I still support the war.

[FUNKbrs]

Because screw Iraq. Those people are foreign. Plus, they do that whole nepotism thing. And they burn camel poop for fuel. Well, the poor do, and that's all that matters. Sure, they had and used WMD on their own people, but it's not our fault they used it all before we got there to stop them. That's the UN's fault for not following through on Gulf War 1 and pissing off an entire culture with their bearaucratic half-assery.

Conversely, I don't support the occupation and rebuilding Iraq because... well, I'm not going to repeat myself. Read line one of the first paragraph if you're confused. No, seriously. READ IT UNTIL YOU'RE SMARTER.

Summary: I support war=yes. I support peace-keeping anti-terrorism strategies=no

*waits patiently for people to attempt FAILtastic straw-man ad-hominem attacks..... by fags.

[LordJaric]

So you saport the war but against what we are doing over there right now, that makes perfect sense NOT!

[FUNKbrs]

At 6/9/07 05:56 PM, Tal-con wrote:

At 6/9/07 05:46 PM, LordJaric wrote: So you saport the war but against what we are doing over there right now, that makes perfect sense NOT!

Can't argue with that.

Indeed. I guess I'm going to have to hit the books and reconsider every belief I've ever held now.

God bless you LordJaric, for pointing out my idiocy. I only wish every politician was as smart as you.

[scorchin-hot]

Even though we have no place fighting this war at least we are killing some towel heads.

[FUNKbrs]

At 6/9/07 06:02 PM, scorchin-hot wrote: Even though we have no place fighting this war at least we are killing some towel heads.

Because any hat other than a cowboy hat or a baseball hat is against both fashion sense and the cause of right.

[LordJaric]

So you are a racist who want us to make the iraq's lifes a liveing hell, I hate people like you.

[scorchin-hot]

Lets put on some radar love and run down ali-baba!

[FUNKbrs]

At 6/9/07 06:09 PM, LordJaric wrote: So you are a racist who want us to make the iraq's lifes a liveing hell, I hate people like you.

LORD YES IT IS TRUE I HATE THEM BECAUSE THEY ARE BROWN.

But seriously, did you not read the part about the nepotism? You know, the cultural idea that the son of a king makes a better king than a common man? Or that a relative is always a better choice than a qualified stranger? In fact, what I'm promoting is the exact OPPOSITE of racism; it's discrimination based on verifiable cultural beliefs, which CAN BE CHANGED, as opposed to discrimination based on racial background WHICH CANNOT.

So, basically, I wouldn't discriminate against Iraqi's if they'd relinquish thousands of years of old hatred to bask in the light of a greater day. But they won't stop killing each other over heritage, and I'd rather kill them than let them kill each other, mainly because then at least someone would get some enjoyment out of it.

Please note, I AM PRO DEMOLITION, AND ANTI-BUILDING. Maybe if we level the place so noone wants to live there, people will realize how futile valuing earthly possessions is. Earthly possession INCLUDING obviously faulty religious and cultural beliefs, in particular nepotism, and in general, harboring hatred for other religious and social groups, ie the shia vs. sunni sectarian conflict.

Oh... wait.. I was supposed to say something other than that.....

OMFGIHATETOWELHEADS.

Ok, right, that was the response you were looking for, right? Because race is the most important issue ever, right?

[LordJaric]

I supported the war to get saddam out of power because he was kill his own people, but now that it has turned into a civil war he do need to start slowly pulling out, this is at least the third civil war (of another country) that we have been involved in and unless there is some good reason to get involved or to take a side than he should not be involved.

[DeadSun]

i support it to. i just like chaos and death.
i loved 9-11. like a few ghousand died. how cool is that?

[FUNKbrs]

At 6/9/07 07:12 PM, LordJaric wrote: I supported the war to get saddam out of power because he was kill his own people, but now that it has turned into a civil war he do need to start slowly pulling out, this is at least the third civil war (of another country) that we have been involved in and unless there is some good reason to get involved or to take a side than he should not be involved.

Who is this "he"? Because I know you're not talking about Bush, because the Iraq war is funded by acts of Congress, and by defintion, it's not just one person. Now, if you meant "we" I'd understand, but if you think the Iraq war was caused by a single individual, you are very, very confused.

[LordJaric]

At 6/9/07 07:19 PM, DeadSun wrote: i support it to. i just like chaos and death.
i loved 9-11. like a few ghousand died. how cool is that?

If you aren't jokeing fuck you 9/11 was one of the worst days in american history.

[LordJaric]

At 6/9/07 07:21 PM, FUNKbrs wrote:

At 6/9/07 07:12 PM, LordJaric wrote: I supported the war to get saddam out of power because he was kill his own people,

he should not be involved.

Who is this "he"?

The first he is saddam the second he is a typo i did mean we.

[DeadSun]

At 6/9/07 07:21 PM, LordJaric wrote:

At 6/9/07 07:19 PM, DeadSun wrote: i support it to. i just like chaos and death.
i loved 9-11. like a few ghousand died. how cool is that?

If you aren't jokeing fuck you 9/11 was one of the worst days in american history.

to you. i enjoy death and terror. i dont know why. probebl insane. but sanity is overrated

[fahrenheit]

At 6/9/07 07:26 PM, DeadSun wrote: i dont know why

your emo?

[fireball6283]

I say we kill everyone on earth so no one will have any more problems. Then the fags and NG will be gone forever!!! Praise the Lord (who may or may not exist)! BTW, I am Catholic.

[animehater]

At 6/9/07 07:26 PM, DeadSun wrote: to you. i enjoy death and terror. i dont know why. probebl insane. but sanity is overrated

It's fucked up to like 9/11 if your an American, still pretty fucked up if your a westerner. Thus wester death lovers should rather be rebels (you can't be a rebel by liking 9/11 the socialists already do that) by enjoying genocide in Darfur. Cause no one says they like genocide in darfur.

[SuperDeagle]

At 6/9/07 05:36 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: Summary: I support war=yes. I support peace-keeping anti-terrorism strategies=no

I agree with you. Yay!
Though some peace keeping I can understand, but I wish we were 'more' offensive.

[JudgeDredd]

At 6/9/07 07:12 PM, LordJaric wrote: I supported the war to get saddam out of power because he was kill his own people, but now that it has turned into a civil war we do need to start pulling out.

^^ Haha. FUNKBrs = teh WIN !!
.

I support whatever Funkmeister supports. I've listened to him intently for years, and althou he sometimes gets it very wrong, i still believe his intentions are good at heart. Even when things look like they can get no worse, and he's still hammering away at disbelievers, something clicks in me at yet a deeper level, and the righteousness of his view shine thru. At the darkest hour when my faith has totally ebbed away, a single sound-bite can turn me around. It's remarkable, and almost hypnotic. Maybe faith is like that.

It's got to a point where he could advocate "teh-war-to-end-all-wars" and i'd still support him! You might call me a blind follower of Funkism or whatever, but you know what, i'll still take it as a compliment.

[HighlyIllogical]

Funk tends to win these sort of debates.

He is being quite rational about this – his argument is cogent.

[scorchin-hot]

Just because they are jerks dosen't mean invading is justified. Al-quaeda blew up the trade centers because americans were jerks, but that doesn't justify it.

[Buffalow]

camel poo for fuel?

[NHT123]

I support the war, we made a mess of things (they were already a mess of things) and we have to stay.

[Mathaeus]

At 6/9/07 11:06 PM, Gwarfan wrote: camel poo for fuel?

They also use camel urine for medicinal purposes as well, LOL.

[FUNKbrs]

At 6/9/07 10:47 PM, Tal-con wrote:

At 6/9/07 10:37 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Funk tends to win these sort of debates.

He is being quite rational about this – his argument is cogent.

This tread is an epic win. Funkie poo has my vote for Poli forum El Presidente 2007

This is why I don't make threads anymore..... I miss D2KVirus sometimes.

There's no battles left ot fight anymore; everything's police action, police action, police action. The war in Iraq has degenerated into a police action. Darfur? Police action. Nobody ever wants to admit to fighting a war anymore, everyone always wants to still fight a war, but call it something else to avoid taking blame over it. Fuck that.

Look, wars are the realm of men with children. Instead of divorce, married men would go kill each other on the field of battle. Why? Because men are expendable; women, not so much. Would you rather die of cancer, or take a bullet in the head for a cause? When there's no legitimate wars going on and that's how you want to die, you get driven towards suicide bombing. A real, honest to damn goodness war simplifies all that.

Now, indiscriminate bombings? It seems kind of lazy. I guess it's almost justified if you drop pamphlets first, but still, it's a very contemptuous and aloof way to fight. In response, what did we get? Roadside bombs, a method of fighting just as non-confrontational as dropping bombs.

There are no easy answers, but I think the first step to getting some kind of solution is admitting what's really going on. Culturally, all humans have it in them to fight. This has to be allowed, in order for us all to stay human. The trick is to codify the act of war to where it doesn't cause so many ancillary casualties, and only kills those either willing to die, or willing to kill.

[HighlyIllogical]

Then we ought to go back to "real" war, right? Napoleonic Wars style land battles.

It's not what the evolution of warfare has led to. I mean, imagine what the terrorists would do if we started fighting like that.

We have to best the enemy at his own game – but we have more rules to follow as is. We have to fight counterinsurgencies, not other ntions.

[Nitroglys]

At 6/9/07 05:36 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: Because screw Iraq. Those people are foreign. Plus, they do that whole nepotism thing. And they burn camel poop for fuel. Well, the poor do, and that's all that matters. Sure, they had and used WMD on their own people, but it's not our fault they used it all before we got there to stop them. That's the UN's fault for not following through on Gulf War 1 and pissing off an entire culture with their bearaucratic half-assery.

