Slackers
- Thread starter vampireuk
- Start date
AlphaWolf
I prey, not pray.
Personally I favor Bush solely because of the way he is handling the war situation. When the shit hits the fan, you need somebody who is going in a solid direction and wont take any crap. None of the democrats come close to fitting this profile. Plus Bush's tax cuts are doing great on the economy, and IMO are the reason why it is recovering so well. Every single one of the democrats has stated that they want increased taxes. Be it against Kerry or whoever, Bush would win this election regardless.
Because Iraq's infra structure is bad and we need to rebuild it to make sure oil is coming our way? + a great oppurtunity to get saddam in the name of terror..
I really see nothing wrong with bush, as alpha said, he's made up his mind and is following that decision...
I really see nothing wrong with bush, as alpha said, he's made up his mind and is following that decision...
I beg to differ, to make sure we can controll the flow of the oil and by doing that more or less the price on oil. And all countries worth living in has always seen saddam as a threath to our security so taking him out is only a good thing, I would like to know why they didn't take him down during the gulf war though?
and since when do you need a reason to attack someone?
and since when do you need a reason to attack someone?
pj64er
PJ64 Lubba
But dont you remember we had these UN inspectors check 'em out? Saddam may be an arse, but hes got nothing to touch the US with.
I never knew the offical reason for fighting there is for oil. Maybe we should tell the soldiers over there that they are risking their neck so we can save a few cents per litre.
I never knew the offical reason for fighting there is for oil. Maybe we should tell the soldiers over there that they are risking their neck so we can save a few cents per litre.
Ah, so the shit was thrown in the fan for the fun of it. Great!Remote said:and since when do you need a reason to attack someone?
AlphaWolf
I prey, not pray.
pj64er said:
Truthfully, the UN is a joke. There have only been two incidents where the UNs' infamous red tape hasn't inhibited perfectly legitimate military action. EVERYBODY, including france and china even, believed that iraq had WMDs (the crap about Bush lieing about them is BS, because so far as he was aware, they were there.)
Kosovo looked like disneyland compared to iraq when even wussy countries like france assisted with the US' military action there. Want to know the best part? It wasn't UN approved. Iraq, which was much worse than kosovo, was in the same boat so far as the UN is concerned. I'll give you three guesses as to why four members of the UN security council opposed the US' lead actions in Iraq, yet didn't give a damn about Kosovo, which had even less of a need for us to intervene.
Last edited:
pj64er
PJ64 Lubba
So... the point remains, Bush put our troops there. The US had no reason to fight and Bush started the war. There would not have been a war to 'handle'. Bush is cleaning up his own mess, there is nothing great about that. Hes 'handling' the war as well as someone can 'handle' wiping their piss off the floor after they missed the urinal.
Add a bit of conspiracy thinking, we can even say that the war was started so he can 'handle' it. But lets keep that out for now.
Besides, wheres the war on N.Korea? They are the closest thing to actually nuking our cities.
Add a bit of conspiracy thinking, we can even say that the war was started so he can 'handle' it. But lets keep that out for now.
Besides, wheres the war on N.Korea? They are the closest thing to actually nuking our cities.
Last edited:
zAlbee
Keeper of The Iron Tail
wtf? that's garbage and you know it. no one believed iraq had WMDs, and look at that - there were none! if the whole point of the war was taking out saddam, then great, say so. don't give me this made-up crap about WMDs as an excuse.AlphaWolf said:
it's actually pretty damn interesting how far your opinions differ from others not living in america.
sheik124
Emutalk Member
i don't see how anyone can legitimize bush's actions. it was BULL SHIT. the entire (maybe not entire, bin laden deserves to die) war on terrorism is rubbish. iraq posed no immediate or future threat to the US, and time after time it has been proven that there is no fuckin nukes, George Bush got rid of them during the gulf war, and throughout the years the UN cleaned up after them. innocent people are being killed in order to obtain oil, and you can see what its done to gas prices. i am not trying to be anti-american here, but it seems many of them LOVE the idea of war. afghanistan. at first, they were nabbing the al-qaeda leaders and the taliban, that may have looked good at first, then they ran out of taliban to kill, but for a while they went from oppressive gov't to NO GOV'T. i hardly see that as an improvement. in iraq, they captured saddam, good for them. saddam was a madman, and he needed to be captured, but other than that, america had no reason to invade iraq along with her good buddy britain, after the entire fucking world condemned their idea, i rest my case.
edit: and pj64er i agree with you, bush went and put the shit in the fan, just so it would help his election when he gets the shit out. i bet you all that before election, they will "find" bin laden, i bet you he's in the pentagon right now chillin' with them :bounce: :happy: :ala:
edit: and pj64er i agree with you, bush went and put the shit in the fan, just so it would help his election when he gets the shit out. i bet you all that before election, they will "find" bin laden, i bet you he's in the pentagon right now chillin' with them :bounce: :happy: :ala:
Last edited:
AlphaWolf
I prey, not pray.
pj64er said:
Theres plenty. WMDs aside, Saddam did have full intentions to support terrorist organizations. That would have grown into a nightmare if we allowed Saddam to continue to rebuild his military. It was a good thing that we brought him down before he could have put up significant resistance, because then we would have had another vietnam.
zAlbee said:
Alright, so why did the UN want to send in weapons inspectors in the first place? I'll give you a hint: it had nothing to do with US' intelligence.
sheik124 said:
See above comments.
