mr. guitar
Member
Here is one of the good times. I will never forget this day.
Cool picture!!!
Cool picture!!!
The war on terror?
- Thread starter mebanesox7
- Start date
scubadoo
Active Member
The war on terror is all about taking out the enemy before they strike. Proactive instead of reactive. Any war on terror that allowed Saddam to remian in power can hardly be called a success.
In general, anyone that thinks diplomacy can work with rats that pledge the destruction of the west (US) is whistling past the grave yard.
They pledge to destroy us. Do you wait until they start...or take them out before?
Lets start fighting wars to win...instead of all this boo hooing about collateral damage and all that other BS. War is about destroying and killing....deal with it. Let's try and hold down civilian casualties ...but they will happen. Brave soldiers will perish..and for a noble cause...God Bless them.
Fight the battles to win...and nothing should be acceptable short of this goal. All those that cry foul...support the enemy and not the troops.
Just my .02
In general, anyone that thinks diplomacy can work with rats that pledge the destruction of the west (US) is whistling past the grave yard.
They pledge to destroy us. Do you wait until they start...or take them out before?
Lets start fighting wars to win...instead of all this boo hooing about collateral damage and all that other BS. War is about destroying and killing....deal with it. Let's try and hold down civilian casualties ...but they will happen. Brave soldiers will perish..and for a noble cause...God Bless them.
Fight the battles to win...and nothing should be acceptable short of this goal. All those that cry foul...support the enemy and not the troops.
Just my .02
scubadoo
Active Member
Originally Posted by Pontius
the one good thing about Saddam, as wicked as he is, is that he knew how to keep the other muslim countries in check. no one ever heard a peep out of Iran after Iraq pretty well crushed them in the 80s. but with him out of the picture, Iran has quickly come back into the forefront.
You are correct. This is why we left him in power in the first Gulf War..to keep Iran in check...a big mistake in my opinion.
I am not that concerned with Iran...nothing more then talk from a wannabee big dawg. They will be taken down soon.
I would disagree regarding no one hearing a peep out of Iran. They have been the central part of radical Isalm along with Syria for years. beginning in the late 70's- 80's. They never want away...our attention was diverted in the 80's with Russia and the end of the COld War. In the early 90's we started addressing the issue. THen CLinton came along and ingnored it.
Just my opinion.
the one good thing about Saddam, as wicked as he is, is that he knew how to keep the other muslim countries in check. no one ever heard a peep out of Iran after Iraq pretty well crushed them in the 80s. but with him out of the picture, Iran has quickly come back into the forefront.
You are correct. This is why we left him in power in the first Gulf War..to keep Iran in check...a big mistake in my opinion.
I am not that concerned with Iran...nothing more then talk from a wannabee big dawg. They will be taken down soon.
I would disagree regarding no one hearing a peep out of Iran. They have been the central part of radical Isalm along with Syria for years. beginning in the late 70's- 80's. They never want away...our attention was diverted in the 80's with Russia and the end of the COld War. In the early 90's we started addressing the issue. THen CLinton came along and ingnored it.
Just my opinion.
saltydog25
New Member
I guess "The War on Terror" has a better ring to it that the "War for Oil" or "The War for Natural Resources". There are countries around the world that are just as bad or worse off than Iraq, but they havent any natural resources or products that are of interest to the U.S. So we dont send 5000 troops to "help them". Don't be confused over what this war is about.
37g joe
Member
Originally Posted by Saltydog25
I guess "The War on Terror" has a better ring to it that the "War for Oil" or "The War for Natural Resources". There are countries around the world that are just as bad or worse off than Iraq, but they havent any natural resources or products that are of interest to the U.S. So we dont send 5000 troops to "help them". Don't be confused over what this war is about.
List some of thos countires for a start.
But because these nations do have Oil they have the money to finance Terrrorism to finance battles and are more dangerous and have more possibilities to cause havok.
