 |
Warnings, Bombs, and/or Sanctions?
This poll is closed. |
| Yes, let them know they aren't helping. |
   |
8 |
28.57% |
| No, for whatever reason, I can't think of a good one. |
   |
20 |
71.43% |
| Total: |
28 voters |
100% |
|
| |
|
|
Ted Striker
|
 |
United States of America
Jan 1970
time: 21:16
|
|
One other thing Syrup.
Did it ever occur to you that, back in the WW2, the Brits asked for our help, and WE LEFT THEM HANGING for nearly 3 years? We gave them, the Russians, and Democratic Chinese material support, yes, but it took a sneak attack by another country before we jumped in to help.
In the current situation, the Brits IMMEDIATELY offered to put their guys in the line of fire without us even asking them. They have been a better friend to us than we have to them.
So you, son, are a freaking HYPOCRITE for pointing fingers at our friend.
I am honestly embarrassed right now because of Wiglaf. 
UK 
 Attachment: brit.jpg
This has been downloaded 83 time(s).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
H Tower
|
|
since when does england need to prove themselves to you?
mental image of wiggy. one of the most hate filled and ignorant people of the world, working as hard as he can to make the world worse off.
Attachment: binny.jpg
This has been downloaded 78 time(s).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wiglaf
|
 |
Cambridge
Dec 2000
time: 23:16
|
|
Yet ANOTHER sign I've won. You people are just totally inept when it comes to arguing. H Tower, screw you very much. You are officially an idiot.
Anyone, at all, with something rational to say? This is hilarious, how you've all been reduced to a bunch of children throwing around insults for lack of anything solid and worthwhile to say. PH, Moby, Ted, all of you.
Again, for the second time, check and mate. You've lost, and you went out looking like fools. 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
rev
|
 |
Boulder, CO USA
Apr 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
OK, so let's say Australia, Canada, the UK, Germany, and France all send planes and begin bombing.
Who's coordinating the targets? That's a logistical nightmare!
Instead, it seems the US wanted moral support from the international community, so they got these various nations to pledge troops, but won't be using them anytime soon. It was similar in Bosnia, though the Brits were doing a lot of bombing and peacekeeping; Russia came out of nowhere and took a city, completely out of our control.
Wiglaf, can you please find a transcript or at least a coherent review of Bush's words to the United Nations? Or could you at least quote him, beyond soundbytes?
quote:
It could be because when the US gave a press release saying they were tracking OBL's satellite phone - he stopped using it!!! |
Or maybe it has something to do with the fact that, according to OBL's son, OBL uses a phone only once and then throws it away. 
quote:
I've seen videos of US Spec Ops troops in action, and their mission wasn't put in jeopardy at all. |
Yeah, I'm sure the U.S. war chiefs are trying desperately to find video of our troops in danger so that they can undermine the public support of the war.
quote:
Americans are doing all the work |
No. British elite forces are in Afghanistan. Photographers are banned from photographing them. In fact, in the battle for that fortress, a western reporter said he saw about 12 Americans and at least 2 Brits, all fighting against literally thousands of Taliban and al Qaeda loyals.
Besides, don't you think that the Northern Alliances deserves a LITTLE credit? I mean, they have, after all, lost a few thousand of their men in all this - probably more than we lost in WTC. And we've had, what, ONE man die in Afghanistan?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Wiglaf
|
|
Cambridge
Dec 2000
time: 23:16
|
|
quote:
Wiglaf, can you please find a transcript or at least a coherent review of Bush's words to the United Nations? Or could you at least quote him, beyond soundbytes? |
Use a search engine or something.
quote:
OK, so let's say Australia, Canada, the UK, Germany, and France all send planes and begin bombing.
Who's coordinating the targets? That's a logistical nightmare! |
No, it's devastating more than anything else. Britain and Canada can take Iraq while the US and the Aussies bring down Syria. If you honestly think it would cause problems to form and use an alliance, well, you're wrong.
I'm not saying the Brit/Canada combo would be effective or anything, but it'd be much more useful than what they're doing now.
