Conquer Club

bryguy wrote:hmm... ink, looking at your choices, i see u missed the worst.


William J. Clinton


anybody remember that dude? he got impeached i think

Obviously you don't know what you're talking about... nor did you read the article...

PhatJoey wrote:They had a few decades to take care of him and they didn't. End of story.

There is a small but essential difference between "taking care off" and "taking over the fucking country and imposing a pro-you government". You still haven't given them back their country, which is understandable from our point of view but not from theirs. They couldn't handle the initial step ofcourse and for that they needed your help (rather hilarious if you remember the fact the US also helped Saddam stay in power at first), but now they just want you guys to leave and let them have their country.

You are the invaders, not the liberators. You weren't helping the people overthrow their government, you were attacking the country. The idea that violence will make people like you more is ridiculous and for some reason always held by people who claim their religion is all about love and peace.

Snorri1234 wrote:

PhatJoey wrote:They had a few decades to take care of him and they didn't. End of story.

There is a small but essential difference between "taking care off" and "taking over the fucking country and imposing a pro-you government". You still haven't given them back their country, which is understandable from our point of view but not from theirs. They couldn't handle the initial step ofcourse and for that they needed your help (rather hilarious if you remember the fact the US also helped Saddam stay in power at first), but now they just want you guys to leave and let them have their country.

You are the invaders, not the liberators. You weren't helping the people overthrow their government, you were attacking the country. The idea that violence will make people like you more is ridiculous and for some reason always held by people who claim their religion is all about love and peace.

"They" being Al-Quaeda and various Iranian backed militias...good stuff snorri, fucking great foreign policy there, really.

And for his next lecture, professor van Snorri will demonstrate how intervening against the invasion of the Sudentenland is too likely to lead to international conflict for military aid to the Czechslovaks to be justified...

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

PhatJoey wrote:They had a few decades to take care of him and they didn't. End of story.

There is a small but essential difference between "taking care off" and "taking over the fucking country and imposing a pro-you government". You still haven't given them back their country, which is understandable from our point of view but not from theirs. They couldn't handle the initial step ofcourse and for that they needed your help (rather hilarious if you remember the fact the US also helped Saddam stay in power at first), but now they just want you guys to leave and let them have their country.

You are the invaders, not the liberators. You weren't helping the people overthrow their government, you were attacking the country. The idea that violence will make people like you more is ridiculous and for some reason always held by people who claim their religion is all about love and peace.

"They" being Al-Quaeda and various Iranian backed militias...good stuff snorri, fucking great foreign policy there, really.

And for his next lecture, professor van Snorri will demonstrate how intervening against the invasion of the Sudentenland is too likely to lead to international conflict for military aid to the Czechslovaks to be justified...

The comparison to appeasement is a terrible one and you know it.

Look, if we're honest, worst evah prez is blatantly François Mitterand.

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

PhatJoey wrote:They had a few decades to take care of him and they didn't. End of story.

There is a small but essential difference between "taking care off" and "taking over the fucking country and imposing a pro-you government". You still haven't given them back their country, which is understandable from our point of view but not from theirs. They couldn't handle the initial step ofcourse and for that they needed your help (rather hilarious if you remember the fact the US also helped Saddam stay in power at first), but now they just want you guys to leave and let them have their country.

You are the invaders, not the liberators. You weren't helping the people overthrow their government, you were attacking the country. The idea that violence will make people like you more is ridiculous and for some reason always held by people who claim their religion is all about love and peace.

"They" being Al-Quaeda and various Iranian backed militias...good stuff snorri, fucking great foreign policy there, really.

No they as in almost everybody.
However, I didn't say the US should give them it. I said that the people there don't like the US, which is true. Occupation always means a disgruntled populace, the reason why war is rarely the best solution. People over there might not have liked Saddam and his government, but they hate the US when they don't stay nicely in their country.

Honestly, why don't you guys understand this?

Napoleon Ier wrote:Look, if we're honest, worst evah prez is blatantly François Mitterand.

Why?

But Nap, I would have thought you would have loved Mitterand?
A radical socialist who flip-flopped the moment things got tough, and spent the next ten years being as conservative as you can be

btw Snorri -thank god you are talking sense about Iraq. Yay for Snorri!

InkL0sed wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

PhatJoey wrote:They had a few decades to take care of him and they didn't. End of story.

There is a small but essential difference between "taking care off" and "taking over the fucking country and imposing a pro-you government". You still haven't given them back their country, which is understandable from our point of view but not from theirs. They couldn't handle the initial step ofcourse and for that they needed your help (rather hilarious if you remember the fact the US also helped Saddam stay in power at first), but now they just want you guys to leave and let them have their country.

You are the invaders, not the liberators. You weren't helping the people overthrow their government, you were attacking the country. The idea that violence will make people like you more is ridiculous and for some reason always held by people who claim their religion is all about love and peace.

"They" being Al-Quaeda and various Iranian backed militias...good stuff snorri, fucking great foreign policy there, really.

And for his next lecture, professor van Snorri will demonstrate how intervening against the invasion of the Sudentenland is too likely to lead to international conflict for military aid to the Czechslovaks to be justified...

The comparison to appeasement is a brilliant one and you know it, you clever, clever bastard.

It is rather, isn't it? Fanatical jew-hating maniacs with plans for world domination...undifferentiable, really, yah?

Napoleon Ier wrote:It is rather, isn't it? Fanatical jew-hating maniacs with plans for world domination...undifferentiable, really, yah?

Yeah, those terrorists in caves are really worrisome

InkL0sed wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:It is rather, isn't it? Fanatical jew-hating maniacs with plans for world domination...undifferentiable, really, yah?

Yeah, those terrorists in caves are really worrisome

Not only that, it's obvious Saddam was invading other countries. He was totally not like all the other countless dictators in the world which conveniently didn't get attacked by the US-government.

Besides, he had been a dictator for 24 years so the government had plenty of reason to attack him, right PhatJoey?
Nevermind that, for example, the government of Myanmar has been in charge since 1962 and noone has done anything about that, it's entirely justified to attack him and him alone because he was obviously such a bad man.

Snorri1234 wrote:

InkL0sed wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:It is rather, isn't it? Fanatical jew-hating maniacs with plans for world domination...undifferentiable, really, yah?

Yeah, those terrorists in caves are really worrisome

Not only that, it's obvious Saddam was invading other countries.

No. But he had oil. I say this completely unironically.

Except all this humanitarian bullshit is getting in the way of us actually exploiting these bastards.

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

InkL0sed wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:It is rather, isn't it? Fanatical jew-hating maniacs with plans for world domination...undifferentiable, really, yah?

Yeah, those terrorists in caves are really worrisome

Not only that, it's obvious Saddam was invading other countries.

No. But he had oil. I say this completely unironically.

Except all this humanitarian bullshit is getting in the way of us actually exploiting these bastards.

Ahh... what?

Anyway... I'd just like to say that it's not as if we were even "appeasing" Saddam beforehand. If the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait is comparable to the invasion of the Sudetenland (which it isn't, but I'm humoring you), well then we certainly didn't stand back and do nothing. This difference though was that Bush Sr. didn't invade Iraq, because unlike his idiot son he (or rather, his advisors, to whom he actually occasionally listened) knew what trouble that would cause.

InkL0sed wrote:
Ahh... what?

Anyway... I'd just like to say that it's not as if we were even "appeasing" Saddam beforehand. If the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait is comparable to the invasion of the Sudetenland (which it isn't, but I'm humoring you), well then we certainly didn't stand back and do nothing.

Indeed. The USA provided weapons and support to actually do it.

Nappy wrote:No. But he had oil. I say this completely unironically.

Hahaha, this is new. Someone saying this without irony or realising the fact they're christian and should be above such shit.

WHOEVER POSTED THIS IS AN IDIOT...jimmy carter and bill clinton arnt even on this list...do you now any history bud?


the problems we have today wit iran come from jimmy carters stupidity in the Iran crisis situation

Snorrarse wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:No. But he had oil. I say this completely unironically.

Hahaha, this is new. Someone saying this without irony or realising the fact they're christian and should be above such shit.

OK. I retract the above, and rephrase:

He had oil, and was an infidel towelhead.

Satisfied?

THORNHEART wrote:WHOEVER POSTED THIS IS AN IDIOT...jimmy carter and bill clinton arnt even on this list...do you now any history bud?


the problems we have today wit iran come from jimmy carters stupidity in the Iran crisis situation

Ah. I like the simple, assured way in which you know no nothing.
Props to you, dunderhead.

suggs wrote:

THORNHEART wrote:WHOEVER POSTED THIS IS AN IDIOT...jimmy carter and bill clinton arnt even on this list...do you now any history bud?


the problems we have today wit iran come from jimmy carters stupidity in the Iran crisis situation

Ah. I like the simple, assured way in which you know no nothing.
Props to you, dunderhead.

Thornheart...try to be more...ah, substansive. Right now, you're resenting the dark lettering appearing on your screen. Add some meat to the bones. You got the right idea attacking Peanutman, but if you just leave it there, suggs will demolish you. Whereas, whilst he probably could demolish anyone when it comes to the annals of US history, he's too much of a lazy f*ck to dismantle long, comprehensive, and vaguely structured rants (as am I, tbh).

Nap has rumbled me

suggs wrote:

THORNHEART wrote:WHOEVER POSTED THIS IS AN IDIOT...jimmy carter and bill clinton arnt even on this list...do you now any history bud?


the problems we have today wit iran come from jimmy carters stupidity in the Iran crisis situation

Ah. I like the simple, assured way in which you know no nothing.
Props to you, dunderhead.

Thanks suggs, I didn't even need to say anything!