Also if we where fighting thier and thier was no oil your excuse would be we where fighting over relegion or some other reason. so basicly we cant go over their ever because people might accuse of us for fighting just for oil no matter what they do to us. Trust me that propoganda is coming from thier side so we well not go over thier and take them out. But because they have oil thier and we might look bad than we have to keep our hands tied.
also your therory is flawed eventually the ouil fields well be cotrolled 100% again by people from those nations. if it was about oil then since he is trying to make money then if his competors where selling oil at a much more expensive rate then so can he why would they want to make it so oil is cheaper.
I guess "The War on Terror" has a better ring to it that the "War for Oil" or "The War for Natural Resources". There are countries around the world that are just as bad or worse off than Iraq, but they havent any natural resources or products that are of interest to the U.S. So we dont send 5000 troops to "help them". Don't be confused over what this war is about.
List some of thos countires for a start.
But because these nations do have Oil they have the money to finance Terrrorism to finance battles and are more dangerous and have more possibilities to cause havok.
Also if we where fighting thier and thier was no oil your excuse would be we where fighting over relegion or some other reason. so basicly we cant go over their ever because people might accuse of us for fighting just for oil no matter what they do to us. Trust me that propoganda is coming from thier side so we well not go over thier and take them out. But because they have oil thier and we might look bad than we have to keep our hands tied.
also your therory is flawed eventually the ouil fields well be cotrolled 100% again by people from those nations. if it was about oil then since he is trying to make money then if his competors where selling oil at a much more expensive rate then so can he why would they want to make it so oil is cheaper.
actionjack
Member
Originally Posted by 37g Joe
List some of thos countires for a start.
Most of Africa, Korea
List some of thos countires for a start.
Most of Africa, Korea
actionjack
Member
Originally Posted by actionjack
Most of Africa, Korea
Not that Africa is a direct threat to us, but the people there are suffering just as bad as anyone in Iraq.
Most of Africa, Korea
Not that Africa is a direct threat to us, but the people there are suffering just as bad as anyone in Iraq.
37g joe
Member
well north africa has oil and they are the only ones who are true threts to us central africa on the other hand has alot of gurrila warfare between rivial tribes but pose no threat to us. The DRC (former Zair) produces enouch ro feed everyone in africa. Africa has enough resorces to support its self but europe buys alot of those resorces up fruit, cattle, and timber. With africa(excluding north africa) the problem is you go into a nation and thier can be hundreds of distinct tribes with thier own languages and cultures. these tribes have tens of thousand to 100,000s of people in them and they have been fighting each other for 1000's of years when we go and take out one tribe another tribe takes over and starts the slaughter all over again. in order to control the violance in africa you have to control africa and thats not going to happen.
now to korea what would happen if we went in thier lets think about that possibly worl war 3 china would support them and russia would probably support china.
now to korea what would happen if we went in thier lets think about that possibly worl war 3 china would support them and russia would probably support china.
pontius
Active Member
Originally Posted by ScubaDoo
I am not that concerned with Iran...nothing more then talk from a wannabee big dawg. They will be taken down soon.
Iran is a HUGE threat. they want Israel destroyed. Russia and China support Iran because they know when/if Iran attacks Israel, we will jump in to help Israel, which would further spread our military thinner than it already is. this is why Iran is/was a bigger threat than Iraq, because of the Russia/China factor who would like nothing more than to see the US fall.
I am not that concerned with Iran...nothing more then talk from a wannabee big dawg. They will be taken down soon.
Iran is a HUGE threat. they want Israel destroyed. Russia and China support Iran because they know when/if Iran attacks Israel, we will jump in to help Israel, which would further spread our military thinner than it already is. this is why Iran is/was a bigger threat than Iraq, because of the Russia/China factor who would like nothing more than to see the US fall.
