The Surge

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » August 13, 2007, 4:38 pm

I find it is easy to always be right by taking the opposite viewpoint of Nick 100% of the time.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » August 13, 2007, 4:41 pm

I think that was Nick's way of conceding

Fash · Post by **Fash** » August 13, 2007, 4:42 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:I find it is easy to always be right by taking the opposite viewpoint of Nick 100% of the time.

This message brought to you by the department of redundancy department.

So Nick and Fairweather are ass buddies, right?

Nick · Post by **Nick** » August 13, 2007, 4:55 pm

Fash + the right wing idiots wrote:the funnies for realsies

If we circlejerk enough to delude ourselves into thinking we aren't idiots, we are by default right! Fnord much?

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » August 13, 2007, 5:30 pm

Fash wrote:
Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:So Nick and Fairweather are ass buddies, right?

What are you, 10? If agreeing with someone makes you ass buddies, you better bend over and lube up for the train of retards that make up your side of this debate.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » August 13, 2007, 5:32 pm

Fairweather Pure wrote:
Fash wrote:
Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:So Nick and Fairweather are ass buddies, right?
What are you, 10? If agreeing with someone makes you ass buddies, you better bend over and lube up for the train of retards that make up your side of this debate.

You should let Jice know that.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » August 13, 2007, 5:35 pm

it's ok when 'your side' does it.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » August 13, 2007, 5:40 pm

What "side"? The side where everyone speaks for themself independently and doesn't just use every thread as an excuse to compete with knob jockeys like yourself to be VV's very own Sean Hannity?

Fash · Post by **Fash** » August 13, 2007, 6:54 pm

Lol

Anyways, I used jices or whoevers 'ass buddies' reference, fairweather made the 'side' reference, and you're having a cow.

In one thread you managed to explain just how closed-minded, short-sighted and overly emotional you are.

If you don't allow for a, let's be fair and say, 5% chance there is information not available to you that would invalidate your point, it's hard to really get anywhere... With all the information we get, I still don't feel informed in the slightest about what's actually going on in Iraq or what the general vibe is on the ground. We are fucking clueless, and not understanding that is a problem. When you have 20% of the information and are commenting on 100% of the pie, you're a blind man pissing in a room of fans.

Hammerstalkerx · Post by **Hammerstalkerx** » August 13, 2007, 6:56 pm

Miir Wrote,

How many terrorist attacks occurred in Iraq previous to the US invasion?

Ummm lets see how about that huge one against the Kurds? How about the invasion of Kuwait? and then there was that little dirty chemical bombing of Iran?

miir · Post by **miir** » August 13, 2007, 7:09 pm

Hammerstalkerx wrote:Ummm lets see how about that huge one against the Kurds? How about the invasion of Kuwait? and then there was that little dirty chemical bombing of Iran?

Are you really that stupid?

Abelard · Post by **Abelard** » August 13, 2007, 8:03 pm

The Surge was begun months ago. In the last three-four weeks they've stationed a few hundred more troops over there. Do you guys think that number of troops is going to be the deal breaker as to how well the other few thousand troops will get on in the country?

I just find it really hard to believe that the US' best option is militarily based. What the gvt. should be doing is working closer with Iran, and other middle eastern countries and try to establish an all arab peacekeeping organization. That would take the air out of the extremist sails, placate the rest of the world, and would get the soldiers out of Iraq. The US could keep some staff on duty for advisory purposes like the UN has done with previous missions. The only problem then is Iraq would become somewhat of a vassal state, but its better than the failed state thats on everybodys hands right now.

miir · Post by **miir** » August 13, 2007, 8:07 pm

Hammerstalkerx wrote:Ummm lets see how about that huge one against the Kurds?

Quelling a US backed uprising and retribution for a botched assassination attempt.
Not quite a terrorist attack.

How about the invasion of Kuwait?

So a country invading and occupying another soverign nation is an act of terrorism?
I do believe that would make Americans the biggest terrorists on the fucking planet.

and then there was that little dirty chemical bombing of Iran?

I'm not familiar with that one...
Was the the one where he used the chemical weapons that were supplied to Iraq by the US?
You're trying to say that Americans support terrorists by supplying them with chemical weapons?

You're a funny little retard.

