I think its pointless. I think Bush knew that there where no WMDs and just wanted Saddams oil.
Of course im not saying Saddam wasn`t evil, but i mean thats not why Bush went to war it was for oil, and the fact that Saddam was evil was just his excuse.
everyone thinks that people in the middle east are evil, but there are evil people everywhere.
But Bush only Attacks them beacuase he wants oil. I mean like in Darfur (sp?) we are not doing anything,
why? beacuase there is no oil.
Bush is to Money/Oil/Power hungrey to help anyone
Ok, i didnt read anything you wrote after the second sentence, you need to research before you reply to topics, or it just looks like you have no knowledge of the subject, We have found over 600 WMD's in Iraq.
spill_no_sick Falling In Love With The Board Age: 30 Gender: - Posts: 8588
July 28th, 2006 at 12:27am
spill_no_sick:
statistics just tell us that war in general is negative
all war sucks, it all has obvious negative consiquences
we had a lot of bad shit because....well, we kept giving more and more reason to go to war
Osama, WMDs, Hussein, terrorism was always the backbone, we kept going in for more reasons, so it's a huge scale war
of course we'll be in huge debt, America has been in worse debt because of war (remember our first one, that one with that other country who kept trying to control us? yeah, worse debt, much worse debt
and we all knew lives would be lost, it's fucking war
not as many lives as people say, but a devastating amount
and don't give me that bullshit on oil, we get 80% of our oil from Asia (Saudi Arabia mainly
our prices went up do to supply and demand because they know how to do buisness over there
"Those lazy Americans will keep their huge cars, they won't move their lazy ass, if we raise the price, the worst they can do is drive to protests against their president because we can do some fuckin sweet buisness."
The war wasn't justified. It never needed to happen. There was a point in history where America + Iraq were allies in some war, it wasnt that long ago but i cant remember when. Bush was in power + so was Saddam. Bush knew Saddam was an evil bastard who was killing, raping and torturing thousands of people. Bush had the power to have Saddam assasinated. But he 'had' to do it 'by the book'. So Saddam lived on. now look whats happened. And the only reason hes kicking up a fuss now is coz it might affect oil prices. Thats why he invented the excuse of WMD's to go in and get Saddam. and being Bush and 'having' to do it 'by the book' he starts this massive bloody war. And thousands of people have died.
What's in a name? King For A Couple Of Days Age: 35 Gender: Female Posts: 2451
November 10th, 2006 at 06:48pm
I won’t pretend that I know all about this because I don’t. And I honestly
don’t think that any of us do. Some know more and some know less but
no one fully understands it (just my opinion).
Anyway I just want to point out that America should start a war against
themselves if they want to fight terrorism because going in Iraq with an
armed force starting a war is a terrorist action according to UN
agreements, which I believe that USA also agreed with. And even if they
never did they are committing a terrorist action according to a lot of other countries.
I don’t want to set a side or ignore how many people that have died in the war
and that people still are dying. Yeah, lives are wasted in wars.
Everyone knows that. So why on earth start a war? And the fact that the
number of dead civilians in Iraq caused by the war are higher
(or becoming higher) than the number of people killed when Saddam ruled
the country is just terrible. Now, I don’t think he was a great leader.
He was obviously a cruel dictator. And that kind of makes it even more
horrible to think that USA:s war to free Iraq from him has (or almost has)
killed more people that he did.
I’m curious to why USA actually did start a war. I’ve heard so many
reasons that are only contradictious and everyone is saying that this and
that isn’t true. Basically there is no reason. At least not if you’ve heard
them all from different sources because all those sources are saying
different things. Anyone who knows why? I’d love to know.
To say that they did it for the oil just doesn’t work. Am not right in
presuming that the oil price had increased in USA as a result of the war?
So if it in fact was done because of oil then they failed greatly.
I’ve heard nothing about anyone finding WMD in Iraq on the news here in
my country (I live in Sweden. We’re a small, neutral country in the
northern of Europe ). Perhaps I’ve just missed it though. So I’m just
wondering who’re giving you this information. I’m not saying that is isn’t
valid, but I’m just not so sure that it has to be true. Of course, I haven’t
heard it so I can’t judge. Neither have I been to Iraq and looked it up myself so cha.
From what I know and can understand about the whole situation I think
that a war never should have taken place. But hopefully Iraq will become
a better country to live in when all of this is over and that has to count for something.
Hopefully the civil war that more or less is going on will be put
to an end. Hopefully the people living there will have a democratic system
from now on. Hopefully people will live better lives when the negative
results of the war is over then they did when Saddam ruled.
Hopefully all lives wasted will not be in vain.