37g joe
Member
Originally Posted by Pontius
Iran is a HUGE threat. they want Israel destroyed. Russia and China support Iran because they know when/if Iran attacks Israel, we will jump in to help Israel, which would further spread our military thinner than it already is. this is why Iran is/was a bigger threat than Iraq, because of the Russia/China factor who would like nothing more than to see the US fall.
popualtion chart
I agree with you that iran is a pretty big threat Irans populalation is 69,515,000 and Iraqs is 28,807,000 but Iraqs people where ready for Sudam to be overthrown. in the whole scheme of things Iraq was a pawn Iran is more like a rook and china is like a queen or a king. But when you play chess you need to get rid of pawns and rooks befor atacking the biger players. you dont want to get to a check but then have a pawn take you out.
Iran is one of the worlds most mountanious countries the countrie is 636,372 sq mi Iraq is only 168,754 sq mi Iran is over 3 1/2 times larger than Iraq by sq mi. Afghanistan's population is 29,863,000 and size is 250,001 sq mi. so iraq and afghanistans combined size by sq mi is 418,755 sq mi. The combined population of Iraq and Afghanistan is 58,670,000. Do you not think that our comanders have not noticed this. with afghanistan and Iraq you had people who wanted change. With Iran we dont have that benifet. look where Iran is situated. between Iraq to the west and afgahnistan to the east the persian gulf to the south and the caspian sea to the north( which is landlocked but still can be used as a staging platform.) to me it apears that we are much beter situated to attack Iran now with iraq captured then we are able yo press Iran from all sides. in order to win a war with iran we need to be statigically placed.
Iran is a HUGE threat. they want Israel destroyed. Russia and China support Iran because they know when/if Iran attacks Israel, we will jump in to help Israel, which would further spread our military thinner than it already is. this is why Iran is/was a bigger threat than Iraq, because of the Russia/China factor who would like nothing more than to see the US fall.
popualtion chart
I agree with you that iran is a pretty big threat Irans populalation is 69,515,000 and Iraqs is 28,807,000 but Iraqs people where ready for Sudam to be overthrown. in the whole scheme of things Iraq was a pawn Iran is more like a rook and china is like a queen or a king. But when you play chess you need to get rid of pawns and rooks befor atacking the biger players. you dont want to get to a check but then have a pawn take you out.
Iran is one of the worlds most mountanious countries the countrie is 636,372 sq mi Iraq is only 168,754 sq mi Iran is over 3 1/2 times larger than Iraq by sq mi. Afghanistan's population is 29,863,000 and size is 250,001 sq mi. so iraq and afghanistans combined size by sq mi is 418,755 sq mi. The combined population of Iraq and Afghanistan is 58,670,000. Do you not think that our comanders have not noticed this. with afghanistan and Iraq you had people who wanted change. With Iran we dont have that benifet. look where Iran is situated. between Iraq to the west and afgahnistan to the east the persian gulf to the south and the caspian sea to the north( which is landlocked but still can be used as a staging platform.) to me it apears that we are much beter situated to attack Iran now with iraq captured then we are able yo press Iran from all sides. in order to win a war with iran we need to be statigically placed.
37g joe
Member
Also if you have noticed on the maps thier is a wedges of land owned by Iran between Iraq and the caspian sea. the caspian sea has tons of sturgeon and energy reserve combined with it enabling for far reaching trade. Iraq new leadership would like to have some sort of acess to the caspian sea and could possibly be used to take over that section of land currently owned by Iran. what that would do would free up some of our forces but also russia's conection and route to Iran is through the caspian sea Russia would be less likly to attack Iraq do to the fact that they want trade and comerce between them. Iraq could be used as a buffer and would beifet from the new acess to the caspian sea and extra land.
tangwhispr
Member
Originally Posted by Mr. Guitar
TangWhispr, apparently you believe everything you read and hear. The United States Government is not a terrorist group and has never been for over 200 years. Oh and please give me a good reason why you think our government is to blame for the attack on September 11th. Plus, you might wanna wise up and know the facts not the gossip. Sorry if I'm a little rude but I like to debate on strong topics such as this one and stand up for what I believe in.
