[dcolton]

The terrorists are getting bolder and have found no boundaries as to what they will do in the name of allah. They have attacked nations in the past few years, creating astronomical death tolls.

Muslims seem to turn a blind eye. ISlamic nations seem to be supporting these actions - at the very least, they are doing little to stamp out terrorism. Nothing is being done to achieve peace by the perpetrators...who continually spill the blood of innocent civillians for some 'root cause' that no one understands.

It seems obvious to me that these killer muslims want to spark a religious war. It is only a matter of time before they do something to spark this war.

I say we bring it to them. I say it is time for war. It is time to retake the middle east and destroy the monsters who are hell bent on bringing terror to the world. It is time to take off the kid gloves and take it to them with overwhelming force.

[spacefreak]

We've already been in WWIII for a few years.

[itai195]

Huh? But I thought we were winning the WoT???

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by itai195:
Huh? But I thought we were winning the WoT???

We are, and will, as long as that punk-ass Kerry isn't elected.

[UNTeMac]

Ahh...genocide. The strategy of the weak and fearful. You're so narrow-minded it's scary. Read the following 1,000 times:

The world does not fit into your little categories of good and evil.

[PacHead]

It's already started.

[itai195]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
We are, and will, as long as that punk-ass Kerry isn't elected.

Then why are people asking if a massive expansion of the war is necessary?

[BlackGriffen]

This is exactly what I'm talking about in the Rumsfeld thread, Simey.

BG

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by dcolton:
I say we bring it to them. I say it is time for war. It is time to retake the middle east and destroy the monsters who are hell bent on bringing terror to the world. It is time to take off the kid gloves and take it to them with overwhelming force.

Many regions of Africa are in turmoil at the moment, thousands dying everyday. Is it time to retake Africa and destroy the monsters who are hell bent on bringing terror to that part of the world? Or are we not supposed to care? They're killing each other after all so that's OK, as long as it's not us? What have you got to say about that?

Oh and good luck with re-taking the ME. Should be easy enough. I mean you've got Iraq all figured out already. /sarcasm

[PacHead]

Oh, and I agree with Dcolton, of course.

[KaBlooey]

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by itai195:
Then why are people asking if a massive expansion of the war is necessary?

We haven't taken it far enough, yet.

[itai195]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
We haven't taken it far enough, yet.

dcolton's post leads me to believe he thinks the terrorist problem has gotten worse, not better, since 2001. How does that indicate that we're winning? Or do you disagree with Bush when he says we're winning?

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by itai195:
dcolton's post leads me to believe he thinks the terrorist problem has gotten worse, not better, since 2001. How does that indicate that we're winning? Or do you disagree with Bush when he says we're winning?

For the US, it has gotten better. For the rest of the world, it's gotten worse. And will continue to get worse until we kill the Arab/Islamic elements behind the terrorist threats. Putin's finally on board, won't take long for the rest to figure it out too.

[UNTeMac]

So, Bush drafts about a million American men and boys and sends them off to the Middle East, leaving a large portion of our economy lacking in manpower, we start bombing and invading and killing hundreds of thousands of innocents. Osama starts rubbing his hands together and smiling because his bait has worked. His recruiting increases 500% because now it's obvious to any muslim with a TV that America really is on a second crusade to destroy the muslim world.

Meanwhile, North Korea sees an opening and manages to nuke L.A, Portland, and Seattle and we launch ours right back at them. China thinks it's an attack on Communism and launches their missiles. Pretty soon the Earth's environment is f**ked for 1000 years, 2.5 billion people are dead and America is a smoking heap of radioactive ash.

Sounds about right.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Many regions of Africa are in turmoil at the moment, thousands dying everyday. Is it time to retake Africa and destroy the monsters who are hell bent on bringing terror to that part of the world? Or are we not supposed to care? They're killing each other after all so that's OK, as long as it's not us? What have you got to say about that?

Africa falls into my equation. Of course, we will start our siege on N. African nations and take it from there.

Oh and good luck with re-taking the ME. Should be easy enough. I mean you've got Iraq all figured out already. /sarcasm

I am talking all out war, where 10 insurgents in a small town can result in the loss of that town. Where the saftey of civillians is secondary to the safety of our soldiers and our civillians. I am not talking about a demonstration of lasert guided missles, I am talking about a demonstration of our full arsenal.

