Kelly the Dog Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 I never said they were there before the war. However could the whole reason for the war of been to draw them there and once there keep them occupied and too disjointed to plan further operations here? I added another sentence above that addresses that question: "Besides, that's precisely why they didnt carry out any larger scale operations here, they could kill a ton of Americans there without having to come here." Why would we want to draw them there with 100-150,000 Americans they could kill to prevent them from killing 3000 Americans (9/11)?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 I added another sentence above that addresses that question: "Besides, that's precisely why they didnt carry out any larger scale operations here, they could kill a ton of Americans there without having to come here." Why would we want to draw them there with 100-150,000 Americans they could kill to prevent them from killing 3000 Americans (9/11)?. Because that what our military is for. To protect us and sometimes they have to stray outside our borders in order to do that. First off, they don't have the means to kill 150K soldiers, that's why only 4,000 have been lost. So what you're saying is exactly my point. Engage them there with 150k soldiers and keep them from another 9/11 type operation. And hell who's to say if we hadn't gone to Iraq prior to 9/11 that it may never of happened. Oh and I really resent the being in SF for one month has turned me into a gay retard. I've been here for two months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Because that what our military is for. To protect us and sometimes they have to stray outside our borders in order to do that. First off, they don't have the means to kill 150K soldiers, that's why only 4,000 have been lost. So what you're saying is exactly my point. Engage them there with 150k soldiers and keep them from another 9/11 type operation. And hell who's to say if we hadn't gone to Iraq prior to 9/11 that it may never of happened. Oh and I really resent the being in SF for one month has turned me into a gay retard. No, you made my point. And that's gay retarded logic. And that's why myself and a lot of other people thought the invasion of Iraq was a gay retarded idea in the first place. 1] Al Qaeda conducted the 9/11 operation which killed 3000 of us here. 2] Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq. 3] We go to Iraq to stop Al Qaeda from conducting another 9/11 operation which killed 3000 of us. 4] Al Qaeda goes to Iraq because it's in their backyard and kills (or helps kill) 4000 of us to prevent 3000 of us dying again. That is SOOOOOO gay! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 No, you made my point. And that's gay retarded logic. And that's why myself and a lot of other people thought the invasion of Iraq was a gay retarded idea in the first place. 1] Al Qaeda conducted the 9/11 operation which killed 3000 of us here. 2] Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq. 3] We go to Iraq to stop Al Qaeda from conducting another 9/11 operation which killed 3000 of us. 4] Al Qaeda goes to Iraq because it's in their backyard and kills (or helps kill) 4000 of us to prevent 3000 of us dying again. That is SOOOOOO gay! And that's my point you southern california water thieving faggot! And while they're busy killing 4000 soldiers they're too busy to carry out another attack here in the US that could have killed tens of thousands. I don't know if that's why we have not been attacked here, you don't know it either but you have to admit that it's a possibility. Get off the 3000 number for a second here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 And that's my point you southern california water thieving faggot! And while they're busy killing 4000 soldiers they're too busy to carry out another attack here in the US that could have killed tens of thousands. I don't know if that's why we have not been attacked here, you don't know it either but you have to admit that it's a possibility. Get off the 3000 number for a second here. Which is why we went to Afghanistan, where they were, you crisco Frisco freak, to stop them from plotting to kill 3000-tens of thousands. And they are still planning. You mean to say that if you had to do it all over again today, you would still go into Iraq knowing you would lose 4000 Americans and 10,000 hurt and a trillion dollars on the chance that they might have been planning and being able to carry out the killing of tens of thousands here but didnt because we distracted them? Even though bin Laden is alive and living in a cave somewhere still planning? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Which is why we went to Afghanistan, where they were, you crisco Frisco freak, to stop them from plotting to kill 3000-tens of thousands. And they are still planning. You mean to say that if you had to do it all over again today, you would still go into Iraq knowing you would lose 4000 Americans and 10,000 hurt and a trillion dollars on the chance that they might have been planning and being able to carry out the killing of tens of thousands here but didnt because we distracted them? Even though bin Laden is alive and living in a cave somewhere still planning? Yes. And let me ask you a similar question. What if we had not gone to Iraq (and keep in mind, where we went is not important in my mind, just as long as we were somewhere in the middle east distracting them. And yes Afghanistan may have made more sense), and because we didn't they were able to continue to plan with no distractions and because of that tens of thousand of American civilians are now dead or even worse a major American city no longer exists. How would you feel about that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Yes. And let me ask you a similar question. What if we had not gone to Iraq (and keep in mind, where we went is not important in my mind, just as long as we were somewhere in the middle east distracting them. And yes Afghanistan may have made more sense), and because we didn't they were able to continue to plan with no distractions and because of that tens of thousand of American civilians are now dead or even worse a major American city no longer exists. How would you feel about that? Wow. So you still think the war was a good idea and would do it all again the same? Hey, you're entitled to that opinion. As to your question, I think if they could have done that they would already have done it. There is no reason to believe they wouldn't have. They may well be still planning it. But I think they can do two things at once, like fight us/kill us over there, and still have and develop sleeper cells here like the first 9/11. It's not one or the other. All it takes is a couple dozen guys and a bunch of money. I also don't know why anyone would differentiate civilian deaths versus military deaths. I know these guys and girls signed up for it, but it's still a fellow citizen with a family and friends all over the place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 No, you made my point. And that's gay retarded logic. And that's why myself and a lot of other people thought the invasion of Iraq was a gay retarded idea in the first place. 1] Al Qaeda conducted the 9/11 operation which killed 3000 of us here. 2] Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq. 3] We go to Iraq to stop Al Qaeda from conducting another 9/11 operation which killed 3000 of us. 4] Al Qaeda goes to Iraq because it's in their backyard and kills (or helps kill) 4000 of us to prevent 3000 of us dying again. That is SOOOOOO gay! Actually, al Qaeda was in Iraq prior to 9/11. Supporting some of the Kurdish groups against Saddam. So really, when we invaded Iraq, we were aiding al Qaeda. I'm just sayin'... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Upped my meds. I'm feeling pretty good recently. But if my kinder, gentler mood makes you uncomfortable, I can call you a moron. If you prefer. If you want to, sure. Won't faze me much as I have had my meds adjusted too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Wow. So you still think the war was a good idea and would do it all again the same? Hey, you're entitled to that opinion. As to your question, I think if they could have done that they would already have done it. There is no reason to believe they wouldn't have. They may well be still planning it. But I think they can do two things at once, like fight us/kill us over there, and still have and develop sleeper cells here like the first 9/11. It's not one or the other. All it takes is a couple dozen guys and a bunch of money. I also don't know why anyone would differentiate civilian deaths versus military deaths. I know these guys and girls signed up for it, but it's still a fellow citizen with a family and friends all over the place. If it can ever be shown (and I'm not sure that it can) that having our troops in Iraq has contributed to the fact that there has not been another attack here then of course I'd do it in a minute. And did I say do it the same? No as a matter of fact I said maybe going to Afghanistan would have been a better idea. But go ahead and change my opinion any way you want to make yourself feel better. Military deaths are different from civilian deaths and not because the volunteered. Even if they were drafted. That's what a military is for, to protect the civilian population. And if we have to sacrifice a few thousand to save a few tens of thousands so be it. War is not a fun thing, but then neither is the result of hand wringing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 If you want to, sure. Won't faze me much as I have had my meds adjusted too. Nah. I sub out my light work. Ramius, call the man a moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Nah. I sub out my light work. Ramius, call the man a moron. Ramius isn't going to do that. We're both 'Noles fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Ramius isn't going to do that. We're both 'Noles fans. 'Noles fan?? What a !@#$ing moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Perhaps U.S. foreign policy makers would be better served analyzing the blowback from their bad policies rather than continuing them and hoping they'll somehow end differently... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 'Noles fan?? What a !@#$ing moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Perhaps U.S. foreign policy makers would be better served analyzing the blowback from their bad policies rather than continuing them and hoping they'll somehow end differently... That would mean they have to face reality (which is very disappointing for them). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Perhaps U.S. foreign policy makers would be better served analyzing the blowback from their bad policies rather than continuing them and hoping they'll somehow end differently... What, you have a problem with the traditional American "throw money at it" philosophy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 What, you have a problem with the traditional American "throw money at it" philosophy? I thought we subscribed to the "fix it 'till it breaks" philosophy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 I thought we subscribed to the "fix it 'till it breaks" philosophy? If it ain't broke - we can fix that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts