Iraq war

AuthorMessage
spill_no_sick
Falling In Love With The Board
spill_no_sick
Age: 29
Gender: -
Posts: 8588
December 26th, 2006 at 04:23pm
dirtyhippie:
spill_no_sick:
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"Wink
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.

1. it's more like fifteen years since Bush Sr. tried to get him to disarm
that didn't work, and Clinton didn't do shit with it, the only major wars during his administration were in Kosovo, so that gave Saddam what, time to disarm?
well, he didn't
2. yeah, he let them search a few places, we decided to search more and we did find WMDs
you know, if I wanted to grow pot in my basement I'd have no trouble letting the police search my attic
3. cooperating on trial was just an example of how little he does cooperate with authorities
4. we don't negotiate isn't the policy, we don't negotiate with terrorists is
if me and a friend are walking in an ally and a guy pulls out a gun and threatens my friend (and I happen to be like a WWF wrestler or something) and I say, "if you don't shoot him I won't kill you"
well, I'm negotiating
then, say he shoots my friend and I throw him against the wall to kill and such
I won't let him go just because he says "Uncle" AFTER he shoots my friend
that's not right at all, he wouldn't comply so there will be consequences
sorry if you don't agree with that, but Saddam did wrong, we told him to stop, he didn't we told him to stop for fifteen more years, he wouldn't, so what should we do, say please this time?
Deernt.
Rotting On Here
Deernt.
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 48258

Mibba Blog
December 26th, 2006 at 06:42pm
I just feel so bad for all the soldiers and troops that have died in vain.
This war is absolutely not needed.
I'm sorry if you think so otherwise.
John Entwistle
Great Success!
John Entwistle
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 55036
December 27th, 2006 at 12:14am
I think we went to war for a reason. That reason was to stop Saddam. And, yes, we stopped him. But I don't think it is a good idea to leave yet because all of our hard work will be gone. The Iraqis aren't stable enough yet. Ya, I feel bad for the soldiers, but you got to remember that they are the ones that wanted join the army. They are proud to die for their country.
Lucifers Angel
King For A Couple Of Days
Lucifers Angel
Age: -
Gender: Female
Posts: 4751
December 27th, 2006 at 05:10am
Quick Silver.:
I just feel so bad for all the soldiers and troops that have died in vain.
This war is absolutely not needed.
I'm sorry if you think so otherwise.


i dont want to seem like a heartless bitch but they were in the armed forces, they were not in a mediteraean holiday being served drinks by half naked people.
dirtyhippie
Geek
dirtyhippie
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 466
December 27th, 2006 at 01:56pm
spill_no_sick:
dirtyhippie:
spill_no_sick:
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"Wink
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.

1. it's more like fifteen years since Bush Sr. tried to get him to disarm
that didn't work, and Clinton didn't do shit with it, the only major wars during his administration were in Kosovo, so that gave Saddam what, time to disarm?
well, he didn't
2. yeah, he let them search a few places, we decided to search more and we did find WMDs
you know, if I wanted to grow pot in my basement I'd have no trouble letting the police search my attic
3. cooperating on trial was just an example of how little he does cooperate with authorities
4. we don't negotiate isn't the policy, we don't negotiate with terrorists is
if me and a friend are walking in an ally and a guy pulls out a gun and threatens my friend (and I happen to be like a WWF wrestler or something) and I say, "if you don't shoot him I won't kill you"
well, I'm negotiating
then, say he shoots my friend and I throw him against the wall to kill and such
I won't let him go just because he says "Uncle" AFTER he shoots my friend
that's not right at all, he wouldn't comply so there will be consequences
sorry if you don't agree with that, but Saddam did wrong, we told him to stop, he didn't we told him to stop for fifteen more years, he wouldn't, so what should we do, say please this time?


Boy, you're getting difficult to dismiss, Nick.

