Syrian & city of Homs.

[jmervyn]

BTW, they wash their butts with water instead and many of them have a similarly negative opinion about our preferences.

Just keep in mind that kaffir like you and I are inherently unclean and you'll do just fine.

Of course, there's no water in the desert, but likewise, there's no toilet paper in the desert as well .

There's sand; that's what's used. Surely you've heard of comparisons between deserts and oceans?

It's not a blanket condemnation of Middle-Eastern culture, but just pointing out that Western multi-kulti is insane when you actually consider application. Many Wahabis and similar types, who frequently have a soft spot in their hearts for the nomadic lifestyle, view life from a medieval vantage point. Why should we expect them to grasp the technical aspects of a cell phone? A great examination of this is "The Gods Must Be Crazy". I might find the mindset of these people generally repugnant, of the "Death to the J00z, Death to America, maybe you know my cousin in Michigan, and how may I help you?" variety, but they generally AREN'T the ones who actually try to attack the West. Sadly, they are often led by those who would.

I'll never forget one of my NCO's, who thought I was full of kaffir, returning from a visit to the latrine horror-struck at what he'd just witnessed. The Arab in question had a cell phone.

[BobCox2]

Never crossed my mind, even as a chance to lodge a barb for humorous purposes. Some shyte isn't funny, such as what Assad's doing.
Right, but bear in mind the relatively primitive collection of people we're referring to. Even Westerners are generally oblivious to what goes on behind their computer screens & so forth; are you expecting more from people who are generally not accustomed to toilet paper? Cell use in 2nd & 3rd world countries leap-frogged ahead of standard phone use; I wouldn't be at all surprised if many of the users consider these objects in a somewhat supernatural context, if they consider such things at all.
Not necessarily, though I understand what you mean (getting GPS through reverse-identification) but you saw in the second link that's not the only means possible. You don't need decoding just to get signal strength, and I don't imagine that every cell out there has the same quality of data protection. Plus, the Syrians certainly aren't above using sledgehammers to crack walnuts. Nomophobia kills.

I remember hearing years ago that Al Quida had a excellent Aspect based system and trained most people on the 1st cell phone they ever had.

Worked the PBX and VOIP phone field and it was a open story at the time but I can't find a source on it.

[Cheesehed]

Doesn't even matter if there ARE good reasons; modern Western societies are reluctant to go to war and can be counted upon to have both severe misgivings and very low patience. With Iraq, the U.S. Democrat "loyal opposition" decided it was politically beneficial to go the road of treason in the middle of a war, even though the 'war' part was one of the most successful in modern times and the death toll a pittance by comparison with past conflicts.

It worked, and extremely well; Bush still is touted as one of the worst Presidents EVAH with very little real justification.

So an undeclared war constitutionally illegitimate war that cost trillions of borrowed dollars, thousands for americans lives and hundreds of thousands iraqis lives was successful? What about the war in Afghanistan in the 1980s, because we had to push back that evil communist empire from expanding, we trained and armed Bin Ladin. We armed Sadaam to invade Iran in the 80s. What is the point? How do you define success? How is it treasonous to oppose an illegal and illegitimate war. Since when is it the American taxpayers responsibility to stop radical dictators that don't threaten us in any way at all?

[BobCox2]

So an undeclared war constitutionally illegitimate war that cost trillions of borrowed dollars, thousands for americans lives and hundreds of thousands iraqis lives was successful? What about the war in Afghanistan in the 1980s, because we had to push back that evil communist empire from expanding, we trained and armed Bin Ladin. We armed Sadaam to invade Iran in the 80s. What is the point? How do you define success? How is it treasonous to oppose an illegal and illegitimate war. Since when is it the American taxpayers responsibility to stop radical dictators that don't threaten us in any way at all?

Has the Shah got a grandson we can put in Iran?

At least since Grandpas day kids

[jmervyn]

I remember hearing years ago that Al Quida had a excellent Aspect based system and trained most people on the 1st cell phone they ever had

It's why so many of my peers at University were Arabs; I'm not trying to sneer but American education is like Hogwarts Academy (or whatever). There's many primitive Americans and other Westerners, obviously, but the basic comprehension of tech is different.

So an undeclared war constitutionally illegitimate war that cost trillions of borrowed dollars, thousands for americans lives and hundreds of thousands iraqis lives was successful?