Hammerstalkerx · Post by **Hammerstalkerx** » August 13, 2007, 8:54 pm

OMG Miir you do make me laugh. So the indiscriminate killing of women and children as retribution for whatever reason is not a terrorist attack? Storming into another nation with no warning and no reason is not a terrorist attack? Please before you respond that the US did the same thing *note* I did say earlier that the US invasion was wrong, The use of banned chemical weapons vs the Iranian army is not a terrorist attack? Oh and please show me your source that the US provided the chemical weapons.

Miir you truely have no grasp of what the situation was in Iraq do you?

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » August 13, 2007, 8:57 pm

miir wrote:
Hammerstalkerx wrote:Blah blah blah.
Blah blah

How about the invasion of Kuwait?
So a country invading and occupying another soverign nation is an act of terrorism?
I do believe that would make Americans the biggest terrorists on the fucking planet.

Blah blah
Bleh blah bla blah.

blaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.

Take it back shithead! Let me guess, you can't see the difference between what's going on in Iraq, and what went on in Nazi Germany either, can you?

Nick · Post by **Nick** » August 13, 2007, 8:59 pm

Tweedledum and tweedledee keeping the pro-retard agenda allliiiiiiiiiivvve!

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » August 13, 2007, 9:08 pm

Is it the shrooms that make you come here and froth at the mouth like Old Yeller every day?

(I can play that game too)

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » August 13, 2007, 9:08 pm

Nick wrote:Tweedledum and tweedledee keeping the pro-retard agenda allliiiiiiiiiivvve!

You should talk. Get some anger management.

miir · Post by **miir** » August 13, 2007, 9:55 pm

Hammerstalkerx wrote:OMG Miir you do make me laugh. So the indiscriminate killing of women and children as retribution for whatever reason is not a terrorist attack?

Are you trying to convince me that Americans are terrorists?
Throughout history, the United States of America have been the country most guilty of indiscriminate killing of women and children as retribution for whatever reason . Need I remind you of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Perhaps the Americans use of chemical weapons in the Vietnam war slipped your mind as well.

Storming into another nation with no warning and no reason is not a terrorist attack? Please before you respond that the US did the same thing *note* I did say earlier that the US invasion was wrong,

If you define that action as terrorism, the USA are terrorists.

The use of banned chemical weapons vs the Iranian army is not a terrorist attack? Oh and please show me your source that the US provided the chemical weapons.

That the US supplied Iraq with weapons (conventional and chemical) during the Iran/Iraq war is not speculation. It is well documented fact.

Hammerstalkerx · Post by **Hammerstalkerx** » August 13, 2007, 10:51 pm

Miir are you purposely trying to put me in the position of defending the USA's actions in 2 questionable wars or invasions if you like? If you really need me to repeat again that I do NOT agree with the USA's invasion of Iraq now that it has been proven there were no WMD's I will and just did. You asked a question and I answered. Now you keep on pretending to yourself that I am a staunch defender of US foreign policy? Stop answering my answers with comparisons to things the USA has done. Iraq was a terrorist country before the US invaded. Oh and if it is such a well documented fact show me your source. Not calling you a liar but I am interested to see where the US provided chemical weapons to Iraq. Before embarrassing yourself further you might want to do a little light reading.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » August 13, 2007, 11:32 pm

Perhaps you need to look up the definition of terrorist: one who engages in terrorism.

Which then leads on to terrorism: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Now, to classify Iraq as a terrorist regime, people have pointed to things like military in civilian clothing. Goodo, what about US false-flag operations? Oh yes, really different.

Then consider that Saddam invaded Kuwait for Oil and because they wouldn't waive war debts when the Iraqi economy was struggling, and the US invaded Iraq (if you take the latest reason) to remove Saddam and install a democracy. Which one fits "for ideological or political reasons".

Oh. Snap!

miir · Post by **miir** » August 13, 2007, 11:35 pm

Iraq was a terrorist country before the US invaded

No it wasn't.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » August 13, 2007, 11:38 pm

Zaelath wrote:...the US invaded Kuwait (if you take the latest reason) to remove Sadam and install a democracy. Which one fits "for ideological or political reasons".

Oh. Snap!

have coffee before posting next time!

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » August 13, 2007, 11:41 pm

Boogahz wrote:
Zaelath wrote:...the US invaded Kuwait (if you take the latest reason) to remove Sadam and install a democracy. Which one fits "for ideological or political reasons".

Oh. Snap!

have coffee before posting next time!

