Last I heard, Chicago hasn't been repeatedly shelled by mortar fire.
Yes, there is some crime, but that is sadly unavoidable in a large urban area of almost three million people. The crime rate actually appears to be lower than Philadelphia, a city half the size...maybe we should institute martial law and forcibly occupy the city of Brotherly Love?
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Let's Bomb Yemen
Let's Bomb YemenFollow
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
publiusvarus wrote:
Debo,
LMAO...good one. There are more murders in Chicago than Baghdad.
Quote:
Yes, there is some crime
LMAO...good one. There are more murders in Chicago than Baghdad.
Maybe if you count only the US military deaths.
What about the Iraqi civilian deaths? Oh... you don't care about that.
Maybe we should only count the deaths of US Military personnel in Chicago?
Edited, Dec 30th 2009 3:59pm by TirithRR
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
publiusvarus wrote:
Debo,
LMAO...good one. There are more murders in Chicago than Baghdad.
Quote:
Yes, there is some crime
LMAO...good one. There are more murders in Chicago than Baghdad.
Yes, because Baghdad is under martial law. Civilians aren't running around slitting throats for purses.
But, as far as I know, there haven't been Mujahadeen death squads roaming around Chicgao, or truck-bombs running into police stations. If you tally up the military casualties, Baghdad is a much more dangerous place. Because we turned it into a war zone.
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
publiusvarus wrote:
Debo,
http://www.chicagogangs.org/index.php?pr=GANG_LIST
Quote:
there haven't been Mujahadeen death squads roaming around Chicgao
http://www.chicagogangs.org/index.php?pr=GANG_LIST
Ok, so if you count gang activity as military engagements, then the civilian murder rate in Shy-town drops even more.
Don't know why you would want to undermine your own argument, but whatever.
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
Debalic wrote:
Last I heard, Chicago hasn't been repeatedly shelled by mortar fire.
Yes, there is some crime, but that is sadly unavoidable in a large urban area of almost three million people. The crime rate actually appears to be lower than Philadelphia, a city half the size...maybe we should institute martial law and forcibly occupy the city of Brotherly Love?
Yes, there is some crime, but that is sadly unavoidable in a large urban area of almost three million people. The crime rate actually appears to be lower than Philadelphia, a city half the size...maybe we should institute martial law and forcibly occupy the city of Brotherly Love?
It's only because Philly is full of *********
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
publiusvarus wrote:
Manic,
You're such an idiot you shouldn't even try to contribute. The american military didn't slaughter anyone and they didn't get slaughtered so what the h*ll are you talking about? Or was your post just another typical I hate the military liberal rant?
Quote:
question of the american people thinking it was a total slaughter (it pretty much was),
You're such an idiot you shouldn't even try to contribute. The american military didn't slaughter anyone and they didn't get slaughtered so what the h*ll are you talking about? Or was your post just another typical I hate the military liberal rant?
I was referring to the first Desert Storm, dumbass. The second part detailed the current war. Going for saddam had two parts to it, which is why I went with both. It also summed up the question of ground troops, and why they are effective when used right (as well as showing that the idea of not using ground troops is pretty absurd a lot of the time including extensive use of air raids to clear out the enemy).
publiusvarus wrote:
Ambrya,
Neither is Chicago, our presidents home city.
Quote:
and not even the capital of Iraq is safe or stable yet
Neither is Chicago, our presidents home city.
Last I checked, our military wasn't occupying Chicago indefinitely at the cost of hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars and to the detriment of our diplomatic credibility.
Quote:
And I like how you take a story that has been proven false and attempt to use it to support your blatant anti-military stance.
Oh, I can't wait to see the citation for that little claim. Let me guess, you are going to try to argue that dropping charges/offering immunity to many of the soldiers involved in the Haditha killings means the massacre never happened, despite all the evidence to the contrary.
This is gonna be fun. /popcorn
And while we're at it, I'm not even close to anti-military. I'm very pro-military. I have a niece in the Navy as we speak, and I have great respect for those who volunteer to defend their nation.
In point of fact, so great is my respect for them, that I tend to resent it deeply when they are misused and sent to die without justification on the flimsiest of pretexts.
I think the catastrophes I mentioned above were allowed to happen because their mission statement in Iraq is so very ill-defined that chaos inevitably ensued, as it invariably does when the force intended for the defense of our nation is inexplicably deployed in way that has nothing to do with our defense.
I respect them so deeply, I don't want to see their lives thrown away for a worthless cause. If there is any anti-military bias here, Virus, it's yours. You care so little about our men and women in uniform that you can write off the cost of their lives while maintianing your unsupportable defense of the false mission upon which they've been sent. Why do you hate our soldiers?
Edited, Dec 31st 2009 11:14am by Ambrya
Quote:
Waterboarding is not torture no matter how many times you say it.
Quote:
Main Entry: wa·ter·board·ing
Pronunciation: \ˈwȯ-tər-ˌbȯr-diŋ, ˈwä-\
Function: noun
Date: 2004
: an interrogation technique in which water is forced into a detainee's mouth and nose so as to induce the sensation of drowning
Pronunciation: \ˈwȯ-tər-ˌbȯr-diŋ, ˈwä-\
Function: noun
Date: 2004
: an interrogation technique in which water is forced into a detainee's mouth and nose so as to induce the sensation of drowning
Quote:
Waterboarding is considered a form of torture by legal experts,[3][4] politicians, war veterans,[5][6] medical experts in the treatment of torture victims,[7][8] intelligence officials,[9] military judges[10] and human rights organizations.[11][12]
Quote:
While the technique does not inevitably cause lasting physical damage, it can cause extreme pain, dry drowning, damage to lungs, brain damage from oxygen deprivation
sounds pretty torturous to me.
Omegavegeta wrote:
Quote:
Air raids didn't work during the Clinton administration what makes you think they'll work now?
Clinton didn't exactly have help from the Taliban.
And even if they had, the Taliban has no where near the control that Yemen does over it's territory.
Yet again the political right on this board reaches the height of irony when they recall the air raids under Clinton against Bin Laden. These were the infamous "wag the dog" air raids said to distract the public from an ongoing sex scandal. If the left wing posts here are "anti-military" then the right wing reply to the bombing of Bin Laden under Clinton must be near treason, under that logic.
Recent Visitors: 280
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (280)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Let's Bomb Yemen
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC