Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Saddam vs. Bush
This discussion has been closed.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
Damn thats messed up i love it! Thanx Gundammit for bringing light to this situation!
- Malkavian
"When you find youself sinking into Madness, dive" - Malkavian Proverb
- MMORPG.COM Staff -
Forum Stalker
Malkavian@mmorpg.com
"When you find yourself sinking into Madness, dive"
I dont see why we attacked Iraq.........first of all, no WMD's, and second of all..........Saddam didnt really have much connections with terrorist groups. He had terror within his borders for sure, but notrhing that threatened America. Anyways, the Iraqis are doing just as bad with the U.S in.....now all there is is anarchy in Iraq. At least Saddam could maintain peace(the wrong way, but still). Bush is not improving his public opinion from Muslims at all, especially with those prisoners.
OMG, BUSH IS FRODO! Wait.....why isnt he dissapearing.....
Anyhow, if you remember correctly, it was Osama Bin Laden that attacked the world trade center....Not Saddam. Watch it, Osama may kill you for that remark, he takes great pride in blowing up buildings. Sort of odd considering i believe hes an engineer, I guess in his opinion, what is built, must be destroyed.
"The greatest trick the devil played on humanity in the 20th century was convincing them that he didn't exist." (Paraphrasing) C.S. Lewis
"If a mother can kill her own child, what is left before I kill you and you kill me?" -Mother Teresa when talking about abortion after accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979
One day all will die, surely you but never I.
"One day all will die, surely you but never I." Wheel of Time
"stupid thred"
mmmm that says alot for you being here.
"and send losy soldiers wich cant fight without airstikes"
LOL I didn't think you were paying attention. You're jihadi buddies are not doing very well against our 'losy' (that's lousy) soldiers. The odds are really quite bad.
Your name is quite fitting. LOL
"Not in so many words "
Not in any words.
"but guess why they changed the reason for being in there"
Nothing changed.
"from wmd to getting rid of a bad man?"
Read the Iraqi liberation Act of 1998 then read the Congressional resolution passed in 2002 and you'll find that you couldn't be more wrong.
"And they have said they where wrong about many things"
The thing they didn't expect was to have the regime fold as fast as it did.
"dont u watch the news"
Religiously
"and see all the fire that the bush admin is under?"
It's called politics. And when we have people in harms way I call it disgusting. This is the thing they did some 30+ years ago....son.
"I dont see why we attacked Iraq"
Then you just admitted that you haven't been paying attention.
"first of all, no WMD's,"
Like I said.
"Saddam didnt really have much connections with terrorist groups"
Oh really? Is this why he's been on the 'State sponsors of terror' list at the State Dept. for OVER 20 years?
"but notrhing that threatened America."
And you base this on..........
"now all there is is anarchy in Iraq. "
No there isn't. There is a few bad spots but is does not include the whole nation.
" Bush is not improving his public opinion from Muslims at all,"
I don't believe that that is in his job description.
"And using an union speech as evidence isn't a very objective and has little credibilty because it is a politicians speech.
And 'objective' or 'credibility' are the last two words you should be throwing about.
The point of that reply was to show that young man that nothing had changed and the State Of The Union Address is in fact proof of that. The references are there, in context, in statements made publicly that were broadcast not only nationwide but also worldwide.
The fact that you must try and discount that proves my first point.
What?! Your from Ukraine?
Okay IF you had the guts to nuke America- 1. An AA-Missile would hopefully blow your shitty-ass nuke out of the sky- 2. If you did land one on our soil their would be serious political back-lash and 3.
...Wait...I bet you were kidding, right?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
He was kidding and also a renowned Russian phyicist said back in 1980s that the technology for actually halting 50% of a nuclear strike was at least 50 years away .He write a popular book about the star wars programme back then and predicted it would simply fail.
He was also responsble forhelping constructing the Russian anti nuclear missles and said the possibility of success was below 30%(this was an article he wrote in late 1990s.apparently the Russians have tried to make successful anti nuke missles).
So really until we are old men I certainly doubt we are safe from a nuke.Anyone of us from any country!
"So really until we are old men I certainly doubt we are safe from a nuke.Anyone of us from any country!"
The anti-ballistic missile system is not meant to stop a mass of incoming Russian missiles. It's meant to stop but a few incoming from rouge nations such as North Korea.
Then you may say," well what if it fails 50% of the time?" To that I say if you have 4 missiles incoming, and you can stop only two, that tells me that we saved two cities and 10 million or more people. I'll take the 50% success rate any day.
One day all will die, surely you but never I.
"One day all will die, surely you but never I." Wheel of Time
"Now you are wrong because the bush administration is doing all it can to never mention the WMD (htat were not there) again and say they did it to liberate the people"
More BS. WMD was only ONE reason and THEY JUST TOOK TESTIMONY FROM THE IRAQI SURVEY TEAM BEFORE CONGRESS NOT MORE THAN TWO WEEKS AGO.