1) Well, it would have helped if Bush Sr. had actually done anything but bomb and leave, wouldn't it? If he was after getting him to disarm using military force (something I love to think about...), then he sure did one bang-up job. My point with Clinton was not that he started a war (he didn't, obviously) but that he bombed the place periodically, keeping Saddam from even thinking about developing weapons programs. Two successive presidents had fucked the daylights out of the country. And regarding disarmament: he was disarmed forcibly by the U.N., that crazy world organization that took away all the sarin and whatnot we issued him and locked them up in bunkers, the seals of which were found to be still intact until the U.S. army tore through a while ago. Remember that?

2) Are you referring to the degraded samples that were found? Remember, these are not evidence of actual weapons programs. These were the actual weapons given to Iraq in the 80s by Reagan/Bush. And which were sealed up by the U.N. And which were stoen by persons unknown after the army opened 'em up. You're pointing to THOSE as the smoking gun?

3) Didn't you just say he didn't cooperate on trial?

4) Why don't we negotiate with terrorists? They're much more dangerous than our more conventional enemies. We don't even know who they are. In your alleyway example, you don't let him go, you get his ass in jail. You don't let him go OR kill him. If you kill him, you're worse than he is. Let's be clear: There have to be consequences, of course. We agree there. But be careful: don't impose consequences that are just as wrong as the deeds themselves.

We agree that Saddam was a horrible dictator who raped and murdered and did not deserve to have a position of power. There's no ARGUMENT here.

Here's where we disagree: I say Saddam stopped, you claim he didn't. I look at evidence like Colin Powell's and bark out a laugh. What I loathe about the Iraq war is not whether it could be justified, but the way in which it was justified (with lies, half-truths and fact manipulation) and the way in which it was handled. Weapons and terrorism never should have entered the equation, never needed to. It's enough that Saddam was a big bastard, and a symbol of American shame because we appointed him. That's why the war sickens me.
spill_no_sick
Falling In Love With The Board
spill_no_sick
Age: 29
Gender: -
Posts: 8588
December 28th, 2006 at 12:44am
to dirtyhippie on page six (so there's no more quote pyramid)

what's that supposed to mean, "difficult to dismiss"?

1. that's right, Bush Sr. and Clinton really set Bush up for a shitty presidency, but Bush (being the jackass redneck that he is, in a completely nonsarcastic way) came out taking charge and talking tough and everything you're supposed to do with terrorists that Clinton and Sr. couldn't have done...
and about the disarmment: yeah, and the U.N. was acting under no pressure that Bush put on them, Bush can't actually do stuff that everyone thinks he can, there are three powers higher than him, the U.S. Senate, the U.S. Congress, and the U.S. Citizens, but damn can Bush use his aggressiveness to leading people to capturing Saddam and helping out with this war
I think everyone on the planet would agree: Bush made Blair his bitch and it's that characteristic than enables him to talk with terrorists
2. there were more and you're an idiot to think that all of the weapons the U.N. found and power hungry terrorists weren't the ones stealing (no, no, it was just teenage vandals who threw it away when they matured, right?
3. yes, and his cooperation (or lack there of) was just an example
4. we don't negotiate with terrorists during war unless they surrender
and don't try to make us look like illogical assholes here
we don't have a 2% "above poverty rate" because we took over the government, and continue to manufacture weapons (it's like drugs at school, teachers know kids do it, but there's no actual evidence) and then just shrug off threats for fifteen years
FIFTEEN YEARS
that's why we don't negotiate
for half of the time "negotiating" (pleading with) them we started a war and took down some major terrorist organizations, and took down Saddam, and (yes, with the help of the U.N.) found 600 WMDs

of course we agree he's horrible, why can't you agree that it was worth taking him down?
there were 2,600 men and women who thought it was worth their life to take him down, and it's a little disrespectful to them if you make it seem as if they were useless
say there was a better way (because let's be honest, there was) but say that this way worked

we said we would go over there, "to fight terrorism" (September 17, 2001, I have the newspaper in my room)
it was a "war on terror"
of course, he figured stuff out while over there, that him keeping WMDs was a lot worse than we assumed
so we said that that was a new objective for us
then that turned out to be the primary objective for the next four and a half years

and was there fact manipulation...HAVE YOU STUDIED HISTORY!?!?!?
every president after Washington used fact manipulation for every major move as president
yes that's horrible, but that's how Jackson was elected, that's how Lincoln freed the slaves, that's how everything works

being pissed off at Bush is blaming him for a system that has been corrupt since the very beginning
so now you know how frusturated I am with how marriage works in the U.S. (sorry if I just transcended issues for you slow ones
dirtyhippie
Geek
dirtyhippie
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 466
December 28th, 2006 at 02:03pm
spill_no_sick:
to dirtyhippie on page six (so there's no more quote pyramid)
Good call. My bad.

