bigred Posted December 15, 2003 Posted December 15, 2003 and you'd be one of those people crying the loudest when half a million american civilians DIE in a bio-chem attack in a major city. how the gov't didn't do anything to prevent it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stocknotclocked Posted December 15, 2003 Posted December 15, 2003 (edited) Yes red I am still very angry about sept 11 and bali but I think the defence budget should go towards bin laden and nth korea who worry me more. Terrorism should be stopped they could have prevented those attacks with better intel but there are many different approaches. Edited December 15, 2003 by stocknotclocked Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AYoKoNA Posted December 15, 2003 Posted December 15, 2003 Yes red I am still very angry about sept 11 and bali but I think the defence budget should go towards bin laden and nth korea who worry me more.Terrorism should be stopped they could have prevented those attacks with better intel but there are many different approaches. North Korea ALREADY HAS A NUCLEAR Weapon... That is the point we have no choice but to talk with them... atleast with SADDAM WE PREVENTED HIM from creating those weapons... Im sure you DIDNT KNOW THIS but France HELP BUILD IRAQ a NUCLEAR reactor in 1981.... Israel SUCCESSFULLY Destroyed it IN 1983...... bali and sept 11.... where HAVE YOU BEEN... Americans have been terrorrized even b4 these attacks.... Lebanon, kuwait, united arab emerates, yemen, jordan, saudia arabia.... THESE COUNTRIES dont HAVE CONTROL OF THEIR PPL.... that is the problem.... Its like BUSH said after SEPT 11.. those WHO HARBOR TERRORISTS will be punished AS TERRORISTS..... Furthermore they will FIND BIN LADEN ... give it time.... What do you want bush to do go out and find him.. were looking we will find him... just like we found saddam.... What approach would you have done.. wait till another 3000 ppl died... no i dont think so..... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stocknotclocked Posted December 15, 2003 Posted December 15, 2003 (edited) To be exact it was france and germany who helped build saddams reactors and bin laden isnt in iraq the only terrorists there are saddam loyalists who havent been active until the war was completed (so I dont understand what u mean is it a war against terror or a war against dictators in there own nation ) indonesia harbours terrorists so does palistine and pakistan and kashmer and others there is a list so long I couldnt write of all the countries and rouge states that have weapons of mass destruction You may be right about them finding bin laden but the american military seemed a bit more keen to get saddam than laden and the sick thing about bin laden in the first place is the CIA trained him to be a terrorist he just switched sides after the russian withdrawal from afganistan. The way you have written wait 4 another 3000ppl to die it sounds like saddam had something to do with the s11or other attacks as of now I dont think he or his regime has been linked to any terrorism towards western countries they couldnt even find a money link to bin laden The head of the CIA admitted on camera and in numerous statements that iraqs weapons capability was negliable and there was no link either financially or otherwise between saddams regime and alkieda or any other terrorist network And not one single weapon of mass destruction has ever been found on iraqi soil not even evidence of destroyed weapons So how catching him (although a bad man ) I dont think it makes any of us much safer in the long run but if you think you are you are more optimistic than me. Edited December 15, 2003 by stocknotclocked Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
road-runner Posted December 15, 2003 Posted December 15, 2003 His daddy was defending an ally, not attacking a "letscallitneutralcountry" <_< Yes he was defending allys, but I know people that where there and they were 2kms from him and could have taken him out but were ordered not to, and then they ended the war Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ballz2TheWallz Posted December 15, 2003 Posted December 15, 2003 lol WE ARE GOING AFTER KOREA WHEN WE FINISH IRAQ we do not wanna be nuked but when we do hell is gonna break loose and the amearican will whup oout there 100 100 foot tall warhammers and take the earth with it hence WWIII Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
d3bruts1d Posted December 15, 2003 Posted December 15, 2003 My god... The size of Iraq or military power of Iraq has nothing to whether they were a threat to the US and to the world. Was the America militia a threat to the British forces? Was the English fleet a threat to the Spanish Armada in 1588? History has proven over and over again just because you are bigger and the other is weaker, does not make the enemy any less of a threat. It has not been proven if Iraq does or does not have or has had WMD. However, we have found evidence that suggest that at one time there was the ability to produce such weapons. We do know for a fact that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons. They were, after all, used during the first gulf war when Iraq invaded Kuwait. And the former Bath (sp?) party used chemical weapons on thousands of Iraqi people. Will we find anything? Is the removal/capture of Saddam better for the US? Well, since that is a VERY selfish question, let's pass on that for now and talk about it being better for the Iraqi people. A ruthless, murdering, torturing, sick dictator has been removed from power. Hmm... If you had to live someplace with a guy like this killing your friends, family, and forcing you into a life of