the dynamite politics thread
- Thread starter Malaclypse
- Start date
Villain said:
Well yeah I guess you're right, but as you said, a thousand years had to pass by before we stopped killing the neighbor over a lawn argument, so I guess it'll be another thousand (ok maybe less) years for the world to have real peace, we won't probably see any of it, nor will we see the decline of US' power, sorry man, I'd like to see the capitol crumble too
If I assaulted a guy to steal his wallet, I'd be jailed even if that guy was a wanted criminal, depossing a dictator my ass...
Let me see can you tell me what is wrong in this picture:
Now, these 2 items are the first 2 items under the title, can we see
slight kind of propaganda in this?
So let me see RAF Tornado was flying without a pilot?
I didn't think that technology was advanced enough yet....
btw, those of you that don't know, here's what it looks like:
RAF Tornado
BBC News said:
Now, these 2 items are the first 2 items under the title, can we see
slight kind of propaganda in this?
So let me see RAF Tornado was flying without a pilot?
I didn't think that technology was advanced enough yet....
btw, those of you that don't know, here's what it looks like:
RAF Tornado
Has the video with the captured and killed americans been "aired" in USA, Britain, Spain, Italy and Eastern Europe? What are the reactions?
rahvin
keeper of the flame
i'm changing my mind about the war.
this doesn't mean i now think the reasons for it were unsound (though not humanitarian, so don't start flaming me on this, thank you), or that i wish the us had backed down from their position.
but the way they're doing it, it's amateurish at best. today i've heard in the news rumsfeld told the general in chief the us army would have to make do with few troops 'cause iraq was surely scheduled to capitulate in two days. if it's true, rumsfeld is an idiot.
the states managed to fail miserably in promoting this war on a political level (i.e., everybody else told them they could do it alone), and now they are also managing to look like fools on a military level.
there's one thousand allied soldiers just outside baghdad. they think they can lay siege to a city with as many troops insides and 6 millions citiziens. the result: they're gonna be wiped away in a sandstorm a few km south of the capital as soon as republican soldiers get there to face them afoot, where the ratio is 1/1 when it ought to be at least 3/1 if you want to win. like it says in about every bloody war book since the beginning of time.
a part of the republican party did masturbate themselves too much with this conflict and lost track of what needed to be done. if you fight a war and you have the strength to win it quickly, you don't go get stuck in a bog for weeks. i was wrong when i thought the current us government knew what it was doing: they seem to have no idea of how they can destroy a minuscule threat, so i must assume they're all absolutely incompetent and unable to deal with this issue on any level.
rahvin.
this doesn't mean i now think the reasons for it were unsound (though not humanitarian, so don't start flaming me on this, thank you), or that i wish the us had backed down from their position.
but the way they're doing it, it's amateurish at best. today i've heard in the news rumsfeld told the general in chief the us army would have to make do with few troops 'cause iraq was surely scheduled to capitulate in two days. if it's true, rumsfeld is an idiot.
the states managed to fail miserably in promoting this war on a political level (i.e., everybody else told them they could do it alone), and now they are also managing to look like fools on a military level.
there's one thousand allied soldiers just outside baghdad. they think they can lay siege to a city with as many troops insides and 6 millions citiziens. the result: they're gonna be wiped away in a sandstorm a few km south of the capital as soon as republican soldiers get there to face them afoot, where the ratio is 1/1 when it ought to be at least 3/1 if you want to win. like it says in about every bloody war book since the beginning of time.
a part of the republican party did masturbate themselves too much with this conflict and lost track of what needed to be done. if you fight a war and you have the strength to win it quickly, you don't go get stuck in a bog for weeks. i was wrong when i thought the current us government knew what it was doing: they seem to have no idea of how they can destroy a minuscule threat, so i must assume they're all absolutely incompetent and unable to deal with this issue on any level.
rahvin.
|ngenius
Little Grasshopper
rahvin said:
I do agree with the first statement, but that was pretty obvious.
About the second paragraph, I beg to differ. I think they have a clear idea of what they are doing, and they're dealing with this issue in a straight and concious way. But call them "fools" and think they're acting consequently in a deliberate way is a point hard to assume. Nothing happens without a specific reason, and I don't think this is an exception.|ngenius.
rahvin
keeper of the flame
|ngenius said:
now now, let's not call destiny into play.
what i meant to say was i think they're making mistakes. everything happens for a reason and right now the reason seems to me to be that they badly misjudged the military power and the will to resist of the iraqi army. soldiers should prepare for a war, not politicians, imo.
rahvin.
well well... rumsfeld ain't no idiot, you yobo dwarf
seriously, i partially agree with what rahvin says, but not quite completely. from what i read, the major block to the troops' efficiency is that they are unclear about their assignments. british officers have told various news sources in the UK and US that one day they fight, the following day they have to make sure that some village has clean water. this is obviously a consequence of the split international public and political opinion - the coalition has to jumble between a war and a weird form of humanitarian mission. there are very strict rules of engagement, say soldiers cannot shoot even armed men before giving them a chance to drop their guns. in brief, not only there is a shortage of units, they're hand-tied also.