And again, I provided more than enough links and info ect, so that any REASONABLE person would have no doubt that they were in fact there.
But I did say REASONABLE.
One day all will die, surely you but never I.
"One day all will die, surely you but never I." Wheel of Time
"but i don't believe because they tried to sell lies where are the WMD that were capable of striking within 45 minutes?"
That came from British intel. They got it from communication intercepts. How long does it take to load an artillery shell?
"the things they used at the UN to get permission to attack? Haven't seen any of them yet."
Then again you prove that either (a) you haven't been paying attention (b) you've been misinformed from that "press" that keeps you so well informed or (c) you simply choose to ignore the things that have been found to be 100% true.
Which is it?
"yeah REASONABLE"
Oooops I must apologize, I forgot to thank you for that admission.
Thank you.
What?! Your from Ukraine?
Okay IF you had the guts to nuke America- 1. An AA-Missile would hopefully blow your shitty-ass nuke out of the sky- 2. If you did land one on our soil their would be serious political back-lash and 3.
...Wait...I bet you were kidding, right?
aa missle wouldnt be used phalanx 2 would
Umm, we never got UN permission to attack. Look at the UN though? A bunch of anti-US bastards trying to fill their own agenda any way they can. I don't think we should have to answer to them.
On the topic of Bush vs Saddam, not a very difficult match. Saddam horrifically opressed the people. One story I've heard, they put someones daughter in a mulcher recorded and sent the video to her family. I don't know about you but I'd rather be "opressed" by America than have to deal with things like that. For all of you who think we went in for oil, we aren't getting a drop of oil out of Iraq right now. It is all going straight to OPEC like it was before we went there. For those of you who have the figures that you pulled out of your ass about casualties, I think all in all about 10-20 thousand people have died in this war. Look at world war II. HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people died in a SINGLE BATTLE. I dont think 10000 people is anything to gripe about in an entire war. Even so they are casualties that are very much warranted because this is indeed a just war. OK so we were misinformed (No we didn't lie) about the WMD situation in Iraq. It doesn't mean the war isn't justified, it just means that it isn't an immediate threat. As was shown by the David Kay report, Iraq was in the process of developing weapons of mass destruction. To say that we shouldn't have went in because they don't have them yet is like saying that you shouldn't use a fire extinguisher to extinguish a fire while it is small, but wait until it is big enough to call the fire department. Please research your points before posting on the board because many of you sound like 3 year old ignorant neanderthals (i.e. I think Iraq would have been better off under saddam).
"Umm, we never got UN permission to attack."
Did they come right out and say attack? Nope. But UN resolution 1441 does say that they were in material breach, and that they had a final opportunity to fully comply to prevent a further material breach. It also said that there would be serious consequences should that be the case. Now I know that those who did everything they could to prevnet the attack ie: France, Germany and Russia. ( ah hem Oil for food) tried to say that another resolution was needed, 1441 says otherwise.
Now if that still doesn't set well with some, the breach of UN resolution 687 was all we needed to RESTART hostilities.
"A bunch of anti-US bastards trying to fill their own agenda any way they can"
Agreed 100%
"If these terms were broken then the armistice ends and we go in and kick their ass, which is what happened.:) "
And I forgot to mention the attempted assassination of Bush 41 which in and of itself was a breach and an act of war.
The Anti's don't have a leg to stand on. That's why they hang their hats on such childish semantic games. But I do find it amusing.
Wow, way to support your oppinions buddy, why don't you go ahead and back up that "this idiot should be voted out of office" comment.
UN is 100% anti-US, this is a very reasonable statement. I see that you guys are well informed.
First let me tell you that everyone has the right to say what they want (democracy and freedom of speech) maybe you don't like that. Second it is called UN and not US so Bush is not the leader of the UN but of the US.
Why do you say that UN is anti-US? Every western nation agreed in the cold war and no democracy criticised Afhanistan with the plans of America, America barely have to use it's veto to block certain resolutions (except about Irael but that's a very delicat situation) because no one makes a problem about it. Except recently with Iraq and now suddenly every UN meber is a US-hater and dumb people. great way to speak about your allies, that's pretty childish in my eyes. One kid doesn't get his candy and it starts crying and blaming everyone else. It's not that you are the greatest that you can do what you like, because that will backfire later.
One day all will die, surely you but never I.
"One day all will die, surely you but never I." Wheel of Time
This is exactly why we are in Iraq... WMD's, terrorists, blah, blah, blah. If this (democracy and freedom of speech) from your post isn't a good enough reason, then what is???
Before we got there, there was no democracy or freedom of speech in Iraq. They were living under a tyrant. But that has changed and is changing for the better.
If you really believe in this concept, then how can you possibly be against what is happening in Iraq? How? In your heart, you must know that those poeple deserve this right as much as any other person in the world.
Regus, you know where us Americans are from. Where are you from? France? (I see some french under your avatar).