The reason that won't happen is because Blair is concerned only about the politics of this war. The people don't want to see british bombs, they won't see british bombs. Oh, but if it's their country attacked, to hell with holding back and 'peacekeeping'. No questions asked. That makes it painfully obvious that those commies deep down don't give a damn about anyone but themselves. If that's the case, which it is, they do not deserve to be our allies. Instead, they should be militarily treated as a threat and an enemy.
That's a point YOU left wingers have failed to answer.
quote:
Yeah, I'm sure the U.S. war chiefs are trying desperately to find video of our troops in danger so that they can undermine the public support of the war. |
huh? the american government has provided proof to the people that special ops troops are in the region without putting anything in danger. blair hasn't done anything like that - instead, he just says "we're in there, doing...something." not proof. NOT AT ALL.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
H Tower
|
|
damn. striker beat me too it. good catch Ted
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wiglaf
|
|
Cambridge
Dec 2000
time: 23:16
|
|
Please address this, I've only posted it ten times.
quote:
The reason that won't happen is because Blair is concerned only about the politics of this war. The people don't want to see british bombs, they won't see british bombs. Oh, but if it's their country attacked, to hell with holding back and 'peacekeeping'. No questions asked. That makes it painfully obvious that those commies deep down don't give a damn about anyone but themselves. If that's the case, which it is, they do not deserve to be our allies. Instead, they should be militarily treated as a threat and an enemy.
That's a point YOU left wingers have failed to answer. |
That also happens to be the answer to Stefu's question. Blair wouldn't send the troops in, the politics in the region don't allow for it.
Anyhoo, here's the speech you liberals never said happened. Evidently I'm the only one here able to bring up a search engine. 
----
"For every regime that sponsors terror, there is a price to be paid, and it will be paid. The allies of terror are equally guilty of murder and equally accountable to justice. The Taliban are now learning this lesson. That regime and the terrorists who support it are now virtually indistinguishable. "
"In this war of terror, each of us must answer for what we have done or what we have left undone. After tragedy, there is a time for sympathy and condolence. And my country has been very grateful for both. The memorials and vigils around the world will not be forgotten, but the time for sympathy has now passed. The time for action has now arrived."
"We're asking for a comprehensive commitment to this fight. We must unite in opposing all terrorists, not just some of them. "
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/11/10/re...ript/index.html (only because the fox site didn't load, btw)
----
Since you wanted that and you got it, I also now demand a response to my earlier posts in full.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Immortal Wombat
|
 |
in perpetuity
Dec 2000
time: 05:16
|
|
*sigh*
Ok.
quote:
Originally posted by Wiglaf
The reason that won't happen is because Blair is concerned only about the politics of this war.
|
Whereas Bush doesn't give a damn about the politics, and will get himself into political sh!t? I think not. This war is intensly political, and Blair's job of getting the rest of the Muslim world to go along with you bombing one of the world's poorest nations to hell has been bloody hard work, whilst Bush sits on his ass eating donuts.
quote:
The people don't want to see british bombs, they won't see british bombs. Oh, but if it's their country attacked, to hell with holding back and 'peacekeeping'. No questions asked.
|
Seeing British bombs isn't a problem. And we jumped in just as fast as if our country had been attacked. (no waiting for the war to drag on for 3 years first)
Peacekeeping, for people who are more concerened with the big explosions that the political ramifications is what happens after the gun-toting hardmen have left, and what remains of a country is in dire need of food, and other basic amenities, and doesn't need in-fighting between a million-and-one warlords. In a situation like Afghanistan, peacekeeping is the hard job, not sitting in B-52's and dropping bombs.
quote:
That makes it painfully obvious that those commies deep down don't give a damn about anyone but themselves.
|
And declaring war on us wouldn't make that statement outrageously hypocritical how?
quote:
If that's the case, which it is, they do not deserve to be our allies. Instead, they should be militarily treated as a threat and an enemy.
That's a point YOU left wingers have failed to answer.
|
If you declare war on even just the UK with that kind of reasoning, you will lose the support of the world, YOU will be the rogue state, and as such, after an extensive WW3, USA will be in tatters, and the rest of the world can live happy in the knowledge that you won't be spouting BS for the next few years, till the lessons are forgotten again.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
01-12-2001 22:22
|
