Quake3World

TempSonicClang wrote:Ok, done with this conversation now.

crushed like a little bitch...and the moron assumed i was liberal....PWNED...

TempSonicClang wrote:

Freakaloin wrote:u guys r tarded...i post something that the undeniable truth about death rates of 2 wars and now its my conspiracy? yall sound like foxnews...rofl...

You can compare death rates all you want, but you fricken liberals will never be able to let Vietnam go. From now on you will always compare every war to Vietnam. When you fail to see the big picture... this isn't another Vietnam, it's World War III. The US was attacked and brought into it. It will end when governments and people see a better way of life, and that's already happening as a result of the elections in Iraq.

You fricken liberals have been on the wrong side of history ever since the cold war. You were wrong then and you're wrong now.

And by the way, have you watched Fox News ever? I don't see where the liberals get off saying they're biased. They may have people like Shawn Hannity who has a right winger, but look who's accross from him, Alan Colms who is a lefty. The Fox News station is not biased, if you think they are you're just weak minded. Foo! The liberals just hate when a republican or right winger gets a voice in the main stream press.

IT'S ME, HO CHI MINH. REMEMBER YOUR BUDDY FROM 'NAM, THE ONE I GUTTED WITH MY GOOK COCK AND MADE A NECKLACE OUT OF HIS EARS, YOU AMERICAN SHITDOG? ANYTIME, ANYPLACE I'LL ROLL MOTHERFUCKER, THe JUNGLE IS MY TURF.

TempSonicClang wrote:

Freakaloin wrote:u guys r tarded...i post something that the undeniable truth about death rates of 2 wars and now its my conspiracy? yall sound like foxnews...rofl...

You can compare death rates all you want, but you fricken liberals will never be able to let Vietnam go. From now on you will always compare every war to Vietnam. When you fail to see the big picture... this isn't another Vietnam, it's World War III. The US was attacked and brought into it. It will end when governments and people see a better way of life, and that's already happening as a result of the elections in Iraq.

OK, if you think the elections in Iraq are such hot shit, you'll be able to tell us what the policies are of the party who won an overall majority in that election, right? Or not, since most people have been so suckered in by the purple finger pictures they have no idea what Iraqis ACTUALLY VOTED FOR. They voted for: a timetable for US/UK withdrawal (refused by the US) and an end to the selling off of Iraqi industry and utilities to foreign corporations (also refused by the US). What kind of freedom or democracy is it where the policies of the government you elect is vetoed by an occupier? The elections were just, to quote Naomi Klein, a 'performance' - democracy was acted out, but in the meaningful sense was largely absent.

You fricken liberals have been on the wrong side of history ever since the cold war. You were wrong then and you're wrong now.

I have no idea what you're talking about here. If being 'on the right side of history' means being in favour of more real freedom and more real democracy then the US has (mostly though not entirely) been on the wrong side since the formulation of the Monroe Doctrine - which is currently being extended to the Middle East, having done its work in promoting "freedom" and "democracy" in Central America (i.e. crushing every attempt made by the people of that region to actually acquire freedom or democracy in the meaningful sense of those words).

US foreign policy is almost entirely geared toward turning as many countries as possible into the private property of US corporations, partly through military force and partly through economic coercion via the IMF. Fact.

I would be willing to bet that the number deployed in Iraq has been much greater than the number deployed during the first years of Vietnam.

Now that I'm here, I can put a little sanity into the mix. While what Geoff has posted is correct, it is misleading as it compares the abstract terms of Iraq War and Vietnam Conflict as whole and complete articles. The truth here is, with the current administration's plans, we will be in Iraq until 2008 at the least, not to mention possible incursions into Syria, and Iran. Heaven forbid we mess with Iran, because Iran has been a part of my WW3 scenario since I formulated my predictions in the year 1999. [In order, we attack Iran, North Korea helps them, terrorists strike in the US, North Korea launches attack on Taiwan and Japan, China joins in the mix, US fleet disabled at sea on PAC mission, China invades US through Mexico]. With these things being stated, one must also factor in the circumstances bringing us these numbers, as well as the death awaiting us. For example, in Vietnam, we were fighting in thick jungles, where not only the VC familiar with the zones had already thoroughly trapped the zone for easy kills, but the weather, disease, wildlife, and the distance from a clear zone [For chopper recovery] hindered our abilities and gave the enemy a clear advantage. In Iraq, we have total advantage. We for years have had technologies that let us see at night, or the heat of a body behind a door. We have technologies that sniff bombs from 1000 feet away, and the best weapon advantage since the Vikings. Frankly, besides poor training and lack of desire to be in the situation, I don't see any other excuse for this loss of life, not even shitty military command decisions. It's truly an anomaly. For the years ahead, consider this... It takes longer to clean up a mess than it does to create it. President Clinton could use up her entire first term pulling out of Iraq. Concordantly, we've many years to go before major combat operations actually do end in these countries, regardless of what the Pentagon tell you. More death will come, and as soon as the resistance factions get more organized, it'll get worse and worse.

A side note to the idiot neocon who posted some trashy flame above... Do you actually see this getting better? How good are you at math, son?

Edit: By the way, there were only 1,000 US troops deployed in Vietnam in 1961, but by 1968 there were over 537,000.

Could somebody delete rep's posts until he learns to use font sizes?

this community has a fair number of very 'special' people. anyone else noticed that?

It's funny that I was just thinking the exact same thing when I made my post.

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:this community has a fair number of very 'special' people. anyone else noticed that?

...as I look at your icon...

TempSonicClang wrote:The Fox News station is not biased, if you think they are you're just weak minded. Foo!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Lol, I love Goof's thread for the hilariously shity attacks on the sad fucks that make up the bottom teir of this community. btw Rep, you're still a massive, flopping cunt.

I heard that there were more people dying in L.A alone as a result of gangbanging than in the Vietnam war at that time.

who cares, they aint got no nukes

LA Gangs with nukes. :lol:

yes it's like watching a bunch of blind retards playing cock tag... not that i've ever seen that...

Strangler wrote:I heard that there were more people dying in L.A alone as a result of gangbanging than in the Vietnam war at that time.

I'm laughing, but only because i think you really believe that :icon19:

losCHUNK wrote:who cares, they aint got no nukes

So? We never went to Iraq to disarm them of banned weapons. We went to bring them freedom!

:icon27:

they aint got no oil either