View Full Version : Will gives birth...
nicOH says:
the guy is black, he has the IQ of a monkey if evolution is correct.
nicOH says:
good president then?
-Z- says:
monkeys are smart
nicOH says:
no
nicOH says:
Obama is a black idiot, with no clue. I cant wait to see him fail like all blacks do
-Z- says:
you are from the south aren't you
nicOH says:
Im not from America
nicOH says:
But hes still a black idiot
nicOH says:
Should of been kept as slaves
-Z- says:
U are a product
nicOH says:
Thats about all they are good for
-Z- says:
garbage
nicOH says:
Good call, why dont you get a job, and then tell me that
-Z- says:
trash
nicOH says:
Goodbye idiot... You and your invalid blacks can get ****ed as far as im concerned, you will never be human to me.
-Z- says:
what does me getting a job have anything to do with your words?
Z
if anyone has this kid on MSN, make sure u tell him I am a white man.
Z
This is an argument in favour of abortion if true.
nNiIcCkKoO
11-06-2008, 18:45
I still stand by every word.
nNiIcCkKoO
11-06-2008, 18:46
BUT HANG ON A MINUTE....
Why miss out some of the conversation?
-Z- says (8:40 AM):
Blacks pawn stupid white men on every level
-Z- says (8:40 AM):
White men are garbade
I still stand by every word.
you are a sad man.
The product of the times I suppose.
Z
nNiIcCkKoO
11-06-2008, 18:47
you are a sad man.
The product of the times I suppose.
Z
-Z- says (8:40 AM):
Blacks pawn stupid white men on every level
-Z- says (8:40 AM):
White men are garbade
BUT HANG ON A MINUTE....
Why miss out some of the conversation?
-Z- says (8:40 AM):
Blacks pawn stupid white men on every level
-Z- says (8:40 AM):
White men are garbade
indeed.
If u dont believe Im white, Look me up on FaceBook
Zachary Szabo
If there ever was a race to be ashamed of, it is the White race.
Z
indeed.
If u dont believe Im white, Look me up on FaceBook
Zachary Szabo
If there ever was a race to be ashamed of, it is the White race.
Z
Z I hope you are high right now.
nNiIcCkKoO
11-06-2008, 18:51
http://feyfriends.com/sockobama-thumb-400x505.jpg
nNiIcCkKoO
11-06-2008, 18:52
Oh and you left out this... TRYING TO FORGET THINGS ARE WE?
-Z- says (8:36 AM):
monkeys are smart
nicOH says (8:36 AM):
no
-Z- says (8:37 AM):
well in comparison to Obama, they are
Z I hope you are high right now.
no.... But this Kid has driven me to seek some solace.
Z
Oh and you left out this... TRYING TO FORGET THINGS ARE WE?
-Z- says (8:36 AM):
monkeys are smart
nicOH says (8:36 AM):
no
-Z- says (8:37 AM):
well in comparison to Obama, they are
LOL
I was playing along.
Z
Divine Intervention
11-06-2008, 18:55
hmmm the Colbert Report makes a good point. in films/tv-shows....every time a blackman is president something **** happens. the show: 24...the film Armagedon....BEWARE.
nNiIcCkKoO
11-06-2008, 18:56
no.... But this Kid has driven me to seek some solace.
Z
Oh I see. I'm a kid?
Well, if so, at least I haven't wasted my life getting a degree for idiots, on a topic thats pointless, to get a job that doesnt exist.
I'm sure in ten years time I will be laughing at you with my piles of money, while you still try to cause problems on this forum, because you have no other life to deal with.
Sorry to be abrupt but your an idiot.
hmmm the Colbert Report makes a good point. in films/tv-shows....every time a blackman is president something **** happens. the show: 24...the film Armagedon....BEWARE.
Was GWB secretly Black?
Z
hmmm the Colbert Report makes a good point. in films/tv-shows....every time a blackman is president something **** happens. the show: 24...the film Armagedon....BEWARE.
Obviously those shows were written by white supremacists.
nNiIcCkKoO
11-06-2008, 18:58
Well the KKK did a good job.
Divine Intervention
11-06-2008, 18:58
Obviously those shows were written by white supremacists.
white guy saves the day in each one.
Oh I see. I'm a kid?
Well, if so, at least I haven't wasted my life getting a degree for idiots, on a topic thats pointless, to get a job that doesnt exist.
I'm sure in ten years time I will be laughing at you with my piles of money, while you still try to cause problems on this forum, because you have no other life to deal with.
Sorry to be abrupt but your an idiot.
LOL.
I rest my case.
I need not money to satisfy my lust for life. Unlike you it seems.
But I suppose someone that thinks so little of others will need money, if nothing else, to survive in life.
When you grow up, and sorrow is your best friend, remember this,
You can always choose to learn.
Z
white guy saves the day in each one.
Disgusting anti-black racism. President Obama should help things.
nNiIcCkKoO
11-06-2008, 19:06
LOL.
I rest my case.
I need not money to satisfy my lust for life. Unlike you it seems.
But I suppose someone that thinks so little of others will need money, if nothing else, to survive in life.
When you grow up, and sorrow is your best friend, remember this,
You can always choose to learn.
Z
I dont think little of all others, just particular people and races.
It's a pretty poor excuse to say that you have no need for money to satisfy your lust for life, you have no avenue to make money, thats the problem. I can learn anything I want to learn, you it seems, can't. You chose a **** avenue for your sorry little life, and now you have to pay for it, I bet you regret it and always will.
Obviously those shows were written by white supremacists.
Clearly Obama is the puppet of a white supremacist, and has been elected to show the world that blacks are all monkeys.
Clealry he is a monkey...
I mean listen to the shrude and lame way he speaks in comparison to Bush.
When Bush spoke, it was with elegance, and confidence, not to mention up most intelligence,
\
When i hear Obama speak, I can barley understand his Moneky talk.
Z
nNiIcCkKoO
11-06-2008, 19:07
Disgusting anti-black racism. President Obama should help things.
I'm sure his army of monkeys, sorry I meant his family, will be able to help him.
I dont think little of all others, just particular people and races.