[itai195]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
For the US, it has gotten better. For the rest of the world, it's gotten worse. And will continue to get worse until we kill the Arab/Islamic elements behind the terrorist threats. Putin's finally on board, won't take long for the rest to figure it out too.

How do you know it's gotten better in the US? Over 8 years passed between the two WTC attacks.

EDIT: And how is Putin on board, when the US thinks Russia should pursue a political solution in Chechnya?

[Myrkridia]

Originally posted by dcolton:

I say we bring it to them. I say it is time for war. It is time to retake the middle east and destroy the monsters who are hell bent on bringing terror to the world. It is time to take off the kid gloves and take it to them with overwhelming force.

Ok, first extreme kudos to you for stopping murder and death by creating more murder and death.
Second, who exactly are we going to attack?
Surely you can't mean the ENTIRE middle east..
Why stop there? Why not annex all those nations in the name of democracy? The new Rome is here, and it is the U.S. of A.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
For the US, it has gotten better. For the rest of the world, it's gotten worse. And will continue to get worse until we kill the Arab/Islamic elements behind the terrorist threats. Putin's finally on board, won't take long for the rest to figure it out too.

Thank you for answering for me MacNStein. I couldn't have said it better.

[PacHead]

Of course the terrorist problem is going to get worse, I have never denied that.

As I have stated in another thread awhile ago, if this is WW III, then we are in the very beginning stages of it.

The Japanese sneak attacked Pearl Harbour - Dec. 7 1941 - - - - Did things get worse or better after that ?

Things will get worse before they get better. We are doing the right thing.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by UNTiMac:
So, Bush drafts about a million American men and boys and sends them off to the Middle East, leaving a large portion of our economy lacking in manpower, we start bombing and invading and killing hundreds of thousands of innocents. Osama starts rubbing his hands together and smiling because his bait has worked. His recruiting increases 500% because now it's obvious to any muslim with a TV that America really is on a second crusade to destroy the muslim world.

Meanwhile, North Korea sees an opening and manages to nuke L.A, Portland, and Seattle and we launch ours right back at them. China thinks it's an attack on Communism and launches their missiles. Pretty soon the Earth's environment is f**ked for 1000 years, 2.5 billion people are dead and America is a smoking heap of radioactive ash.

Sounds about right.

What a vivid imagination. You should write propaganda for the Left... no, wait, you already do.

[UNTeMac]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
What a vivid imagination. You should write propaganda for the Left... no, wait, you already do.

How do you think attacking the entire middle east will turn out?

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Myrkridia:
Ok, first extreme kudos to you for stopping murder and death by creating more murder and death.
Second, who exactly are we going to attack?
Surely you can't mean the ENTIRE middle east..
Why stop there? Why not annex all those nations in the name of democracy? The new Rome is here, and it is the U.S. of A.
:

Yes, the entire ME...or any nation who gets in the way. We finish off Iraq. Take the leash off Israel (let them bomb Iran) and march into Syria. At this point, Saudi Arabia will begin to puff up, and we bomb the hell out of them.

It shouldn't take too long to gain air superiority, so I say delivering the ME from evil should take about 7 years...maybe less. We will be dealing mostly with insurrections, which we will deal with overwhelming and brutal force.

In other words...fallujah, that problem could be taken care of in about 30 minutes.

[itai195]

Have you totally lost it?

[UNTeMac]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Yes, the entire ME...or any nation who gets in the way. We finish off Iraq. Take the leash off Israel (let them bomb Iran) and march into Syria. At this point, Saudi Arabia will begin to puff up, and we bomb the hell out of them.

It shouldn't take too long to gain air superiority, so I say delivering the ME from evil should take about 7 years...maybe less. We will be dealing mostly with insurrections, which we will deal with overwhelming and brutal force.

In other words...fallujah, that problem could be taken care of in about 30 minutes.

So, you want to kill about 5 times as many innocent civilians as there are actual combatants against us by throwing a bomb at the problem?

[MindFad]

Well, sh*t! While we're at it, let's sharpen our swords, gather up the Jews, and FedEx them to Israel so we can all meet up with Big J™* for the rapture!

GO USA!




* Capitalization and trademark symbols denote seriousness.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by itai195:
How do you know it's gotten better in the US? Over 8 years passed between the two WTC attacks.

EDIT: And how is Putin on board, when the US thinks Russia should pursue a political solution in Chechnya?