poverty and suffering, wouldn't you want the guy gone? I know I'd welcome it. Now the Iraqi people will have a chance to say who leads them, and how their country is run. Occupation? I can see why you would call it an occupation of Iraq. But then, is there really a choice? What would you rather us have done? Go in, knock out the leader, and leave? Leave the country in anarchy, without any type of police force, military, government body? In case you haven't noticed, Iraqi people are now in charge of Iraq... the Coalition forces are acting more as police and bodyguards until Iraq become stable again. If it were Occupation, we would be telling the Iraqi people what to do... Hitler's control over Paris was Occupation... We are helping Iraq do what they couldn't do. Now, let's get back to was this good for US? Any time someone so evil as Saddam is removed from power, I'd think that'd be a great thing for us, and for the world. Did he have plans to attack America or any other free nation? Who knows except Saddam and his party. We do know that he had an extreme dislike for America, the allies of America, and most other countries in the world. Should we have sat around and waited to find out if he would attack America? No. America has every right to do what we think is in our best interest. We have a responsibility to ourselves to protect ourselves. I thought we should have marched on Baghdad during the first gulf war and put and end to the tyrant, and was pissed off when we didn't. War over Oil... yeah, the US is taking so much Oil from Iraq, aren't we? Iraq has a major resource that the whole world uses... Oil. Now, there isn't a whole lot Iraq can do with that Oil other than trade or sell it. Billions of gallons of Oil are useless stored up in barrels. Now... you take the Oil and trade it with countries like America, France, Great Britton, Australia, Africa, Egypt, and other countries for food, cash, medicine, and other goods that are distributed to the Iraqi people, and it turns into a very good thing. Oh... now let's talk about who controls the Oil in Iraq... #1 The Iraqi people and #2 the United Nations. People die. Soldiers die. Civilians die. It's a war. People are going to die. The Iraqi people were given more than enough time to pack up and get the heck out of dodge before the war started. It's unfortunate for those who stayed and lost their lives. It's unfortunate for anyone to die, but again, this is war and they had a chance to leave. US Soldiers die... again, it's a war. And like it was said before, each and every one of those soldiers volunteered for the military. Each and every one of them knew that the day might come when they would have to give their life to protect the constitution, the country, and their families. It's a sad day when anyone dies, especially an American, but I was prepaid for it. Why weren?t you? "I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God." Now, to get back on topic.... Congrats to the boys at 4th Infantry Division. But the congrats shouldn't stop there. Congrats to the Special Forces who got the information. Congrats to the spies and information takers. Congrats to the rest of the military who is there. Congrats to our allies. How about a thank you? Thanks to the Iraqi people who helped us locate Saddam. Thanks to the allies who are there with us. Thanks to the people who really understand. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stocknotclocked Posted December 15, 2003 Posted December 15, 2003 Well put D3 I see your point too but personally I wouldnt want to send soldiers there GW can have that honour anyday Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mazakman Posted December 15, 2003 Posted December 15, 2003 I dont feel like reading 5 back pages, so whatever... It's not about ending "our" problems. (our meaning the free world) but ending the "regin of terror" as its been called that has had the Iraqi people in fear for so long. May they thrive now in a world with choice, something we all take for granted. This is a time when we used our power of choice for the greater good - saving people. Sadam has killed millions of people for just saying his name in vain. Now we gave the Iraqi people the power of choice to live there own lives and end the haterd in the world. Maybe one day we can look back and reflect that it wasn't about oil, nor about any other finanical gain, but about saving lives. Sorry, I meant the world's problems, and I hope you're right. I don't follow world news too closely, but there always seems to be one fanatical leader or another ready to terrorize his own people or other countries, and there's always some kind of fight going on in the world. It's a sad situation. The hatred that some people have for others is just unbelievable, it's almost genetic with some of them. When will it end? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