It's a pretty poor excuse to say that you have no need for money to satisfy your lust for life, you have no avenue to make money, thats the problem. I can learn anything I want to learn, you it seems, can't. You chose a **** avenue for your sorry little life, and now you have to pay for it, I bet you regret it and always will.
alright Abo,
Yeah, I so regret learning philosophy, its completely useless,
Money is all that matters,
/END
lmao
gooo ABO!!!!
Z
nNiIcCkKoO
11-06-2008, 19:09
Clearly Obama is the puppet of a white supremacist, and has been elected to show the world that blacks are all monkeys.
Clealry he is a monkey...
I mean listen to the shrude and lame way he speaks in comparison to Bush.
When Bush spoke, it was with elegance, and confidence, not to mention up most intelligence,
\
When i hear Obama speak, I can barley understand his Moneky talk.
Z
Let's wait and see how good the black guy is, shall we. If he fails he can always go back to the zoo.
I dont think little of all others, just particular people and races.
It's a pretty poor excuse to say that you have no need for money to satisfy your lust for life, you have no avenue to make money, thats the problem. I can learn anything I want to learn, you it seems, can't. You chose a **** avenue for your sorry little life, and now you have to pay for it, I bet you regret it and always will.
I'm starting to actually like this kid, he should be on comedy central.
Z
nNiIcCkKoO
11-06-2008, 19:12
alright Abo,
Yeah, I so regret learning philosophy, its completely useless,
Money is all that matters,
/END
lmao
gooo ABO!!!!
Z
Are you trying to make reference to aboriginals, by calling them "abo"'s. I thought you werent racist? Oh hang on, now you are... **** you are dumber than I thought.
Philosophy is a waste of time and space, and all that study or have studied should realise that. It hasnt taught you anything about life, you still seem to be a little naive idiot, of course with no job.
Now I can see how you relate to blacks, both no income, both always want an easy ride from the Government. Should move to America hey? Im sure Black Obama will help a brother out?
nNiIcCkKoO
11-06-2008, 19:13
I'm starting to actually like this kid, he should be on comedy central.
Z
Yes, I will bring in a couple of your quotes, to get the crowd laughing. You are an idiot, a complete waste of a human life, why do you bother posting?
You shouldnt hide your insecurity behind your stupid posts. You useless ramblings are incoherent and make you look retarded, which I am sure you actually are. Either you are a product of incest, or you were dropped on your head at a young age.
Are you trying to make reference to aboriginals, by calling them "abo"'s. I thought you werent racist? Oh hang on, now you are... **** you are dumber than I thought.
Philosophy is a waste of time and space, and all that study or have studied should realise that. It hasnt taught you anything about life, you still seem to be a little naive idiot, of course with no job.
Now I can see how you relate to blacks, both no income, both always want an easy ride from the Government. Should move to America hey? Im sure Black Obama will help a brother out?
Wait, so according to you, Aristotle, Plato, Socrates and other philosophers were all idiots?
nNiIcCkKoO
11-06-2008, 19:16
Wait, so according to you, Aristotle, Plato, Socrates and other philosophers were all idiots?
Yes. But even so, they didnt waste their time going to university/college to learn about it, did they?
Yes. But even so, they didnt waste their time going to university/college to learn about it, did they?
Ok, nevermind that their ideas are some of the foundations of Western Civilisation.
this kid is great.
BTW Abo is Canadian Slang for Stupid White man.
Z
nNiIcCkKoO
11-06-2008, 19:22
Ok, nevermind that their ideas are some of the foundations of Western Civilisation.
Probably in the same way that all your arguments are flawed?
My last post on this topic, so I will make it interesting for myself.
Consider this...
Z. You have no job, no life, you spend your days on this forum, making stupid posts on topic's nobody could care less about. Your lack of common knowledge or simple reasoning is astounding, you cant comprehend even simple logic. You make flawed and idiodic arguments, that make you seem stupider than you quite probably are. I could continue on all day about you, but... You need to wake up to yourself, you are wasting your life.
Every point I have made I stand by, in particular reference to Obama. He will fail miserably, he is an idiot, and when you wake up to that, well done.
I read this quote some time ago and it made sense to me.
Intelligent people talk about ideas
Smart people talk about events
Stupid people talk about people
People could do better by talking a little less about other people in such a derogatory fashion. I understand that a little flaming is fun, but i think this is going way over the top.
Yes. But even so, they didnt waste their time going to university/college to learn about it, did they?
I am not sure where u hail from, but Where I live, going to School is not a waste of time.
I attended Fanshawe College, known across North America for its Liberal Arts Programs.
And I can (just as u can) go to school for anything I want still...
I think I might get into Journalism soon actually.
Z
Probably in the same way that all your arguments are flawed?
Because they weren't taken from the bible or from Ayn Rand?
Just who are who to criticise Z's lifestyle anyway? Bill Gates?
No.
Odds are that you are a young kid with no real idea what he's talking about.
tippysmurf
11-06-2008, 23:57
:confused: what's going on?
racism at its best... He's been refusing to refer to blue people as smurfs and saying that blue people are useless alcoholic scum of society. Sorry Tippysmurf :(
racism at its best... He's been refusing to refer to blue people as smurfs and saying that blue people are useless alcoholic scum of society. Sorry Tippysmurf :(
Bush was a Smurf.
Z
Don't condemn an entire group because of an individual's mistakes
Don't condemn an entire group because of an individual's mistakes
You mean like Republicans being condemned because of George?
When the majority of the party supported him blindly then yea... but I'm not blind to say that Bush's legacy will eventually be more positive especially if Iraq continues to improve. Unfortunately Iraq is more based on luck than anything
When the majority of the party supported him blindly then yea... but I'm not blind to say that Bush's legacy will eventually be more positive especially if Iraq continues to improve. Unfortunately Iraq is more based on luck than anything
improve?
how can a war improve?
U mean stop...
Green: GWB, Cheney, McSame, Palin, 3/4 of other republicans. they are all quite foolish.
Gimme a break they elected a monkey as their leader.
The Republican party is THE safest thing on earth atm to criticize.
GOP makes Cancer look good.
Z
I like Bananas.
Me too!
do u like Mushrooms?
:tt1:
Z
Me too!
do u like Mushrooms?