And hopefully more lives will be spared in the long run than if Saddam had been left alone to keep leading Iraq.
I think its pointless. I think Bush knew that there where no WMDs and just wanted Saddams oil.
Of course im not saying Saddam wasn`t evil, but i mean thats not why Bush went to war it was for oil, and the fact that Saddam was evil was just his excuse.
everyone thinks that people in the middle east are evil, but there are evil people everywhere.
But Bush only Attacks them beacuase he wants oil. I mean like in Darfur (sp?) we are not doing anything,
why? beacuase there is no oil.
Bush is to Money/Oil/Power hungrey to help anyone
Ok, i didnt read anything you wrote after the second sentence, you need to research before you reply to topics, or it just looks like you have no knowledge of the subject, We have found over 600 WMD's in Iraq.
Hi! I'm back. OK, homecoming's over, back to business.
Let's be fair and see both sides of the issue: There were WMDs found in Iraq. However, they were not actually weapons that Saddam had commissioned, they were weapons that had been sold/given to him in the 80s by the Reagan/Bush administration, when he was still a "good guy" and not "the next Hitler." How do we know? They were deteriorated. (Also, I could be wrong, but weren't a bunch of them weapons that the UN had taken away and sealed up? I may be mixing my news stories.)
I don't count these weapons as worth a rat's ass, because there still remains to be found all those "mobile weapons labs" that Saddam had, or the thousands of liters of Sarin gas and whatnot. You know, everything that the administration used when talking to the UN about an international strike, with all the grainy satellite photos and illustrations. Then Bush got impatient, did it all anyway, no matter what that stupid Frenchy Blix said, and started filming "Vietnam 2: This Time, They're Arabs."
I think that there has got to be another way to settle our dipute with Iraq! its stupid to have thousands of men over there dying and there doesnt really seem to be a light at the end of this dark tunnel. everyone thought it would be over in afew short years and it isnt. so i think we need to rethink and make a new plan!
I think that there has got to be another way to settle our dipute with Iraq! its stupid to have thousands of men over there dying and there doesnt really seem to be a light at the end of this dark tunnel. everyone thought it would be over in afew short years and it isnt. so i think we need to rethink and make a new plan!
Thats much easier said then done. If society was perfect, violence wouldn't be needed, but anyone who thinks our society is perfect is very sheltered.
How do you suggest we go about forming a "new plan"?
Matt Smith Admin Age: 32 Gender: Female Posts: 31134
December 1st, 2006 at 02:06pm
It is my belief that if Blair had proof on March 20, 2003, that WMDs existed in Iraq, then David Kelly would still be alive.
Um...talking things out...I don't know! BUT INNOCENT PEOPLE SHOULD NOT HAVE TO DIE!
spill_no_sick Falling In Love With The Board Age: 30 Gender: - Posts: 8588
December 1st, 2006 at 05:56pm
If_Only_You_Knew:
Um...talking things out...I don't know! BUT INNOCENT PEOPLE SHOULD NOT HAVE TO DIE!
the whole thing with that is
"I know you've killed hundreds of thousands (possible millions, he doesn't keep records like the Nazis did) of people, we know you have WMDs because we have sources that say so, we have photos, testimonies...and of course we know you have them, we still have the recipt!" (As in, Russia and the U.S. shared information freely as the Cold War cooled down...but in the early nineties when it finally ended, we knew enough about WMDs to take all research off of the market, we asked Saddam nicely "Talking it Out" for lack of a better term, to disarm. FYI) "Now, we think it would be nice if you would get rid of all world-ending devices and stop killing hundreds of thousands (possibly millions) of innocent people please"
but see, "Talking it Out" didn't work
not because the U.S. is assholes (or "Bush", as you like to think that he is Congress, Senate, and all of the American people..much easier to say, "Bush's fault", than "Congress, Senate, and our fault"
not because Iraqi's were assholes
actually, no one but the protestors and Saddam were assholes in this situation
we said, "step down please"
he said, "make me"
we said, "can do"
(frankly, I don't care if our president has a Texas accent, I don't want a hippie president. I don't want John Kerry or Al Gore to threaten Saddam. He'd just laugh at them. Bush talks to Saddam the way Clint Eastwood talked to everyone at the end of Unforgiven, that's what we need)
yeah, so basically, it isn't that simple
if you think it is, write Saddam a "persuasive letter" since trying to take him out of power and serve justice didn't work
and damn, at the expense of 2,600 soldiers who we forced into the army because of the draft, just to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of Middle-Eatern people
and besides, what can WMDs do to humans anyway?
they can't even kill a cockroach!
