• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Strategic war on terror.. either no longer possible or never was possible

MSgt

Stabler Genius
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
26,272
Reaction score
11,629
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
robin said:
duhhhh uhhh um I think I knew that already. So you think invading Iraq is going to stop Muslim extremists in Britain WTF !
How ludicrous & the opposite of the truth. The truth is Iraq is one reason they gave for their bombing of London, not that that justifies what he evil morons did.
They can torch them, for all I care. I ****ing sick of UK muslims.

"Star wars was the last nail" !!!! WTF. You aren't too bright are you GY ? They nearly scuppered the Nuclear arms talks. Go read this to see just how completely wrong you are..... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/summit/archive/oct86.htm

GY You just want spout your neo religious view of your glorious America... that is a view that America never ever does anything wrong & you make sure you never really read anything or take on board anything, unless it supports that narrow view.





I am mad at Blair.

Thanks Billo ;)


Your article said what I already know. "Star Wars" was the nail. The Soviet Union could not continue it's economic race. I don't know what you were trying to show me.

Quite frankly I don't care about your Britian. I didn't say anything about Iraq being the cure to your attacks. I said that the problem is the Middle East. You're the one that can't unfocus from Iraq. I guess you think that if we attacked Iran or Syria or Saudi, then London would have been safe from any Islamic attack? Move on. You attempts to cry "domino effect" are weak. The sooner the world stops coddling these Islamists, the better.

I didn't bring my religious views into this. I have written more accurately on the wrong doings of America than you have. I'm sure you have read some of those posts. You, however, have a lot of anger issues. "You are mad at Blair". "You obviously hate America". "You are ****ing sick of UK Muslims." I'm not the one with the narrow tunnnel visioned view and I'm certainly not the one that is scared of terrorists. Maybe you should take a breather and get past your misdirected anger.
 
Last edited:

robin

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
GySgt said:
Quite frankly I don't care about your Britian.
Why would I bother about that ?
Frankly I'm relieved. All the countries like Guatemala & Bolivia & Panama & Chile & El Salvador & Nicaragua & Vietnam, the list is endless... that you've been bothered about have suffered terribly as a consequence of it.
http://home.iprimus.com.au/korob/fdtcards/Cards_Index.html

GySgt said:
I didn't say anything about Iraq being the cure to your attacks. I said that the problem is the Middle East. You're the one that can't unfocus from Iraq.
But that is where you are & the place you seem to think is good to fight terror & since you defend the war there & I say it's strategically wrong, then the conversation is bound to focus on Iraq !

GySgt said:
I guess you think that if we attacked Iran or Syria or Saudi, then London would have been safe from any Islamic attack? Move on. You attempts to cry "domino effect" are weak. The sooner the world stops coddling these Islamists, the better.
You guessed wrong.... Attacking those countries would be just more of the same folly. Christ.. 911 was 4 years ago, You've not been attacked since, no thanks to the war in Iraq, yet you want to go rampaging into even more countries, as if the 25,000 dead in the Iraq war isn't enough blood spilled for your 2,997 killed in 911 !

GySgt said:
I didn't bring my religious views into this. I have written more accurately on the wrong doings of America than you have. I'm sure you have read some of those posts. You, however, have a lot of anger issues. "You are mad at Blair". "You obviously hate America". "You are ****ing sick of UK Muslims." I'm not the one with the narrow tunnnel visioned view and I'm certainly not the one that is scared of terrorists. Maybe you should take a breather and get past your misdirected anger.
I don't hate all Americans... individuals are good or bad, not whole nations.
If you aren't scared of terrorists then why do you want support the war on terror ?
Neither if us want to be blown up by some religious madman do we ?
We just don't happen to see eye to eye on the best way to deal with the scum.
As regards your religious views, my reference to them was in relation to the way you seem to have a such reverence for the stars & stripes & think USA is so wonderful & always right
 
Last edited:

MSgt

Stabler Genius
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
26,272
Reaction score
11,629
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Look, I'm done with this discussion. Just like the last time I debated with you, I put up with unintelligent insults and name calling. I thought I'd give you another go around, because the topic interested me. I've learned my lesson.
 

robin

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
GySgt said:
Look, I'm done with this discussion. Just like the last time I debated with you, I put up with unintelligent insults and name calling. I thought I'd give you another go around, because the topic interested me. I've learned my lesson.
Yes I guess you are done. You started out by saying in effect the war on communism won so the war on Islam will ????
But communism didn't end becuase of US military it ended for other reasons. Everytime anything is/was pointed out to you... you ignore it !
You never really got into a detailed or analytical discussion on tactics v strategies & how futile the current fly swat in Iraq is both tactically & strategically as a war on terror & you've never even really read my posts properly.
 
Last edited:

robin

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
One other point "But Reagan was defiant when he discussed SDI, which he has called a "peace shield" that will someday protect civilian populations from nuclear destruction."
But hang on... why would a peace shield be required if Gorbachov was heading in the direction of large reductions in missile numbers, provided Reagun dropped SDI.
It's like a self fullfilling phenomenon where Reagun needs SDI to defend against large numbers of missiles becuase Gorbachov wouldn't reduce the numbers of missiles becuase Reagun wouldn't ditch SDI !
If Reagun ditched SDI then there would ultimately be no need for SDI anyway. But he wouldn't, so he caused the deadlock.
Why ?.... Becuase of the massive defense contracts on offer to the people that funded his election campaigns.
The whole joke is SDI wouldn't work. High intensity lasers on the ground turn the air to plasma which is impenetrable. Lasers in space would overcome that problem but need a large mirror to focus them which would be impractical & impossible to steer acurately enough. Missiles can be painted with reflective paint anyway. Charged particles in beams, repel each other so they diverge. The whole nonsense was cooked up by defense contractors scared to death that peace might break out.
Once again GYsgt you have shown a superficial level of comprehension of matters.
You don't analyze anything, you just go off into sermons & 'anal ise' as in your posts I & II.
 