OP
vampireuk
Mr. Super Clever
- Thread Starter
- #38
Lets see, they went in and removed a evil dictator that tortured and commited genocide against his own people, the reasons for going were not just but what they have done is right.
As is your highly biased and uneducated opinion of the US foreign policy.
How so, acording to reports terrorism is at a all time low over the past 30 years, strange huh.
Iraq was a serious threat to the world, should we wait until Saddam had the capability to strike at nations with devastating weapons before we acted and removed this madman from power?
Nobody ever said they had nukes, your credability has just fallen through the floor.
Actually Israel destroyed the nuclear reactor that they were working on, thanks to the French, your history is a little distorted yes?
You mean with those sanctions that killed hundreds of thousands of people? Yes if cleaning up is genocide they did a awesome job
Wow you really are stupid if you believe this, if the war is about oil then why is the US trying to keep the peace in towns? Why don't they simply set up huge command posts around oil refineries to keep the oil safe, why have there been so few attacks on oil lines compared to civlian targets? The war for oil line is very old and holds about as much water as a paper bag with a large hole in the bottom
Petrol prices here are the same, in fact I think they have gone up a little
We don't think you are, we just think you are been ignorant and spouting the same rehased words that someone else had said so many times before you have.
War is not a preferable choice but at times it is the only solution, you prefer appeasement yes? Look what happened with Germany when we ignored them. Mad evil bad guys, and they are bad guys believe it or not, will not listen to reason.
[quote[fghanistan. at first, they were nabbing the al-qaeda leaders and the taliban, that may have looked good at first, then they ran out of taliban to kill, but for a while they went from oppressive gov't to NO GOV'T[/quote]
Do you live in afganistan? Do you see anything of afganistan other than what liberal reporters show you? No? Then don't harp on about something you do not know about.
I'm sorry I thought we had no reason at all, make up your mind. If you do not think removing a evil dictator from power and liberating millions of people from opression is not a good cause then you are, stupid. It's funny how you harp on about been a humanitarian but yet you would rather see people tortured and mass murder than America and the UK going in to free them.
America, UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, South Korea, Georgia. Kthnx
pj64er
PJ64 Lubba
AlphaWolf said:
sources please?
If theres solid proof that Saddam is linked to terrorist groups, I think a lot of people wouldnt be so against the US. For one, I think it would at least get the UN off their arse
vamp: gg with proving Godwin's Law true
btw, no answer for N. Korea? Nothing about how the US is appeasing them when they are obviously going for nuclear related tech, vamp?
Last edited:
sheik124
Emutalk Member
since you seem so profound, would you kindly fucking tell me the last time you heard about saddam committing mass murders? he has been sitting on his ass ever since he finished up all his SCUD rockets on Israel. i would HARDLY call what bush did as liberation. the second saddam's regime fell apart iraq went out. people were looting each other, it was no longer about getting saddam gone. did you know that a poll showed most iraqis would have rather had saddam. sanctions or not, at least there was a system of order. now bush is going to appoint some pro-american leader in his newly established and "rescued" democracy (just like he went and did in afghanistan). thousands of valuable US soldiers are being killed for no reason. i'm sure as hell that with their military, the us could have snuck in and pulled saddam right out. and with the entire world saying NO YOU HAVE NO REASON TO STICK YOUR NOSE IN THERE JUST LIKE YOU DID IN VIETNAM, who was busy fighting itself with no intent of harming anyone but themselves, bush walked right in and made himself look like a total ass (although he really mustn't try that hard, its rather natural). and alphawolf said something about the tax cuts being HELPFUL? over my dead and rotting body they are, did you know that the economy might be recovering from 9/11 at a good rate, but do you know how fucking high the debt is because of bush? under clinton (the democrats p3wn you, republicans are idiots) the budget was almost balanced, under bush, what is it now? -9 trillion dollars? i rest my casevampireuk said:
EDIT:1. this is slowly becoming a flame war, so i suggest a mod /locks it
2. i see some sense in attacking afghanistan, because due to al-qaeda's idiotic and terrorist actions on 9/11, causing 5,000 deaths, i'd want their ass too, but saddam was just sitting there, he had no intent of attacked, he'd already tried, and had his ass kicked, so he left the US be, i hardly find what they did reasonable. america is always trying to be the hero, thwarting the opressors, just mind your own business please
Last edited: