I want You to invade Iraq!
- Thread starter 2fast4u
- Start date
- Status
AlphaWolf
I prey, not pray.
Wanna know what I think? To hell with em all. We have to send our troops out to some god damn desert, spend shitloads of money for something that has no benefit to us at all, just to split up some camel jockies who are blowing each other up for some stupid religious beliefs. (while we are at it, we should go tell the pope to stop believing in god)
Why do we do this? Because the liberals hate to see people fighting and insist that we separate them, and then have some people fly airplanes into our buildings.
I got a better idea, since the liberal hippies out there think every single tom dick and harry on this planet is so good natured, they should go out there and tell them to stop fighting simply because jesus loves them, and give every one of em a hug and a kiss. Nobody is stopping them from doing this. I am sure it will work just fine. Saddams heart will grow 3 sizes this year, and he won't want to blow up any more people.
Even if that doesn't work, it's already too late to start a war at this point. If Saddam does decide to use his weapons, all I would have to say is that it could have easily been prevented, and our intervention would be pointless. After all, our intervention would only be interpreted as us wanting oil. Besides, who needs us anyways? We have only given a meager 80% of everything that nato even has, and I heard that the EU is doing quite good these days. I honestly think they can do just spiffy at anything without our help.
Why do we do this? Because the liberals hate to see people fighting and insist that we separate them, and then have some people fly airplanes into our buildings.
I got a better idea, since the liberal hippies out there think every single tom dick and harry on this planet is so good natured, they should go out there and tell them to stop fighting simply because jesus loves them, and give every one of em a hug and a kiss. Nobody is stopping them from doing this. I am sure it will work just fine. Saddams heart will grow 3 sizes this year, and he won't want to blow up any more people.
Even if that doesn't work, it's already too late to start a war at this point. If Saddam does decide to use his weapons, all I would have to say is that it could have easily been prevented, and our intervention would be pointless. After all, our intervention would only be interpreted as us wanting oil. Besides, who needs us anyways? We have only given a meager 80% of everything that nato even has, and I heard that the EU is doing quite good these days. I honestly think they can do just spiffy at anything without our help.
mesman00
What's that...?
AlphaWolf, i couldnt possibly agree with you anymore, it's absolute bullshit how this fucken country (the u.s.) has to get involved in every fucken world affair, i say let em do whatever the hell they want.
sorry for the langauge, but it helps to show my anger about the issue, and makes it more emotional
sorry for the langauge, but it helps to show my anger about the issue, and makes it more emotional
AlphaWolf
I prey, not pray.
To me its simply a damned if you do, damned if you don't thing.
You back somebody up, you do em a favor by getting rid of some asshole dictator, or protecting a bunch of whiny bitches who are too afraid to fend for themselves. Then you catch backlash, everybody else says that you only have economical interests (which I don't see whats wrong with that anyways, we do you a favor, do us a favor), and then we end up pissing somebody off (al quieda).
You don't back them up, then all of a sudden everybody gets pissed because you have all this military technology blah blah you can easily help blah blah but you are too selfish.
No matter which way you go, your fucked. I say we just pick the non involvement option because even though we are fucked, we didn't have to spend any money to deploy troops.
The UN is useless now, its been useless ever since the cold war ended. Now its nothing but a burden on the US part, because everybody else wants it, but they'll be damned if they actualy give anything worth a shit to support it.
???
You back somebody up, you do em a favor by getting rid of some asshole dictator, or protecting a bunch of whiny bitches who are too afraid to fend for themselves. Then you catch backlash, everybody else says that you only have economical interests (which I don't see whats wrong with that anyways, we do you a favor, do us a favor), and then we end up pissing somebody off (al quieda).
You don't back them up, then all of a sudden everybody gets pissed because you have all this military technology blah blah you can easily help blah blah but you are too selfish.
No matter which way you go, your fucked. I say we just pick the non involvement option because even though we are fucked, we didn't have to spend any money to deploy troops.