Sigh. Yes, incredibly successful. Which of your lies (AKA Fascist Left talking points) would you like me to debunk first?

What about the war in Afghanistan in the 1980s, because we had to push back that evil communist empire from expanding, we trained and armed Bin Ladin. We armed Sadaam to invade Iran in the 80s. What is the point?

At the time, we wanted to do to the USSR what they had done to us with Vietnam. We succeeded marvelously.

How do you define success?

Well, since the fascist Left loves to eventually make it all about dollars, how about you simply consider the end of the Cold War and commensurate costs as compared to the costs of the incredibly short wars in both countries, or even that of "rebuilding" when adjusted for inflation?

How is it treasonous to oppose an illegal and illegitimate war.

Because the war was completely legal and legitimate, but because the fascist Left saw Howard Dean's success they decided treason was the way to win. Easily seen now that Obama has merely continued all of Bush's policies, yet the fascist Left and the so-called anti-war movement have nothing whatsoever to say or do. If this wasn't mere fascism, the anti-war movement would be screaming even louder at Obama for his open betrayal of pretty much every promise he made them. So when's Gitmo closing, again?

Since when is it the American taxpayers responsibility to stop radical dictators that don't threaten us in any way at all?

If you don't think Saddam threatened the U.S. on a frequent basis, and had both the mechanism and will to take hostile actions, you've got your head so far up & locked that there's literally no rational point in discussion. Which perhaps accounts for your nickname?

However, it's definitely a valid question in the abstract. Should we take action against dictators who don't actually threaten us? If not, then how to possibly defend Obama's invasion and air strikes against Libya, not only unprovoked, but in support of Al Quaeda? Inquiring minds want to know!

[Cheesehed]

Sigh. Yes, incredibly successful. Which of your lies (AKA Fascist Left talking points) would you like me to debunk first?
At the time, we wanted to do to the USSR what they had done to us with Vietnam. We succeeded marvelously.

but why were we in vietnam in the first place? how did vietnam being communist affect us at all. Do you view the khmer rouge and their U.S. backed genocide a success?

Well, since the fascist Left loves to eventually make it all about dollars, how about you simply consider the end of the Cold War and commensurate costs as compared to the costs of the incredibly short wars in both countries, or even that of "rebuilding" when adjusted for inflation?

2 big differences between Iraq/Afghanistan and the Cold war. The Cold was an arms race, and Russia was building and has weapons and a military that can hurt us on our own soil. Iraq and Afghanistan are both occupations, our military playing police force for a foreign country. You would seem to be the liberal here, just spending money on war propaganda. A conservative would only fight a war that is necessary to his national defense.

As for your comments on inflation, was that a joke? We went to these pointless occupations by borrowing money and printing money. We inflated our own currency, and that somehow makes the war cheaper? It has vaporized our economy, our spending has gotten even worse than it ever was. Where is the efficiency here? The efficiency of our military today is much better compared to earlier years but if the money is being spent on pointless wars then it is still a net loss.

Because the war was completely legal and legitimate, but because the fascist Left saw Howard Dean's success they decided treason was the way to win. Easily seen now that Obama has merely continued all of Bush's policies, yet the fascist Left and the so-called anti-war movement have nothing whatsoever to say or do. If this wasn't mere fascism, the anti-war movement would be screaming even louder at Obama for his open betrayal of pretty much every promise he made them. So when's Gitmo closing, again?
If you don't think Saddam threatened the U.S. on a frequent basis, and had both the mechanism and will to take hostile actions, you've got your head so far up & locked that there's literally no rational point in discussion. Which perhaps accounts for your nickname?

The wars have not been declared or voted on and are therefore illegal and illegitimate. How does me opposing the wars in the first place magically make me an Obama supporter. Obama has continued the same bull**** Bush started, resigned the patriot act and has done jack **** to defend our actual borders from the drug cartels.

Do you even know what the definition of fascism is? Or do you just use it as a filler word in every sentence? Also when did Sadaam ever attack the US on our soil? Or do you consider someone killing troops that are invading his borders "attacking us"? If he was such a threat than why did we provide him with weapons and money to invade Iran in the 80's?

However, it's definitely a valid question in the abstract. Should we take action against dictators who don't actually threaten us? If not, then how to possibly defend Obama's invasion and air strikes against Libya, not only unprovoked, but in support of Al Quaeda? Inquiring minds want to know!