Wow, some people just don't understand...how is our government to blame...things don't add up thats why...you need to look beyond what CNN tells you....I won't even go into the whole towers debate, but how is it that a plane can hit the pentagon, and not leave any wreckage, oh it burned up right? unless kerosene can suddenly reach and sustain temps way beyond what it can and vaporize Titanuim....i will believe it...The periodic table of elements and science prove it can't happen....and why won't the release any footage from the gas station or ramada hotel? well they did, but 3 frames only showing a fireball, not a plane hitting it....seriously send me your address in a PM and I will send you some DVD you NEED to watch. or simply download and watch them at.
http://www.question911.com/linksall.htm
do you yourself the favor and at least watch Loose Change...I'm not saying you have to believe my views but in my opinion the truth lies somewhere in the what the Conspiracy Theorists say, and what the Government says.
TangWhispr, apparently you believe everything you read and hear. The United States Government is not a terrorist group and has never been for over 200 years. Oh and please give me a good reason why you think our government is to blame for the attack on September 11th. Plus, you might wanna wise up and know the facts not the gossip. Sorry if I'm a little rude but I like to debate on strong topics such as this one and stand up for what I believe in.
Wow, some people just don't understand...how is our government to blame...things don't add up thats why...you need to look beyond what CNN tells you....I won't even go into the whole towers debate, but how is it that a plane can hit the pentagon, and not leave any wreckage, oh it burned up right? unless kerosene can suddenly reach and sustain temps way beyond what it can and vaporize Titanuim....i will believe it...The periodic table of elements and science prove it can't happen....and why won't the release any footage from the gas station or ramada hotel? well they did, but 3 frames only showing a fireball, not a plane hitting it....seriously send me your address in a PM and I will send you some DVD you NEED to watch. or simply download and watch them at.
http://www.question911.com/linksall.htm
do you yourself the favor and at least watch Loose Change...I'm not saying you have to believe my views but in my opinion the truth lies somewhere in the what the Conspiracy Theorists say, and what the Government says.
37g joe
Member
i have seen loose change it tends to leave out imortant facts. you need to understand balistic science to understand how a plane can be pretty much vaporised. high velocity bulets are a good example such as the ones shot out of rail guns. if they hit hard surfaces they can become compleetly vaporised. many large Astroid impacts dont have the astroid even though they can be solid rock high impacts can obliterate every peice of them. plnes that have ran into moutains have been compleetly obliterated also. I well try to find some resorces so you can see. as the presure of the plane pushes all the attoms in frount of it it creats extrem stress and heat much hoter than kerosine or jet fuel can reach. the pentagon is a much mopre solid surface than the twin towers.
37g joe
Member
flaws to your conspiracy tang whisper.
So if they where able to crash two planes in the two towers why did they jus noy have one crash into the pentagon.
what hapened to the plane.
the radar that was traking the plane proves that it hit the pentagon?
if somone was going to goto all that effort to do this why wouldnt they put parts of a plane in the pentagon for evidence that it crashed into it?
other parts of the building that was in thier like desks and furnature where obliterated also do you sapose they just took thos out befor they did it.
So if they where able to crash two planes in the two towers why did they jus noy have one crash into the pentagon.
what hapened to the plane.
the radar that was traking the plane proves that it hit the pentagon?
if somone was going to goto all that effort to do this why wouldnt they put parts of a plane in the pentagon for evidence that it crashed into it?
other parts of the building that was in thier like desks and furnature where obliterated also do you sapose they just took thos out befor they did it.
phixer
Active Member
Many of those theories make you think. Our country has done very little to secure our borders since 9/11, although airport security has improved , very little has been done to secure our borders.
One of the border patrol agents last month down here was arrested for smuggling in illeagals (he was illeagal himself and was a border patrol agent).
Airport security has tightened up somewhat. I believe only a small handful of politicians care enough to do something about our borders, sending in guardsman was a good start, but not nearly enough. Here in Coronado (San Diego) there are illegals everywhere and the Canadian border is a joke too. The politicians are afraid of this issue, because they are not affected by it.