The UN is useless now, its been useless ever since the cold war ended. Now its nothing but a burden on the US part, because everybody else wants it, but they'll be damned if they actualy give anything worth a shit to support it.
???
yogaman
Banned
god bless america....... tz ..... I mean blowing up a wrecked country like iraq will mainly hurt the poor people. Saddam will laugh his head off while his people start to hate the US even more. And even if he falls, do you really think there won't be any children "leftovers" seeking revenge? I think that is what makes terrorists unstoppable. Look at Israel and Palastine..... you can't win just with military power
iq_132
Banned
Here's a nifty idea. Put a bounty on Sadam's head... say a billion dollars, American, Guaranteed. It's cheaper than sending troops by like, what, a $10 billion or so? No doubt there'll be people coming out of the woodworks to kill Sadam. People are easily motivated by incredible amounts of money.
(This idea can also be applied to such persons as: Fidel Castro and Osama Bin Laden)
(This idea can also be applied to such persons as: Fidel Castro and Osama Bin Laden)
fivefeet8
-= Clark Kent -X- =-
No matter what the US does, there are gonna be risks either way..
a. The US don't invade Iraq and let Saddam have his weapons and Nukes.. Then later on he decides to bomb his enemies in the Middle East starting a huge war that consequently drags the rest of the world into WW3..
b. The US invades Iraq and starts WW3 now..
Maybe if Saddam were to give full permission for Weapons inspectors from the UN to have access to every place in Iraqi soil.. Let them go into anyone's houses, garages, bedrooms, bathrooms.. everthing.. Then maybe we'll all live.. But, like that's ever gonna happen..
"the time is near"
a. The US don't invade Iraq and let Saddam have his weapons and Nukes.. Then later on he decides to bomb his enemies in the Middle East starting a huge war that consequently drags the rest of the world into WW3..
b. The US invades Iraq and starts WW3 now..
Maybe if Saddam were to give full permission for Weapons inspectors from the UN to have access to every place in Iraqi soil.. Let them go into anyone's houses, garages, bedrooms, bathrooms.. everthing.. Then maybe we'll all live.. But, like that's ever gonna happen..
"the time is near"
vampireuk
Mr. Super Clever
AlphaWolf said:
Or perhaps its because they jump into conflicts and give one side weapons and training, which annoys the hell out of the other side. Then when the conflict is over America fucks off and everyone ends up pissed off at them.
A nice article about Afganistan that I read yesterday...
If the UN is worth shit then why is Bush going on about how Iraq have broken UN mandate? Even though he himself is supporting a country and giving weapons to a country that is in defiance of UN mandate with its occupation.
Or when they go on about Regime change for the benefit of the people there, ok China and North Korea have exactly the same thing going on so why not invade them for a regime change. Its so damn hippocritical that they are using certain reasons to invade one country, but another country he wont invade even though its the bloody same:sleepy:
Another one of the facts they are using against saddam to boost public opinion is the fact he has used chemical weapons on his own people and on Iranians. Well funny how 14 years ago when Saddam was on the side of the west they did nothing about it, they just remained quiet with no objections. Now 14 years later hippocritically again they are using that reason against him now because they dont like him.
So to say this is a moral crusade is completely fucked up
vampireuk
Mr. Super Clever
yogaman said:
What if it destabilizes the whole region, or as in 2fast4u's picture tonnes of people joined Al Qaeda. If the whole region goes to shit war could break out and it could boil over into massive conflict. If war doesnt break out I'm guessing there will be a shitload of terrorist attacks, probably on britain too
lain2:
Raging Fuel
The jumbles man, the jumbles
fivefeet8 said:
Umm...isn't the US supposed to promote civil rights? Well as long as you suspect that they might be terrorists it OK.
A bit over a week ago, a friend of mine predicted that within 5 weeks (well about 4 now) that the US would become a rogue state. I didn't believe him then, but it is starting to look more likely everyday. The funny thing is, Britain might actually join them judging by the way Blair is acting.
- Status