Ya ya, read "the US invaded Iraq"

I'll correct it for others benefit in the original post ><

Nick · Post by **Nick** » August 15, 2007, 3:01 pm

I'm fairly sure that that attack yesterday that killed 250 odd people is fairly representative of how well the Surge is working in Iraq right now.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » August 15, 2007, 3:04 pm

Nick wrote:I'm fairly sure that that attack yesterday that killed 250 odd people is fairly representative of how well the Surge is working in Iraq right now.

Care to elaborate? I know you are very fond of tossing the death toll out at least weekly, but yeah..

Nick · Post by **Nick** » August 15, 2007, 3:16 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070815/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

Alternatively, every front page of any news website on the planet

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » August 15, 2007, 3:19 pm

Think he is referring to the coordinated truck-bombings that happened yesterday in Iraq.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » August 15, 2007, 3:44 pm

Nick wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070815/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

Alternatively, every front page of any news website on the planet

That's fine, you are the one that made the comment, so I shouldn't have to do the research

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » August 15, 2007, 4:24 pm

A surge of troops is not going to do anything to quell a guerilla type war, such as what is going on in Iraq right now. Quite frankly, the US and other civilized countries do not have the stomach in this era to actually do what it would take to end hostilities in that region. The only way to end this would be to make them have no will to ever attack again....and that would mean completely wiping out chunks of the population with zero regard as to terrorist or innocence. It would most likely mean dropping smaller yield nukes into Libya and Iraq and keeping the finger close to the button to drop them on any other hotspot where the Al Queida and other cells decide to hang out.

This will never happen, so I am all for keeping the military there in Iraq for one reason. It keeps the terror cells fighting where we want them to fight. the more they have there fighting and dying, the less assets they have in other places.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » August 15, 2007, 5:20 pm

Nick wrote:I'm fairly sure that that attack yesterday that killed 250 odd people is fairly representative of how well the Surge is working in Iraq right now.

I'm fairly certain that the "surge" troops were being deployed to central (Baghdad) Iraq. The idea was to place them all in one place and push outwards. From what I had read about those attacks, they were in the north with Kurds as the targets.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » August 15, 2007, 5:23 pm

Yes, so instead of actually stopping the violence its just been displaced, which is completely useless.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » August 15, 2007, 5:28 pm

Nick wrote:Yes, so instead of actually stopping the violence its just been displaced, which is completely useless.

Maybe it can be pushed back to Ireland soon

Nick · Post by **Nick** » August 15, 2007, 5:34 pm

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » August 15, 2007, 5:45 pm

Yes, so instead of actually stopping the violence its just been displaced, which is completely useless.

This is not true whatsoever.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » August 15, 2007, 5:56 pm

Um, no.

This is common knowledge. By clamping down on certain places, the guerilla groups are just targeting other places.

Whatever yer mans name is, the military guy in charge of the US forces in Iraq, even said it on the news earlier (here on channel 4).

Edit: Happy Birthday Boogahz

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » August 16, 2007, 1:55 pm

I was referring to the "which is completely useless" portion of the quoted text.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » August 16, 2007, 2:13 pm

Oh, you didn't know - nick is an expert in military tactics, amongst many other things.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » August 16, 2007, 3:16 pm

How exactly is it a useful tactic to displace violence so that more violence happens elsewhere? It's not like Baghdad is even under US control yet.

Oh, you didn't know - nick is an expert in military tactics, amongst many other things.

Ok Einstein, no doubt in between getting high and going to White Castle's you must have figured out how this is a useful thing, since you're obviously such a fucking expert.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » August 16, 2007, 3:30 pm

I was about to actually waste time and explain it to you, but then I realized it would be more fruitfull to find something easier for you to follow.

http://www.mendhak.com/humor/show.php?id=64

Nick · Post by **Nick** » August 16, 2007, 3:31 pm

Yes, lol war is hard lol and some people expect it to be easy and demand immediate results lololol.

Except its been 4 years.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » August 16, 2007, 3:59 pm

Nick wrote:Yes, lol war is hard lol and some people expect it to be easy and demand immediate results lololol.

Except its been 4 years.

You know, listening to all of you that are so anti war and anti Bush (most of you) is like listening to the same broken record over and fucking over again. Have you ever thought for yourselves or do you just read the news sites and recite the popular opinion? I really don't think I have read an opinion from a single one of you on this issue that you formed yourself and could really get behind and support with facts without googling it because you don't remember the specifics of the story you read.

You commenting on the war, having not been there to see what it is like, and just going off of what you hear/see/read in the media and forming a solid opinion on it is like Kilmol reading some fucking fairytale and believing some Jew is waiting to greet him at the pearly gates in the sky when he dies.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » August 16, 2007, 4:06 pm

That is the absolutely most shit analogy ever created on this board.

Pretty much everyone in the western world has their own opinion on Iraq, and has formed that opinion over 5 years of watching the event unfold in front of their eyes. In a world where information about current events is at its most profoundly easy to get, who are you to come off with the shitty cop out "sheeple" observation. You're just running away from any discussion in favour of bullshit, because you don't have an argument, as usual.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » August 16, 2007, 4:19 pm

Nick wrote:That is the absolutely most shit analogy ever created on this board.

Pretty much everyone in the western world has their own opinion on Iraq, and has formed that opinion over 5 years of watching the event unfold in front of their eyes. In a world where information about current events is at its most profoundly easy to get, who are you to come off with the shitty cop out "sheeple" observation. You're just running away from any discussion in favour of bullshit, because you don't have an argument, as usual.

To hell if I am sir. Unlike you, I am sick of reiterating my opinion on this every other fucking day. We all get where everyone stands, no one has changed their mind on things since about 6 months after we began occupying Iraq, so I decided it is now a better use of my time to point out how ridiculous I think people like you are being.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » August 16, 2007, 4:25 pm

You admit it then.

Drag every CE post Off topic because you couldn't be fucked contributing, excellent plan dood.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » August 16, 2007, 4:29 pm

Listen asshole, I have spoken what I think on this topic as has everyone else here. If you want to beat the dead horse be my fucking guest, but don't you dare whine about me pointing out how much of an idiot you are when I get bored with the goddamn topic. I liked you calling me ignorant in the other thread too since I don't believe what you do, what a shining example of intelligence and wisdom you are.

Can someone remind me of how to ignore someone, cause I seriously can't deal with this fuck anymore.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » August 16, 2007, 4:30 pm

Nick wrote:How exactly is it a useful tactic to displace violence so that more violence happens elsewhere? It's not like Baghdad is even under US control yet.

I actually thought about how earlier responses could have been a bit clearer on the reason WHY displaced violence would be a sign that the "surge" may be "working."

If you were trying to rebuild a nation with a new government, concentrating your troops in the capital, Baghdad, in order to give the government a better chance to make decisions and just have a firm seat from which to govern the country would cause some of the violence to be displaced to the outer areas which may not have seen any/as much violence before. The seat of power can begin to be used as a staging area for the national police and army to complete training and mobilizing to other areas. The growth of these forces will also allow them to be sent out to the areas which the "offenders" have moved off to.

The key thing is that it is one step. Obviously as long as the attacks are going on, there will be a need for more patrols/troops/police. Providing a stable place for the troops/police (Iraqi) to train and live will help to bolster the number of people available to take control of their own country.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » August 16, 2007, 4:36 pm

I understand the point Boogahz and its a valid one, but since even all of Baghdad still isn't actually under US control, its a hard argument to suggest that the surge is actually working. Especially when the biggest single attack on civilians since the war began happens in the same week the issue is being discussed.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » August 16, 2007, 4:39 pm

Funkmasterr wrote:Listen asshole, I have spoken what I think on this topic as has everyone else here. If you want to beat the dead horse be my fucking guest, but don't you dare whine about me pointing out how much of an idiot you are when I get bored with the goddamn topic. I liked you calling me ignorant in the other thread too since I don't believe what you do, what a shining example of intelligence and wisdom you are.

Can someone remind me of how to ignore someone, cause I seriously can't deal with this fuck anymore.

The thing is, You actually are ignorant in the other thread, but simply refuse to admit it, the evidence is linked to you there. Don't blame me if it makes you feel retarded. I'll even be nice about it and rephrase: You are mistaken in the issues you discussed and the evidence is linked to you, hopefully you will change your mind and admit that, but I doubt it.

I hope I widnt huwt yuo feewings too much.

By all means go for ignore, I won't miss you. Unfortunately I know you'll be back, just like the whole "I am so out of here girlfriend ummm hummm" crap earlier this month.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » August 16, 2007, 4:43 pm

Nick wrote:I understand the point Boogahz and its a valid one, but since even all of Baghdad still isn't actually under US control, its a hard argument to suggest that the surge is actually working. Especially when the biggest single attack on civilians since the war began happens in the same week the issue is being discussed.

The same week that WE are discussing it...mebbe yer teh terrorrist!