-
09-07-2007, 12:34 PM #41Originally Posted by Logan13
yeah in our country they can moan about it all they like, while still getting all the handouts they need. instead of going to war in other countries we should kick all of the freeloading lowlifes out of ours first.
weve got it all wrong, thats why 350,000 british left last year, to find a better place to live.
-
09-07-2007, 01:29 PM #42Originally Posted by helium3
Last edited by BgMc31; 09-11-2007 at 09:54 PM.
-
09-07-2007, 01:32 PM #43Originally Posted by Logan13
Last edited by mcpeepants; 09-07-2007 at 01:42 PM.
-
09-07-2007, 01:40 PM #44Originally Posted by Logan13
-
09-07-2007, 01:50 PM #45Originally Posted by Logan13
Do you associate criticism of government policy with being Anti-American?
Calling me out would be proving me wrong with evidence instead of telling me to "Go Back to Where You Came From"
-
09-07-2007, 01:58 PM #46Originally Posted by mcpeepants
When you have more in common with Bin Laden, your anti American.
-
09-07-2007, 02:04 PM #47Originally Posted by helium3
Was this the Iraqi government doing the execution? What was she guilty of a crime and if so what? Was she innocent? Was she captured by extremist? Was this an "honor" killing? Are you going to judge the Iraqi population by the action of the beheader who was probably surrounded by like minded extremists.
-
09-07-2007, 02:06 PM #48Originally Posted by roidattack
Bin Laden does not believe in same sex marriage. I think, tell me if I'm wrong, you don't believe in same sex marriage. I support same sex marriage. You have more in common with Bin Laden than me, so your anti-american rightLast edited by mcpeepants; 09-07-2007 at 02:09 PM.
-
09-07-2007, 02:11 PM #49
He wants us out of Iraq, out of the middle east for that matter
He wants Democrats to win the White House
He thinks America is using up too many resources
He thinks we should not support Israel
How am I doing so far?
Originally Posted by mcpeepants
-
09-07-2007, 02:21 PM #50Originally Posted by roidattack
We shouldn't be in Iraq and why do we need troops in the middle east. Oil will still keep flowing and we will still be able to buy even if we're not there
Bin laden didn't like Clinton, so why would he support the democrats
When did he say that
Why should we blindly support Israel particularly war hawk parties like the Likud and Kadima
-
09-07-2007, 02:55 PM #51
You went back and changed it...
He supports Democrats because under they are the get out and lose party. When Clinton was in office if we took a casulty we would cut and run. Thats when he figures we were weak...
I could debate this with ya more but Ive gotta get out of hea! Have a good one bro...
Originally Posted by mcpeepants
-
09-08-2007, 03:28 AM #52Originally Posted by mcpeepants
-
09-08-2007, 06:47 AM #53Member
- Join Date
- May 2005
- Posts
- 380
I think you should get out of America, you and roid attack actually believe that Republicans are American and Democrats are anti-american..And it's only a 2 party system!..so you thinks there should only be 1 party, and all others are anti-american..like facism or dictatorship..everyone should think the same
and you also think that all americans must support israel, and if you don't support israel, your anti-american..that makes alot of sense
have fun at that lame sammy hagar concert with the nerds, btw sammy hagar is an Arab..guess your not going-too anti american
Originally Posted by Logan13Last edited by eliteforce; 09-08-2007 at 06:53 AM.
-
09-08-2007, 10:56 AM #54
- Join Date
- Aug 2006
- Location
- DON'T ASK ME FOR A SOURCE
- Posts
- 11,728
- Blog Entries
- 2
Originally Posted by roidattack
-
09-08-2007, 06:31 PM #55Originally Posted by rana173
-
09-08-2007, 08:10 PM #56Member
- Join Date
- May 2005
- Posts
- 380
This is total BS! The republicans keep trying to re-write history by claiming that after the tet offensive in 1968 "the communists had been decimated" and America was then winning the war..although the communists had taken heavy casualties during the tet offensive; The USM suffered just as high casualties in 1969-when troop levels remained high, as they did in 1968..and the communists continued to launch large scale offensives, such as "mini-tet" and the civilian population turned more against the US and it's client regime in 1969..it was over, period.
