dark fusion Posted November 7, 2005 Author #76 Share Posted November 7, 2005 Money, obviously. money is not everything Money and the prospect of world safety. and i dont think we have world safety yet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Umbarger Posted November 7, 2005 #77 Share Posted November 7, 2005 Not yet. Those are the operative words. Not yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seraphina Posted November 7, 2005 #78 Share Posted November 7, 2005 Money and the prospect of world safety. Saddam wasn't a threat to world safety In fact, now that we've poked the beehive by going into Iraq, the world's actually a whole lot less safe than it was to begin with. money is not everything I agree. That was, however, the motivation for the Bush administration. Money is everything when you're a capitalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dark fusion Posted November 7, 2005 Author #79 Share Posted November 7, 2005 (edited) Saddam wasn't a threat to world safety In fact, now that we've poked the beehive by going into Iraq, the world's actually a whole lot less safe than it was to begin with. I agree. That was, however, the motivation for the Bush administration. Money is everything when you're a capitalist true on everything there, good pionts Edited November 7, 2005 by dark fusion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Umbarger Posted November 7, 2005 #80 Share Posted November 7, 2005 Would you bet your mothers life on that? This guy killed who knows how many of his own people. He may have them hid somewhere in the desert to this day. One thing is for sure though, rather he had them or not, he'll not be using them anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Umbarger Posted November 7, 2005 #81 Share Posted November 7, 2005 One final thought, what if he has shipped them to Syria? Well, he won't be a shipping anymore to Syria, not from where he is now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dark fusion Posted November 7, 2005 Author #82 Share Posted November 7, 2005 the only weapon of mass destruction is bush Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seraphina Posted November 7, 2005 #83 Share Posted November 7, 2005 This guy killed who knows how many of his own people. Remember when he was gasing the kurds using the weapons given to him by the west, and nobody cared? Why was that..um..oh, yeah, I remember. It's because he was fighting Iran, and it suited the US and everyone else to just turn a blind eye. Obviously Saddam had biological weapons - we gave them to him. However, there's no danger he would ever have actually used them...aside from the fact he lacked any kind of realistic delivery system, to do so would have been commiting suicide. And don't try and sell me any rubbish about supplying them to terrorists...the last thing Saddam wanted was for radical religious sects to gain in power. He made damn sure they were kept on a tight leash, given the threat they posed to his position if they ever managed to gain momentum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dark fusion Posted November 7, 2005 Author #84 Share Posted November 7, 2005 Remember when he was gasing the kurds using the weapons given to him by the west, and nobody cared? Why was that..um..oh, yeah, I remember. It's because he was fighting Iran, and it suited the US and everyone else to just turn a blind eye. Obviously Saddam had biological weapons - we gave them to him. However, there's no danger he would ever have actually used them...aside from the fact he lacked any kind of realistic delivery system, to do so would have been commiting suicide. And don't try and sell me any rubbish about supplying them to terrorists...the last thing Saddam wanted was for radical religious sects to gain in power. He made damn sure they were kept on a tight leash, given the threat they posed to his position if they ever managed to gain momentum. this is what i mean, we gave him weapons and now we are fighting because he has weapons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Umbarger Posted November 7, 2005 #85 Share Posted November 7, 2005 Didn't the Scotts used to be in a war with the English? Oh, it was asome time ago but, it happened right? Didn't the Scotts send troops to France in WWtwo? Time changes things. When you are on my side you are my friend. When you're trying to kill me, you're not. It's the same thing. Didn't we all play a part in smashing Germany, TWICE? Aren't we all allies now? When S/H was a bigger threat to the Soviet Empire, he was our freind. When he tried to gain control over so much of the oil, he was all of ours enemy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seraphina Posted November 7, 2005 #86 Share Posted November 7, 2005 (edited) this is what i mean, we gave him weapons and now we are fighting because he has weapons That's pretty much how it's always been for the US...heck, they trained the Talaban for crying out loud. The problem is that they have a history of using lunatics to do their dirty work...Bin Laden...Saddam...so on and so forth, and giving those lunatics all the tools they need to get the job done. Of course, a few years on, those lunatics come back to bite them on the tooshie, but they'll go ahead and do it again anyway. America helped create most of its modern enemies. Didn't the Scotts used to be in a war with the English? Oh, it was asome time ago but, it happened right? Didn't the Scotts send troops to France in WWtwo? Time changes things. When you are on my side you are my friend. When you're trying to kill me, you're not. It's the same thing I think the point you're missing is that you're claiming we went into Iraq to stop the slaughter of innocent people...yet we quite happily stood back and watched Saddam slaughter innocent people a few years ago. Funny that...hmm..I wonder if it had anything to do with the US desperately needing oil...(that, and Saddam was hardly trying to kill you) Bottom line, humanitarian reasons are the last thing Bush had in mind when he decided to invade Iraq. Edited November 7, 2005 by Seraphina Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dark fusion Posted November 7, 2005 Author #87 Share Posted November 7, 2005 Didn't we all play a part in smashing Germany, TWICE three times, once in soccer. england 5 - 1 germany Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Umbarger Posted November 7, 2005 #88 Share Posted November 7, 2005 O.K., you got me. I routed against the Hun that time too! LOL!!! Not only that, but Umbarger is a German name. So, I'm a trader, but only when it comes to Football! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seraphina Posted November 7, 2005 #89 Share Posted November 7, 2005 .... Man...it's been decades...and an englishman will still manage to work that world cup win into any conversation he can... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkknight Posted November 7, 2005 #90 Share Posted November 7, 2005 hahahah yeah i did do something stupid. the question was, was the war in vietnam waste of time? hahah not in iraq i should be ridiculed hahahahahah don't think anyone here should be ridiculed. everyone has right to say.its ok if you made a mistake...everyone makes few. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Umbarger Posted November 7, 2005 #91 Share Posted November 7, 2005 The U.S. to help rebuild French Cities The war in Iraq was a waste! If we'd only waited a few more years we in the rest of the world could have wasted all that money saving France, again. THREE times in less than 100 years! Now that has to be some kind of record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mekorig Posted November 7, 2005 #92 Share Posted November 7, 2005 Saving France?.... leets see. 1º WW. I think there was more countires than the USA fighting there. 2º WW. Again. The Mighty USa take out the evil germans by itselfs, getting the beaty french grils and improving the french race afterward. :wink: and the third? Will the USA go to this new ME france to fight the evil terrorist? Lord Umbarger, you give me a good laugh today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iaapac Posted November 7, 2005 #93 Share Posted November 7, 2005 On the surface yes. As I have stated in other places, the U.S. had the legal right to start a shooting war the first time that Saddam denied the U.N. inspection teams access to anyplace that they wanted to search. We didn't. We allowed the U.N. to be disrespected by S/H for eight years. The U.N issue 17 ultimatums. At some point you have to act or the whole point of the mandates is nill. If I keep saying that I'm going to punch you but, I never do, how long is it before you don't care that I threatened to punch you? At a certain point, patience runs out. Something has to be done, and it was. Wait a minute! You are right, these were U.N. mandates and it was the right and the responsibility of the U.N. members to make decisions about how it should be handled. They did that. They decided on a calmer, less tragic course but the United States had an opinion like yours, that they are authorized and justified to go against world opinion and the collective opinion of the community of nations in the U.N. and do what they do best, attack, kill, maim, destroy. To justify their action they put their propaganda machine in operation and suddenly informed the world of the certainty that there were WMDs in Iraq and that by some incredible stretch of the imagination, they were a threat to the United States. Because people like you believe their government, the war was given an overwhelming popular support. Today the people are starting to wake up and the support for the war has dwindled and Bush has a 37% approval rating. Prior to the insanities of Bush, Sr., not one American citizen had ever died in Iraq. There were reports of chemical weapons but anyone who can remember the body counts of Vietnam knows that such politically based information can rarely be trusted. The ultimate evidence is that no WMD have been found, thousands of innocents have died, there are billions of dollars in property loss, the world's richest archaeological sites have been destroyed or damaged and part of the world's historic legacy has been stolen from one of the world's best museums, the U.S. is again in a war where they are not wanted and the same lunacy continues to spin from the White House. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dark fusion Posted November 7, 2005 Author #94 Share Posted November 7, 2005 .... Man...it's been decades...and an englishman will still manage to work that world cup win into any conversation he can... not just that win, but anything to do with football Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dark fusion Posted November 7, 2005 Author #95 Share Posted November 7, 2005 2º WW. Again. The Mighty USa take out the evil germans by itselfs i think england helped here. didnt the spitfight play an important part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seraphina Posted November 7, 2005 #96 Share Posted November 7, 2005 i think england helped here. didnt the spitfight play an important part. That was sarcasm I imagine, based on the fact that a great many americans seem to be under the impression that they single handedly won both world war one and two....most of them don't seem to realise that the Russians actually won world war two Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dark fusion Posted November 7, 2005 Author #97 Share Posted November 7, 2005 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I am me Posted November 7, 2005 #98 Share Posted November 7, 2005 Iraq was one of the only countries in the middle east that was not run by a islamic fundamentalist government. Soon Iraq will more than likely end up that way. Christians and Jews were tollerated under Sadam. Let's see what happens when democracy gives rule to the largest religious group in Iraq. The future does not look too promising for Iraq. Maybe I'm wrong and it will end up ok, but only time will tell. The USA military should not have invaded the country, but empires expand, so it is trying to expand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dark fusion Posted November 7, 2005 Author #99 Share Posted November 7, 2005 Iraq was one of the only countries in the middle east that was not run by a islamic fundamentalist government. Soon Iraq will more than likely end up that way. Christians and Jews were tollerated under Sadam. Let's see what happens when democracy gives rule to the largest religious group in Iraq. The future does not look too promising for Iraq. Maybe I'm wrong and it will end up ok, but only time will tell. The USA military should not have invaded the country, but empires expand, so it is trying to expand. joking, it was a good piont really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PadawanOsswe Posted November 7, 2005 #100 Share Posted November 7, 2005 That was sarcasm I imagine, based on the fact that a great many americans seem to be under the impression that they single handedly won both world war one and two....most of them don't seem to realise that the Russians actually won world war two Russia was on the defensive, they were to occupied with staving off the german invasion of Russia to take offensive action. we were free to take offensive action Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now