Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

This is why you can't disagree with Obama


eqgumby

Recommended Posts

I'm not denying anything. I asked you to back up your statements and you cant. None of those things is prerequisite for the second gulf invasion.

"Again what evidence do you have that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11? What evidence do you have that AFTER The first gulf war, IRAQ had anything to do with stopping world commerce?"

I never argued about 9/11 and Iraq. (show me if you will insist I did)

Now regarding world commerce, remember the first gulf war? That was protecting OIL commerce, agree?

Now as Bush have said publicly, we cant risk the possibility of terrorist or the Saddam regime using Oil to hostage or disrupt the worl's Oil supply.

And as you recognized, Saddam was not finish and has not been behaving, he had corrupted the UN and his 2 sons are waiting to take over. Who are crazier than him.

As you can see sooner or later Iraq will explode again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
  • Replies 216
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • AROCES

    52

  • preacherman76

    48

  • ninjadude

    26

  • Pseudo Intellectual

    15

These are both ridiculous notions and in no way reflect reality.

no saying millions of people have died in those two countries when the death rate in iraq counting all sides is below 300,000. and afghanistan is lower than that. and when you look at how many people who were dieing when saddam was in power at the rate of 100,000 a year, meaning for the last 8 years we have actually saved around 1/2 a million lives.

this is why so many people have stopped listening to the liberals. they make up numbers to suit their purposes.

this isn't the one i was looking for but we will use it. it shows how stupid the left think people are.

(((As many as 654,965 more Iraqis may have died since hostilities began in Iraq in March 2003 than would have been expected under pre-war conditions…The deaths from all causes—violent and non-violent—are over and above the estimated 143,000 deaths per year that occurred from all causes prior to the March 2003 invasion.

http://thestrangedeathofliberalamerica.com/the-iraq-war-bloodbath-myth-and-a-new-solution-to-the-war.html))))

now by my math 143,000 for 5 years is 715,000 which is about 60,000 more deaths than by war. and these are only the deaths we now about under saddam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never argued about 9/11 and Iraq. (show me if you will insist I did)

Now regarding world commerce, remember the first gulf war? That was protecting OIL commerce, agree?

Now as Bush have said publicly, we cant risk the possibility of terrorist or the Saddam regime using Oil to hostage or disrupt the worl's Oil supply.

And as you recognized, Saddam was not finish and has not been behaving, he had corrupted the UN and his 2 sons are waiting to take over. Who are crazier than him.

As you can see sooner or later Iraq will explode again.

In post 175 of this thread, you linked Iraq and 9/11. But anyway your justification is the "possibilty" that Iraq would disrupt the worlds oil supply based on accusations and fearmongering of some neocon future. I know you detest accusations. You know, for a group of people who have been spectacularly wrong on nearly everything over the last 8 years, I'd think you'd give it up by now. The neocons can't predict anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually yes, for it is more harming to have a population of parasites.

No it far more harming to have a population of money grubbing vultures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it far more harming to have a population of money grubbing vultures.

Vultures eat carcass and do some cleaning up, parasites do nothing but suck on you until you are dry or dead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In post 175 of this thread, you linked Iraq and 9/11

Nope, I didn't link it. What I mean is I agree with the US respond that reached farther and beyond the safe haven of the terrorist.

Khadaffi understood it and chose to have a normal relation with the West, he gets it and you never will.

But anyway your justification is the "possibilty" that Iraq would disrupt the worlds oil supply based on accusations and fearmongering of some neocon future. I know you detest accusations. You know, for a group of people who have been spectacularly wrong on nearly everything over the last 8 years, I'd think you'd give it up by now. The neocons can't predict anything.

If it was base on accusation and fearmongering, why then is the UN part of it for more than a decade?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it was base on accusation and fearmongering, why then is the UN part of it for more than a decade?

Because them Jews (you know, the same Jews who told Chimpy to invade innocent Iraq) secretly control everyone, including the UN.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 years of sanctions, embargoes, no fly zones, weapon inspectors and Saddam was able to corrupt the UN itself.

Go keep denying.

So what? What about the UN isnt corupt?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Preacherman, you didn't reply to my post. Iraq attacked us, so we attacked them. Doesn't that mean the Iraq war is justified?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Preacherman, you didn't reply to my post. Iraq attacked us, so we attacked them. Doesn't that mean the Iraq war is justified?

I think you'd just have to ask yourself if the public, or the world for that matter, would accept that as a pretext for war. They had a hard enough time convincing everyone war was nesessary over WMD's. Let alone a failed attempt at assasination. Or a failed attempt to shoot down planes, in a sky we occupied. Especialy when looking at the other side of the story. We were litteraly starving the iraqi people with sanctions. They didnt have proper medical supplies cause of us, heck they couldnt properly fix a car cause of our santions.

All this could have been justified if they did it during the first gulf war. Iraq was invading thier neighbor, and we had full support from the entire world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say anything about the public. I'm asking you. Iraq attacked us, and we retaliated. Why is the Iraq war illegal and unjustified, in your opinion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say anything about the public. I'm asking you. Iraq attacked us, and we retaliated. Why is the Iraq war illegal and unjustified, in your opinion?

I'm not sure what you mean here...how did Iraq attack the US? And were you serious about the comment you made here?

Because them Jews (you know, the same Jews who told Chimpy to invade innocent Iraq) secretly control everyone, including the UN.

And WHAT has this to do with this thread? Go somewhere ELSE and argue last years debates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

That question was for Preacherman, and the second remark was a joke...

And if you don't want us going off-topic and discussing Iraq, I respect that, and I'll no longer discuss it anymore. :blush:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say anything about the public. I'm asking you. Iraq attacked us, and we retaliated. Why is the Iraq war illegal and unjustified, in your opinion?

A couple failed attemps to attack us isnt justification to kill a million people. The main reason we declared war was based on a lie. We would have never declared war based on a couple failed attacks, in a air space we occupied. If that was the case we should have declared war on them the day they attacked, not years later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple failed attemps to attack us isnt justification to kill a million people. The main reason we declared war was based on a lie. We would have never declared war based on a couple failed attacks, in a air space we occupied. If that was the case we should have declared war on them the day they attacked, not years later.

*sigh*

This is better off in another thread. I'm tempted to jump in too, even though it's not what this was originally about.

Go ahead and make(or better yet go find an existing one) a topic about the US and war with Iraq. I'm sure no ones thought of that before... :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Couldn't agree more. People worship obama more than those rabid Twilight fans

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Couldn't agree more. People worship obama more than those rabid Twilight fans

"Worship"? You mean like running out in freezing weather to stand around just to get a signature from a woman who failed in a VP bid, failed at being a governor and apparently failed to double check half the "Facts" presented in her new book? Now that would be an act of "Worshipping" a politician...

As far as I can see, Obama get's support from the left when he does something they like and doesn't get support when he does something they don't like... That doesn't really sound a whole lot like "Worship" to me - that sounds like treating Obama like a politician...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.