BTW the congress of the US did not cut any support/funding for the Government of South Vietnam until 1973-1974..the reason this was done is because intelligence and facts on the ground indicated that a communist takeover was inevitable..so they didn't want to be sending new helicopters and F-5 jets, only to have all this expensive military hardware fall to the communists .. lets not forget that the communists used ALOT of american captured hardware to invade Cambodia in 1975.
Originally Posted by rana173
-
09-08-2007, 10:49 PM #57
- Join Date
- Aug 2006
- Location
- DON'T ASK ME FOR A SOURCE
- Posts
- 11,728
- Blog Entries
- 2
Originally Posted by BgMc31
-
09-09-2007, 12:21 PM #58Originally Posted by rana173
-
09-10-2007, 11:44 AM #59Originally Posted by eliteforce
-
09-10-2007, 12:32 PM #60Originally Posted by eliteforce
Even before general Petraeus started his testimony you had Democrats start to run him down. Now, why is that? In case what he said wasnt to the Democrats liking? We are talking about our soldiers and as far as Im concerned when our men and women are in harms way we should put politics aside for minute.
Now it seems to me if you love this country and support our military and want to see them succeed then you should shut up and give the General his 5 minutes. By all accounts on both sides of the aisle he is an honest, fair minded guy who just wants to get the job done.
Seeing what the dems are doing to him I could say they are anti-American...I could also say things that are a lot worse.
-
09-10-2007, 09:08 PM #61Member
- Join Date
- May 2005
- Posts
- 380
I don't love any country, I'm not a nationalist-i think western nationalism is dead. never brought anything but war and oppresion anyways.."we're better than you" -fk that sht.
I don't support coalition military ideologically, I don't want them to succeed in Iraq.. I want them and the Iraqis to succeed in not being dead, brain damaged, or cripled.
The American Agenda in Iraq is imperialism, it is characterized by a massive Embassey/green zone that serves as a defacto government-supported by permanent bases all over the fing place, and dominating their economy with American corporations, it will never succeed, the Iraqis will never stop resisting it vehemently; there is no real 'progress' - that country will turn back to what it is politically as soon as the occupation/nationalist oppresion ends.
just take a look at icasualties.org-you show me the real progess there as of today, if US service people still get attacked 1000's of tiimes a month and get killed there everyday, any progress he mentions is irrelivant-the overall military situation there will never change, this thing was fought to a standstill by early 2004, all statistics support that basically..and he is cherry picking stats which the military always does.
You people on the right of american politics will drive American bankrupt with your stupid ultra-nationalist bulsht, what the hell you think this credit crises is-it's the beginings of a worsening economic situation and a broken economic model and for what--to beat this third world country on the other side of the world?? not worth it!
-
09-11-2007, 12:44 PM #62Originally Posted by eliteforce
-
09-11-2007, 09:47 PM #63Originally Posted by roidattack
My bad. You responded while I was changing it. The point is still valid and I'll repost it:
Bin Laden does not believe in same sex marriage. I think, tell me if I'm wrong, you don't believe in same sex marriage. I support same sex marriage. You have more in common with Bin Laden than me, so your anti-american right
US foreign policy is largely the same regardless of whether a democrat or republican is in the presidency. So Bin Laden doesn't like either. Clinton helped keep the Iraqi sanctions in place that led to the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, mostly kids. Why would Bin Laden support some one who killed so many Muslims. When the marine barracks was blown up in Beirut, Reagen cut and run out of Lebanon. So does Bin Laden support Reagen?
-
09-11-2007, 09:50 PM #64Originally Posted by Logan13
-
09-12-2007, 06:11 AM #65Originally Posted by rana173
It's takes two sides to fight a war... Would be so blase about it the other side came and murdered your children? Is it OK for them to kill your wife or your mother? After all, it is war.
-
09-12-2007, 06:14 AM #66Originally Posted by rana173
Hang on, so you disagree with people being given the death penatly for minor crimes such as adultery (as do I), yet you think it is OK for innocent women and children to be slaughtered because, "Shit happens in war".
That is slightly contradictory s it not?
-
09-12-2007, 06:29 AM #67Originally Posted by mcpeepants
See, you blame us instead of the real culprit....
btw, Iraq was still getting money during the sanctions..ie the "oil for food" debacle...
-
09-12-2007, 09:47 AM #68
- Join Date
- Aug 2006
- Location
- DON'T ASK ME FOR A SOURCE
- Posts
- 11,728
- Blog Entries
- 2
Originally Posted by DavidYork2
The US military is NOT targeting civilians!
-
09-12-2007, 09:49 AM #69
- Join Date
- Aug 2006
- Location
- DON'T ASK ME FOR A SOURCE
- Posts
- 11,728
- Blog Entries
- 2
Originally Posted by DavidYork2
An eye for an eye. I never said it was OK for the innocent to get killed. BUT yes the murders should be killed.
-
09-12-2007, 09:07 PM #70Originally Posted by roidattack
http://youtube.com/watch?v=lK_QshS2EW8
The sanctions devasted the poor, young, and old and destroyed the Iraqi middle class and made the Iraqi society as a whole more dependent on Saddam's government.
As for the oil for food scandal, did you expect nothing less. Of course we knew corruption was occuring. But how can you compare a scandal over oil profits to that of keeping sanctions in place that killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis? We already had arms and military sanctions in place, why economic which we knew would only hurt the Iraqi people?
-
09-13-2007, 06:22 AM #71
I blame saddam bro, not the US. Sorry.
Originally Posted by mcpeepants
-
09-13-2007, 09:22 AM #72
The murdering doesn't speak well for us, its not the first, that being said I doubt its that rampid, you know like how we torture or I mean take pictures with our captives...but
Our politicians want chaos in Iraq, with out we couldn't build the permanent military bases they want built there, and with out bases we couldn't secure the oil...We want it to look bad enough to have chaos and a reason to stay ! Duh...
-
09-13-2007, 10:25 PM #73Originally Posted by roidattack
-
09-14-2007, 12:41 AM #74
As a military service member... i say **** it kill them all... And word of mouth over in the sand box... innocents get wiped out every day wwhether it be intentional or accidental.
-
09-14-2007, 07:33 AM #75Originally Posted by Teabagger
LOL -looks like your only choice for president will be Ron Paul...cause all the other ones on both sides are for the "north American Union" that was just signed off on by Bush...This erases the borders along with our sovernty ... Its obvious this president wants them in here...Lets kick them the **** out by voting Paul...
The politicians want everything to look chaotic right now...mexicans trying to reclaim the southern states as "their" land...the politicians want them to do this, while we are being over run, either another war, the Iraq war and the "north American union" will further their very real agenda of a union of the continents , the "amero" as the currency(if you can't see our economy tanking,we will be moving to this to relieve stress on the economy by combinding all three countries) and then merge will the soon to be asian union, the now europe union and then the african union....your boy conservative Thommy Thompson running for president right now is a spokesman for "veri Chip" a tracking chip which btw is in 11,000 americans as we speak...yes they will line up in "national security" reasons for this chip implant for "security", and get this...coming out of thommy thomsons mouth himself to be imbeded int he "right arm"....lol stupid conservatives they preach this in their own bible as the end times and there spokesman for the companies who make trackable chips!? well here we go nwo !
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
First Test-E cycle in 10 years
11-11-2024, 03:22 PM in ANABOLIC STEROIDS - QUESTIONS & ANSWERS