For one thing the kurds are far from their own people. the whole idea of that its their fault for not being able to be a functioning country unless its with a king is sick. they shouldnt be held responsible for something like that. kings are all that have owned the middle east. and i think it is a good time for a change. now does that give us the power to go into their country and control it like our own. no. its more a reason for a revoultion inside the country. thats what mexico has been doing for centuries and its seems to work for them. i think were there for a few peoples personal gain. and that is why i dont support the war.

and dont get on the UN for the first gulf war. we lead the effort and we left just as fast as the UN did. it was our war then just as this is our war now.

Conversely, I don't support the occupation and rebuilding Iraq because... well, I'm not going to repeat myself. Read line one of the first paragraph if you're confused. No, seriously. READ IT UNTIL YOU'RE SMARTER.

this is where i dont get your arguement. the rebuilding of iraq is the only reason i see a reason for staying. its store policy you break it you've bought it.

Summary: I support war=yes. I support peace-keeping anti-terrorism strategies=no

so you support the pointless killing but not the cause. sounds like every red neck i have ever talked to about this subject. KILL THEM DAMN TOWELHEADS. THEY TOOK OUR JERBS!!

*waits patiently for people to attempt FAILtastic straw-man ad-hominem attacks..... by fags.

[FUNKbrs]

At 6/10/07 08:24 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Then we ought to go back to "real" war, right? Napoleonic Wars style land battles.

It's not what the evolution of warfare has led to. I mean, imagine what the terrorists would do if we started fighting like that.

Stop seeing the deaths of civilian targets as "success"? It's just a thought. Right now "winning" is determined by death toll. Society is too mobile for land mass to count anymore. We don't consider car wrecks in japanese made cars war casualties from WWII, do we? Therefore, deaths caused by insurgent made bombs can't honestly be considered war fatalities either. Only hard targets have military significance. Civilian targets are easy numbers; it's like saying you beat a colony of ants because you poured burning gas on it.

We have to best the enemy at his own game – but we have more rules to follow as is. We have to fight counterinsurgencies, not other ntions.

Meh, the phrase "nations" is a little outdated. The whole nation concept is based on land borders, which, thanks to worldwide media and automobiles, is too dynamic to measure. Instead, what we are left with are cultures with no land boundaries. The only thing we need to fight is the cultural belief that there's some kind of math of warfare where if nation 1 loses 5 civilians, and nation 2 loses 5 civilians, they're both even. However, mathmatically that works out to 10 dead civilians, total, end of story. There is no equality in war, therefore, you can't use an equal sign in war mathmatics. If people HAVE to kill each other, they should at least be killing people who have a chance to opt out of the battle.

But yeah, the "nation" concept doesn't seem legitimate to me anymore. We need another way to determine a valid target other than "not one of ours".

[Buffalow]

At 6/10/07 12:15 AM, Mathaeus wrote:

At 6/9/07 11:06 PM, Gwarfan wrote: camel poo for fuel?

They also use camel urine for medicinal purposes as well, LOL.

yeah......

but camel poo?

[Nitroglys]

At 6/10/07 09:16 PM, FUNKbrs wrote:

Stop seeing the deaths of civilian targets as "success"? It's just a thought. Right now "winning" is determined by death toll. Society is too mobile for land mass to count anymore. We don't consider car wrecks in japanese made cars war casualties from WWII, do we? Therefore, deaths caused by insurgent made bombs can't honestly be considered war fatalities either. Only hard targets have military significance. Civilian targets are easy numbers; it's like saying you beat a colony of ants because you poured burning gas on it.

they are proving a point. there is anarchy everywhere in iraq. and they have the power still to kill at will. these car bombs arent new. its been nearly 4 yrs. we should either have better anti terrorist measures (something i know your against god forbid we actually try and hunt down these bastards) or we shouldnt of ever been there in the first place. i dont remeber saddam running a plane into one of our buildings. and where are you going with this death count to win the war. no one sees it as that. winning is when someone doesnt die.

and that whole japenese car analegy. horrible. if a bad guy makes a bomb and it does what it is supposed to do and kills people that is a direct attack by that bad guy. your just trying to downplay the fact that the insurgents are winning.

Meh, the phrase "nations" is a little outdated. The whole nation concept is based on land borders, which, thanks to worldwide media and automobiles, is too dynamic to measure. Instead, what we are left with are cultures with no land boundaries. The only thing we need to fight is the cultural belief that there's some kind of math of warfare where if nation 1 loses 5 civilians, and nation 2 loses 5 civilians, they're both even. However, mathmatically that works out to 10 dead civilians, total, end of story. There is no equality in war, therefore, you can't use an equal sign in war mathmatics. If people HAVE to kill each other, they should at least be killing people who have a chance to opt out of the battle.

But yeah, the "nation" concept doesn't seem legitimate to me anymore. We need another way to determine a valid target other than "not one of ours".

ok ya ill give you its not a struggle of nations. but we never saw it as a war against iraq. just the unruly factions. and like i said earlier them killing civilans is just flexing their muscle. plus it helps that in their eyes they are not civilans. their either shites or sunni. and it has the whole struggling ghetto mantality"you kill someone from my crew ima kill someone from yours".that is another dynamic of the war you have to consider. it is a civil war.