Um...talking things out...I don't know! BUT INNOCENT PEOPLE SHOULD NOT HAVE TO DIE!
the whole thing with that is
"I know you've killed hundreds of thousands (possible millions, he doesn't keep records like the Nazis did) of people, we know you have WMDs because we have sources that say so, we have photos, testimonies...and of course we know you have them, we still have the recipt!" (As in, Russia and the U.S. shared information freely as the Cold War cooled down...but in the early nineties when it finally ended, we knew enough about WMDs to take all research off of the market, we asked Saddam nicely "Talking it Out" for lack of a better term, to disarm. FYI) "Now, we think it would be nice if you would get rid of all world-ending devices and stop killing hundreds of thousands (possibly millions) of innocent people please"
but see, "Talking it Out" didn't work
not because the U.S. is assholes (or "Bush", as you like to think that he is Congress, Senate, and all of the American people..much easier to say, "Bush's fault", than "Congress, Senate, and our fault"
not because Iraqi's were assholes
actually, no one but the protestors and Saddam were assholes in this situation
we said, "step down please"
he said, "make me"
we said, "can do"
(frankly, I don't care if our president has a Texas accent, I don't want a hippie president. I don't want John Kerry or Al Gore to threaten Saddam. He'd just laugh at them. Bush talks to Saddam the way Clint Eastwood talked to everyone at the end of Unforgiven, that's what we need)
yeah, so basically, it isn't that simple
if you think it is, write Saddam a "persuasive letter" since trying to take him out of power and serve justice didn't work
and damn, at the expense of 2,600 soldiers who we forced into the army because of the draft, just to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of Middle-Eatern people
and besides, what can WMDs do to humans anyway?
they can't even kill a cockroach!
Maybe my memory is faulty, but I don't recall talks ever being opened up...Mostly, I remember Colin Powell in front of the U.N., Saddam denying the presence of weapons programs, Blix not finding anything to indicate weapons programs, Bush saying, "Well let's just do this, guys! ...Guys?" then joining with Britain et al. (Afghanistan too! Yay!) That was all I remember. Bush has denied in the past that you can negotiate with terrorists (which equals Saddam, apparently, maybe) and have to bomb the bejeezus out of 'em.
Really, when was negotiation even given a try? We're a pretty damn smart world. Shouldn't we try alternatives to war? Nobody likes pain, anguish, and death. Besides nuts. C'mon, Mahatma Ghandi took on the entire British Empire and won without throwing so much as a punch. Maybe the world should take the hint.
Force is, despicably, required action sometimes. Hitler was a threat that no reasoning was going to fix. Sometimes, war is somehow the only thing that solves shit. It's sickening, but it's the way the world works. But not in Iraq. C'mon, this was a botched job from Day 1.
Lucifers Angel King For A Couple Of Days Age: - Gender: Female Posts: 4751
December 24th, 2006 at 01:23pm
basketcase17:
Surley people could find a way to get rid of saddam, who is human scum, killing all those people, without bombing incocent Iraq women and children.
everyone has a right to a fair trial it doesnt matter what they have done
spill_no_sick Falling In Love With The Board Age: 30 Gender: - Posts: 8588
December 25th, 2006 at 09:42pm
dirtyhippie:
spill_no_sick:
If_Only_You_Knew:
Um...talking things out...I don't know! BUT INNOCENT PEOPLE SHOULD NOT HAVE TO DIE!
the whole thing with that is
"I know you've killed hundreds of thousands (possible millions, he doesn't keep records like the Nazis did) of people, we know you have WMDs because we have sources that say so, we have photos, testimonies...and of course we know you have them, we still have the recipt!" (As in, Russia and the U.S. shared information freely as the Cold War cooled down...but in the early nineties when it finally ended, we knew enough about WMDs to take all research off of the market, we asked Saddam nicely "Talking it Out" for lack of a better term, to disarm. FYI) "Now, we think it would be nice if you would get rid of all world-ending devices and stop killing hundreds of thousands (possibly millions) of innocent people please"
but see, "Talking it Out" didn't work
not because the U.S. is assholes (or "Bush", as you like to think that he is Congress, Senate, and all of the American people..much easier to say, "Bush's fault", than "Congress, Senate, and our fault"
not because Iraqi's were assholes
actually, no one but the protestors and Saddam were assholes in this situation
we said, "step down please"
he said, "make me"
we said, "can do"
(frankly, I don't care if our president has a Texas accent, I don't want a hippie president. I don't want John Kerry or Al Gore to threaten Saddam. He'd just laugh at them. Bush talks to Saddam the way Clint Eastwood talked to everyone at the end of Unforgiven, that's what we need)
yeah, so basically, it isn't that simple
if you think it is, write Saddam a "persuasive letter" since trying to take him out of power and serve justice didn't work
and damn, at the expense of 2,600 soldiers who we forced into the army because of the draft, just to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of Middle-Eatern people
and besides, what can WMDs do to humans anyway?
they can't even kill a cockroach!
