Printable View
First, it was because Saddam was sponsoring terrorists.
No proof was found of that.
Then it was because of chemical and biological weapons.
No proof was found of that.
Now its to free the Iraqi people.
That one have an advantage in that the people would probably be better off a few generations down the line.
1) Yet!!!
2) Yet
3) They should be better off this generation
oh and sudden change but HB is bound to be attracted to this post i found this indicating that is WASNT a sudden decision
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2915149.stm
I'm talking about the reasons for going to war in the first place.Quote:
Originally posted by BodwadUK
1) Yet!!!
2) Yet
3) They should be better off this generation
oh and sudden change but HB is bound to be attracted to this post i found this indicating that is WASNT a sudden decision
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2915149.stm
1) There was no proof.
2) There was no proof.
3) This generation will hate the US, and so will a lot of generations more than likely.
They might be better off, but they'll still hate the Americans for pissing all over their country.
1) True i agreeQuote:
I'm talking about the reasons for going to war in the first place.
1) There was no proof.
2) There was no proof.
3) This generation will hate the US, and so will a lot of generations more than likely.
2) They found Al salmound missiles
A Chemical weapon
He should not have them
3) Time will tell either of us making comments on this would be pure speculation :) :) :)
2) They found the Al Samoud missiles - which weren't actually designed to go more than the allowed distance.Quote:
Originally posted by BodwadUK
1) True i agree
2) They found Al salmound missiles
A Chemical weapon
He should not have them
3) Time will tell either of us making comments on this would be pure speculation :) :) :)
So they were destroyed by the Iraqis after they were found.
He did not have a chemical weapon.
No chemical processing equipment has been found.
Only gas masks and suits.
3) I know I'd hate the US for invading my country anyway.
* note: re; item2. I am aware that a discovery was just made of suspicious substances.
Yes when I left this morning is seems like they have found vials of something and some white powder. No news on what it is yet.Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
2) They found the Al Samoud missiles - which weren't actually designed to go more than the allowed distance.
So they were destroyed by the Iraqis after they were found.
He did not have a chemical weapon.
No chemical processing equipment has been found.
Only gas masks and suits.
3) I know I'd hate the US for invading my country anyway.
* note: re; item2. I am aware that a discovery was just made of suspicious substances.
X
There was never 1 specific reason for going to war, there were several reasons, all of the above were valid reasons.Quote:
First, it was because Saddam was sponsoring terrorists.
No proof was found of that.
Then it was because of chemical and biological weapons.
No proof was found of that.
Now its to free the Iraqi people.
That one have an advantage in that the people would probably be better off a few generations down the line.
1) Ansar Al-Islam terrorist camp in northern Iraq, the US has PROOF that high ranking officers in saddams regime were aiding them with food and money.
2) More Al-Samoud missles were found just this week. Yes, they violate the UN sanctions because they can travel farther then 93 miles. Tests have not been completed on other substances found.
3) To free the iraqi people now. Time will tell what effects this will have on later generations.
You left out a few stated reasons.
1)Bush: "He tried to kill my daddy!"
2)Some conservatives that want an American empire. Some of the documentation of this has been discussed in the news lately. It is not official administration policy, but high ranking officers in the Bush regime have close ties to these groups.
3)Some people want the oil. It is really naive to think that oil has nothing to do with this decision, this country sucks it down.
4) Other. After all, there are other countries that fit the stated reasons, but we have never invaded them. Repression is not enough, chemical and biological weapons research/production is not enough, and terrorism is not enough. For that matter, all three combined are not enough to get us to invade. Therefore, the decision is more complicated than that, and the first three stated reasons are probably not the whole picture.
Intensionalism:
"I can kill anybody as long as I have good intetions"
Extensionalism:
"I can do anything as long as nobody is harmed"
which leaves room for wrongdoing and which will naturally be the choice of politicians?
Some of you are the best speculators that i have ever met!!!!! :D :D ;)
I do not believe this would happen. Saddams sons and then grandsons would most probably take over after his death.Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
Now its to free the Iraqi people.
That one have an advantage in that the people would probably be better off a few generations down the line.
Saddam kills anyone would tries to take over from him who doesn't think the same way he does. Yes his sons would take over from him after his death. They would just order the killing of anyone who opposes them for president. I heard Saddam had his own grandson killed because he was opposing him for president.Quote:
Originally posted by Gary.Lowe
I do not believe this would happen. Saddams sons and then grandsons would most probably take over after his death.