VTA

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 5, 2005
Messages
1,081
Reaction score
163
Location
America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
robin said:
You don't analyze anything, you just go off into sermons & 'anal ise' as in your posts I & II.

Actually what he did was stick to the subject at hand (your topic) and give a salient viewpoint concerning the current world situation; the strategy of the war on terror, while you yourself did plenty of dissembling with the irrelevancies of past events...
 

thoracle

Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2005
Messages
107
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
robin said:
I shalln't bother with you again. You understand neither history nor English !

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
One entry found for mow.
Main Entry: 2mow
Pronunciation: 'mO
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): mowed; mowed or mown /'mOn/; mow·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English mAwan; akin to Old High German mAen to mow, Latin metere to reap, mow, Greek aman
transitive senses
1 a : to cut down with a scythe or sickle or machine b : to cut the standing herbage (as grass) of
2 a (1) : to kill or destroy in great numbers or mercilessly <machine guns mowed down the enemy> (2) : to cause to fall :
shalln't ---Bull-***** made up word that English experts called Robin use while criticizing others about their grasp of the English language. Go back to that dictionary and look that up.

Bwaahahaha!! I wouldn't answer anymore either, Genius. ;)
 

thoracle

Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2005
Messages
107
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
robin said:
Why would I bother about that ?
Frankly I'm relieved. All the countries like Guatemala & Bolivia & Panama & Chile & El Salvador & Nicaragua & Vietnam, the list is endless... that you've been bothered about have suffered terribly as a consequence of it.
http://home.iprimus.com.au/korob/fdtcards/Cards_Index.html


But that is where you are & the place you seem to think is good to fight terror & since you defend the war there & I say it's strategically wrong, then the conversation is bound to focus on Iraq !

You guessed wrong.... Attacking those countries would be just more of the same folly. Christ.. 911 was 4 years ago, You've not been attacked since, no thanks to the war in Iraq, yet you want to go rampaging into even more countries, as if the 25,000 dead in the Iraq war isn't enough blood spilled for your 2,997 killed in 911 !

I don't hate all Americans... individuals are good or bad, not whole nations.
If you aren't scared of terrorists then why do you want support the war on terror ?
Neither if us want to be blown up by some religious madman do we ?
We just don't happen to see eye to eye on the best way to deal with the scum.
As regards your religious views, my reference to them was in relation to the way you seem to have a such reverence for the stars & stripes & think USA is so wonderful & always right
You demonstrate you ignorance.

"Why would I bother about that ?
Frankly I'm relieved. All the countries like Guatemala & Bolivia & Panama & Chile & El Salvador & Nicaragua & Vietnam, the list is endless... that you've been bothered about have suffered terribly as a consequence of it.

Hitler ring a bell? American airdrops into your country? Your boy Winston begging us to save your asses?

You're right Gunny, this one's got issues.
 

thoracle

Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2005
Messages
107
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
robin said:
One other point "But Reagan was defiant when he discussed SDI, which he has called a "peace shield" that will someday protect civilian populations from nuclear destruction."
But hang on... why would a peace shield be required if Gorbachov was heading in the direction of large reductions in missile numbers, provided Reagun dropped SDI.
It's like a self fullfilling phenomenon where Reagun needs SDI to defend against large numbers of missiles becuase Gorbachov wouldn't reduce the numbers of missiles becuase Reagun wouldn't ditch SDI !
If Reagun ditched SDI then there would ultimately be no need for SDI anyway. But he wouldn't, so he caused the deadlock.
Why ?.... Becuase of the massive defense contracts on offer to the people that funded his election campaigns.
The whole joke is SDI wouldn't work. High intensity lasers on the ground turn the air to plasma which is impenetrable. Lasers in space would overcome that problem but need a large mirror to focus them which would be impractical & impossible to steer acurately enough. Missiles can be painted with reflective paint anyway. Charged particles in beams, repel each other so they diverge. The whole nonsense was cooked up by defense contractors scared to death that peace might break out.
Once again GYsgt you have shown a superficial level of comprehension of matters.
You don't analyze anything, you just go off into sermons & 'anal ise' as in your posts I & II.
You're not just a little paranoid, are you? Conspiracy, eh?
 

robin

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
thoracle said:
Hitler ring a bell? American airdrops into your country? Your boy Winston begging us to save your asses?You're right Gunny, this one's got issues.
OMG the usual cliche. I wish I had a pound for everytime I've heard an American clutching at that straw when they've lost the argument.
'We saved your butt in the war' :roll:
I think we saved each others actually & even then you only came in when Hitler declared war on you !
Besides.. Does The USA being a major player in defeating evil in WWII, make the Guatemala & Bolivia & Panama & Chile & El Salvador & Nicaragua, East Timor etc... OK then ?
No it makes it worse.
Why bother to fight tyrrany & claim to be a great liberator & Guardian of the world & then be so hypocrytical as to either impose or encourage tyrrany on others ?
It's also a betrayal to those that lost their lives to preserve freedom in WWII.
 
Last edited:

Billo_Really

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally posted by cnredd:
That right there tells me the argument has been lost...
My comments to Robin had nothing to do with your arguement with him. Nice try!

Give it another go, mate, maybe your luck will change.
 
Top Bottom