:tt1:
Z
Only a certain kind. ;)
improve?
how can a war improve?
U mean stop...
Green: GWB, Cheney, McSame, Palin, 3/4 of other republicans. they are all quite foolish.
Gimme a break they elected a monkey as their leader.
The Republican party is THE safest thing on earth atm to criticize.
GOP makes Cancer look good.
Z
Do you even try to be unbiased? Granted it'll take a lot of luck but so far Iraq has improved since Gen. Peterus took over.
Go read a history book, but don't highlight just the negative points in American history to try to prove your point...
Shabaz K
11-07-2008, 21:32
i think you guys should leave Bush alone and pick on cheney.
Do you even try to be unbiased? Granted it'll take a lot of luck but so far Iraq has improved since Gen. Peterus took over.
Go read a history book, but don't highlight just the negative points in American history to try to prove your point...
actually as you should be able to tell, on this post I was attempting to be as bias as I possibly could be.
(the one u quoted that is)
I can agree that America has done alot of good things.
But man comon.
Was Veitnam good?
U think Iraq is going to have a safe society like America within 50 years, even if we keep 1/4 Million Armed men there forever?
No. Achmed is not going to forget you killed his family. Mohamed is not going to forget you bombed his church. Asir, he will not forget that you slaughtered Best friend.
You have heard of Abu Ghraib, I am sure.
If you draw a smiley face in a huge steaming pile of crap, it doesn't make it nice.
Z
::LD::GrimReapr
11-07-2008, 22:29
Was Veitnam good?
No, Vietnam wasnt good.
How about us helping in WWI and WWII Did that not help out or am I mistaken? Or any of the other wars we were involved or helped out in?
Vietnam down right sucked but thats 1 mistake. So you wanna hold that over our heads over all the other good we have done?
Are you kidding me Z seriously?
If you draw a smiley face in a huge steaming pile of crap, it doesn't make it nice.
Yes, It does make it nice it just doesnt smell any better
actually as you should be able to tell, on this post I was attempting to be as bias as I possibly could be.
(the one u quoted that is)
I can agree that America has done alot of good things.
But man comon.
Was Veitnam good?
U think Iraq is going to have a safe society like America within 50 years, even if we keep 1/4 Million Armed men there forever?
No. Achmed is not going to forget you killed his family. Mohamed is not going to forget you bombed his church. Asir, he will not forget that you slaughtered Best friend.
You have heard of Abu Ghraib, I am sure.
If you draw a smiley face in a huge steaming pile of crap, it doesn't make it nice.
Z
Iraq is far better off than Japan was after America was done with them...
Did Japan take 1, 5 or 10 years to become what it is now??? no it didn't, it took a lot of work especially on the part on of Japan. So it's reasonable to think that if Japan could forgive us, for the most part, for fire bombing their cities and nuking 2 of their cities and leaving it a nuclear wasteland then I think there is hope in Iraq considering the relatively low casualty numbers on both sides. The best way to help them and ourselves is continue to support them and guarantee that Iraq becomes an economic powerhouse in the region as soon as possible no matter the costs. Otherwise America and Iraq risk a lot more than just mass poverty and violence in Iraq.
Iraq is far better off than Japan was after America was done with them...
Did Japan take 1, 5 or 10 years to become what it is now??? no it didn't, it took a lot of work especially on the part on of Japan. So it's reasonable to think that if Japan could forgive us, for the most part, for fire bombing their cities and nuking 2 of their cities and leaving it a nuclear wasteland then I think there is hope in Iraq considering the relatively low casualty numbers on both sides. The best way to help them and ourselves is continue to support them and guarantee that Iraq becomes an economic powerhouse in the region as soon as possible no matter the costs. Otherwise America and Iraq risk a lot more than just mass poverty and violence in Iraq.
There way no attempt at assimilation of cultures in japan.
There was no long term invasion and imposition of foreign economics.
I will grant your differences, and I will say, perhaps your are correct.
But I am sure we can agree Iraq and Japan are two very different places, and people.
Z
Rassputtin
11-08-2008, 18:39
First let me start by saying that Nikko the New Jack City lover is quite possibly one of the most ignorant individuals I have had the disdain to read posts from.
He obviously is still stuck in "13 year old, know it all, with no real conceivable perception of how the world really works" mode.
I don't know why so many of you have responded to him, he clearly just has $hit dribbling out the corners of his mouth and you all think its worth responding to.
Ignore the fool, when you stop treating the crap dripping off his tongue like something worthy to respond to he will go away.....................
Onward:
I can agree that America has done alot of good things.
But man comon.
Was Veitnam good?
U think Iraq is going to have a safe society like America within 50 years, even if we keep 1/4 Million Armed men there forever?
No. Achmed is not going to forget you killed his family. Mohamed is not going to forget you bombed his church. Asir, he will not forget that you slaughtered Best friend.
You have heard of Abu Ghraib, I am sure.
If you draw a smiley face in a huge steaming pile of crap, it doesn't make it nice.
Z
America hasn't just done alot of good things, america love it or hate it has done alot of great things, and an uncountable number of good things.
World Wars, Cold Wars, Advancements in industry, technology, medical science, freedoms and Civil and human rights, to name a few.
As far as Vietnam goes, that war started in 1945, long before american troops were there and started dying by the hundreds and less than familiar with the subject individuals began blaming the entire conflict on americans. So lets first be very clear on that.
The vietnam war began when Japan surrendered to the allies in 45 and surrendered all power to HO and his National Liberation Committee, who then promptly claimed vietnams independance.
Shortly thereafter the british went to Saigon and returned authority to the french.
In 46 the french and Vietminh constanly attempt to negotiate, of which the French agree to recognize Vietnam as a free state of France.
The Vietminh do not agree to this and during the course of the year negotiations break down and the Vietminh launch the first organized attack against the french which begins the Indochina war.
In 49 Bao Dai and President Vincent Auriol of France sign the Elysee Agreement. As part of the agreement the French pledge to assist in the building of a national anti-Communist army.
1. Which quickly prompted the Chinese and the Soviets to offer and give weapons to the vietminh to support communism
2. Afterwhich the americans give 15 million dollars, mission plans and advisors to the French in support of democracy in 1950.