Quote
what's that supposed to mean, "difficult to dismiss"?

Difficult to debate. I need many mad skillz.

Quote
1. that's right, Bush Sr. and Clinton really set Bush up for a shitty presidency, but Bush (being the jackass redneck that he is, in a completely nonsarcastic way) came out taking charge and talking tough and everything you're supposed to do with terrorists that Clinton and Sr. couldn't have done...
and about the disarmment: yeah, and the U.N. was acting under no pressure that Bush put on them, Bush can't actually do stuff that everyone thinks he can, there are three powers higher than him, the U.S. Senate, the U.S. Congress, and the U.S. Citizens, but damn can Bush use his aggressiveness to leading people to capturing Saddam and helping out with this war
I think everyone on the planet would agree: Bush made Blair his bitch and it's that characteristic than enables him to talk with terrorists

The first part (re: toughness) I can agree with. Bush was wimpy, Clinton was hard to take seriously just looking at him. Then you start listening to the Arkansas accent. But take into account that toughness is not all you need; it helped the war effort, certainly. Charisma and a stiff upper lip always does. But Bush takes toughness to a level where it becomes arrogant refusal to change or compromise. The second part (re: Blair) I am puzzled on. Expound.
Quote
2. there were more and you're an idiot to think that all of the weapons the U.N. found and power hungry terrorists weren't the ones stealing (no, no, it was just teenage vandals who threw it away when they matured, right?

Nice use of idiot there, chief. Keep your cool. A search for "wmds iraq" on Google turns up a million plus hits, with the stuff I need on the front page. Even Bush campaign headquarters FOX News (the first hit!) says, in the article "Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq" that 500 samples of weapons containing degraded mustard and sarin gas were uncovered this past June. And I said "persons unknown." That means, hey, maybe they were terrorists! I wouldn't be at all surprised. You know how tough al-Qaeda has gotten in Iraq now. But we don't know. Now take a deep breath and start thinking about some certainties.
Quote
3. yes, and his cooperation (or lack there of) was just an example
I'm not going to pursue this thread any farther, my brain hurts.
Quote
4. we don't negotiate with terrorists during war unless they surrender
and don't try to make us look like illogical assholes here
we don't have a 2% "above poverty rate" because we took over the government, and continue to manufacture weapons (it's like drugs at school, teachers know kids do it, but there's no actual evidence) and then just shrug off threats for fifteen years
FIFTEEN YEARS
that's why we don't negotiate
for half of the time "negotiating" (pleading with) them we started a war and took down some major terrorist organizations, and took down Saddam, and (yes, with the help of the U.N.) found 600 WMDs

Lke drugs at a school? We KNOW they do it, but we have no evidence, so let's bust the little fuckers anyway? My intent was not to make us look like illogical assholes, but now it is, with the help of your wonderful metaphor.
Quote
of course we agree he's horrible, why can't you agree that it was worth taking him down?
there were 2,600 men and women who thought it was worth their life to take him down, and it's a little disrespectful to them if you make it seem as if they were useless
say there was a better way (because let's be honest, there was) but say that this way worked

It was worth taking him down. Never ket it be said that I disrespect troops, Nick. I will never serve in the Forces, but their devotion and bravery (all soldiers, not just ours) is awe-inspiring. It was worthwhile to take him down. But the way Bush and his fellows went about it is not worth anything. They manufactured evidence and ignored intelligence, and completely bungled a job that could have been a noble cause but is now a wasteful, pitiful, hideous example of bad leadership. This way accomplished the goal, but I will never say it worked.
Quote
we said we would go over there, "to fight terrorism" (September 17, 2001, I have the newspaper in my room)
it was a "war on terror"
of course, he figured stuff out while over there, that him keeping WMDs was a lot worse than we assumed
so we said that that was a new objective for us
then that turned out to be the primary objective for the next four and a half years

Hah! We went to Iraq to fight terrorism. So tell me why, if we're so concerned about fighting terrorism, we didn't actually finish our duty in Afghanistan? As it stands now, al-Qaeda is making a nice comeback by recruiting newbs in Iraq and giving the resurgent Taliban a nice amount of cash flow. September 17, 2001 was the day Bush decided to go over to Afghanistan to fight terrorism, but to slowly shift focus to Iraq over time. See? http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A43909-2003Jan11 Odd, I think.
Quote
and was there fact manipulation...HAVE YOU STUDIED HISTORY!?!?!?
every president after Washington used fact manipulation for every major move as president
yes that's horrible, but that's how Jackson was elected, that's how Lincoln freed the slaves, that's how everything works

being pissed off at Bush is blaming him for a system that has been corrupt since the very beginning
so now you know how frusturated I am with how marriage works in the U.S. (sorry if I just transcended issues for you slow ones

Jackson got elected by being a war hero, an Indian killer and popular with the farming people. I'm not sure where dishonesty gets into it, though he sure did lie to the Indians.

Anyway. So since Bush went along with a system that's been dishonesty since tie immemorial (i.e. 1796). That...makes it better how, now? Look, just because every president fucks with the people doesn't mean every president should fuck with the people. That's one orgy I don't want to be a part of. Maybe that's how everything has worked so far (which I doubt) but that has no bearing on a president's options. You always have honesty as an option. Always.
worn-out astronaut.
Had A Life Before GSB
worn-out astronaut.
Age: 31
Gender: Female
Posts: 28177

Mibba Blog
December 29th, 2006 at 05:58am
Army of Angels:
I think we went to war for a reason. That reason was to stop Saddam. And, yes, we stopped him. But I don't think it is a good idea to leave yet because all of our hard work will be gone. The Iraqis aren't stable enough yet. Ya, I feel bad for the soldiers, but you got to remember that they are the ones that wanted join the army. They are proud to die for their country.
I dont see the army making things more stable. When I watch whats happening in Iraq on TV the scenes are pretty much always the same. People are dying, you see the army everywhere and there are still terrorists. I dont feel sorry for the soldiers. They are in the army cause they want to be there, they go to war cause they wanna die proud for their country. And I cant feel sorry for some of them who kill inocent civils.
R A V E
Geek
R A V E
Age: 29
Gender: Female
Posts: 296
December 31st, 2006 at 12:47pm
uh... the nuclear weapons seem to have dissapeared completely. we were sent there to get rid of them, and we have. This war seems to be going on for no reason. But if we leave then the other side will just come over to us. Then it will be something like WW3
Anji
Basket Case
Anji
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 15914

Blog
December 31st, 2006 at 01:04pm
Now that Saddam is dead, I think the 'civil war' if that is really the case there, will start to fade away. I think some peace may be restored, but to be honest, it would've been better if the invasion hadn't happened.
spill_no_sick
Falling In Love With The Board
spill_no_sick
Age: 29
Gender: -
Posts: 8588
December 31st, 2006 at 05:54pm
Anji:
Now that Saddam is dead, I think the 'civil war' if that is really the case there, will start to fade away. I think some peace may be restored, but to be honest, it would've been better if the invasion hadn't happened.
you know, you're right
it's not as if Saddam was killing Americans or Canadians anyway
NeoSteph
Basket Case
NeoSteph
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 16494

Mibba Blog
December 31st, 2006 at 06:46pm
(goes off topic slighty)

I don't believe in capital punishment and i definitly don't believe in gloryfying it by showing it on major news station which is just disgusting.