I would also like to know the answer to this question, considering we fought alongside radical muslims to overthrow Gaddafi.

[jmervyn]

but why were we in vietnam in the first place? how did vietnam being communist affect us at all.

We fought in Vietnam because the USSR and China sought to unseat a friendly government of what had been a French colonial state. If we had done nothing, there would have been no end to the "dominoes", even though the "domino" theory was questionable. It would be like turning our back on Israel, or at least on Italy.

Do you view the khmer rouge and their U.S. backed genocide a success?

Uh, I know history isn't you kid's forte, but the Khmer Rouge were the 'bad guys' AKA Communists. The genocide was thanks to China, not the U.S.

2 big differences between Iraq/Afghanistan and the Cold war. The Cold was an arms race, and Russia was building and has weapons and a military that can hurt us on our own soil. Iraq and Afghanistan are both occupations, our military playing police force for a foreign country.

Aside from the obvious, what I'd point out is that the so-called "Bush Doctrine" was due to the realization that those countries CAN hurt us on our own soil. See, there was this pretty bad thing that happened 70 miles from where I work about a decade ago...

You would seem to be the liberal here, just spending money on war propaganda. A conservative would only fight a war that is necessary to his national defense.

Saddam was fully capable of attacks on America, and had obviously attacked our national interest previously more than once. Are you an isolationist?

As for your comments on inflation, was that a joke? We went to these pointless occupations by borrowing money and printing money. We inflated our own currency, and that somehow makes the war cheaper? It has vaporized our economy, our spending has gotten even worse than it ever was.

Pointing to the "wars" as the cause of our national economic disaster is foolish at best, and probably cretinous or worse. The "wars" themselves weren't even expensive in relative terms; the reconstruction operations were the expensive part. However, what I'm pointing out is that as one who I'm sure would rail against the Military-Industrial Complex, the wars are cheaper than the Cold War; we're no longer stationing several divisions in Europe, for starters, and we don't invest nearly as much taxpayer loot in weapons systems compared to the past.

The wars have not been declared or voted on and are therefore illegal and illegitimate.

Doubtless you wanted a vellum scroll signed with a fountain pen. Your Democrats voted for the "war" and then turned traitor after Dean showed them how beneficial it could be; even the UN and NATO are on-board for the Afghani occupation.

How does me opposing the wars in the first place magically make me an Obama supporter. Obama has continued the same bull**** Bush started, resigned the patriot act and has done jack **** to defend our actual borders from the drug cartels.

The two just naturally go together, is all. Furthermore, the anti-war Left is remarkably silent now that their "boy" is at the helm.

Do you even know what the definition of fascism is? Or do you just use it as a filler word in every sentence?

Of course, though it's crossing multiple threads at this point. Both the Chinese, the Syrians, and the Iraqis practice fascism. 40% of Americans seem to think it's a swell idea too.

Also when did Sadaam ever attack the US on our soil? Or do you consider someone killing troops that are invading his borders "attacking us"? If he was such a threat than why did we provide him with weapons and money to invade Iran in the 80's?

Saddam attacked America by proxy, much as Iran does. His country was a headquarters for anti-American terror groups. Secondly, I love the way you believe the R-ape of Kuwait was somehow America invading Iraq.

Lastly, Iraq was a Soviet client state, and Saddam was part of the Soviet block, no matter what revisionist bullcrap you might have gobbled up from ignorant Leftist sites. Claiming that he was an American ally is like claiming the same of Libya or India - just because America did them a favor or two hardly means they're the new Israel or Taiwan.

In the case you referenced, it was because we were trying to recover from Carter's feck-up with the Ayatollah and the Hostage Crisis, by helping Iraq bleed Iran dry. I'm not denying that it might have been because we wanted to keep the Saudis happy, but you can see now what an unrestrained Iran can do; we wanted to play both sides against each other to minimize their potential for mischief elsewhere.

[Cheesehed]

We fought in Vietnam because the USSR and China sought to unseat a friendly government of what had been a French colonial state. If we had done nothing, there would have been no end to the "dominoes", even though the "domino" theory was questionable. It would be like turning our back on Israel, or at least on Italy.

and in the end vietnam was communist, how is that a win?

Uh, I know history isn't you kid's forte, but the Khmer Rouge were the 'bad guys' AKA Communists. The genocide was thanks to China, not the U.S.

