Author Topic: Army: Troops to Stay in Iraq Until 2010  (Read 491 times)

Sanford - V. President of the Dangerous Crew Movement

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 2678
  • Karma: 689
  • The movement is Suckaa Free.
Re: Army: Troops to Stay in Iraq Until 2010
« Reply #15 on: October 18, 2006, 09:33:11 PM »
fight the war on Socom.  which ever team wins, 50% of the annual profits of the countries income is presented to the winning team.
*victory dance*

 ;)

na but on the real, science will kill the world.


Pick up 2 gats like Riley with a full 16 clip, on some sick shit like Lynch, while rippin a bitch's clit with beyonce's mouth on the tip of my dick.

Dangerous Crew Beeyatch!
 

7even

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 11283
  • Karma: -679
Re: Army: Troops to Stay in Iraq Until 2010
« Reply #16 on: October 19, 2006, 06:41:07 AM »

That article is ab absolute joke, its a complete mind fuck as we both know, many times before they have made noises that would soon pull out of Iraq but it never happens. They will be there for many decades if I was going to put a guesstimate on how long I would say at least 30 years, what do you reckon?
Why invade in the FIRST Place?  ???

Lots of reasons.  They have lots of oil, for 1.  We didn't like the guy that ran the place, so we went in and arrested him and killed his children, for 2.  They're muslim, we're christians, for 3.  I could give you several reasons, don't play stupid.  Let me explain something to you.  When you hypothetically state there is no reason to invade a country, you're losing the argument before you even begin.

You would have been much better off, instead of saying there's no reason to invade, saying that we're invading for an unjust reason.  For instance, if you argued that we hate muslims, you could find facts or statements to support that, and then make America look bad or whatever you intend to do with your argument. 

If, however, you take your approach, and act like there's no reason to invade... then you miss a great opportunity.  If there is absolutely no reason to invade, all you can do is accuse Bush of being an idiot.  If you instead would have assigned some other motive to his reasons for invading, you could truly demonize him (or cheney, rumsfield, whoever you prefer) and your argument would be much, much stronger. 

In other words, you're playing with the big boys and you didn't do your homework.  Bow down to a brother stronger than you. 

When he asks a question like this, he implies that there is no good reason to invade. By "good reason" I don't mean good in the sense of lucrative, but in the plain sense of good.
So, all the 3 reasons you mentioned are reasons only assholes would consider as reasons before they do something.
It's like, when somebody rapes the 5 year old daughter of someone, and in court the mother shouts in tears "why would you do those unbelieveable things to a little innocent girl?" and the rapist answers calmly: "Lots of reasons. Because it's cheaper than taking a prostitude, for 1.  I didn't like her daddy because he had some beef with my father, so I went and raped his child, for 2.  She's black, I'm white, for 3.  I could give you several reasons, don't play stupid.  Let me explain something to you.  When you hypothetically state there is no reason to rape and molest an innocent little girl, you're losing the argument before you even begin."
See how stupid you look now? Now, of course back in the day, let's say 3 and a half years ago, you wouldn't have replied with such an answer to that question. You probably would've been like "because they are connected to al quaeda, and because they have WMD and are a threat to the whole western hemisphere you stupid idiot"
But as we all know now, that was straight up bullshit fed to the American public to make you sleep better at night.
Cause I don't care where I belong no more
What we share or not I will ignore
And I won't waste my time fitting in
Cause I don't think contrast is a sin
No, it's not a sin
 

King Tech Quadafi

  • His Royal Highness
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 7297
  • Karma: -221
  • i think you betta recognize...
Re: Army: Troops to Stay in Iraq Until 2010
« Reply #17 on: October 19, 2006, 12:57:50 PM »
there will always be troops in Iraq, I would estimate for at least the next 40 years.  We're still in Japan and Germany, of course. 

The difference is that the Japanese and Germans aren't killing our troops there on a regular basis.

They were 50 years ago.  Think about it, you narrow minded shortsighted motherfucker. 

you dumb pasty hick. what a fuckin tool u are. have u read a single paragraph of a history text, u retarded ape. were japanese and germans killing american troops after they were occupied...ie. after the war. u dumb fuck, eihtball wasnt talkin about the war itself

on a side note, anybody notice the dumb discredited tire slashing hick totally swagger jacking my style? join the list hoe
"One day Alice came to a fork in the road and saw a Cheshire cat in a tree. "Which road do I take?" she asked. "Where do you want to go?" was his response. "I don't know," Alice answered. "Then," said the cat, "it doesn't matter."

