Members SevenString Posted January 31, 2008 Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 Oh yeah. You turn teh gain knob up to 10 and the amp goes KABOOOM!! That would wipe out pretty much everyone on HCAF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rememberduane Posted January 31, 2008 Author Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 We're not fighting terrorist in iraq, we're fighting insurgents. (That was kind of my point). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rememberduane Posted January 31, 2008 Author Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 That would wipe out pretty much everyone on HCAF. Everyone on HC owns a Fab amp? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Weathered Posted January 31, 2008 Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 Armed with this false information, bush had no choice but to act since... saddam with nukes would be a threat to the usa due to his connection with al qaeda. (even his mistress admits saddam had ongoing talks with al qaeda who share a common foe. Western man). Bull{censored}. You really must have no knowledge of the region if you believe for a minute that Hussein had any interest in aiding Al' Queda at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Sex Panther Posted January 31, 2008 Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 Bull{censored}. You really must have no knowledge of the region if you believe for a minute that Hussein had any interest in aiding Al' Queda at all. + a number higher than infinite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SevenString Posted January 31, 2008 Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 Everyone on HC owns a Fab amp? LOL, no, but seems like everyone on HCAF is always looking for MORE GAIN 4 TEH BR00TZ!!! I'd think "diming the gain" would be the first thing just about everyone here would do with a new amp. In fact, I bet the Bugera is secretly funded by Bin Laden to target the worst of the infidels at HCAF. Think about it. A fittyonefitty clone at half the price, and there are already rumors that the thing catches on fire. I bet if you dime the gain... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rememberduane Posted January 31, 2008 Author Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 we aren't fighting a war anymore. The iraqi military was squashed eons ago.We are fighting radical islamic suicide bombers and bands of marauding criminals and gangs. (the same guys saddam use to fight, gas and hang). Many of whom arent even iraqis.What does it have to do with the war on terrorism?Well, when terrorists get their hands on nukes, america is going to get a mushroom cloud a month. (and then europe and then china and as well as any country that is non islamic). Dirty bombs and nuke devices are the future of high tech terrorism. Suicide bomber bombs will create mushroom clouds instead of dust clouds.We went to iraq because the american "intelligence" agency thought for sure saddam was hiding nukes in mobile labs (even Hillary Clinton thought so). Armed with this false information, bush had no choice but to act since... saddam with nukes would be a threat to the usa due to his connection with al qaeda. (even his mistress admits saddam had ongoing talks with al qaeda who share a common foe. Western man). But, the CIA was wrong. If there were nukes, they are well hidden. So, now we are there to "free" iraqi women. Dude... Can we please give up the al-Qaeda Saddam Hussein thing? Arab nationalism vs. Islamic extremism. Osama bin Laden would have (and did) see Iraq as in a state of jahiliyyah, as part of the Hizb al-Shaitan, the enemy. Saddam Hussein was a totalitarian dictator. Do you think he would have shared his authority with anyone? Negatory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rememberduane Posted January 31, 2008 Author Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 LOL, no, but seems like everyone on HCAF is always looking for MORE GAIN 4 TEH BR00TZ!!! I'd think "diming the gain" would be the first thing just about everyone here would do with a new amp. Surrrriously.I try to avoid amps with master volumes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members exafro Posted January 31, 2008 Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 rememberduane, I haven't read the thread and I'm not going to. I'll just go ahead and answer your question. Troop presence helps keep violence down and the residents feel safer with US troops around. Missiles, while accurate cause too much collateral damage. The simple fact is that you can't replace boots on the ground with some fancy missile system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BadRonald Posted January 31, 2008 Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 I thought we went there to spread Democracy? To a region that clearly does not want Democracy.You know, Democracy is not the answer for all cultures and countries.Just a thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Weathered Posted January 31, 2008 Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 I thought we went there to spread Democracy? To a region that clearly does not want Democracy. You know, Democracy is not the answer for all cultures and countries. Just a thought. +1It is the height of arrogance to believe that our system is a "one size fits all" system for ALL societies of the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members NomadFromGonad Posted January 31, 2008 Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 Bull{censored}. You really must have no knowledge of the region if you believe for a minute that Hussein had any interest in aiding Al' Queda at all. Neither you nor I can know what talks occured between saddam and al qaeda. We know they met. That is beyond dispute. He at least had enough interest to meet with them. that alone is enough to spook the american government. (and obviously did). I dont know if saddam had aligned himself with al qaeda or not. I'm not psychic enough to know that. I wasn't privvy to those meetings. Nor are you. I'm just telling you what the government was afraid of from a historical perspective. For all I know, saddam and al qaeda could have discussed ways to shorten the commute for iraqi business men Into baghdad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members NeloAngelo Posted January 31, 2008 Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 +1It is the height of arrogance to believe that our system is a "one size fits all" system for ALL societies of the world. you mean France's system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Weathered Posted January 31, 2008 Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 Neither you nor I can know what talks occured between saddam and al qaeda.We know they met. That is beyond dispute. He at least had enough interest to meet with them. that alone is enough to spook the american government. (and obviously did).I dont know if saddam had aligned himself with al qaeda or not. I'm not psychic enough to know that. I wasn't privvy to those meetings. Nor are you. I'm just telling you what the government was afraid of from a historical perspective. For all I know, saddam and al qaeda could have discussed ways to shorten the commute for iraqi business men Into Bagdad. Read rememberduane's post and check back. The link is tenuous at best, and I would really like to know where you got your info. Even the Bush administration has been smart enough to acknowledge that the al-qaeda/Iraq link was misinformation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members nitrous2400 Posted January 31, 2008 Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 theres no reason to be over there after the 1st year ... the billions of dollars could have easily sent every kid in the us to college, could have helped universal health care to get passed but instead cheney was callin the shots and bush is too stupid...personally i say blow the {censored} outta the middle east and as duke nukem say let god sort em out....uh i mean allah sort em out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Weathered Posted January 31, 2008 Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 you mean France's system.At one point, that was correct. The giant beaurocracy and attempts at true empire are American through and through, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members NeloAngelo Posted January 31, 2008 Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 i just want gas to get back down to at least $1.09 is that too much to ask? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SevenString Posted January 31, 2008 Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 Read rememberduane's post and check back.The link is tenuous at best, and I would really like to know where you got your info. Even the Bush administration has been smart enough to acknowledge that the al-qaeda/Iraq link was misinformation. Not to mention that the Bush family seems to have much closer ties to the Bin Laden family than Hussein EVER did. Gee, could that be why that giant bearded cocksucker is still running around scott-free? It really chaps my ass that we can spend trillions of dollars and waste hundreds of thousands of American and Iraqi lives on a worse than useless "create your own nemesis" war, but we can't get a bead on the most recognizable seven-foot-tall guy in the middle-east and take him out with a sniper or something? WHAT... THE... {censored}!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rememberduane Posted January 31, 2008 Author Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 rememberduane, I haven't read the thread and I'm not going to. I'll just go ahead and answer your question. Troop presence helps keep violence down and the residents feel safer with US troops around. Missiles, while accurate cause too much collateral damage. The simple fact is that you can't replace boots on the ground with some fancy missile system. That would make sense except we barely have troops on the ground at all in Afghanistan and Iraq was never a stronghold of violent Islamic fundamentalism. And we're ignoring the strongholds in Pakistan for political expediency with an autocrat military dictator who feigns democracy. Hrm. The only job we're doing in Iraq is cleaning up the mess we made. All the while, violent fundamentalist groups are free to do what they please in Pakistan and Afghanistan. I think this CIA action is great, but we need more of them. Lots. I think its time for the UN (with a large amount of troops and gear supplied by the US) to take over as a peacekeeping force with a mandate to train troops and rules of engagement that permit firing to protect civilians rather than just fire if fired upon. That would provide a more respected entity in Iraq with a clear mandate, and it would free up some American resources to be spent in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members thefyn Posted January 31, 2008 Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 Note: Rememberduane asked in question in his thread title. Answered it in his first post. It's basically a set up for HC'ers that he can argue with because he has probably been forced to learn all of this in class. It's like a kid being forced to box by his father then using in the school yard in sheer frustration. Don't argue with him. He has 3 chums (already in here) to back him up on everything he says (regardless if they themselves understand it). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Bopper Posted January 31, 2008 Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 Neither you nor I can know what talks occured between saddam and al qaeda.We know they met. That is beyond dispute. He at least had enough interest to meet with them. that alone is enough to spook the american government. (and obviously did).I dont know if saddam had aligned himself with al qaeda or not. I'm not psychic enough to know that. I wasn't privvy to those meetings. Nor are you. I'm just telling you what the government was afraid of from a historical perspective. For all I know, saddam and al qaeda could have discussed ways to shorten the commute for iraqi business men Into Bagdad. From this week's 60 Minutes segment on the FBI agent who interrogated Saddam: Among the most important questions for U.S. intelligence was whether Saddam was supporting al Qaeda, as had been claimed by some in the Bush administration. What was Saddam's opinion of Osama Bin Laden? "He considered him to be a fanatic. And as such was very wary of him. He told me, 'You can't really trust fanatics,'" Piro says. "Didn't think of Bin Laden as an ally in his effort against the United States in this war against the United States?" Pelley asks. "No. No. He didn't wanna be seen with Bin Laden. And didn't want to associate with Bin Laden," Piro explains. Piro says Saddam thought that Bin Laden was a threat to him and his regime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Weathered Posted January 31, 2008 Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 I think its time for the UN (with a large amount of troops and gear supplied by the US) to take over as a peacekeeping force with a mandate to train troops and rules of engagement that permit firing to protect civilians rather than just fire if fired upon. That would provide a more respected entity in Iraq with a clear mandate, and it would free up some American resources to be spent in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That would require UN support for this action, though, which went out the window in 2003 or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Weathered Posted January 31, 2008 Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 Don't argue with him. He has 3 chums (already in here) to back him up on everything he says (regardless if they themselves understand it). If you can't hack having an actual discussion, leave. Don't be a complete tool about it because you can't formulate a logical argument, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rememberduane Posted January 31, 2008 Author Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 Neither you nor I can know what talks occured between saddam and al qaeda.We know they met. That is beyond dispute. He at least had enough interest to meet with them. that alone is enough to spook the american government. (and obviously did).I dont know if saddam had aligned himself with al qaeda or not. I'm not psychic enough to know that. I wasn't privvy to those meetings. Nor are you. I'm just telling you what the government was afraid of from a historical perspective. For all I know, saddam and al qaeda could have discussed ways to shorten the commute for iraqi business men Into baghdad. People meet for a variety of purposes. Saddam's diplomats were meeting with Kuwaiti leaders days before the tanks rolled in. It doesn't always entail collaboration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members thefyn Posted January 31, 2008 Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 If you can't hack having an actual discussion, leave. Don't be a complete tool about it because you can't formulate a logical argument, though. He has 3 chums (already in here) to back him up on everything he says (regardless if they themselves understand it). That makes you "One little piggy" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.