As harsh as it sounds i hope all the people who want to take power through force die in these attacks and allow the people of Iraq so peace and the ability to benefit from the true riches in their country. It can be a damn nice country with torism and oil sales. :) :) :)
Good Luck to them :) :) :)
The only plausible and valid reason for this war, which has been so successfully prosecuted, is that war is like nostalgia is like money is like invention is like innovation is like growth is like power is like religious revelation is like morality is like hatred is like sex. Every person, every society, every sect, every nation, every civilization, sincerely and honestly believes that each of the above has been discovered/invented for the very first time in entire collective history by him/her/them/us/you/me.
[ sarcasm mode on ]
Therefore, the American Civilization, which I still consider an improvement, has discovered the need to protect and liberate peoples across the globe, has invented the uniquely and latest tehnique of labelling its efforts to kick start its lagging economy and expand its sphere of influence, as "removal of evil" and "making the right choice"
[ /sarcasm mode off ]
My dear American pals: been there, done that. It ain't worth it.
Ask all Her Majesties, His Highnesses, Our Founding Fathers, right across History and the Globe. 50 years of prosperity and power is all U'll end up with. So 2 generations, at most three. And then the next person will discover what an atrocity it is that the some other skinned people dictate what the majority of the populace should eat, drink, talk, wear, etc. Could that be the currently fledgling nation of East Timor?
If someone tried to kill my dad, I'd do the same thing Bush is doing.
Anyone i dont like should go and sit in a hole. Thats anyone who now beleives the people of Iraq should not be free.
Bye HB
Bye Plenderj
Bye Kayjay
:D :D :D :D
P.s This is a joke relax :D :D :D :D
A deep hole? Perhaps a shallow hole would be more appropriate, maybe three feet, where they can mold the clay and think about what they did.
So the fact that Saddam Hussein was on television offering $10,000 to people who attacked Civilians in Israel as suicide bombers with a bonus if an american or british citizen was killed is not proof of supporting terrorists.Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
First, it was because Saddam was sponsoring terrorists.
No proof was found of that.
The fact that the US Marines just raided a Terrorist training camp in norther Iraq is not proof of supporting terrorists.
The videotaped fact of Iraqi soldiers being tained to hijack comercial airliners is not proof of supporting terrorists? Mabe he was just teaching them how to get the highly sought after window seat for long flights.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83821,00.htmlQuote:
Then it was because of chemical and biological weapons.
No proof was found of that.
A suspected Mobile Bio weapons lab was just found. I'll post a link when it hits the web. Of course nothing has been verified so we'll wait a while before I tell you you are full of crap.
There is no DICKtator in power there anymore and it is up to the Iraqi people now to do what they want with their future.Quote:
Now its to free the Iraqi people.
That one have an advantage in that the people would probably be better off a few generations down the line.
Apparently, they want to loot it.
1) It was rewarding the families. And maybe the US should look at the terrorists its still funding today before it accuses anyone else of it.Quote:
Originally posted by MasterBlaster
So the fact that Saddam Hussein was on television offering $10,000 to people who attacked Civilians in Israel as suicide bombers with a bonus if an american or british citizen was killed is not proof of supporting terrorists.
The fact that the US Marines just raided a Terrorist training camp in norther Iraq is not proof of supporting terrorists.
The videotaped fact of Iraqi soldiers being tained to hijack comercial airliners is not proof of supporting terrorists? Mabe he was just teaching them how to get the highly sought after window seat for long flights.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83821,00.html
A suspected Mobile Bio weapons lab was just found. I'll post a link when it hits the web. Of course nothing has been verified so we'll wait a while before I tell you you are full of crap.
There is no DICKtator in power there anymore and it is up to the Iraqi people now to do what they want with their future.
2) Just because the camp was there doesn't mean it was linked to Iraq.
And what the **** is a terrorist training camp.
Does it say "Weclome budding terrorists" on the way in ?
It could simply be a guerilla fighting training camp.
3) Where's this ?
4) I never said he didn't have WMDs. I'm just saying that the political agenda for this war is a ****ing sham.
Well if you lived in squalor and poverty, while your president (dictator) lived in lavish palaces...I'd be looting some **** too!
Im interested what you think the political agenda is for this war. Aside from freeing the Iraqi people, getting rid of WMD's and getting rid of the worst dictator still left alive on the planet.Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
4) I never said he didn't have WMDs. I'm just saying that the political agenda for this war is a ****ing sham.
X
1) Their Freedom is not Wolfositz's or Cheneys or Bush's to giveQuote:
.......freeing the Iraqi people, getting rid of WMD's and getting rid of the worst dictator still left alive on the planet......
2) Largest stockpile of WMD is with the US of A
3) Dictator, Worst: To words whose "US of A Foreign Policy Definitions" seem to change from time to time and country to country.
Bush was warmongering and trying to show anyone that if you **** with the US you're ****ed.Quote:
Originally posted by Xanith
Im interested what you think the political agenda is for this war. Aside from freeing the Iraqi people, getting rid of WMD's and getting rid of the worst dictator still left alive on the planet.
So they get all macho about terrorism and a war on terror and chemical weapons.
Can't find any proof of terrorism. CIA director himself says no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
So you decide this is a war to get rid of WMDs.
No proof of that.
So you decide the war is to free the Iraqi people.
That's easily done and will win public support when its over.
But the fact remains the first two reasons have yet to be justified.
Ok, now I understand why we are at war. To teach the world something that they already know. Thanks! :rolleyes: Call it Macho or what ever other word you would like to describe it. Bottom line, It is not a very wise decision to fook with the US. I thought that was common knowledge around the world. I guess Bin Laden pulling a fast one on us made you all forget that. This is not a case of the US flexing it's muscles to show off. Trust me, we are not even remotly close to going all out on Iraq. There are only 3 infantry divisions in Iraq right now and they are not even close to being complete divisions. 300,000 troops may be large by your standards but it is a drop in the bucket of what we have standing by. I pray the world never has to see the US Military really flex it's muscles or act macho.Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
Bush was warmongering and trying to show anyone that if you **** with the US you're ****ed.
So they get all macho about terrorism and a war on terror and chemical weapons.
Al Qaeda is not the only terrorist organization in the world with ill will towards westerners. BTW your attempt to counter the Links to terrorism I gave you were the biggest sidestep I've heard in a while. Donation to suicide bombers? :confused: Jesus Christ Jamie I hope you were drunk when you thought that up. Giving someone money to blow themselvs and civilians up is still paying suicide bombers. :rolleyes:Quote:
Can't find any proof of terrorism. CIA director himself says no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
Like I said we'll wait on that one. Hopefully we find the stuff. If we dont then there are UN Verified tons of anthrax and VX floating around the world un-accounted for. Prolly on it's way to a shopping center of office building.Quote:
So you decide this is a war to get rid of WMDs.
No proof of that.
It is not unheard of to do or not do something for multiple resons. All of these thing were given as reasons by Bush before we even started deploying troops to Iraq. No one is changing the reason for war as we go along (the press mabe, but last I heard Geraldo Rivera isn't running the war) . Everyone knew why this was happening before it started. Liberation of the Iraqi people has always been a main objective of this war. The Iraqi people are being Liberated so the press is reporting it. Your problem is that it burns you up to see the US make good on one of it's promises and you'll sidestep and twist any fact to turn the tabels on the US governmentQuote:
So you decide the war is to free the Iraqi people.
That's easily done and will win public support when its over.
But the fact remains the first two reasons have yet to be justified.
The bottom line is that the United States is the only country with balls enough to do something about Iraq. We step in to save everyone elses arse, and the second we take an offensive action, everyone shows their Anti-American spirit. Our countrys economy drives this frickin world. Stop us and you stop progress. (if you can stop us:))
My little thoughts.....
U need tougher balls to take anti-YOU comments. Something the US of A always keeps whining abt. Anti-Americansim is not the Eight Sin, (nor the First Virtue) - it is as common as a bottle of Coca-Cola, and as effective, and as totally committed to freedom of choice.Quote:
Originally posted by BillBoeBaggins
........everyone shows their Anti-American spirit. Our countrys economy drives this frickin world. Stop us and you stop progress. (if you can stop us:))............
American economy drives the world? ROFLOL! Either U do not kow the meaning of "Drive" or "Economy" or "World". Just imagine, the whole world stops dealing with the US of A for just 48 hours. No telephone calls, no export, no import, China, Russia paying Saudi Arabia and Venezuela in Euros, Bank accounts converting their FOREX to DM and/or Euro, no usage of American Satelites for transmitting A/V and Data, no drinking of Coca-Cola, or Kellogs Corn Flakes for breakfast, etc, etc..
Just 48 hours! You decide for yourself who depends on whom for what.
the US doesn't drive the US economy (although some countries are more dependant on them than others). But they do spend more on R&D than anyone else. A huge chunk of technological progress is made in the US.
Who cares about technology, in the wrong hands they will still kill people, its just another tool of political dominationQuote:
Originally posted by nishantp
the US doesn't drive the US economy (although some countries are more dependant on them than others). But they do spend more on R&D than anyone else. A huge chunk of technological progress is made in the US.
:rolleyes: Guess what: Too bad. Technology will kill people, but it cannot be stopped. We have to learn to live with it. We can't exactly go back to the stone age.
Learn to live with technology or learn not to kill people?
Sometimes killing people is a good thing... and you can quote me on that.
Just wanted to quote you on that....lol.Quote:
Originally posted by Arc
Sometimes killing people is a good thing... and you can quote me on that.