Well, as pointed out several times before, not a single terror attack of any scale has happened on US soil since 9/11 (not because of any lack of trying by the other side). Bush's policies have worked. Now, if the rest of the world will continue waking up (like the afore mentioned Putin), we can all be united, take on the terrorist animals at the highest level, and wipe them out. Period. This is the only way to stop them. Any weakness shown by the western world, as has happened time and again, will only lead to further suffering at terrorist hands.

"Find them, send them to Allah. Wash, Rinse, Repeat."

[PacHead]

Originally posted by MindFad:
Well, sh*t! While we're at it, let's sharpen our swords, gather up the Jews, and FedEx them to Israel so we can all meet up with big J for the rapture!

GO USA!

Nah, most of the Jews™ vote Dem, for some strange and indescribable reason.

[Myrkridia]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Yes, the entire ME...or any nation who gets in the way. We finish off Iraq. Take the leash off Israel (let them bomb Iran) and march into Syria. At this point, Saudi Arabia will begin to puff up, and we bomb the hell out of them.

It shouldn't take too long to gain air superiority, so I say delivering the ME from evil should take about 7 years...maybe less. We will be dealing mostly with insurrections, which we will deal with overwhelming and brutal force.

In other words...fallujah, that problem could be taken care of in about 30 minutes.

Wow...way to cheapen the value of human life. It's awesome the way you simplify it. Do you hear yourself? Go to war with ANY nation that "stands in our way" because the rest of the world is totally going to be on board with us
But who cares right? We have nukes. Well so does a vast majority of the rest of the world, but who gives a sh*t right?
So what if we start lobbing warheads into eachothers back yard, I mean hell we did it in Japan we sure as hell can do it again.
Make vast portions of the earth unliveable for generations to come, it's all good.

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." --Albert Einstein

[dcolton]

Originally posted by UNTiMac:
So, you want to kill about 5 times as many innocent civilians as there are actual combatants against us by throwing a bomb at the problem?

Basically, but we would be throwing bombs...not just one bomb

I want terrorism to end. This is the only way I see it coming to an end. Terrorists don't respond to negotiation, compassion, or morality...they are an instrument of terror, war and death. We need to kill them before they kill any more children in the namae of allah.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Myrkridia:
Wow...way to cheapen the value of human life. It's awesome the way you simplify it. Do you hear yourself? Go to war with ANY nation that "stands in our way" because the rest of the world is totally going to be on board with us
But who cares right? We have nukes. Well so does a vast majority of the rest of the world, but who gives a sh*t right?
So what if we start lobbing warheads into eachothers back yard, I mean hell we did it in Japan we sure as hell can do it again.
Make vast portions of the earth unliveable for generations to come, it's all good.

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." --Albert Einstein

Who mentioned nukes?

[itai195]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Well, as pointed out several times before, not a single terror attack of any scale has happened on US soil since 9/11 (not because of any lack of trying by the other side).

It seems premature to make this claim, since there were only two attacks on US soil by foreign terrorists in 8 years. Is the increased number of attempts since 9/11 supposed to indicate a successful response to the attack? I'd interpret it the other way around, personally.

And if we need to be united in wiping out Islamic terror wherever it is, why isn't the US advocating full-out military responses in Israel and Chechnya?

[Myrkridia]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Who mentioned nukes?

You don't think we'd leave our entire nuclear arsenal sitting on the bench when we have A LOT of land to bomb do you?
What's the point of having a huge stock pile of WMD's if you ain't gonna use em?
And if we didn't, some other country would. Which would then "justify" our usage of them.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Myrkridia:
You don't think we'd leave our entire nuclear arsenal sitting on the bench when we have A LOT of land to bomb do you?
What's the point of having a huge stock pile of WMD's if you ain't gonna use em?
And if we didn't, some other country would. Which would then "justify" our usage of them.

It may be the end. Nukes are a last resort. Regretfully, if we don't end the terrorist threat, they will be the ones using nukes against us.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Who mentioned nukes?

It's what they want to happen. So they can sit and feel superior while their eyeballs melt.

[UNTeMac]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Basically, but we would be throwing bombs...not just one bomb

I want terrorism to end. This is the only way I see it coming to an end. Terrorists don't respond to negotiation, compassion, or morality...they are an instrument of terror, war and death. We need to kill them before they kill any more children in the namae of allah.

And the people who live in these cities we're about to bomb...are they not worth saving? What makes them less important than the innocents who died on 9/11?

