude was expressed either, and this was done intentionally.
why? to render your usual insultng embellishments fruitless.
since 1950? Other than Grenada and Panama, the only conflcts we have been involved in have been post-european failed colonialism messes. vietnam (france), middle-east (british) iraq (british)
I used facts; you used oppinions, perceptions and mild jabs.
you can't argue with history, it happened; it's there; it's at your fingertips.
you can't argue with sidhe, he thinks his oppinions and perceptions are fact.
and when sidhe feels threatened in his perceptual arguments, he turns to insults.
in fact, there IS "post-50's" historical evidence of failed american colonialism that you could use in a VALID discussion, but you're either unaware of them or too "uninterested" to find them and use that historical fact.
you use oppionion; mostly yours, mostly theoretical, mostly wrong.
you post on these boards in an attempt for some kind of personal "self validation" which you won't find.
Consider making a post that doesn't insult someone, some time, some thing, and you may find that your own level of self-respect and tolerance would increase.
3 months, +700 posts, 2 bans, and 2 suspensions should give you a meaurement of your never-ending oppinions and actions.
Again, historical fact, not oppinion.
finally, before you resort to insults; yes, my father DID make bathtub gin.
|
|
|
Post by ajerzguy on Mar 8, 2006 8:21:58 GMT -5
Sidhe, what are you talking about when you say since "1950"?
Would that include the UN sanctioned Korean Conflict? The conflict in Viet Nam after the French abandoned the South Viet Namese? The rescuing of prisoners held in Iran by the religious dictator who spent 20 years in exile in Britain? Or is it the arresting of the head of state drug lord Noriega who to this days sits in prison? Maybe it's the gaining the release of the college students that were be held prisoner in Grenada? And don't forget the aid to the Afghani resistors against the Russians. The 1st Gulf war was a UN venture headed by the US. The Us could have rolled into Baghdad then if we really wanted to. At the conclusion of that conflict Iraq had sanctions placed on it which were never adhered to. Just maybe the US went into the second conflict to save face for the French, Germans, and Russians who were violating those sanctions all along. Could it be that those countries didn't want the world to know of their under the table dealings in the "food for oil" scandal. Let's not forget the UN action in Bosnia also.
The UN is far more corrupt than any US president and it tries to impose its will on America, yet we are the 1st to come to its will.
The problem with the US is that we are as strong as we are therefore the 1st nation to come to anyones aid is us. That aid comes in the form of military action, medical supplies, food donations, and disaster aid. I can go on if you like.
No government or its people want to go to war of any kind. It is the dolts that sit around and watch things unfold and make excuses and then find themselves in trouble with no way of getting out.
You and your ilk are always blaming the US. We are in a position where we can't win, "we are damned if we do and damned if we don't". The US is the greatest ally Britain has, don't ever forget that.
I'll say one more time; bring all our troops home from all around the globe. Secure our borders with those troops. Pull out of the UN. Deport subversives within the US. Deport illegal aliens. Let the rest of the free world deal with the problems.
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Mar 8, 2006 13:29:08 GMT -5
No oppinions were expressed on this side of the argument, only historical fact. People don't like the way your government behaves, your attitude that your way is the only tru way and your inept diplomacy, get over it, as diplomats the US have often not cut itNo "sidhe you're wrong" attitude was expressed either, and this was done intentionally. why? to render your usual insultng embellishments fruitless. What embelishments, what are you talking about, you've been saying things like I am wrong because my country we're stupid in the past I don't see how? I admit our country have made some pretty big blunders in the past, and done some pretty bad things, that's when we see another country doing the same thing I have no probelm with saying your diplomaticaly infantile atm. And my countries past indicretions do not conditionally make what I say more false? Get over the idea that your country has to be right for your points to count. In that case ATM anything you say is pointless nonsense since 1950? Other than Grenada and Panama, the only conflcts we have been involved in have been post-european failed colonialism messes. vietnam (france), middle-east (british) iraq (british) Who give s a damn, who caused it? My opinion is independent of my countries blunders, stop trying to reneder argument conditional, it's total nonsense? I used facts; you used oppinions, perceptions and mild jabs. What are my inacurate facts? America are politically incompetant and have been over most of the last 50 years.
you can't argue with history, it happened; it's there; it's at your fingertips. you can't argue with sidhe, he thinks his oppinions and perceptions are fact. When did I say this? My opinions of your government are probably widely shared by much of the world and much of your own people? if they aren't fact then, they are at least widespreadand when sidhe feels threatened in his perceptual arguments, he turns to insults. Stating that your government behaves like a bullying child is an insult but it's also true atm.in fact, there IS "post-50's" historical evidence of failed american colonialism that you could use in a VALID discussion, but you're either unaware of them or too "uninterested" to find them and use that historical fact. you use oppionion; mostly yours, mostly theoretical, mostly wrong. [/b] you post on these boards in an attempt for some kind of personal "self validation" which you won't find. Consider making a post that doesn't insult someone, some time, some thing, and you may find that your own level of self-respect and tolerance would increase. You might like to try it some time, you spend 80% of your time on this forum taking the piss out of other people 3 months, +700 posts, 2 bans, and 2 suspensions should give you a meaurement of your never-ending oppinions and actions. 1 ban actually, originally banned from ladder and next ccc, then some would say rightly told people where they could go stick there alegations of cheating nad got a couple of weeks ban? You seem to be the only one making this stuff up, may I remind you you also have been banned once? Although nothing actually happened, oddly enough?
Again, historical fact, not oppinion. Americas colonial history sub 20th century is of no relevance to it's modern practice, as I said before you can't judge countries on the action of different times, the world was colonial then, not just a few countries but many different powers vying for the upper hand, something we happened to do rather well at, though I question some of our methods.finally, before you resort to insults; yes, my father DID make bathtub gin. I'm insulting your government not you, maybe if you actually read the post you'll notice that?
[/quote] Colour by me MMV your popularity world wide is low, if your government insists on continuing to bully nations then it will sink lower. Get the idiots out of poewer and get some shrewd politicians back in, I agree dusty Raegan was instrumental in bringing about the end of the cold war, another political disaster, although it's a complicated beast.
|
|
|
Post by Assédix on Mar 8, 2006 18:35:15 GMT -5
Get the idiots out of poewer and get some shrewd politicians back in, I agree dusty Raegan was instrumental in bringing about the end of the cold war, another political disaster, although it's a complicated beast. You can hardly call Reagan "shrewd" though, can you? Good grief, by the end of his career the Altzheimer filaments were growing out of his ears lol And what evidence do you have that Muslims are being tortured to death in US concentration camps? Some Moslim cleric tell you that? Torture being common practise in the network of secret concentration camps that the US maintain throughout the world is now well documented. Some additional evidence was on german TV last night, a high british diplomat speaking in front of a European parliament committee that investigates if this is also going on within our borders (it probably is). Of course, you wouldn't see any footage of such events on the other side of the Atlantic, as it obviously "never happened". As for the usual insults coming from our lively redneck community the minute one as much as hints at critisism it fails to cope with: no I do not disdain entire countries, and frankly find it quite hard to understand people who do. I will also be the first to point out here that a large portion of the guilt for the status quo lies with Europe: Britain for joining the Iraq war and everyone else for turning the usual blind eye to what is going on in return for economic advantages.
|
|
|
Post by MMV on Mar 8, 2006 19:23:06 GMT -5
"3 months, +700 posts, 2 bans, and 2 suspensions should give you a meaurement of your never-ending oppinions and actions[/i]"
2 bans - c3 board and c4spg 2 suspensions - c4 board and ccc
not an oppinion - but facts.
but, that's not the point - the point is patterned behavior.
no matter - post long and prosper.
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Mar 9, 2006 2:50:44 GMT -5
Who cares anyway? I speak my mind and personally if people start abusing me for something I didn't do then I'll get banned again, I'm not going to sit back and listen to a bunch of knowless fools accuse me of cheating, they got burned on that too, and instead of learning from the first time they did exactly the same again, valuable lessons learned all round. Given the same situation I'd get banned again, I don't think the admins and whiplash (the worlds greatest authority on being judgemental) making libelous accusations with no evidence is any way to behave. As for C3 that was for breaking a rule I never even knew existed, besides C3 has a real serious cheating problem it wasn't epidemic but since there are programs that alow you to cheat without effecting the saves in Civ 3 I thought I'd point it out, they didn't want to know, my mistake, this is the reason I wont play C3c any more: too many cheats it's a waste of my personal time, it may happen one in 20 games but I'm not going to accept those odds. MMV you should be banned right now. I ask again why aren't you? It's Civ4spg's loss anyway, nuts happens. Fried likes to bait people into losing their temper then ban them, it's what he does. And you really do have to get over the fact that my reputation is no indication of my points? Is it sinking in yet, even Manson was capable of making a relevant point. Now if your done with muck raking, just admit Bush is incompetent and we can move on
|
|
|
Post by Puff the magic Dragon on Mar 9, 2006 6:30:31 GMT -5
MMV an interesting character was banned from military for his sexual preferences now spends his time trying to get people banned from a ladder as revenge. ;D
|
|
|
Post by MMV on Mar 9, 2006 8:20:02 GMT -5
MMV an interesting character was banned from military for his sexual preferences now spends his time trying to get people banned from a ladder as revenge. ;D yeah right. brb, gotta file 3 dozen false reports to my clan.