Maybe my memory is faulty, but I don't recall talks ever being opened up...Mostly, I remember Colin Powell in front of the U.N., Saddam denying the presence of weapons programs, Blix not finding anything to indicate weapons programs, Bush saying, "Well let's just do this, guys! ...Guys?" then joining with Britain et al. (Afghanistan too! Yay!) That was all I remember. Bush has denied in the past that you can negotiate with terrorists (which equals Saddam, apparently, maybe) and have to bomb the bejeezus out of 'em.
Really, when was negotiation even given a try? We're a pretty damn smart world. Shouldn't we try alternatives to war? Nobody likes pain, anguish, and death. Besides nuts. C'mon, Mahatma Ghandi took on the entire British Empire and won without throwing so much as a punch. Maybe the world should take the hint.
Force is, despicably, required action sometimes. Hitler was a threat that no reasoning was going to fix. Sometimes, war is somehow the only thing that solves shit. It's sickening, but it's the way the world works. But not in Iraq. C'mon, this was a botched job from Day 1.
we don't negotiate with terrorists DURING OR AFTER the war
we tried
hell, for ten years we tried
and yeah, "Hitler was a threat that no reasoning would fix"
and it's apparent that what, Saddam was going to suddenly cooperate after not cooperating for twenty years?
he's not even cooperating on trial
and Ghandi didn't take them down, he got them to make a change, but miracles happen
and besides, the British Empire was a little softened from previous defeats in their history (which weren't from negotiation) and they were more logical and ready for change than Saddam is now
Deernt. Rotting On Here Age: 32 Gender: Female Posts: 48258
December 25th, 2006 at 10:03pm
This war was not needed at all.
I think what we should really do is bring the troops into Iran because that's where they are keeping nuclear weapons.
spill_no_sick Falling In Love With The Board Age: 30 Gender: - Posts: 8588
December 26th, 2006 at 12:13am
Polar Express.:
This war was not needed at all.
I think what we should really do is bring the troops into Iran because that's where they are keeping nuclear weapons.
we found plenty
and our first mission was to get rid of main terrorist organizations...we've pretty much done that
but while we were there we realized that the situation for the citizens is extremely shitty so we then started to try to set up a functional government that would help them (though they aren't ready for democracy, we fucked up there
then we also realized Saddam had killed hundreds of thousands of people and so we thought "hmm, maybe he still has all of those WMDs we told him to get rid of ten-fifteen years ago" and so then we said, "last chance, if you don't disarm we'll disarm you"
he said, "fuck you, your dad said the same thing"
and then we disarmed him and are bringing him to justice and now all the Americans are pissed
Anji Basket Case Age: 34 Gender: Female Posts: 15914
December 26th, 2006 at 10:49am
spill_no_sick:
Polar Express.:
This war was not needed at all.
I think what we should really do is bring the troops into Iran because that's where they are keeping nuclear weapons.
we found plenty
and our first mission was to get rid of main terrorist organizations...we've pretty much done that
but while we were there we realized that the situation for the citizens is extremely shitty so we then started to try to set up a functional government that would help them (though they aren't ready for democracy, we fucked up there
then we also realized Saddam had killed hundreds of thousands of people and so we thought "hmm, maybe he still has all of those WMDs we told him to get rid of ten-fifteen years ago" and so then we said, "last chance, if you don't disarm we'll disarm you"
he said, "fuck you, your dad said the same thing"
and then we disarmed him and are bringing him to justice and now all the Americans are pissed
Um...talking things out...I don't know! BUT INNOCENT PEOPLE SHOULD NOT HAVE TO DIE!