Former US National Security Adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, on China and the Khmer Rouge, 1979:

“I encouraged the Chinese to support Pol Pot. Pol Pot was an abomination. We could never support him, but China could.” According to Brzezinski, the USA “winked, semi-publicly” at Chinese and Thai aid to the Khmer Rouge.

are you denying that we supported the khmer rouge when they tried to invade vietnam in the 70s?

Aside from the obvious, what I'd point out is that the so-called "Bush Doctrine" was due to the realization that those countries CAN hurt us on our own soil. See, there was this pretty bad thing that happened 70 miles from where I work about a decade ago...
Saddam was fully capable of attacks on America, and had obviously attacked our national interest previously more than once. Are you an isolationist?

So in your opinion, 9/11 happened because the terrorists just didn't like us and our way of life? What about arming Bin Ladin in the 80's, was that necessary? I don't think we need 900 active military bases all over the world, does that make me an isolationist? We should have went over Bin Ladin and anyone who was responsible for attacking us, but there is 0 justification for invading and occupying Iraq and Afghanistan for 10 years.

Pointing to the "wars" as the cause of our national economic disaster is foolish at best, and probably cretinous or worse. The "wars" themselves weren't even expensive in relative terms; the reconstruction operations were the expensive part. However, what I'm pointing out is that as one who I'm sure would rail against the Military-Industrial Complex, the wars are cheaper than the Cold War; we're no longer stationing several divisions in Europe, for starters, and we don't invest nearly as much taxpayer loot in weapons systems compared to the past.

the wars being cheaper than the cold war does not make them worth while or cheap. How did we pay for the war? Why is the deficit 15 trillion? That money was either borrowed or printed, because if it was taxed we wouldn't have a deficit.

Doubtless you wanted a vellum scroll signed with a fountain pen. Your Democrats voted for the "war" and then turned traitor after Dean showed them how beneficial it could be; even the UN and NATO are on-board for the Afghani occupation.
The two just naturally go together, is all. Furthermore, the anti-war Left is remarkably silent now that their "boy" is at the helm.
Of course, though it's crossing multiple threads at this point. Both the Chinese, the Syrians, and the Iraqis practice fascism. 40% of Americans seem to think it's a swell idea too.
Saddam attacked America by proxy, much as Iran does. His country was a headquarters for anti-American terror groups. Secondly, I love the way you believe the R-ape of Kuwait was somehow America invading Iraq.

Lastly, Iraq was a Soviet client state, and Saddam was part of the Soviet block, no matter what revisionist bullcrap you might have gobbled up from ignorant Leftist sites. Claiming that he was an American ally is like claiming the same of Libya or India - just because America did them a favor or two hardly means they're the new Israel or Taiwan.

In the case you referenced, it was because we were trying to recover from Carter's feck-up with the Ayatollah and the Hostage Crisis, by helping Iraq bleed Iran dry. I'm not denying that it might have been because we wanted to keep the Saudis happy, but you can see now what an unrestrained Iran can do; we wanted to play both sides against each other to minimize their potential for mischief elsewhere.

Declaration of war, look it up. Im also not a democrat.

Again why should I care/pay if Iraq invades kuwait? Wasn't HW Bush the director of CIA when Iran/Contra happened? Wasn't it to fund another undeclared war in latin america? At the end of the day we still armed, trained and funded Osama and Sadaam.

[jmervyn]

and in the end vietnam was communist, how is that a win?

Not saying it was; we "won" the war and then our Gov't decided to lose it. It's an abomination that took our military a couple of decades to recover from.

are you denying that we supported the khmer rouge when they tried to invade vietnam in the 70s?

Yes, insofar as we bombed the snot out of them previously in Cambodia. We DID take their side after the Chinese/USSR split, which is where your quote is farmed from, but the interpretation of us supporting international aid to their refugee populations as being active American military support is typical Internet heavy breathing that relies upon the same speculative claims being looped and replayed.

So in your opinion, 9/11 happened because the terrorists just didn't like us and our way of life?

Correct. Most importantly, we support the Saudis, which Bin Laden considers as anathema equivalent to that of Israel's existence.

What about arming Bin Ladin in the 80's, was that necessary?

Depends. It certainly helped tip the USSR into the dustbin of history, and Bin Laden was nothing but a puling twirp at the time, but there's validity to the belief that we should not engage in playing with other nations' internal politics.

I don't think we need 900 active military bases all over the world, does that make me an isolationist?

Again, that depends - what DO you believe a proper role for the U.S. military is?

We should have went over Bin Ladin and anyone who was responsible for attacking us, but there is 0 justification for invading and occupying Iraq and Afghanistan for 10 years.

The invasion of Iraq was required, because Saddam was in hiding and we decided we would have to 'dig him out'. However, you won't get me to support the occupation of either country; the issue is that the Left will wail that we're heartless monsters if we just kick the shyte out of some other nation and then leave.

the wars being cheaper than the cold war does not make them worth while or cheap. How did we pay for the war? Why is the deficit 15 trillion? That money was either borrowed or printed, because if it was taxed we wouldn't have a deficit.

Oh, sigh. Our fiscal problems have to do with the housing bubble "crisis" and our never-ending will to tax & spend, which grows Gov't.

Declaration of war, look it up. Im also not a democrat.

You're sounding like one. War Powers Resolution, look it up. Furthermore, which country declared war on us during 9/11? Saddam was an active backer of Al Quaeda, and he was actively recruiting for just such an operation, but he wasn't a public enemy. Should we attack Iran because they're known beyond doubt to be creating a nuclear weapon, and have said euphemistically that they would use it against America and Israel? Or do we just sit back and lose a city or two while we dither and warble about how we needed to have three signatures on Form 27B/6 before we can fund a mobilization?

Again why should I care/pay if Iraq invades kuwait?

Because they were allies and provided us a second card to play with OPEC. If you think we should betray our allies and suck off our enemies, then you DO sound like a member of the Obama cabinet.

Wasn't HW Bush the director of CIA when Iran/Contra happened?

"So?" - Andrew Breitbart

Wasn't it to fund another undeclared war in latin america?

What about it? We needed to prevent the Nicaraguans from overthrowing both Honduran and El Salvadorian governments, so we funded their opposition. I still have one of their field manuals.

At the end of the day we still armed, trained and funded Osama and Sadaam.

At the end of the day, you still need to catch a clue before you make a laughably stupid statement of this caliber. "We" did nothing of the kind.

Osama was armed and "trained" by the Pakistani ISI (if at all), and funded by Saudi and other Islamist coffers. Saddam was certainly not American-funded since Iraq was a rich country and had the fourth largest army in the world before I helped obliterate it, and the USSR was the nation that trained and armed him. There were no U.S. armaments in Saddam's hands that were from American sources, though there was a bit of French and German materiel, as well as some odd South African bits. The vast bulk of it was Russian and Chinese.

Did we 'turn a blind eye' or 'let it happen', or even think it would be 'a good idea' to do things of this nature? Obviously, or Rumsfeld wouldn't have been shaking Saddam's paw. But that's not the hand-wringing heavy-breathing conclusion you're frothing over. It simply means, if we carelessly think that assumption of Great Britain's role of keeping the sea lanes open for commerce somehow doesn't come with a horrific price tag, we need to grow up (and grow a pair).

[krischan]

Not saying it was; we "won" the war and then our Gov't decided to lose it.

No matter how the US lost, they lost. War isn't just about fighting, it's a lot about moral and for civilized countries, the people have high demands about proper behaviour or appearance, no matter how unfair accusations like "baby killer" etc. were. That's one of the reasons why a successful campaign has to be as short as possible. Just like in football, it's irrelevant what the score was like during half-time.

If the US leaves Afghanistan and the Mujaheddins still exist, they will have lost that war against them as well, no matter how superior their fighting power was. Yes, they defeated the Afghan army, but that's not worth paying too much attention to for a country like the US. 75% of all countries in the world could have achieved that as well.

Defeating an army is one thing, convincing the people of your point is another, completely. There are wars which you cannot win in your way because you don't have the options which are needed to be successful in a culturally so much different country, like (I will speak it out plainly) killing all Afghans or suppressing and destroying their cultural ties for let's say 100 years (to my knowledge, the Romans did something like that in Gaul, successfully).

That might have been options for people like Hitler, but they aren't options if you want to bless people with your idea of freedom and liberty (which I generally share, for the sake of completeness). BTW, that was one of the reasons why Great Britain gave up their empire. They could keep it through sheer force, technological superiority and by paying the proper amounts of blood for a time, but the media became more and more influential in the 20th century, so they couldn't sweep things under the rug that well anymore.