emissary Posted December 15, 2003 Posted December 15, 2003 (edited) HISTORY 101 Sadam kills tens of thousands of iraqi kurds with bio-chem weapons. Sadam kills tens of thousands of iranian troops with bio-chem weapons. Sadam kills tens of thousands of sheite (sp?) muslims in his country with bio-chem weapons. Do you want to find out he has them when small bomb with that kind of stuff goes off in new york? I know I sure don't. Just think about it that way. would you rather the US go after him now, take him out NOW or wait till he gets up the balls to pull a stunt like that? By many peoples reasonings here, it is apparently 'OK' to simply invade a country based on the fact that they appear to have weapons of mass destruction. If this is the case, why doesnt the mighty US invade North Korea, or Pakistan, or India, or China....or dare I say it even mother Russia? My point is this, the US or the rest of the free world CANNOT invade a country under the premise that what they are doing is in the best interests of the people of said country. It doesnt work, it didnt with Vietnam, and it never will. It may appear to be the RIGHT thing to do but what the US has done is based on fear and uncertainty of 9/11. The main person behind 9/11 is still not caught, and until he isnt, the current government of the US needs to appease its people that something is being done on the war on terrorism, in this case Iraq. It is true to say that Saddam has used weapons on his own people and deserves to be in the situation he is in now, but ultimately, it is the people of that country that must make this change, not another countries foreign policy. It is far worse to humiliate a country by occupying it, and by occupy I mean that is what all the Iraqi people will start to feel the longer the US stays there. When a country such as the US, with its flagrant disregard for foreign policy, ie with drawing from Kyoto Agreement, makes policies that benefit itself first but indirectly influence other nations, then a deep seated hatred will set in. Dont get me wrong, this isnt something that happened a year or so ago, this is something that has been going on since the end of WW2. The fact of the matter is, there is a HUGE crap storm ahead of us all, I am only 26 years old, and am a GenXer, but even I know there is no real reason for the US to be in Iraq right now. I am not anti-US, far from it, have been there many times and have family over there, but their current government is crooked and in fact illegally elected. What the US needs to do now, is get the hell out of Iraq and let the people decide its future, cause it has no right to occupy it an longer. Peace (through superior firepower) B) Edited December 15, 2003 by emissary Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
d3bruts1d Posted December 15, 2003 Posted December 15, 2003 Did we simply invade because of WMD? No. We went to Iraq to remove a threat. A threat to America, a threat to Iraq, and a threat to the world. WMD are irrelevant, Saddam and the Ba'ath party was a threat. We know for a fact that they had both chemical and biological weapons. The main person behind 9/11 is still not caught Last I checked, we captured Khalid Shaikh Mohammed who was the mastermind behind 9/11. Oh, you mean the person who is suspected for financing the operation? Osama? Sure, he's not caught. For all we know, he's dead in a mud hole like the one Saddam was found in. If this is the case, why doesn?t the mighty US invade North Korea, or Pakistan, or India, or China. Pakistan, India, and China all have diplomatic relations with the US and are members of the UN. - In other words, they are an ally. North Korea is also a member of the UN, and is being pressured by the UN to conform... I expect something to happen with North Korea in the next 5 years. My point is this, the US or the rest of the free world CANNOT invade a country under the premise that what they are doing is in the best interests of the people of said country. It doesn?t work, it didn?t with Vietnam, and it never will. It may appear to be the RIGHT thing to do but what the US has done is based on fear and uncertainty of 9/11. Sure they can. Are you saying that a country doesn't have the right to defend itself in any manner possible? What do you know of Vietnam? America didn't attack Vietnam first, actually it was France that did that. We joined the war to help stop the spread of communism.... guess what, communism isn't spreading, is it? Vietnam was a war of politics and politicians... had they stayed out of the war, we could have won it. Kyoto Agreement.. what the heck... who cares about the Kyoto Agreement.... we aren't the only country that didn't ratify the Kyoto Agreement. But again, who cares. makes policies that benefit itself first but indirectly influence other nations, then a deep seated hatred will set in. So, you are saying that a country doesn't have the right to do things for itself? If I lived in another country, I'd hope to god that that country did things for itself before others. It's not the responsibility of a country to worry about every other country unless it effects itself. Sure, an action taken will have effects on other countries... cause and effect. That's life. Do we do things with the intention of hurting other countries? No. We do, what we see at the time (since it is impossible to predict the future) that is best for ourselves and our allies. We don't have to help anyone out, but we do... that's us, that's the U.S. there is no real reason for the US to be in Iraq right now Sure, let's just pull out. Let's let the country fall to anarchy and collapse. That would be good for the whole world, wouldn't it? Not to mention how much that would benefit the people of Iraq, right? How about this... how about we stay in Iraq and help rebuild the country, help re-build a government, help restore the country, and then we leave? Doesn't that sound much better... much more humanitarian? The fact of the matter is, there is a HUGE crap storm ahead of us all Fact has to be based on something... where is your information? Sure, I'll agree, I feel like something is coming our way.. something we are ill-prepared for. We can't make everyone happy, and because of that we'll get hit. This has been coming since the country was formed. It's hard being the top dog. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paranoid Posted December 15, 2003 Posted December 15, 2003 about time they found him. hope they kill the bastard Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts