US tax money goes where?
- Thread starter OO7MIKE
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
"Getting things your way."ReD_Fist said:
That's pretty much the only condition needed for being victorious.
I've been victorious a few times over this morning: I beat hunger (by eating a chicken/bacon sandwich), an old lady while racing for a seat on the bus, achieved another personnal record in rolling sigarets (it was a very pretty sigaret, a shame I didn't take a picture of it) and I kicked a pigeon.
Cat Fuzz said:
Finish the job eh, weren't you republicans all cocky when the war started and said, we're gonna do this in three weeks. Gee, you guys kind of take long with the time tables dont ya.
Cat Fuzz
Qualthwar's Minion. Ph34r!
Eyuva 'S' NRG said:
Eh, no. I believe we said the initial invasion would take about 3 weeks and it did. Bush had said many times before the war that this would be a long term commitment.
every person i speak to who is against the war all say the same thing but have no answers.
we need to get out of iraq!
okay, why?
our troops are dying!
okay, so what happens to iraq when we leave? they have no stable govt yet, or a sufficient police force/army to keep the peace there.
we had no business there anyway!
so everything was better off with sadam in power?
and then the conversations turns into how bush is evil and is out to destroy everything.
the war is not being won!
why? what constitutes victory?
our troops are dying!
so if we had zero casualties we would be winning?
yes!
so then by your logic, Britain still controls the US and the our govt is an illegal govt and they should all be arrested and held on trial in London.
This is different!
no one ever offers a logical rebuttal
we need to get out of iraq!
okay, why?
our troops are dying!
okay, so what happens to iraq when we leave? they have no stable govt yet, or a sufficient police force/army to keep the peace there.
we had no business there anyway!
so everything was better off with sadam in power?
and then the conversations turns into how bush is evil and is out to destroy everything.
the war is not being won!
why? what constitutes victory?
our troops are dying!
so if we had zero casualties we would be winning?
yes!
so then by your logic, Britain still controls the US and the our govt is an illegal govt and they should all be arrested and held on trial in London.
This is different!
no one ever offers a logical rebuttal
GoAt said:
It's not like those conversations made much logical sense in the first place. You didn't even ask the first person when they thought the troops should leave. You seem to have implied the person said the troops should leave immediately, because they are dying. Then you refuted that claim by saying
it isn't safe to leave the country in its current state.
"so everything was better off with sadam in power?"
I love to hate this question. I don't think you could answer it. It also implies that the ends justify the means, a line typically associated with terrorists.
Consider the fact that some Iraqi clearly see the U.S army as an invading force. Why would someone anticiapte complete order to arise from this situation before the U.S army leaves?
Some people are probably better off, but unless you have had your head in the sand all this time you would realise that parts of Iraq have been destroyed. Clearly some of the country is not better off, is it? But that's apparently not very relevant since your govt has created its own moral obligation to stay in Iraq with an occupying military force until some form of order is established. It's a "screaming success" I tells ya.
The best we can hope for is that the new Iraqi govt can form a coalition that works for the people and doesn't exasperate sectarian divisions to the point where groups start to declare independence from Iraq and each another, and then start fighting over territory. ie a full-blown civil war
Soldiers dying is't the worst part, since they signed up for it and we've reached another record on the worldpopulation, again. But then again: nothing a few random castrations around the world can't fix.
Stilgar said:
Ya well, imagine if a bunch of OTHER country pitched in , hmm lets say 50,000 troops, like 10 countrys then it would have been cleaned up by now.
Morel high ground huh?
Oh and don't blame things on Bush, all those other countries should of all sent forces and clamped that place down in the beggining, regardless of Bush, regardless of all, and it would help on the free would be bombers still walking around.
and that whole word "occupy" is another thing, all the sudden on the news they started saying that, well mabye a year ago or so.
It's just not true, it's not an "occupying" "invasion" force with intent to take over the country, and when people refer to being there like that is the same ole thing of the palistinians say about isreal all the time (occupy).
So they start saying that wich is making it sound like we are the oppresors, we are the bad bad usa.
I opposed the war and I oppose it now. But I don't think we should leave Iraq, not yet anyway. There's a difference between opposing the war because you hate the president and opposing the war while understanding that we're too deep into it now to turn around prematurely.
My problem stems from feeling like we were cheated into this conflict and how we don't have a choice about it now. We can hate it or praise it all we want, but we're stuck there for the time being.
My problem stems from feeling like we were cheated into this conflict and how we don't have a choice about it now. We can hate it or praise it all we want, but we're stuck there for the time being.
Israel IS occupying a huge chunk of palestina. The part that's now called Israel was taken as compensation for the jews in europe after WW2, but it was taken from a country that had nothing to do with it and never aggreed to offer a part of their land.ReD_Fist said:
The gaza-tingie that was going on was Israel expanding its borders. At the cost of palestina. The support of the US to Israel pisses off the arabs even more. In their eyes the US seems to approve occupation and conquest, that's why most of them see the US as an invading force.
Check your history and check the facts. A part of Palestina was invaded and occupied. And that part is now called Israel.
ReD_Fist, what you said about Israel makes it appear that you don't believe they occupy territory of other nations. If so, like GMotha said, get your facts straight.
The Six Day War was an expansion of Israeli borders in which they simply invaded large parts of Palestine, Egypt and Syria. The Sinai Peninsula was handed back to Egypt in 1982, and they pulled settlements out of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank this year, but they still occupy the Golan Heights.
It's considered military occupation of Syrian territory under international law and no country accepts any kind of legality for the settlements there. Not even America.
Ditto. The anti-war movement lost my support when they started saying "Bring our troops home" and it was such an obviously impractical and inhumane notion.
The Six Day War was an expansion of Israeli borders in which they simply invaded large parts of Palestine, Egypt and Syria. The Sinai Peninsula was handed back to Egypt in 1982, and they pulled settlements out of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank this year, but they still occupy the Golan Heights.
It's considered military occupation of Syrian territory under international law and no country accepts any kind of legality for the settlements there. Not even America.
Mister_Prophet said:
Ditto. The anti-war movement lost my support when they started saying "Bring our troops home" and it was such an obviously impractical and inhumane notion.
Last edited:
GMotha said:
Ummmm the Palestinians were never a country, per se. They've tried to be adopted by other Arab nations without success. Jordan, Egypt, among other nations have refused them entry, thus your argument holds no water. They are the unwanted cousin of the Arab nation, but a convienient excuse for radicals to use to justify what they do.
GMotha said:
No. Not really. It would be unwise for anyone to set up shop at the base of an active volcano.
GMotha said:
I'll throw the same question right back at you. Does this excuse the Terroristic activities of those claiming to champion them?
Isreal has every right to exist as the Palestinians. But you ask the average person over there, they seem to think it's ok to wipe the Jews off the face of the earth. Is that justified? Does that justify 9/11? The Achille Laural? The USS Cole? The subway bombing in Britain I believe?
I said this before around here, but lets say isreal dissappeared tommorow.All the arabs would suddenly not hate america, or would they just go to the next country over.
I think the palistine is a bunch of poor (and want to stay poor) people mooching off of isreal, youl see palastine is like the ghetto, and isreal are the haves, not the havenots.
But those palistine people would just ruin everything and trash it, then say "see look how downtrodden we are, " then" it's all usa's fault, even though the jews are gone" and thats exactly what would happen.
I think the palistine is a bunch of poor (and want to stay poor) people mooching off of isreal, youl see palastine is like the ghetto, and isreal are the haves, not the havenots.
But those palistine people would just ruin everything and trash it, then say "see look how downtrodden we are, " then" it's all usa's fault, even though the jews are gone" and thats exactly what would happen.