|
|
|
Post by ajerzguy on Mar 9, 2006 8:24:19 GMT -5
Valid points DD. However your praise of JFK is somewhat muddled. I'm not sure if it is because of the way history and is taught or if it's because you don't get all of the information in Canada. Yes he caused the Soviet Union to back down during the Cuban Missile Crisis. However, you are forgetting the failed "Bay of Pigs" fiasco which was orchestrated and sanctioned by JFK with the aid of the CIA. The US had less than 500 military advisor's in Viet Nam under then President Eisenhower. Kennedy increased the numbers and Johnson was the propagator of the "Gulf of Tonkien" ruse which got us totally involved. This was during the height of the Cold War. You bring up the US' involvement but fail to mention both the parts that the Soviet Union and China had while supporting the North Viet Namese communist regime.
America was probably at it's lowest morale during the Carter administration with its worst unemployment, high inflation since 1929 and the "Great Depression". Our military had also been pared during this time as payback for the Viet Nam conflict. 1979 brought upon us the ousting of the Shah of Iran and the takeover of Iran by the Ayatollah Khomeini. The taking of US hostages and Carters failed attempt to rescue them with our unprepared helicopters that broke down over the desert.
Ronald Reagan restored America's pride and dignity throughout the world. He was certainly not the " rouge, trigger happy cowboy" that the democrats and foreign opinion labeled him as being. His election in Nov 1980 was a direct cause of those Americans being released the week of the Super Bowl in Jan 1981. It's safe to say the Iranians didn't want to test him. Mohammar Qaddafi then started to rattle his sword and financed the downing of a jetliner over Ireland. Reagan was swift to react even though the French refused to allow our planes to enter their airspace. We went around and you haven't heard from him since. Nipped it in the bud I guess.
Although the collapse of the Soviet Union was not during his presidency. He was instrumental in it it's demise.
That brings us to the UN propagated Gulf War when Saddam decided it was time to test it's resolve with the invasion of Kuwait. Where did the UN go to carry this out? To the United States, where else? Kuwait was freed, the world had an opportunity to rid itself of Saddam but refused. So, Bush ended the conflict even though he may have gotten support from a number of Arab countries. Bush lost re-election due to his failed promise "Read my lips,no new taxes" not because of the Gulf War.
That brings us to the second "coming of Carter" in the form of Clinton. The same Clinton that failed to graduate from Oxford, probably because he was to busy demonstrating in England, France and Russia against the Vietnam conflict. His and Hillary's total disdain for the military and intelligence agencies was just short of criminal. Luckily for them Bosnia came about early in his administration otherwise we would have had a harder time there also. Bosnia, another UN police action carried out by the US. Once that was over he systematically pared our military and handcuffed our intelligence agency's by forbidding them to share information. 1993 brought us the first attack on American soil. The failed attempt to fell the Towers with bombs that were set off under one hoping it would topple into the other. That was declared a law enforcement project, not an act of aggression by terrorists. Remember the next UN foray? It was Somalia and the dragging and mutilation of an American helicopter pilot through the streets. Black Hawk down was not fiction. It was the reverting back to an untrained unprepared military carrying out the UN's mandate. Then of course the events of 9/11/01 which were enabled by the Clinton administration.
The point here is to bring to your attention that other than Panama (drug dealing dictator), Granada (liberating US college students), Qaddafi and of course Viet Nam were all UN sanctioned. The US does the dirty work for the UN and then gets the label of aggressor. We spend our lives, equipment and money without any reparations from the UN.
It's about time we pulled out of the UN and see where that leads the rest of the world.
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Mar 9, 2006 14:23:49 GMT -5
A mostly non biased and thoughtfull post from Ajerzy, much better One point though with Libya you did try and bomb Qudafi duck to hell, bombing a country your not at war with is considered diplomaticly unsound, and slagging off France for not letting you use their air bases to bomb them is not exactly good diplomacy either, nor is missing your target causing a fair bit of colateral damage and killing a hell of alot of inocent people. I'd have to say what's the difference at face value between this and a terrorist attack gone wrong? Osama Bin Laden sites this attack as one of the definitive reasons for his terrorism. I fail to see the threat that Qudafi posed anyway. Not one of Aermicas shiniest moments.
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Mar 9, 2006 14:44:09 GMT -5
A mostly non biased and thoughtfull post from Ajerzy, much better One point though with Libya you did try and bomb Qudafi duck to hell, bombing a country your not at war with is considered diplomaticly unsound, and slagging off France for not letting you use their air bases to bomb them is not exactly good diplomacy either, nor is missing your target causing a fair bit of colateral damage and killing a hell of alot of inocent people. I'd have to say what's the difference at face value between this and a terrorist attack gone wrong? Osama Bin Laden sites this attack as one of the definitive reasons for his terrorism. I fail to see the threat that Qudafi posed anyway. Not one of Aermicas shiniest moments. What a rediculous post! First off, we were not denied the use of bases in France we were denied the permission to fly over France. So that added a few hundred km's to the mission. The main point is that Lybia was involved with international terrorism and the US put an end to that with this mission.
|
|
|
Post by ajerzguy on Mar 9, 2006 15:40:58 GMT -5
DD, you are only using Iraq as an example. The reason we have not pulled out of there yet is that it has not been stabilized. Afghanistan is not stable either although it is more stable than Iraq. We assisted Afghanistan gain their independence of the Tali ban and all of it's ills. Is it a perfect situation? Of course not. However, anytime a war is propagated there is a period of time to readjust. We did not just leave both Germany or Japan. Many would argue that our staying there not only stabilized the situation it also helped both countries to get back on their feet. Japan is one of the most prosperous countries in the world today. Germany and also South Korea have advanced also. Once a war is won it is only natural for the victor to stay. Israel was in the West Bank and Golan Heights for over 30 years. Yes their reasoning was mainly for national security . Ours in Iraq is for stability. Give them time to adjust to their new found freedom. Allow the people to decide how they are going to be governed. Do you honestly believe that the situation would be normal if the US and Britain had just pulled out. With both there the situation is chaotic to say the least. It certainly would not be better had we abandoned the people. As a matter of fact that is one of the reasons the Shiite did not rally behind us the second time around. They felt we abandoned them after the first Gulf War. We are not involved in their politics. We did not interfere with their elections. We are trying to help train a military force that can protect itself. Sidhe, all of my last post was from memory. In fact the reason was a terrorist bombing in Germany which the US held Qaddafi responsible. "The U.S. attacked Libyan patrol boats from January to March 1986 during clashes over access to the Gulf of Sidra, which Libya claimed as territorial waters. Later, on April 15, 1986, Reagan ordered major bombing raids, dubbed Operation El Dorado Canyon, against Tripoli and Benghazi that killed 60 people following U.S. accusations of Libyan involvement in a bomb explosion in West Berlin's La Belle discotheque, a nightclub frequented by U.S. servicemen on April 5. Among the fatalities of the April 15 retaliatory attack by the U.S. was the adopted daughter of the Libyan leader". Excerpted from wikipedia.org. Although it was a failure in that Qaddafi lived it helped in bringing about the end of his terrorist funding, harboring, and training activities. If a man is standing in front of you with a crazed look and a gun in his hand saying he is going to kill you, I doubt very much if you're going to hang around to see if it's true. I would also think that if you have the opportunity you would stop him before he fulfilled his threat. You could run and hide or you can retaliate. The US decided it was in it's best interest to retaliate. It is human nature to push things to the brink if you feel you can get away with it. Qaddafi tested Reagans resolve and he lost. It's as simple as that. Read the article that I took this from at wikipedia.org/wiki/Moammar_Al_Qaddafi. One other thing Sidhe, a couple of posts back you stated you didn't like our government. I think what you really meant is that you don't like who is leading our government now. Personally I'd rather have the entire world fell the same wat as you do than to have to try and defend ourselves with either a Carter, Clinton, Gore, or Kerry. They would rather placate and leave the problem to others in the future.
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Mar 9, 2006 16:56:58 GMT -5
A mostly non biased and thoughtfull post from Ajerzy, much better One point though with Libya you did try and bomb Qudafi duck to hell, bombing a country your not at war with is considered diplomaticly unsound, and slagging off France for not letting you use their air bases to bomb them is not exactly good diplomacy either, nor is missing your target causing a fair bit of colateral damage and killing a hell of alot of inocent people. I'd have to say what's the difference at face value between this and a terrorist attack gone wrong? Osama Bin Laden sites this attack as one of the definitive reasons for his terrorism. I fail to see the threat that Qudafi posed anyway. Not one of Aermicas shiniest moments. What a rediculous post! First off, we were not denied the use of bases in France we were denied the permission to fly over France. So that added a few hundred km's to the mission. The main point is that Lybia was involved with international terrorism and the US put an end to that with this mission. It was involved in international terrorism, Ok show me the evidence, not doubting your words but show me the money, I doubt what ended it was your media induced propoganda? Even if it was that, doesn't justify international terroism in return: best way to fight terror is not to fight it, as history has shown, don't throw on more gasoline to put out the fire, use diplomacy to put out the fire . Understanding is the only way to peace(didn't Jesus say this at some point ) agression is only the way to constant war? And don't we English know it with Northern Ireland, Jesus H Corbett don't we know it, it took a long time to learn it but the war on terror is not a war of conventional means, but a war and a peace of words and understanding. And the war on terror is an economic thing as we all know, it's about trillion tones of gas, or million barrels of oil, nothing else, If you want to bring stability to the Middle East: leave it alone for crying out loud, let it do it's own thing, match anyone? War is thought and fought on terror in the mind and the heart not on the battlefield, understand this, turn the other cheek and learn about your enemy, or face a thousand years of strife. Your choice. Ajersey, your links lead nowhere btw? Dead links in that they have no information? One other thing Sidhe, a couple of posts back you stated you didn't like our government. I think what you really meant is that you don't like who is leading our government now. Personally I'd rather have the entire world fell the same wat as you do than to have to try and defend ourselves with either a Carter, Clinton, Gore, or Kerry. They would rather placate and leave the problem to others in the future. And DD made the point well, choose between an idiot and another idiot, try getting a non idiot in power. Thanks DD for making that point of incompetence so well. I can chose a) an idiot b) an idiot 2 party power, when you've got two idiots you end up with the lesser of two evils/idiots
|
|
icbm
Settler
Posts: 60
|
Post by icbm on Mar 9, 2006 21:18:37 GMT -5
Ajer knows something about history, congrats. I won't say much since many of my CIV buddies are quite ignorant about the whole scenario and I do not wish to offend them but pls guys, just don't let your anger against USA cloud your brains, no matter what you feel about them in a political sense, please find out the facts before you debate, the modern conflicts in the Iran/Iraq/Tsetshenia are all a consequence from mistakes made in the 70's, ajerz's post goes into some detail about them, but to cut the long sotry short, the europeans have a lot more dirt on their hands than americans.
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Mar 9, 2006 21:20:48 GMT -5
Ajez if you think bush is fighting terrorism, you are mistaken. No one is born a terrorist, this good versus evil battle bush has painted is ... silly.
I agree a firm stance was required agiasnt extreme Islam, sitting back and hoping the next president will take care of it is reckless, but what is even more reckless is invading a country for no reason. For every innocent life lost, 3-4 potential terrorists are born, there is nothing more dangerous then a borken man with nothing to lose. This doesnt only apply to Iraq!
The correct way to apprach this, would have been with diplomacy, intelligence, breaking terror networks, and yes war if needed
Being a terrorist is a frame of mind, the only ingredients are; 1) enough hate, 2) explosives/ the means.
And bush is throwing gas on number 1 and at the same time giving extremists some lovely propaganda to feed young impressionable people.
All this people said i do belive bushs HAS got good intensions, and he has brought a very serious problem into the limelight, i could see other presidents brushing it under the carpet. Bush is a brave leader, but the problem is hes just too dumb and reckless, he dont know how to deal with situations without war.