- Lewis Carroll
 

King Tech Quadafi

  • His Royal Highness
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 7297
  • Karma: -221
  • i think you betta recognize...
Re: Army: Troops to Stay in Iraq Until 2010
« Reply #18 on: October 19, 2006, 12:59:19 PM »

That article is ab absolute joke, its a complete mind fuck as we both know, many times before they have made noises that would soon pull out of Iraq but it never happens. They will be there for many decades if I was going to put a guesstimate on how long I would say at least 30 years, what do you reckon?
Why invade in the FIRST Place?  ???

Lots of reasons.  They have lots of oil, for 1.  We didn't like the guy that ran the place, so we went in and arrested him and killed his children, for 2.  They're muslim, we're christians, for 3.  I could give you several reasons, don't play stupid.  Let me explain something to you.  When you hypothetically state there is no reason to invade a country, you're losing the argument before you even begin.

You would have been much better off, instead of saying there's no reason to invade, saying that we're invading for an unjust reason.  For instance, if you argued that we hate muslims, you could find facts or statements to support that, and then make America look bad or whatever you intend to do with your argument. 

If, however, you take your approach, and act like there's no reason to invade... then you miss a great opportunity.  If there is absolutely no reason to invade, all you can do is accuse Bush of being an idiot.  If you instead would have assigned some other motive to his reasons for invading, you could truly demonize him (or cheney, rumsfield, whoever you prefer) and your argument would be much, much stronger. 

In other words, you're playing with the big boys and you didn't do your homework.  Bow down to a brother stronger than you. 

When he asks a question like this, he implies that there is no good reason to invade. By "good reason" I don't mean good in the sense of lucrative, but in the plain sense of good.
So, all the 3 reasons you mentioned are reasons only assholes would consider as reasons before they do something.
It's like, when somebody rapes the 5 year old daughter of someone, and in court the mother shouts in tears "why would you do those unbelieveable things to a little innocent girl?" and the rapist answers calmly: "Lots of reasons. Because it's cheaper than taking a prostitude, for 1.  I didn't like her daddy because he had some beef with my father, so I went and raped his child, for 2.  She's black, I'm white, for 3.  I could give you several reasons, don't play stupid.  Let me explain something to you.  When you hypothetically state there is no reason to rape and molest an innocent little girl, you're losing the argument before you even begin."
See how stupid you look now? Now, of course back in the day, let's say 3 and a half years ago, you wouldn't have replied with such an answer to that question. You probably would've been like "because they are connected to al quaeda, and because they have WMD and are a threat to the whole western hemisphere you stupid idiot"
But as we all know now, that was straight up bullshit fed to the American public to make you sleep better at night.

ether...

lol @ trauma wanting to come back on this forum and talk shit like we have selective memories. at least englewood had the decensy to stop posting and don rizzle publicly acknowledged he was wrong/
"One day Alice came to a fork in the road and saw a Cheshire cat in a tree. "Which road do I take?" she asked. "Where do you want to go?" was his response. "I don't know," Alice answered. "Then," said the cat, "it doesn't matter."

- Lewis Carroll
 

AndrE16686

  • Guest
Re: Army: Troops to Stay in Iraq Until 2010
« Reply #19 on: October 20, 2006, 07:29:41 AM »
there will always be troops in Iraq, I would estimate for at least the next 40 years.  We're still in Japan and Germany, of course. 

I co-sign. US troops will be in Iraq for a very long time, its stupid to believe that they will pull-out once the job is done. But it all depends on them not getting kicked the fuck out like 'Nam and its starting to look 'Namish, oh its getting 'Namish son.
 

Narrator

  • Guest
Re: Army: Troops to Stay in Iraq Until 2010
« Reply #20 on: October 21, 2006, 05:51:55 PM »
They were 50 years ago.  Think about it, you narrow minded shortsighted motherfucker. 

What?  After the war had been declared won?

And LOL, you DID get badly ethered by 7even.