i think that the political problem is right there. effective leaders should be able to push the limit, notwithstanding foreign public opinion. on one hand, i can't stand the idea that british and american soldiers are dying because of the shitey peace marches in well-off western countries and their effect on the american administration's resolve. on the other hand, aforementioned administration should stop caring about imbeciles carrying rainbow flags with colors in the wrong order. it's a bit of a catch-22 and of course i don't have any idea of the solution.
seriously, i partially agree with what rahvin says, but not quite completely. from what i read, the major block to the troops' efficiency is that they are unclear about their assignments. british officers have told various news sources in the UK and US that one day they fight, the following day they have to make sure that some village has clean water. this is obviously a consequence of the split international public and political opinion - the coalition has to jumble between a war and a weird form of humanitarian mission. there are very strict rules of engagement, say soldiers cannot shoot even armed men before giving them a chance to drop their guns. in brief, not only there is a shortage of units, they're hand-tied also.
i think that the political problem is right there. effective leaders should be able to push the limit, notwithstanding foreign public opinion. on one hand, i can't stand the idea that british and american soldiers are dying because of the shitey peace marches in well-off western countries and their effect on the american administration's resolve. on the other hand, aforementioned administration should stop caring about imbeciles carrying rainbow flags with colors in the wrong order. it's a bit of a catch-22 and of course i don't have any idea of the solution.
@hyena
Rumsfeld is most likely one of the biggest morons in
the history of huge morons.
What comes to peace marches getting US/UK soldiers
killed, GOOD, I hope they get killed by the thousands,
just so their stupid-ass learders might think before
sending them in next time.
Besides, they knew what they were getting into when
they joined the army, it's not like they were forced
into it, not to even mention they are there to kill
people in the first place, so fuck them, let them die,
may they rot in the hell.
EDIT: btw, wouldn't really call this "well-off european
countries" thing only:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2898031.stm
Rumsfeld is most likely one of the biggest morons in
the history of huge morons.
What comes to peace marches getting US/UK soldiers
killed, GOOD, I hope they get killed by the thousands,
just so their stupid-ass learders might think before
sending them in next time.
Besides, they knew what they were getting into when
they joined the army, it's not like they were forced
into it, not to even mention they are there to kill
people in the first place, so fuck them, let them die,
may they rot in the hell.
EDIT: btw, wouldn't really call this "well-off european
countries" thing only:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2898031.stm
rahvin
keeper of the flame
Salamurhaaja said:
wow, so i finally see you with an opinion that is exactly identical to that of the stupid-ass leaders sending soldiers to kill enemy troops by the thousand just to punish their respective leaders.
rahvin.
Villain
Doctor BenQuillity
rahvin said:wow, so i finally see you with an opinion that is exactly identical to that of the stupid-ass leaders sending soldiers to kill enemy troops by the thousand just to punish their respective leaders.
True. But we (me and Salmis) are on the good side in this.
-Villain (smiling happily every time an American is killed)
Chameleons
reConstruction.
Oh, yeah they [the American] can do what ever they want. But when it's come to other country, no this, no that... bla, bla, bla. I hope more die by the millions, I mean the American...
you must all be high as kites or something. it's ridiculous that I should be the p.c. individual around here, but are you even understanding what you are writing? you are happy because people die. i am in favor of the war but this does not mean i am happy when Iraqis die. I think it is a necessary evil to kill them in order to hold a threat back, but still, as i said, evil. Whichever side are you on, you should avoid rejoicing in people's death. Now, this is as trivial as it gets, it seems to me that this is SO OBVIOUS...
Chameleons
reConstruction.
oh, oh, I'm soo sorry, I didn't mean ALL of the American. Soo sorry 
pretty please? & I'm not happy about death either. Just used words instead of weapons.
pretty please? & I'm not happy about death either. Just used words instead of weapons.
Chameleons
reConstruction.
hyena said:right, don't word-shoot anyone anytime soon and yer forgiven
!
thank you, thank you. I like you [in a friendly way that is... just don't like people think I "weird"]thanks a billion. and i'm not weird either so we can be friends
uh, and on topic - i forgot to say that what baf-fles me the most in the war scenario is turkey's unilateral decision to invade everything in sight thanks to the general confusion. i think this is a hint of degeneration of control that is not good at all. opinions anyone?
uh, and on topic - i forgot to say that what baf-fles me the most in the war scenario is turkey's unilateral decision to invade everything in sight thanks to the general confusion. i think this is a hint of degeneration of control that is not good at all. opinions anyone?
hyena said:
We are not any more happy about it then you are, we just wish it,
cos it seems to be the only way to stop this shit happening again.
hyena said:
EXCUSE ME?
WHAT FUCKING THREAT?
If Americans keep saying that they can take this country within
days, if they want, then I have a question:
Why do they have to attack now?
Attack when the supposed threat arises.
Think about it.
rahvin
keeper of the flame
Salamurhaaja said:
ok, but that's different than saying you rejoice when someone dies. of course it's everyone's choice what can be a motive for happiness, but i personally do not feel elation or joy upon knowing of a death, no matter how vile the person who died was - and i'm sure most iraqi soldiers are just your average joe, middle-east version.
rahvin.
exactly. i was just inviting everyone to be civilized regardless of their political stand. and as for "what fucking threat", i don't want to get into that all again.
Similar threads