The other point is that our country has done very little to wein ourselves from foreign oil dependancy. We could learn something from Brazil here.
I do believe this is a war is about oil, and since China is quickly consuming more its time for the US as innovators to shift gears and ditch oil. Why else would our economy continue to use this prehistoric resource that ruins the environment if it wasnt so profitable. It has been the US who has led the world in every other form of innovation and technology. Why in the world are we still using oil?
One of the border patrol agents last month down here was arrested for smuggling in illeagals (he was illeagal himself and was a border patrol agent).
Airport security has tightened up somewhat. I believe only a small handful of politicians care enough to do something about our borders, sending in guardsman was a good start, but not nearly enough. Here in Coronado (San Diego) there are illegals everywhere and the Canadian border is a joke too. The politicians are afraid of this issue, because they are not affected by it.
The other point is that our country has done very little to wein ourselves from foreign oil dependancy. We could learn something from Brazil here.
I do believe this is a war is about oil, and since China is quickly consuming more its time for the US as innovators to shift gears and ditch oil. Why else would our economy continue to use this prehistoric resource that ruins the environment if it wasnt so profitable. It has been the US who has led the world in every other form of innovation and technology. Why in the world are we still using oil?
mr. guitar
Member
Whatever you say TangWispr, whatever you say. I'm not gonna say a word in response to your post because I'll start sayin stuff I shouldn't.
saltydog25
New Member
Originally Posted by 37g Joe
i have seen loose change it tends to leave out imortant facts. you need to understand balistic science to understand how a plane can be pretty much vaporised. high velocity bulets are a good example such as the ones shot out of rail guns. if they hit hard surfaces they can become compleetly vaporised. many large Astroid impacts dont have the astroid even though they can be solid rock high impacts can obliterate every peice of them. plnes that have ran into moutains have been compleetly obliterated also. I well try to find some resorces so you can see. as the presure of the plane pushes all the attoms in frount of it it creats extrem stress and heat much hoter than kerosine or jet fuel can reach. the pentagon is a much mopre solid surface than the twin towers.
Comparing the speed of a rail gun or an asteroid to the speed of a airliner is not a good idea. For one they arent even close to traveling at the same velocity. While an asteroid can come in at more than 10 times the speed of sound, most airliners except for the Concord, can't travel faster than the speed of sound. If an airliner traveled at the same velocity as an asteroid, it would burn up in our heavy atmosphere just like most meteorites do. Also be careful using the word vaporise. A metal airliner that hits a building will be blown to pieces, but not vaporised. It requires a huge amount of energy to vaporise metal. An atomic bomb is a good example of something that can vaporise metal.
i have seen loose change it tends to leave out imortant facts. you need to understand balistic science to understand how a plane can be pretty much vaporised. high velocity bulets are a good example such as the ones shot out of rail guns. if they hit hard surfaces they can become compleetly vaporised. many large Astroid impacts dont have the astroid even though they can be solid rock high impacts can obliterate every peice of them. plnes that have ran into moutains have been compleetly obliterated also. I well try to find some resorces so you can see. as the presure of the plane pushes all the attoms in frount of it it creats extrem stress and heat much hoter than kerosine or jet fuel can reach. the pentagon is a much mopre solid surface than the twin towers.
Comparing the speed of a rail gun or an asteroid to the speed of a airliner is not a good idea. For one they arent even close to traveling at the same velocity. While an asteroid can come in at more than 10 times the speed of sound, most airliners except for the Concord, can't travel faster than the speed of sound. If an airliner traveled at the same velocity as an asteroid, it would burn up in our heavy atmosphere just like most meteorites do. Also be careful using the word vaporise. A metal airliner that hits a building will be blown to pieces, but not vaporised. It requires a huge amount of energy to vaporise metal. An atomic bomb is a good example of something that can vaporise metal.