I belive a WAR on terror was very much needed, but not one on humanity.
|
|
|
Post by MMV on Mar 9, 2006 23:41:25 GMT -5
so when reagan was president, that's why they attacked us then too (marine barracks/beirut, sailor shot and thrown from hijacked plain/beirut, octogenerian Klinghoffer shot in wheelchair and thrown overboard of civilian hijacked cruise ship. PanAm airliner blowing up over locherbie scotland)
clinton - navy ship in Yemen blown up; first world trade center bombing, etc etc etc
and carter - hostages in iran, kidnappings, bombings, etc
and nixon - israeli olympic athletes murdered at german olympics
bush jr had been president for only 9 months when 911 happened, he had yet to do anything to/about the terrorists (in fact, congressional investigations were held regarding the fact that he had done nothing about them since being in office).
so every act of terrorism in the past is bush's fault? they secretly KNEW bush would become president in january 2001 so they did everything prior to that because of him?
terrorism has been at an 40 year LOW since bush's "declaration of war" against them post-911
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Mar 10, 2006 3:03:55 GMT -5
Ajer knows something about history, congrats. I won't say much since many of my CIV buddies are quite ignorant about the whole scenario and I do not wish to offend them but pls guys, just don't let your anger against USA cloud your brains, no matter what you feel about them in a political sense, please find out the facts before you debate, the modern conflicts in the Iran/Iraq/Tsetshenia are all a consequence from mistakes made in the 70's, ajerz's post goes into some detail about them, but to cut the long sotry short, the europeans have a lot more dirt on their hands than americans. And despite the fact we object to the US's actions because of our own mistakes we are told we can't advise the US because of our past indiscretions, absolutely ludicrous, I don't give a nuts about history in a sense because what your doing now is not excused by it. Take notice of the past so it leads you not to make the same mistakes again and listen to those who know the cosequences of those mistakes. How can you tell us anything, you colonialist barbarians, ignorance pure ignorance. STFU and listen you morons! so when reagan was president, that's why they attacked us then too (marine barracks/beirut, sailor shot and thrown from hijacked plain/beirut, octogenerian Klinghoffer shot in wheelchair and thrown overboard of civilian hijacked cruise ship. PanAm airliner blowing up over locherbie scotland) blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Your not listening are you, they attack you because you have a habit of using gasoline to try and put out the fire! And we seemingly have yet to learn this too I wonder how far the US can drive up the price of oil? The terrorist don't need to make attacks the US are doing all the work of making themselves look stupid for them. You think the lack of attacks is based on the war on terror, then your an idiot, the more terrorists you kill the more terrorists are recruited. In Ireland when we killed 30 terrorists in cordinated anti terror attacks, the IRA recruitment doubled or tripled. If you think your winning the war on terror than your more stupid than you appear
|
|
|
Post by MMV on Mar 10, 2006 9:30:19 GMT -5
[quote author=sidhe board=ota thread=1139165090 post=1141977835 so when reagan was president, that's why they attacked us then too (marine barracks/beirut, sailor shot and thrown from hijacked plain/beirut, octogenerian Klinghoffer shot in wheelchair and thrown overboard of civilian hijacked cruise ship. PanAm airliner blowing up over locherbie scotland ...........(and from sidhe)]The terrorist don't need to make attacks the US are doing all the work of making themselves look stupid for them. You think the lack of attacks is based on the war on terror, then your an idiot, the more terrorists you kill the more terrorists are recruited. In Ireland when we killed 30 terrorists in cordinated anti terror attacks, the IRA recruitment doubled or tripled. If you think your winning the war on terror than your more stupid than you appear What you do with your problems is your business. We took the war to them and it's a good strategy instead of waiting for them to come here (again). The terrorists are all probably complaining about being in a "bad and unbalanced teamer with bad land and they are being choked, rushed, with no resources." As for your policies and actions in Ireland during YOUR lifetime - a shining example for the world to follow in what you called a 20th century post 1940's non-diplomatic era. Yet another example of failed british colonialism.. note: when losing an arguement, sidhe always resorts to insults (well what else can do with "bad land and no resources?)
|
|
|
Post by MMV on Mar 10, 2006 9:37:30 GMT -5
they attack you because you have a habit of using gasoline to try and put out the fire! And we seemingly have yet to learn this too no, they attack us because they are defending themselves in a war "they" aren't "instigating" ANYTHING anymore. That's like you in a civ game - "Since I had no resources, I IMMEDIATELY hit the rusher SQUARE in his fist with my eye"
|
|