[dcolton]

Originally posted by UNTiMac:
And the people who live in these cities we're about to bomb...are they not worth saving? What makes them less important than the innocents who died on 9/11?

The people in these cities have a few options.
1. get out
2. kill the terrorists
3. die with the terrorists

They are less important because they support those who want to harm americans and our soldiers.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by UNTiMac:
And the people who live in these cities we're about to bomb...are they not worth saving? What makes them less important than the innocents who died on 9/11?

Majority of them support Osama Bin Laden. Not so innocent afterall heh ?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by UNTiMac:
So, Bush drafts about a million American men and boys and sends them off to the Middle East, leaving a large portion of our economy lacking in manpower, we start bombing and invading and killing hundreds of thousands of innocents. Osama starts rubbing his hands together and smiling because his bait has worked. His recruiting increases 500% because now it's obvious to any muslim with a TV that America really is on a second crusade to destroy the muslim world.

Meanwhile, North Korea sees an opening and manages to nuke L.A, Portland, and Seattle and we launch ours right back at them. China thinks it's an attack on Communism and launches their missiles. Pretty soon the Earth's environment is f**ked for 1000 years, 2.5 billion people are dead and America is a smoking heap of radioactive ash.

Sounds about right.

This is what I was talking about in the Rumsfeld thread, BG.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
This is what I was talking about in the Rumsfeld thread, BG.

I'm well aware of the risks involved, as is Kerry, I'm sure.

BG

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by itai195:
It seems premature to make this claim, since there were only two attacks on US soil by foreign terrorists in 8 years. Is the increased number of attempts since 9/11 supposed to indicate a successful response to the attack? I'd interpret it the other way around, personally.

And you don't see how the success of 9/11 would increase the chances of it happening more frequenty? Our response was exactly what was neccessary.

And if we need to be united in wiping out Islamic terror wherever it is, why isn't the US advocating full-out military responses in Israel and Chechnya?

We need to, especially in regards to Israel. If Putin wants our help, we should assist him too.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
I'm well aware of the risks involved, as is Kerry, I'm sure.

BG

No, you misunderstood. I was referring to the tendency to confuse negative stereotypes of political opponents thiking with what your political opponents actually think. UNTiMac's scenario was ludicrous, but I am sure he really thinks that is what the Administration wants to do.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by MacNStein:


We need to, especially in regards to Israel. If Putin wants our help, we should assist him too.

Most definitely. The USA is indeed hypocritical sometimes when it comes to judging other certain countries and their response.

This will change.

[UNTeMac]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Majority of them support Osama Bin Laden. Not so innocent afterall heh ?

Back up the statement. What majority? Have you visited these people? You think they all deserve death?

That's the problem when you lump people into a category like that. It's the beginning of hate.

And Simey, I read the other thread and I don't think I'm mischaracterizing dcolton's thoughts at all.

[davesimondotcom]

Already started...

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
No, you misunderstood. I was referring to the tendency to confuse negative stereotypes of political opponents thiking with what your political opponents actually think. UNTiMac's scenario was ludicrous, but I am sure he really thinks that is what the Administration wants to do.

Now you're confusing UNTiMac's post about the consequences of widening this thing into WWIII, which some posters here have suggested, with his view of the U.S. strategy.

BG

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by UNTiMac:
And Simey, I read the other thread and I don't think I'm mischaracterizing dcolton's thoughts at all.

Maybe not dcolton's, but who the hell is he?

[LoganCharles]

I think we've been too soft in Iraq. The only way to win a war is to crush your enemy...completely. We did it right in WWII. Of course the enemy had a clearer delineation then they do now.

[UNTeMac]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
No, you misunderstood. I was referring to the tendency to confuse negative stereotypes of political opponents thiking with what your political opponents actually think. UNTiMac's scenario was ludicrous, but I am sure he really thinks that is what the Administration wants to do.

I do believe in parts of the administration and this country that there are people in their heart of hearts who would like to do that. dcolton has made that clear enough and it was his thought process I was characterizing.

edit: gah, crossposting. Read what BG said.

[itai195]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
And you don't see how the success of 9/11 would increase the chances of it happening more frequenty? Our response was exactly what was neccessary.

I do, and I did agree with much of our response (eg Afghanistan). But I think for every step forward we took, Iraq represented a giant step backward. At the very least it's a huge distraction from the real security lapses we still suffer at home and from the situation in Afghanistan.