NORTH KOREA

:( WELL HEY EVERYBODY I STARTED THIS TOPIC CAUSE IT SEEMS THAT EVERYBODY HAD THERE VERY OWN STRONG OPINIONS ABOUT IRAQ...... N WELL IT SEEMS TAT SUM KRAZY SHIT IS ALSO GOING ON IN NORTH KOREA SOO Y WANNA FIND OUT WAT THOSE THE GRAFFITI WRITERS AROUND THINK ABOUT THIS.........

PEACE OUT..........

WELL DOOD I TIHNK TAHT KOREA IS TEH KEWL BUT TEHY ARE TEH UBLAR GHEY BEKAS TEHY ARE TEH KOMMUNIZTS.

YA.

TAHT IZ TEH ALL.

C U ON AIM.

Y U GOTTA B ALL MAYKIN FUN OF DEWD LIK DAT CASHRFUND?!

BUT dOOd U R DOING IT 2!

this is evidence of the failures of the public school system

^haha

1st off North Korea called everyones bluff on this one. They have a Marlon Brandoish(See Apocolypse Now) type character runnin the ship and hes stupid and crazy enough to press that button...secondly the W is sturing shit up with Putin who everyone knows still got some Nukes somewhere..we have natural disasters that are becoming more common place..the whole shit is fucked up so live with it..murder rate is up EVERYWHERE..North Korea prolly ranks a 5 on "fuck like i care meter"

You gotta be retarded to wanna start shit with N.Korea and China.

Bush is that retarded.

were fucked.

bush should have wiped out kim jung before he went after sadam. the north koreans would have appreciated being liberated much more than the iraqis. kim jong is a 4 foot tall mole with platforms and a hairdo outta bride of frankenstein. it would kinda be like the monkey vs the mole. i often think about that ren and stimpy episode where stimpy is told not to press the big red button but he just can`t resist the temptation to press it.

Ha,ha, what are you retarded???

If anything Bush/Cheyney remind me of "Pinkey and the Brain" cartoons. <----In a far from funny way.

But wouldn't they both be pinky then?

yep the USofA is being run by a couple of pinkies.

and uk is being run by bush's little lap dog..Tony Blair.... :hatred: :hatred: ..another 10 years of him and britain well be know more.... :hatred: :hatred:

Down with the both of em!!!! :hatred: :hatred: :hatred: :hatred:

please. you thought kerry could have done any better consdering all i heard him say in his speaches were what he thought of bush and not what he was going to do for the entire country.

i may be in the uk,but least kerry had a been in vietnam war (boat crew wasn't he?) bush started a war when he didnt even know what a war is..and worse of all its a war just like vietnam,meaning we cant win it, because he dont know who the enemy is! (in a way there do what wedo(although our motive is violent),have normal jobs and lives and sometimes have an alternative motive e.g. harming usa and uk troop's (and other nations to!) :hatred: :hatred:

Please elaborate how the iraq war is like vietnam, i dont comprehend this argument, and by the way the US did not "lose" the vietnam war.

Please have some facts to back up your opinion.

^uh, yes they did bro.

where are your facts?

Ok heres and explantion for why the US did not lose the vietnam war.

-The fall of Saigon happened 30 April 1975, two years AFTER the American military left Vietnam. The last American troops departed in their entirety 29 March 1973.

If the US was not there to fight the war, how could it have lost?

Please find a provide a rational explanation that would prove otherwise.

Now, Iraq cannot be compared to Vietnam because:

-The Vietnam war was fought in rice paddies and difficult jungle terrain. The continuing conflict in Iraq is confined mainly to the urban areas.

-In Vietnam, the entire country was perilous for US forces. In Iraq, the opposition is confined to a relatively small geographic area. Much of the country is free of attacks against US and British forces.

- In Vietnam, Viet Cong guerrillas in the south were aided by a conventional North Vietnamese Army with tanks and artillery. In Iraq, the US and British forces, having destroyed Saddam Hussein's conventional forces, are facing hit-and-run attacks from small guerrilla groups without such backing.

-In Vietnam, the US had an Army that included draftees. In Iraq, the volunteer US forces are better trained and experienced.

-In Vietnam, major military operations continued for years. In Iraq, the bulk of the fighting ended in weeks; it is guerrilla resistance that is dragging on.

-In Vietnam, the US was defending a people whose government was often corrupt and unloved. In Iraq, the US is seeking to defend a people who already have been liberated from a despotic regime.

-In Vietnam, the US waged a war that, over a period of time, became hugely unpopular with Americans at home. In the case of Iraq, while there is slipping support at home, President Bush still retains substantial credibility with loyal supporters.

that's your argument?

it was a total humiliation. i don't know dude, what's your definition of winning a war?

the US lost it's good name abroad, with the majority of the US public dismayed with their own country..a "blundering effort to do 'good'"..

"a disastrous mistake" that included a nearly collapsed military that included "individual units avoiding or having refused combat, murdering their officers ... drug-ridden and dispirited where not near-mutinous".."the Vietnam War was America's most humiliating defeat, with over 58,000 dead and many left severely injured."

etcetry

ps-'substantial credibility with supporters'?

how is that legitimate in any way? that's a joke.

Originally posted by CACashRefund@May 17 2005, 12:07 AM

Please elaborate how the iraq war is like vietnam, i dont comprehend this argument, and by the way the US did not "lose" the vietnam war.

 

Please have some facts to back up your opinion.

Quoted post

My nigga, WE LOST THE VIETNAM WAR!!! That is a well known fact.

We got chased the fuck out of there. Period. :haha: :haha:

Originally posted by obgenius@May 16 2005, 05:50 PM

please. you thought kerry could have done any better consdering all i heard him say in his speaches were what he thought of bush and not what he was going to do for the entire country.

Quoted post

And that aint good enough???

That's like saying "everyone hates on the Nazi's, at least the Nazi's have a clear goal as to what they wanna do. Fuck these Nazi haters." :yuck: :yuck:

Originally posted by CACashRefund@May 17 2005, 01:39 AM

Ok heres and explantion for why the US did not lose the vietnam war.

-The fall of Saigon happened 30 April 1975, two years AFTER the American military left Vietnam. The last American troops departed in their entirety 29 March 1973.

 

If the US was not there to fight the war, how could it have lost?

Please find a provide a rational explanation that would prove otherwis

Quoted post

That's called a "RETREAT" you fucking DOUCHEBAG!!! :haha: :haha:

So acording to you, if I was in a fight and I was getting my ass STOMPED, and I pick up and run for my life....does that mean I didn't lose the fight??? :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha:

Yo cacashrefund, every single statement in your argument is completly flawed. Either you're in the military and thus are brainwashed, you're under 14, or you're just plain retarded by dictionary definition.

The guerrillas in Iraq are very compareable to the Viet Cong.

"-In Vietnam, the US had an Army that included draftees. In Iraq, the volunteer US forces are better trained and experienced."--->

Today we have what is called the "back door draft" which is basicaly older retired folk that are threw with the millitary being "drafted" out of their normal lives to come back and fight some bullshit war. Alot of these dudes are "older", and when they're all used up and aint nobody joining the military cause nobody wants to fight a bullshit war, guess who's next? That's right you and me and our fucking girfreinds too!

Also that bullshit about us "freeing the villagers from a corrupt government" is today what it was in the Vietnam war...Propoganda! Nothing more and nothing less. This government gives even less a fuck about civilians in Iraq than they did during the Vietnam war. That's why we waste civillians in Iraq for blinking wrong just like we wasted civilians in Vietnam for blinking wrong.

"-In Vietnam, the US waged a war that, over a period of time, became hugely unpopular with Americans at home. In the case of Iraq, while there is slipping support at home, President Bush still retains substantial credibility with loyal supporters."

LOL!!! :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: Are you fucking kidding me!?!? "over a period of time" Nigga Vietnam was unpopular from the gate! Just like Iraq!

How many people do you know that support Bush and his war??? How many people do you know that would love to see our troops pulled the fuck out of there and Bush and his people extradited to Iraq to receive their just deserts live on pay per view?

^bro..how about some basic manners..?

as in..stop the kneejerk insults at anyone who has a different

opinion than yourself.

also, it was not 'just like iraq'. resistance from the public came waay later,

as opposed to iraq where huge public resistance started before the war

started. big difference.

Originally posted by SF1+May 16 2005, 10:51 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SF1 - May 16 2005, 10:51 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-CACashRefund@May 17 2005, 01:39 AM

Ok heres and explantion for why the US did not lose the vietnam war.

-The fall of Saigon happened 30 April 1975, two years AFTER the American military left Vietnam. The last American troops departed in their entirety 29 March 1973.

 

If the US was not there to fight the war, how could it have lost?

Please find a provide a rational explanation that would prove otherwis

Quoted post

That's called a "RETREAT" you fucking DOUCHEBAG!!! :haha: :haha:

So acording to you, if I was in a fight and I was getting my ass STOMPED, and I pick up and run for my life....does that mean I didn't lose the fight??? :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha:

[/b]

How is it a retreat?

And your example of what you think my explanation was is shitty at best.

What happened was more like you and me getting into a fight, then after some time passes two people walk by pull us apart and basically talk to us to get eachother to agree to stop fighting, we do and then we each go our own seperate ways.

Thats exactly what happened. A peace agreement was reached, and one of the terms in the agreement stated that the United States should withrdraw its forces from Vietnam.

Had it been a retreat, U.S. would have just packed up and left.

Originally posted by SF1@May 16 2005, 11:22 PM

Yo cacashrefund, every single statement in your argument is completly flawed. Either you're in the military and thus are brainwashed, you're under 14, or you're just plain retarded by dictionary definition.

Quoted post

If every single statement is completely flawed then please elaborate on what you think the faults are.

And saying "youre brainwashed, thats pro[paganda" doesnt cut it. Your only retort that was even plausible was the one concerning the army's current state, as far as enlistment is concerned.

lso that bullshit about us "freeing the villagers from a corrupt government" is today what it was in the Vietnam war...Propoganda!

So youre telling me, everyone was happy under Saddam Hussein?

:rolleyes:

Are you telling me that they are happier now??? Getting shot and blown the fuck up left and right?

Haveing a foreign (in their eyes evil and filthy) occupation army putting them on curfew and shooting them when they don't understand the language of an American trying to tell them to pull over for a search??? Having no running water or electricity etc, etc, because we blew there country the fuck up? Are you fucking kidding me??? :huh2:

Good or bad, their government was what they are used to. Just like we are used to Capitalist Imperializm and faux democracy. If we were "liberated from our western ways" by the Muslims would you be extatic??? Not me, I'd be sniping their asses left and right.

Originally posted by CACashRefund+May 17 2005, 11:55 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CACashRefund - May 17 2005, 11:55 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>

Originally posted by SF1@May 16 2005, 10:51 PM

<!--QuoteBegin-CACashRefund@May 17 2005, 01:39 AM

Ok heres and explantion for why the US did not lose the vietnam war.

-The fall of Saigon happened 30 April 1975, two years AFTER the American military left Vietnam. The last American troops departed in their entirety 29 March 1973.

 

If the US was not there to fight the war, how could it have lost?

Please find a provide a rational explanation that would prove otherwis

Quoted post

 

 

That's called a "RETREAT" you fucking DOUCHEBAG!!! :haha: :haha:

 

So acording to you, if I was in a fight and I was getting my ass STOMPED, and I pick up and run for my life....does that mean I didn't lose the fight??? :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha:

Quoted post

How is it a retreat?

A peace agreement was reached, and one of the terms in the agreement stated that the United States should withrdraw its forces from Vietnam.

Had it been a retreat, U.S. would have just packed up and left.

[/b]

I'm on top of you punching you in your head repeatedly. I keep telling you to give up. everyone watching is telling you to give up. Your heart aint in it anyway cause you were just sticking your nose in my beef with someone else to begin with. Your boy that I was origionally beefing with has already long since gave up and fell back. Eventually you give up and agree that you've had enough...

You lose! You fell back. When you're in the heat of battle and your commanding officer yells "fall back!" ---> that means RETREAT.

That's common sense. I can't be the only person on here with common sense am I? :huh2:

Thats not the point, the point was that you said the statement that we liberated them from a corrupt gov't. was propaganda. My question was everyone happy with hussein and his people running the country?

The answer according to your statement would be yes because the idea of the iraqi government being corrupt and shit was purely propaganda.