So much was left out of that trial...I mean as it was the US that supplied the automatic weapons in the time period of the murders he was being tried for and Germany were supplying chemical warfare and the UK intelligence. All because they supported him agains Iran, it just wasn't right. he wasn't an innocent man but human rights should apply to everyone


sorry (goes back on topic)
John Entwistle
Great Success!
John Entwistle
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 55036
December 31st, 2006 at 09:25pm
[Bittersweet] cant fail:
Army of Angels:
I think we went to war for a reason. That reason was to stop Saddam. And, yes, we stopped him. But I don't think it is a good idea to leave yet because all of our hard work will be gone. The Iraqis aren't stable enough yet. Ya, I feel bad for the soldiers, but you got to remember that they are the ones that wanted join the army. They are proud to die for their country.
I dont see the army making things more stable. When I watch whats happening in Iraq on TV the scenes are pretty much always the same. People are dying, you see the army everywhere and there are still terrorists. I dont feel sorry for the soldiers. They are in the army cause they want to be there, they go to war cause they wanna die proud for their country. And I cant feel sorry for some of them who kill inocent civils.


Well, I think if we left the Iraqis would have it MUCH worse. Plus, what you see on TV isn't always what's really going on over there. I mean it is going on over there, but so are other things that we don't see.
The Doctor
Falling In Love With The Board
The Doctor
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 8786

Mibba Blog
December 31st, 2006 at 09:34pm
spill_no_sick:
Anji:
Now that Saddam is dead, I think the 'civil war' if that is really the case there, will start to fade away. I think some peace may be restored, but to be honest, it would've been better if the invasion hadn't happened.
you know, you're right
it's not as if Saddam was killing Americans or Canadians anyway
Not really...I (and my buddy Peter) believe that this is a possible timeline.

Fake 9/11 Attacks. Osama Bin Laden is hiding out in Palm Springs, eating figs and has 32 virgins women with him.

Therefore, declare 'war' on 'terror'. Bomb Afganistan to bits and find some weak excuse to invade Iraq.

Find Saddam and set up a kangaroo court to let him die. His followers take this as a personal attack and start carbombing. Full blown civil war. This overspills into the surrounding regions, it causes a domino effect and eventually, it causes WW4 (WW3 was ethe Cold War. Mmkay?) and basically, starting the end of the world.

Boom. We are all dead.

File It's a crackpot theory but it's what I believe in.
worn-out astronaut.
Had A Life Before GSB
worn-out astronaut.
Age: 31
Gender: Female
Posts: 28177

Mibba Blog
January 1st, 2007 at 07:06am
Diet Coke And Mentos:
[Bittersweet] cant fail:
Army of Angels:
I think we went to war for a reason. That reason was to stop Saddam. And, yes, we stopped him. But I don't think it is a good idea to leave yet because all of our hard work will be gone. The Iraqis aren't stable enough yet. Ya, I feel bad for the soldiers, but you got to remember that they are the ones that wanted join the army. They are proud to die for their country.
I dont see the army making things more stable. When I watch whats happening in Iraq on TV the scenes are pretty much always the same. People are dying, you see the army everywhere and there are still terrorists. I dont feel sorry for the soldiers. They are in the army cause they want to be there, they go to war cause they wanna die proud for their country. And I cant feel sorry for some of them who kill inocent civils.


Well, I think if we left the Iraqis would have it MUCH worse. Plus, what you see on TV isn't always what's really going on over there. I mean it is going on over there, but so are other things that we don't see.
The things we arent seeing are probably worse then the once we are. Bush lost more men in Iraq then when 9/11 happened. Osama Bin Laden is maybe dead or alive, we dont know, but the thing is Bush didnt capture him like he said. He didnt destroy terrorism either. Yes, he did get Saddam, but that didnt make things any better. I dont believe in capital punishment and what they did was just terrible like Steph said. And now the ones that supported Saddam are saying he died in glory and the once that hated him are celebrating, but there are starting to fight already. Bush said that Saddams`s death is the end of the hard year for Iraq and for the USA trups, but I think other problems just begin.
spill_no_sick
Falling In Love With The Board
spill_no_sick
Age: 29
Gender: -
Posts: 8588
January 1st, 2007 at 06:41pm
Joan Greenwood:
spill_no_sick:
Anji:
Now that Saddam is dead, I think the 'civil war' if that is really the case there, will start to fade away. I think some peace may be restored, but to be honest, it would've been better if the invasion hadn't happened.
you know, you're right
it's not as if Saddam was killing Americans or Canadians anyway
Not really...I (and my buddy Peter) believe that this is a possible timeline.

Fake 9/11 Attacks. Osama Bin Laden is hiding out in Palm Springs, eating figs and has 32 virgins women with him.

Therefore, declare 'war' on 'terror'. Bomb Afganistan to bits and find some weak excuse to invade Iraq.

Find Saddam and set up a kangaroo court to let him die. His followers take this as a personal attack and start carbombing. Full blown civil war. This overspills into the surrounding regions, it causes a domino effect and eventually, it causes WW4 (WW3 was ethe Cold War. Mmkay?) and basically, starting the end of the world.

Boom. We are all dead.

File It's a crackpot theory but it's what I believe in.
yeah, pretty much a crackpot theory

if the government wants money then they can do stuff like say that they need money to keep drugs off the street and wast half a trillion dollars putting more drugs on the street and in schools and everywhere else and making it seem harmless
wars cause us to lose a bit of money, not gain a shitload

so then where's the reason for the war? if the president (who has sole power and control over this country and the world) only cares about money anyway
The Doctor
Falling In Love With The Board
The Doctor
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 8786

Mibba Blog
January 1st, 2007 at 06:47pm
spill_no_sick:
yeah, pretty much a crackpot theory

if the government wants money then they can do stuff like say that they need money to keep drugs off the street and wast half a trillion dollars putting more drugs on the street and in schools and everywhere else and making it seem harmless
wars cause us to lose a bit of money, not gain a shitload

so then where's the reason for the war? if the president (who has sole power and control over this country and the world) only cares about money anyway
I never said nothin' about money.

This theory is beyond the mortal possessions such as money.

This is trying to bring 'Judgement Day' apon us.

Apperently to me and Peter anyway...
spill_no_sick
Falling In Love With The Board
spill_no_sick
Age: 29
Gender: -
Posts: 8588
January 1st, 2007 at 07:16pm
Joan Greenwood:
spill_no_sick:
yeah, pretty much a crackpot theory

if the government wants money then they can do stuff like say that they need money to keep drugs off the street and wast half a trillion dollars putting more drugs on the street and in schools and everywhere else and making it seem harmless
wars cause us to lose a bit of money, not gain a shitload

so then where's the reason for the war? if the president (who has sole power and control over this country and the world) only cares about money anyway
I never said nothin' about money.

This theory is beyond the mortal possessions such as money.

This is trying to bring 'Judgement Day' apon us.

Apperently to me and Peter anyway...
I was making a broad generalization about the people on this site thinking everything the president does is for money
The Doctor
Falling In Love With The Board
The Doctor
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 8786

Mibba Blog
January 1st, 2007 at 07:19pm
spill_no_sick:
Joan Greenwood:
spill_no_sick:
yeah, pretty much a crackpot theory

if the government wants money then they can do stuff like say that they need money to keep drugs off the street and wast half a trillion dollars putting more drugs on the street and in schools and everywhere else and making it seem harmless
wars cause us to lose a bit of money, not gain a shitload

so then where's the reason for the war? if the president (who has sole power and control over this country and the world) only cares about money anyway
I never said nothin' about money.

This theory is beyond the mortal possessions such as money.

This is trying to bring 'Judgement Day' apon us.

Apperently to me and Peter anyway...
I was making a broad generalization about the people on this site thinking everything the president does is for money
Oooh Cheese

Pardon my ignorance, I've been abusing brain cells like crazy.

Yeah, it's kinda sad that a lotta people don't get that o_o.

It's like the first thing you learn in Modern Studies. File
spill_no_sick
Falling In Love With The Board
spill_no_sick
Age: 29
Gender: -
Posts: 8588
January 2nd, 2007 at 06:13pm
touche
but I'm still glad you came up with your own crackpot theory

it's better than using some one else's theory that makes sense
Register