*****************************NOTE
So the chinese and soviets support the vietminh, but the americans are Aholes for supporting Bao Dai and a push for democracy and free elections. Because thats the general concensus that I hear from everyone. America is the jerks of the vietnam war, they shouldnt have gotten involved. But no mention of the other nations that got involved.... which of course is typical. Keep in mind that its 1950 now, 5 years after this conflict and struggle for control started and the Americans have not yet waged war in vietnam.
So to say that what the americans did and wanted to do in Vietnam was not good is crap. The intentions were definitly good, and our motives weren't for oil reserves either..................... Ahole americans..... right?
****************************End Note
From 50 to 53 the vietminh essentially manhandle the french utilizing the soviet and chinese weapons.
In 1954 the Geneva Convention begins, the vietminh rep and the French make an agreement for the 17th parallel line division of vietnam, with the two halfs seperate until 56 when elections are held.
Initially both the americans and the Bao Dia are opposed to this idea.
After the fiasco of a fixed election, in 56 the French leave vietnam and leave the training of the South Vietnamese to the americans.
From there it escalted and escalated, until 1965 some twenty years after this conflict began, the first american combat troops (9th Marine Expeditionary Brigade) landed on the ground in danang. Some 200,000+ more troops would be on the ground by the end of 1965. And the rest is what most people think the vietnam war was. Americans suddenly and for no reason deciding to wage a war in vietnam.
The americans were there for good reason, the initial cause was just. It just happened to spiral out of hand, even to the point where the intial protaganist of the French left, and we alone were left holding the hope rope for half a nation.
Should we have just packed up and left. Say sorry, its not our job to protect your lives from the north vietnamese, not our job to help you maintain your freedom and desire for independance from the communists to the north?
The americans lost that war. (which was never a war because war was never offically declared because of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution which stated that LBJ had the authority to use whatever means necessary to resolve the issue and ensure no future aggression on americans from the North Vietnamese.) But whatever you want to call it, conflict war, America did not win. Despite its best efforts and close to 60,000 american lives, we were unsuccessful. And the lack of success compounded the negative image of our involvment in the first place.
Had the mission been a sweltering success I guarantee you it wouldn't be the "mistake" its viewed as today.
So yes, Vietnam was a good thing. Did we have to be there, no, should we have gone.... yes!
Just as we went to war in WWII. Oh but we were successful there, and going where we didnt belong helped alot of nations out so its a good thing we did that. Maybe we should have only focused on Japan, conquered them and came home. Then all complainers and haters of america would be speaking German, and have nothing to FORGET TO THANK US FOR, while they ***** about how evil we are.
No, Vietnam wasnt good.
How about us helping in WWI and WWII Did that not help out or am I mistaken? Or any of the other wars we were involved or helped out in?
Vietnam down right sucked but thats 1 mistake. So you wanna hold that over our heads over all the other good we have done?
Are you kidding me Z seriously?
The result of Vietnam was the only bad thing about it. Our intentions there were justified. The exact same intentions that saved the WHOLE OF EUROPE from Hitler and the axis. Defend free peoples from tyranny. Like I said, Japan bombed us, not germany.
Why is no one *****ing that we stuck our big american noses into a european war where it didnt belong........................? By all "current" standards we should have hit japan and came home.
America has problems, we are not perfect, but I am growing very sick of all the anti american crap.
None of us were in the war, but alot of our grandparents and in some cases parents were. And unless yours were part of the losing side, not a single one of them was saying a god **** word, or complaining one **** bit, when AMERICAN paratroopers were landing on YOUR conquered soil behind the lines of the ENEMY that fought and took YOUR land and lives and not OURS. They didnt take american land, the luftwaffe wasn't dropping bombs on america.
But yet, when we come and stick our necks out, where by your current standards today it doesn't belong, none of your pappies were complaining then! When we liberated your towns and drove your enemies out, we weren't capatilistic pigs. When our troops fought and died on your land for YOUR cause, we weren't ignorant war mongering americans!
But now that you are all safe from Tyranny, and we have secured the world and either put in check or bankrupted all major superpowers but china and hence almost totally eliminated any threat of something like that happening again, we are pigs, mongers, idiots........
You know what I say to that................ we should have let all your parents and grandparents burn in the rubble and ashes of german bombs. You are ungrateful pricks undeserving of the freedoms that you now have thanks to the spearheaded efforts of Brave Americans!
Iraq is far better off than Japan was after America was done with them...
Did Japan take 1, 5 or 10 years to become what it is now??? no it didn't, it took a lot of work especially on the part on of Japan. So it's reasonable to think that if Japan could forgive us, for the most part, for fire bombing their cities and nuking 2 of their cities and leaving it a nuclear wasteland then I think there is hope in Iraq considering the relatively low casualty numbers on both sides. The best way to help them and ourselves is continue to support them and guarantee that Iraq becomes an economic powerhouse in the region as soon as possible no matter the costs. Otherwise America and Iraq risk a lot more than just mass poverty and violence in Iraq.
The american occupation of Japan lasted 7 years, from 1945 to 1952. The treaty of San Francisco on April 28th secured the end of the occupation and once again set japan as a full independant soveriegnty.
The recovery of Japan was not simply Japans effort. In all likely hood has we not occupied a bankrupt and broken japan, the soviets would have done so, and you would have a largely different japan today.
Mcarthur was in charge of the occupation and worked very closesly and diligently with the prime minister Yoshida Shigeru. To establish, reform, rebuild, and better the nation of Japan. Between 1947 and 1951 alone (thanks to the Marshall Plan) the united states dumped 13 billion dollars into japan and other DEFEATED countries to help them rebuild after losing the war.
Because of America, every single one of them except germany had an ecomonmy that was BETTER than it was pre-war. And that was over a 4 year period. The united nations also helped with the millions of refugess to help stabilize the nations so that the recovery could take hold and remain.
And yes you are right, the best way to ensure success is:
"The best way to help them and ourselves is continue to support them and guarantee that Iraq becomes an economic powerhouse in the region as soon as possible no matter the costs."
There way no attempt at assimilation of cultures in japan.
There was no long term invasion and imposition of foreign economics.
I will grant your differences, and I will say, perhaps your are correct.