the whole thing with that is
"I know you've killed hundreds of thousands (possible millions, he doesn't keep records like the Nazis did) of people, we know you have WMDs because we have sources that say so, we have photos, testimonies...and of course we know you have them, we still have the recipt!" (As in, Russia and the U.S. shared information freely as the Cold War cooled down...but in the early nineties when it finally ended, we knew enough about WMDs to take all research off of the market, we asked Saddam nicely "Talking it Out" for lack of a better term, to disarm. FYI) "Now, we think it would be nice if you would get rid of all world-ending devices and stop killing hundreds of thousands (possibly millions) of innocent people please"
but see, "Talking it Out" didn't work
not because the U.S. is assholes (or "Bush", as you like to think that he is Congress, Senate, and all of the American people..much easier to say, "Bush's fault", than "Congress, Senate, and our fault"
not because Iraqi's were assholes
actually, no one but the protestors and Saddam were assholes in this situation
we said, "step down please"
he said, "make me"
we said, "can do"
(frankly, I don't care if our president has a Texas accent, I don't want a hippie president. I don't want John Kerry or Al Gore to threaten Saddam. He'd just laugh at them. Bush talks to Saddam the way Clint Eastwood talked to everyone at the end of Unforgiven, that's what we need)
yeah, so basically, it isn't that simple
if you think it is, write Saddam a "persuasive letter" since trying to take him out of power and serve justice didn't work
and damn, at the expense of 2,600 soldiers who we forced into the army because of the draft, just to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of Middle-Eatern people
and besides, what can WMDs do to humans anyway?
they can't even kill a cockroach!
Maybe my memory is faulty, but I don't recall talks ever being opened up...Mostly, I remember Colin Powell in front of the U.N., Saddam denying the presence of weapons programs, Blix not finding anything to indicate weapons programs, Bush saying, "Well let's just do this, guys! ...Guys?" then joining with Britain et al. (Afghanistan too! Yay!) That was all I remember. Bush has denied in the past that you can negotiate with terrorists (which equals Saddam, apparently, maybe) and have to bomb the bejeezus out of 'em.
Really, when was negotiation even given a try? We're a pretty damn smart world. Shouldn't we try alternatives to war? Nobody likes pain, anguish, and death. Besides nuts. C'mon, Mahatma Ghandi took on the entire British Empire and won without throwing so much as a punch. Maybe the world should take the hint.
Force is, despicably, required action sometimes. Hitler was a threat that no reasoning was going to fix. Sometimes, war is somehow the only thing that solves shit. It's sickening, but it's the way the world works. But not in Iraq. C'mon, this was a botched job from Day 1.
we don't negotiate with terrorists DURING OR AFTER the war
we tried
hell, for ten years we tried
and yeah, "Hitler was a threat that no reasoning would fix"
and it's apparent that what, Saddam was going to suddenly cooperate after not cooperating for twenty years?
he's not even cooperating on trial
and Ghandi didn't take them down, he got them to make a change, but miracles happen
and besides, the British Empire was a little softened from previous defeats in their history (which weren't from negotiation) and they were more logical and ready for change than Saddam is now
1) Ten years? Negotiating with terrorists? What in the world...are we still talking about Iraq? Because we weren't "negotiating" with Iraq. We were "performing surgical strikes" on Iraq. That was Clinton's thing, to periodically send in the Air Force and keep those rocks a-jumpin'.
2) Saddam did cooperate!! Hans Blix & Co. went in and searched with the copperation of the Hussein regime and found jack! Do you want him to produce a weapons program that he didn't have?
3) Cooperating on trial has nothing to do with anything. Besides which, they already sentenced him, didn't they? Sooooo...end of trial, end of relevance.
4) Lastly, "we don't negotiate" is the worst policy we could ever adopt. How about, "we ALWAYS negotiate"? Refusing to negotiate limits your options and kills more kids quicker.
spill_no_sick Falling In Love With The Board Age: 30 Gender: - Posts: 8588
December 26th, 2006 at 04:13pm
Anji:
spill_no_sick:
Polar Express.:
This war was not needed at all.
I think what we should really do is bring the troops into Iran because that's where they are keeping nuclear weapons.
we found plenty
and our first mission was to get rid of main terrorist organizations...we've pretty much done that
but while we were there we realized that the situation for the citizens is extremely shitty so we then started to try to set up a functional government that would help them (though they aren't ready for democracy, we fucked up there
then we also realized Saddam had killed hundreds of thousands of people and so we thought "hmm, maybe he still has all of those WMDs we told him to get rid of ten-fifteen years ago" and so then we said, "last chance, if you don't disarm we'll disarm you"
he said, "fuck you, your dad said the same thing"
and then we disarmed him and are bringing him to justice and now all the Americans are pissed
Can you disarm somebody who is 'armless'? O_o
no, but since we knew he had weapons in the eighties and nineties, and since we knew he never got rid of them, we figured he still must have them right?
well, we found some, do you think we planted them there fifteen years ago just so Bush Jr. could start this war?
that's right, oil is that important isn't it?
even though 80% of our oil comes from Saudi Arabia and 10% from the rest of Asia and the fact that if we went for oil the prices should logically go down right?
). Perhaps I’ve just missed it though. So I’m just
