Ok I was wondering, why do american's, especially their soldiers think that using IED's are cowardly and unsportsman like? Americans complain that they never get to see their enemy because the insurgents leave their bombs and set them from a distance. However, doesnt americans do the same? They attack with jets and helicopters. And they use tanks. We dont call american pilots cowardly. Its fairgame.
Are IEDS, fairgame against the US?
- Thread starter mahram
- Start date
If you defend your country against an invading army you are not patriotic, you are a "corwardly terrorist" apparently.
We only kill in love and goodness, 100,000's killed in Iraq have nothing to do with "Thou Shalt Not Kill".
We only kill in love and goodness, 100,000's killed in Iraq have nothing to do with "Thou Shalt Not Kill".
I was wondering about that myself. I mean, why bother with these IEDs when Americans can easily drop another Fat Man and Little Boy on Iran. And I say Iran since they are the ones fueling the Iraqi insurgency.
I say stop wasting American lives and drop one of these babies on Tehran. It wouldn't be too surprising to see the mullahs running away with their towels under their arms if this should happen.
lol reg b/c you want the oil ...if there wasnt any oil there, why would you care. You cant nuke, you cant invade, but you care lot b/c they could invade any of your other oil friends to. Look at north korea. It has no oil, and it builds a nuke. And you have everybody going, who cares. If they didnt have oil, nobody would care. End of story.
...if there wasnt any oil there, why would you care. You cant nuke, you cant invade, but you care lot b/c they could invade any of your other oil friends to. Look at north korea. It has no oil, and it builds a nuke. And you have everybody going, who cares. If they didnt have oil, nobody would care. End of story.Quote from reg:
I was wondering about that myself. I mean, why bother with these IEDs when Americans can easily drop another Fat Man and Little Boy on Iran. And I say Iran since they are the ones fueling the Iraqi insurgency.
I say stop wasting American lives and drop one of these babies on Tehran. It wouldn't be too surprising to see the mullahs running away with their towels under their arms if this should happen.
How many deadly Islamic revolutions in Africa and Asia is North Korea funding? Nuke or no nuke, North Korea fails to be a demonstrated threat to secular democracies.
Iran should be de-mullahed whether they have WMD's or not. Just for kicks.
Iran should be de-mullahed whether they have WMD's or not. Just for kicks.
Quote from mahram:
lol reg b/c you want the oil
Quote from mahram:
lol reg b/c you want the oil
Of course it's about the oil! LMAO!
Whenever George Bush or Condi points to a map of the Middle East and use the term "American interests", what do you think they're talking about? Camels? Drill it through your sweat-soaked towels and into your thick empty skulls that the only reason the world even talks about you is because of your OIL.
Now when it comes to the oil, that thing was just sitting there under you bare, dirty feet until the Americans and its European friends found a use for it. In other words, we drilled out the oil from the ground for you, refined it for you, sold it for you, and even bought it from you. If it wasn't for us, you ragheads wouldn't even know what to do with it. So what is it really that you are constantly bitching about?
So you say that the US won't bomb Iran because they have oil? You may be right - we might think twice about doing this. But when push comes to shove and the mullahs in Iran start threatening the US and the rest of the world with its nuclear weapons, I think Americans will be okay with dealing with one less oil supplier and giving the go ahead to blow up Tehran and bring you ragheads closer to Allah.
Always remember then - IT IS ALWAYS ABOUT THE OIL.
Now go get lost.
Yes, they are fair game, and so is everything else. That cuts both ways. The sooner we Americans come to the realize that there is no morality in war, the better off we'll be. There is no nice way to kill your enemies. You kill them by whatever means you have at your disposal and you keep killing them until the few survivors surrender. No surrender, you kill them all. To do otherwise...well, you end up with Korea, Viet Nam, and now another loser, Iraq.
Don't have the stomach for that? Fine! Don't go to war! Keep negotiating. Simple! Once a nation decides negotation can't provide a viable solution, that nation must be prepared to do whatever it takes. We ain't! That's why we're losers in the war against terror and always will be until we grow some fucking balls.
Don't have the stomach for that? Fine! Don't go to war! Keep negotiating. Simple! Once a nation decides negotation can't provide a viable solution, that nation must be prepared to do whatever it takes. We ain't! That's why we're losers in the war against terror and always will be until we grow some fucking balls.
It was a tactical error of a madman. Killing Jews served no prupose to achieving victory over his enemies. If fact, one could argue had he not been so pre-occupied with killing Jews, Germany probably would have won the war.
But to answer your question directly. No, he was not guilty of genocide. There's no such thing, just those that survive the war and those that don't. There are no rules in war! He was guilty of being crazy and poor battle tactics.
Are IED's fair game against the US?
You should really ask the Iraqi women and children that are being blown to bits by the IEDs. What is the logic of killing your own people? I can't wait until they stop killing each other so the US can leave.
You should really ask the Iraqi women and children that are being blown to bits by the IEDs. What is the logic of killing your own people? I can't wait until they stop killing each other so the US can leave.