But I am sure we can agree Iraq and Japan are two very different places, and people.
Z
There are no attempts at assimlation of culture in Iraq. There is a difference between government and culture. We are not telling them to not worship allah, or change thier culture unless it applies to human and civil rights.
Well I should say there is no more an attempt to assimlate culture into Iraq then there was in Japan. Check it out, Mcarthur DID INDEED attempt to tone down some of the cultural aspects of the japanese during the occupation, and he did, and it worked, and after seven years of occupation, look at japan today.
There was no long term invasion and imposition of foreign economics...........? The pacific campaign portion of WW II lasted longer than a few days. And if you ask me more than a few months is kinda long term. It didnt take as long in Japan because we did it the right way. We didn't ***** foot around, and carry tissues with us to wipe the tears away from the whiners.
We dropped nukes, bankrupted and decimated them. They were a broken and battered country who had as much a desire to recover economically and socially as we had a desire for them to recover. And since unlike today we weren't pussies about it, they were more compelled to comply.
Instead of playing a chess game in Iraq with 2 pawns and a rook. Put all the pieces on the board and see how quickly the conflict is over.
Japan and Iraq are different people and places but fundamentally they are all humans, and humanity shares its basic fundamentals and desires on a subconcieous and pshycological level regardless of what god your worship, what culture your raised in and what spot of the planet you live on.
The problem in Iraq is that we are being little girls about it to appease all the haters and whiners and crybabies. But we are there anyway, so why appease them. If you there and your gonna be there then do it right.
If you want to end the conflict, drop half a million troops on the ground, set up airstrips and basecamps, and put the country and towns on a properly manned, armed and funded military lockdown. Full scale martial law, once you have it locked down internally, you focuse your efforts on the borders and preventing insurgents or illegals from crossing the border.
Air recon, roadblocks, camps, bases, radar stations, patrols and newly build walls will keep them out. All the while internally they are recoveering and being trained to defend themselvs, further increasing the border forces. You can't do this type of **** half arssed. If your gonna do it, do it.
If i was the lead strategic commander of this engagement this war would be over already.
I read your entire Post Rass, and I am quite impressed.
I did not know all that about NAM.
The following I found a bit comical:
"The result of Vietnam was the only bad thing about it."
I realize I am in no place to judge, but is it not the result that is most important to us today?
If an artist paints a painting, and at the begining and 1/2 way thru it is looking beautiful, but then it turns out to be crap in the end...
"If you want to end the conflict, drop half a million troops on the ground, set up airstrips and basecamps, and put the country and towns on a properly manned, armed and funded military lockdown. Full scale martial law, once you have it locked down internally, you focuse your efforts on the borders and preventing insurgents or illegals from crossing the border."
so the Jihadists can wait in the homes for 5 years until u leave...?
The war was over when GWB declared it so.
Z
I won't get into Vietnam, but as for WW2:
What about the half of Europe that was taken by the Soviets, Rass?
Rass made great points.
I'd agree with the way things should be done in Iraq but the problem is that we're the sole superpower left and everyone uses us as a punching bag for their own agendas---> Hugo Chavez, Putin, etc.
And for east europe well they certainly were screwed :/ but who knows what might have happened had the allies dumped russia and tried to push them out.
Grendel Khan
11-08-2008, 19:26
You mean like Republicans being condemned because of George?
You are correct. It is unfair for the wide spread use of political labels and assumptions, BUT sadly that is the nature of harangues. And all Oratory currently is Harangue based.
The US should never have intervened in WW1. Without US support, a negotiated peace settlement would have been hammered out, without the insane reparations demands, which would have stopped Hitler ever coming to power. I didn't realise this until yesterday, but one US General (Pershing) actually wanted to invade germany and force an unconditional surrender. The Germans would never have stood for this, and it would have resulted in even worse casualties. Fortunately Pershing was overruled.
The problem in Iraq is that we are being little girls about it to appease all the haters and whiners and crybabies. But we are there anyway, so why appease them. If you there and your gonna be there then do it right.
If you want to end the conflict, drop half a million troops on the ground, set up airstrips and basecamps, and put the country and towns on a properly manned, armed and funded military lockdown. Full scale martial law, once you have it locked down internally, you focuse your efforts on the borders and preventing insurgents or illegals from crossing the border.
Air recon, roadblocks, camps, bases, radar stations, patrols and newly build walls will keep them out. All the while internally they are recoveering and being trained to defend themselvs, further increasing the border forces. You can't do this type of **** half arssed. If your gonna do it, do it.
If i was the lead strategic commander of this engagement this war would be over already.
I believe i remember hearing one of our commanders step down before the war started saying that we need X ammount more troops to effectively lock down the border. He was ignored and GWB just found someone else who would try it with less than adequate ammount of troops.
We simply never had enough manpower over there, that was why i initially was against the war.
oh i forgot to add, great post rass, very well written.
The US should never have intervened in WW1. Without US support, a negotiated peace settlement would have been hammered out, without the insane reparations demands, which would have stopped Hitler ever coming to power. I didn't realise this until yesterday, but one US General (Pershing) actually wanted to invade germany and force an unconditional surrender. The Germans would never have stood for this, and it would have resulted in even worse casualties. Fortunately Pershing was overruled.
So If I read you correctly, I can now blame the USA for WW2 and Hitler?
I Love u Will.
Z
Mr President
11-09-2008, 11:43
I believe i remember hearing one of our commanders step down before the war started saying that we need X ammount more troops to effectively lock down the border. He was ignored and GWB just found someone else who would try it with less than adequate ammount of troops.
We simply never had enough manpower over there, that was why i initially was against the war.
lol , this would not be GWB's fault, this would be Mr Rumsfeld fault. The President can only make good choices if the advisors are giving him good info..
So If I read you correctly, I can now blame the USA for WW2 and Hitler?
I Love u Will.
Z
hmmm Z looking for more reasons to hate the USA.. go figure.
Rassputtin
11-09-2008, 21:11
I won't get into Vietnam, but as for WW2:
What about the half of Europe that was taken by the Soviets, Rass?
Taken when? In 1939 after they signed a pact with hitler and the germans? Or Sept 17th 1939 when they invaded poland? Or do you mean in Nov when the soviets invaded Finland or 40 when they occupied the baltics, lithuiania, latvia and estonia?
Basically I guess what I mean is are you refering to the countries they were conquering while being in a pact and warmongering along side hitler, or do you mean the bit of help they were once Hitler broke the pact and attacked the soviets.....
Because if your refering to the countries they conquered while in bed with hitler........ then I don't understand the question. What about them? Should I be impressed they invaded poland, finland, lithuiania, latvia and estonia. That would be like the USA invading Guatamala, belize, el salvador etc etc. Not a very impressive feat.
If your referring to the bit of help in pushing the germans back..... i'm still not impressed. They weren't doing anything but moving backwards until the americans arrived, then they managed to stall the germans at stalingrad, and then slowly begin to repel them back. Like it or not without the usa stepping up, the whole of europe falls to the axis.
I read your entire Post Rass, and I am quite impressed.
I did not know all that about NAM.
The following I found a bit comical:
"The result of Vietnam was the only bad thing about it."
I realize I am in no place to judge, but is it not the result that is most important to us today?
If an artist paints a painting, and at the begining and 1/2 way thru it is looking beautiful, but then it turns out to be crap in the end...
"If you want to end the conflict, drop half a million troops on the ground, set up airstrips and basecamps, and put the country and towns on a properly manned, armed and funded military lockdown. Full scale martial law, once you have it locked down internally, you focuse your efforts on the borders and preventing insurgents or illegals from crossing the border.
so the Jihadists can wait in the homes for 5 years until u leave...?
The war was over when GWB declared it so.
Z
Most people don't know all that about Nam, they just know americans are jerks for fighting there. The result should not be all that is important. Because if I attempt to paint a beautifil painting to sell so I can donate the money so a child can afford an operation to cure an illness so he can live, but its not that great of a painting and doesnt raise enough money and the kid dies.
Does it only matter that I didnt raise enough money for the kid. Should everyone walk around calling me a jerk, saying I shouldn't have put my nose into the poor kids business anyway, what a Jerk I am............?
Wait for 5 years, sure they can wait. By then, the iraqi's will be just as well trained, and the infrastructure would be sound, and the economy would be thriving and I don't think the Jihadists would 1. be as inclined, as their country is doing great an americans are GONE. 2. the non jihadists would be better prepared and willing to deal with thier sorry asses.
The US should never have intervened in WW1. Without US support, a negotiated peace settlement would have been hammered out, without the insane reparations demands, which would have stopped Hitler ever coming to power. I didn't realise this until yesterday, but one US General (Pershing) actually wanted to invade germany and force an unconditional surrender. The Germans would never have stood for this, and it would have resulted in even worse casualties. Fortunately Pershing was overruled.
The united states declared war in april of 1917. In January of 1917 Reich Foreign Secretary Zimmermann's telegram to Mexico urging her entry into war against the United States is discovered and translated by the British, and the germans resume unrestricted U-boat warfare against american ships in January and february. How and why do you see continued warfare as a sign that a negotiated peace would have been hammered out?
Secondly the notion that hitlers coming to power is the fault of the americans is ridiculous. Alot took place that brought hitler to power of which the americans had nothing to do with. Thats just reaching.........
Thats like saying most of the wars fought is the fault of the jews because had their religion not indicated a messiah, and Jesus Christ not have been dubbed the messiah and crucified, and christianity born, then none of the holy wars or crusades and what not would have taken place...... just a real stretch is all that is.
So If I read you correctly, I can now blame the USA for WW2 and Hitler?
I Love u Will.
Z
only if your gullable and niave
lol , this would not be GWB's fault, this would be Mr Rumsfeld fault. The President can only make good choices if the advisors are giving him good info..
hmmm Z looking for more reasons to hate the USA.. go figure.
Whether Donald gave him good information or not its still not his fault.
Another widespread misconception. The president did this , or did that, or vote for this candidate he's gonna do this for us.
In truth, a president does very little. Matter of fact, most of the crap politicians say they are gonna do, they do not have the authority to do. Thats the whole point of our democracy and political system. It takes a majority agreement to get things done.
George Bush didn't declare war, the american congress declared war. George bush didnt spend 10 billion a month in iraq, the american congress did. George bush didnt raise taxes, the american congress did.
Never fails to amaze me.
Only beef I have against your post is that after 9/11 Bush was given a blank check by Congress and the American population to do as he wished. Then the other problem that compounded to it was he basically listened to only the neo conservatives around him who believe in the spreading of democracy through military means. So they hijacked the reason we went to war for their own agenda to transform the Mideast and now we're forced to stay (unless we want to face worse consequences down the line). The Bush admin. should have followed Bin Laden into Pakistan and have killed/captured them all while we had the world's "sympathy" instead of waiting until now to start violating borders when our buddy, Musharraf is finally out of power... But in end, if we're lucky, Iraq turns out better than anyone at the moment believes is possible. For the moment let's just hope it does turn out for the best and not ignore the progress that has been made after Bush finally started listening to people more pragmatic like Gen. Peterus and Robert Gates.
Taken when? In 1939 after they signed a pact with hitler and the germans? Or Sept 17th 1939 when they invaded poland? Or do you mean in Nov when the soviets invaded Finland or 40 when they occupied the baltics, lithuiania, latvia and estonia?
Basically I guess what I mean is are you refering to the countries they were conquering while being in a pact and warmongering along side hitler, or do you mean the bit of help they were once Hitler broke the pact and attacked the soviets.....
Because if your refering to the countries they conquered while in bed with hitler........ then I don't understand the question. What about them? Should I be impressed they invaded poland, finland, lithuiania, latvia and estonia. That would be like the USA invading Guatamala, belize, el salvador etc etc. Not a very impressive feat.
If your referring to the bit of help in pushing the germans back..... i'm still not impressed. They weren't doing anything but moving backwards until the americans arrived, then they managed to stall the germans at stalingrad, and then slowly begin to repel them back. Like it or not without the usa stepping up, the whole of europe falls to the axis.
Most people don't know all that about Nam, they just know americans are jerks for fighting there. The result should not be all that is important. Because if I attempt to paint a beautifil painting to sell so I can donate the money so a child can afford an operation to cure an illness so he can live, but its not that great of a painting and doesnt raise enough money and the kid dies.
Does it only matter that I didnt raise enough money for the kid. Should everyone walk around calling me a jerk, saying I shouldn't have put my nose into the poor kids business anyway, what a Jerk I am............?
Wait for 5 years, sure they can wait. By then, the iraqi's will be just as well trained, and the infrastructure would be sound, and the economy would be thriving and I don't think the Jihadists would 1. be as inclined, as their country is doing great an americans are GONE. 2. the non jihadists would be better prepared and willing to deal with thier sorry asses.
The united states declared war in april of 1917. In January of 1917 Reich Foreign Secretary Zimmermann's telegram to Mexico urging her entry into war against the United States is discovered and translated by the British, and the germans resume unrestricted U-boat warfare against american ships in January and february. How and why do you see continued warfare as a sign that a negotiated peace would have been hammered out?
Secondly the notion that hitlers coming to power is the fault of the americans is ridiculous. Alot took place that brought hitler to power of which the americans had nothing to do with. Thats just reaching.........
Thats like saying most of the wars fought is the fault of the jews because had their religion not indicated a messiah, and Jesus Christ not have been dubbed the messiah and crucified, and christianity born, then none of the holy wars or crusades and what not would have taken place...... just a real stretch is all that is.
only if your gullable and niave
Whether Donald gave him good information or not its still not his fault.
Another widespread misconception. The president did this , or did that, or vote for this candidate he's gonna do this for us.
In truth, a president does very little. Matter of fact, most of the crap politicians say they are gonna do, they do not have the authority to do. Thats the whole point of our democracy and political system. It takes a majority agreement to get things done.
George Bush didn't declare war, the american congress declared war. George bush didnt spend 10 billion a month in iraq, the american congress did. George bush didnt raise taxes, the american congress did.
Never fails to amaze me.
I think you've misunderstood my post. What I am saying is that it is no good for the US to claim to have saved Europe from Nazism, when half of Europe was subjected to a regime equally as bad, if not worse.
Besides, Germany had no hope of taking Britain by force, not for at least several years. The most likely outcome of US neutrality would have been a negotiated peace whereby Britain is left alone in exchange for allowing Germany a free hand in the east.
For WW1, Hitler's coming to power was a direct consequence of Germany losing WW1, and the crippling demands that were made of it at Versailles. Without fresh US troops, the British and French would not have had the will to fight Germany to the end, and would almost certainly have opted for a settlement. With a reasonable peace treaty (no insane reperations demands) Germany would not have suffered anything like it did historically, and it would have been much easier for the government to deal with extreme elements on both sides (nazis and communists). Germany would likely have remained democratic and far less militaristic.
jasonlfunk
11-11-2008, 19:32
...US to claim to have saved Europe from Nazism, when half of Europe was subjected to a regime equally as bad, if not worse. ...
We are Americans. We can claim whatever we want to. :p
We are Americans. We can claim whatever we want to. :p
Well, in that case.....
We won 1812!:P
lol , this would not be GWB's fault, this would be Mr Rumsfeld fault. The President can only make good choices if the advisors are giving him good info..
hmmm Z looking for more reasons to hate the USA.. go figure.
lol,
i was just kidding.
But really, Prez... Ive never met anyone in RL that defends GWB...
Z
lol,
i was just kidding.
But really, Prez... Ive never met anyone in RL that defends GWB...
Z
How many times have you been to the South?
Divine Intervention
11-12-2008, 04:19
Taken when? In 1939 after they signed a pact with hitler and the germans? Or Sept 17th 1939 when they invaded poland? Or do you mean in Nov when the soviets invaded Finland or 40 when they occupied the baltics, lithuiania, latvia and estonia?
Basically I guess what I mean is are you refering to the countries they were conquering while being in a pact and warmongering along side hitler, or do you mean the bit of help they were once Hitler broke the pact and attacked the soviets.....
Because if your refering to the countries they conquered while in bed with hitler........ then I don't understand the question.
Poland - refused Soviet help in the form of placing troops on their border with Germany. Pact with Nazi Germany signed because Britain and France wouldn't sign one. Regarding Poland - if you were Soviet High command would you have just sat back and let the Nazi war machine advance so much closer to USSR? Buffer state created against future German aggression. Finland? Conflict occurred due to their blatantly anti-Soviet intentions. Saint Petersburg was in a prime location to receive heavy bombardment from Finish territory in case of a war against Soviet Union by Germany (with Finland as allies). Finland was offered a v.good deal (in terms of territory swap) but refused. Anyone giving the BS about it being a war of conquest - well why did the Soviets attack the most highly fortified region instead of attacking through the much vastly less defended border they had in the north with Finland?
Divine Intervention
11-12-2008, 08:27
oh and im not going to re-read the thread now (will do later) but i think i noticed some gross underrating of the Russian contribution to WW1, WW2 and the Napoleon wars (although i think that was just Will:P) :thumbdown::sneaky:
Bram Gotink
11-12-2008, 08:43
oh and im not going to re-read the thread now (will do later) but i think i noticed some gross underrating of the Russian contribution to WW1, WW2 and the Napoleon wars (although i think that was just Will:P) :thumbdown::sneaky:
WW I :
If I remember correctly, Russian input in this war stopped in 1917 with the end of the Czar's regime.
WW II :
Russia was part of the Allied Forces, and helped liberate Germany. Good job.
Russia was, however, the cause of the American bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima... They bombed it to make sure that them commies could not gain influence in Japan.
Of course, the USSR was not the best nation ever, but it had it's charms... the StaatsSicherheit of the DDR for example... (who, btw, supported the RAF with money and weapons, how dared they !)
Napoleonic Wars :
IDK about Russia's input in those wars...
Except that they were the first of Napoleons Defeats... Setting the torch to Moscow, Nice one btw. Which reminds me that you did the exact same thing with Hitler's troops...
Divine Intervention
11-12-2008, 08:52
WW I :
If I remember correctly, Russian input in this war stopped in 1917 with the end of the Czar's regime.
WW II :
Russia was part of the Allied Forces, and helped liberate Germany. Good job.
Russia was, however, the cause of the American bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima... They bombed it to make sure that them commies could not gain influence in Japan.
Of course, the USSR was not the best nation ever, but it had it's charms... the StaatsSicherheit of the DDR for example... (who, btw, supported the RAF with money and weapons, how dared they !)
Napoleonic Wars :
IDK about Russia's input in those wars...
Except that they were the first of Napoleons Defeats... Setting the torch to Moscow, Nice one btw. Which reminds me that you did the exact same thing with Hitler's troops...
Time for a history lesson.
WW1 - German success depended on the quick defeat of the French forces using the schlieffen plan. Its success was linked to the assumption that the German armed forces would defeat the French before Russia entered the conflict (by which time the Germans would have transported their army over to the Eastern front). Russias above-expected rapid mobilization resulted in the Germans being forced to send vast amounts of troops onto the Eastern front hence meaning they didnt have enough resources to follow the Schlieffen plan exactly (e.g. not being able to encircle...Paris i think?) and eventually resulting in them getting bogged down in a war of attrition and stalemate. All because of Russias fast response. Had Russia not been able to mobilize so quickly and tie down vast resources of the German army then the French would have been defeated, Britain would have been left sitting on its Island and the Russians would have been defeated 1 on 1 also. A point most people forget is that when Russia did leave the war in 1917, the Germans were able to have a massive break through later on due to having more resources available due to not fighting on 2 fronts anymore. Infact too successful. They got overstretched and the rest is history.
WW2. WTF??? USA bombed those 2 cities because they estimated that the invasion of Japan would have resulted in incredibly high casualties. This is the first time i hear this theory...the Russians defeated the Japanese in Manchuria and China however i have never heard of any Soviet plans to invade Japan. USA bombed them because they knew that Japan would continue fighting.
Napoleon - Russia lured Napoleons massive army deep into Russian territory then completely destroyed it on the way back. i think only 50k survived from the 750k < that invaded our country. Setting torch to moscow? nice? i agree.
French were hoping to settle down in cozy peace in our city however they were left with no shelter and not being the superhuman people that us Russians are (:cool:) they had to run away :P.
Max Logan
11-12-2008, 12:53
Poland - refused Soviet help in the form of placing troops on their border with Germany. Pact with Nazi Germany signed because Britain and France wouldn't sign one. Regarding Poland - if you were Soviet High command would you have just sat back and let the Nazi war machine advance so much closer to USSR? Buffer state created against future German aggression. Finland? Conflict occurred due to their blatantly anti-Soviet intentions. Saint Petersburg was in a prime location to receive heavy bombardment from Finish territory in case of a war against Soviet Union by Germany (with Finland as allies). Finland was offered a v.good deal (in terms of territory swap) but refused. Anyone giving the BS about it being a war of conquest - well why did the Soviets attack the most highly fortified region instead of attacking through the much vastly less defended border they had in the north with Finland?
you do realised you just said that everyone who didn`t agree to USSR terms got warred? :huh:
Or the fact Stalin missed an attack on Hitler by 2 days. He was like 'WTF?' when Hitler stroke 1st. Took Stalin quite a time and quite the help from West to make a counter attack. And ofcourse a whole lot of cannon fooders!
Bram Gotink
11-12-2008, 13:02
Time for a history lesson.
WW1 - German success depended on the quick defeat of the French forces using the schlieffen plan. Its success was linked to the assumption that the German armed forces would defeat the French before Russia entered the conflict (by which time the Germans would have transported their army over to the Eastern front). Russias above-expected rapid mobilization resulted in the Germans being forced to send vast amounts of troops onto the Eastern front hence meaning they didnt have enough resources to follow the Schlieffen plan exactly (e.g. not being able to encircle...Paris i think?) and eventually resulting in them getting bogged down in a war of attrition and stalemate. All because of Russias fast response. Had Russia not been able to mobilize so quickly and tie down vast resources of the German army then the French would have been defeated, Britain would have been left sitting on its Island and the Russians would have been defeated 1 on 1 also. A point most people forget is that when Russia did leave the war in 1917, the Germans were able to have a massive break through later on due to having more resources available due to not fighting on 2 fronts anymore. Infact too successful. They got overstretched and the rest is history.
IIRC, Belgium was all that stood between Germany and France, so it's our fault the German attack failed. That gave the Russians enough time to get their troops ready. Yes, they were ready faster than anticipated, but still. Without Belgium, Europe would've been Germany now.
And while the Russians were enjoying the death of the Czar, our armies were fighting back the Yperite (named after the Belgian city/town called Yper (Ieper in't nederlands)) and defending with all we had. Our armies were under the command of King Albert I (oh no, a royalty as a military leader in 1914-18 :s ), who could hold the Germans and keep them from crossing the IJzer (IDK what that river is called in English) by i.e. flooding a part of the countryside.
It was also b/c Germany attacked Belgium that England got involved. The deal with Belgium was, that in exchange of it's political independence (not allying with anyone, not picking sides in wars), England, France and a couple of other countries (named the big five) would garantee it's safety from attacks etc. England was obliged to enter the war, or break the treaty with Belgium.
WW2. WTF??? USA bombed those 2 cities because they estimated that the invasion of Japan would have resulted in incredibly high casualties. This is the first time i hear this theory...the Russians defeated the Japanese in Manchuria and China however i have never heard of any Soviet plans to invade Japan. USA bombed them because they knew that Japan would continue fighting.
That's what all Belgian students learn in 6th grade in High School. I did, at least
Napoleon - Russia lured Napoleons massive army deep into Russian territory then completely destroyed it on the way back. i think only 50k survived from the 750k < that invaded our country. Setting torch to moscow? nice? i agree.
French were hoping to settle down in cozy peace in our city however they were left with no shelter and not being the superhuman people that us Russians are (:cool:) they had to run away :P.
You just said the same thing as I did, but with numbers... That was a brilliant example of tactics Russia used there...
WW2. WTF??? USA bombed those 2 cities because they estimated that the invasion of Japan would have resulted in incredibly high casualties. This is the first time i hear this theory...the Russians defeated the Japanese in Manchuria and China however i have never heard of any Soviet plans to invade Japan. USA bombed them because they knew that Japan would continue fighting.
It wasn't a military invasion that the US was worried about imo.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.