Lets say we didn't go into Iraq, Imagine what would have happened.
I think, if saddam was still in power, and right now, all of this hubbub with Iran's nuclear program, we would have a huge arms race. Anyone agree?
I know it's kind of stupid to think about it, but it makes me wonder.
Posted by metalgearsolid on Sep-11-2006 02:46:
A huge arms race? That would have been better for MIC instead of planning a war that would not end and not only that but the threat would be real and constant.
Posted by Marc Summers on Sep-11-2006 02:49:
quote:
Originally posted by metalgearsolid
A huge arms race? That would have been better for MIC instead of planning a war that would not end and not only that but the threat would be real and constant.
I don't understand anything in that run-on of a sentence.
Posted by Marc Summers on Sep-11-2006 02:51:
saddam is one paranoid dude, if he suspected iran was building nukes he wouldn't rely on UN inspectors to go into their country, he would go right ahead and build something to act as a deterrant.
Posted by metalgearsolid on Sep-11-2006 02:55:
quote:
Originally posted by Temperate
I don't understand anything in that run-on of a sentence.
OF course you don't. You and PK have no can't put anything together even if it is pretty straightforward. I'll say it again for you.
MIC or military industrial complex is better off now than an arms race.
Not only is there a war going on, but the war will last longer than a decade. The defense companies will be profitting from this war on terror more so than an arms race.
Posted by metalgearsolid on Sep-11-2006 02:55:
oh my bad you were referring to Iran and Iraq only??
Posted by Lemonad on Sep-11-2006 02:57:
Saddam was no rival for Iran. The Iran-Iraq war had 5 countries including America and UK behind Iraq to fight Iran, and America had to call the fight off as soon as Iran started capturing Iraqi land.
All America has done is remove Iran's enemy and replaced it with a Iran friendly Shiite government.
Posted by Marc Summers on Sep-11-2006 02:57:
quote:
Originally posted by metalgearsolid
oh my bad you were referring to Iran and Iraq only??
yeah its ok you fucked up too? Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on Sep-11-2006 02:59:
quote:
Originally posted by metalgearsolid
You and PK have no can't put anything together even if it is pretty straightforward.
oh, its that simple is it?
we might struggle to understand what youre saying because your ability to represent yourself in writing is pretty ordinary. thats hardly our fault. go back to school and learn how to write.
"you and PK have no cant put anything together" indeed! Posted by metalgearsolid on Sep-11-2006 03:01:
quote:
Originally posted by Temperate
yeah its ok you fucked up too?
Yes, but I would say that Iraq would win b/c not only would they have the backing of Russia. But of also France and their weapons and food too. They have good food.
Posted by metalgearsolid on Sep-11-2006 03:03:
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
oh, its that simple is it?
we might struggle to understand what youre saying because your ability to represent yourself in writing is pretty ordinary. thats hardly our fault. go back to school and learn how to write.
"you and PK have no cant put anything together" indeed!
actually your posts show your ignorance. That was a typo because I was in a rush to respond. I have a life you know? You wouldn't though since you don't have one.
Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on Sep-11-2006 03:03:
quote:
Originally posted by metalgearsolid
Yes, but I would say that Iraq would win b/c not only would they have the backing of Russia. But of also France and their weapons and food too. They have good food.
why would iraq win now if they werent able to win in the 80s? especially since sanctions on the country ruined its economic capability. jesus you make a lot of silly statements with no evidence to support you.
Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on Sep-11-2006 03:04:
quote:
Originally posted by metalgearsolid
actually your posts show your ignorance. That was a typo because I was in a rush to respond. I have a life you know? You wouldn't though since you don't have one.
yeah, but you do it all the time without even realising which is why i say you dont command the english language all that well. which is fine, we each have different skills.
if being able to write and construct sentences means i dont have a life, well then, youve got me there! Posted by metalgearsolid on Sep-11-2006 03:07:
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
yeah, but you do it all the time without even realising which is why i say you dont command the english language all that well. which is fine, we each have different skills.
if being able to write and construct sentences means i dont have a life, well then, youve got me there!
no, i was just saying that you take the time to critize someone and you wouldn't know if he was being serious or not. Which is ignorance right not knowing??
Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on Sep-11-2006 03:10:
quote:
Originally posted by metalgearsolid
no, i was just saying that you take the time to critize someone and you wouldn't know if he was being serious or not. Which is ignorance right not knowing??
true, but thats what the emoticons are meant to be for- to convey the nature of how something is being said Posted by jdat on Sep-11-2006 17:34:
Can't really answer the question can we?
My concern is ... well what did the US really go there for ?
Considering Bush recently said there were no ties between 9/11 and Iraq .... in case you missed the video:
Posted by Purple on Sep-11-2006 18:51:
quote:
Originally posted by jdat
My concern is ... well what did the US really go there for ?
Yups thats my concern too.. when I think about it.. like there are no WMDs, no 'mobile' labs, no nukes, nothing what so ever that links Iraq qith Al-qaida or even Afghanistan.. the long range missles destroyed by Saddam days before invasion seems to be most lethal armoury this country ever had and that too the guy dismantled to save his country from invasion..
Why the HELL did Bush invaded Iraq? Were the pics of 'mobile' labs a photochop.. what about satellite images of big WMD making factories, and sattelite pics of trucks running around in Iraq to hide WMDs from UN inspectors..
where the heck is Colin Powel.. he is in hiding ever since.... he has no face left.
Was it all a goofup, a revenge? a game? an adrenaline rush for Bush?.. like OMG I am a president now and look I can invade a country..
Posted by _Ocean_Drive_ on Sep-12-2006 07:05:
'cos you're either with America or against them.
Noone else is allowed nukes except America.
They don't like it when countries choose their own governments through elections (Chilie/Palestine)
They don't attack countries who can fight back (Iran / North Korea)
It is the reason countries build nukes. So America the bully thinks twice before coming over to attack them.
Posted by LazFX on Sep-12-2006 07:29:
quote:
Originally posted by _Ocean_Drive_
It is the reason countries build nukes. So America the bully thinks twice before coming over to attack them.
Oh yes, the USA is such a bully....
do you hear yourself??? I mean really?? Do you??
Posted by _Ocean_Drive_ on Sep-12-2006 08:09:
quote:
Originally posted by LazFX
Oh yes, the USA is such a bully....
do you hear yourself??? I mean really?? Do you??
Yes I do. North Korea and Iran are more of a 'threat'. Why aren't they attacked?
Going to war without UN is an absolute disgrace. Period.
Posted by LazFX on Sep-12-2006 08:11:
quote:
Originally posted by _Ocean_Drive_
Yes I do. North Korea and Iran are more of a 'threat'. Why aren't they attacked?
Going to war without UN is an absolute disgrace. Period.
Why??? Well then we would have to hear you bitch and moan about how the areas around those threats would turn into a death zone.....
That right there is enough reason not to attack the bigger threats. Diplomacy and talks should be the first attack against them.
would you not agree?
Posted by Fir3start3r on Sep-12-2006 08:21:
quote:
Originally posted by _Ocean_Drive_
Yes I do. North Korea and Iran are more of a 'threat'. Why aren't they attacked?
Going to war without UN is an absolute disgrace. Period.
Why?
Because the U.N. is the beaconing voice of honestly and integrity?
"Oil for Food Scandal" ring any bells?
Posted by _Ocean_Drive_ on Sep-12-2006 08:28:
quote:
Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Why?
Because the U.N. is the beaconing voice of honestly and integrity?
"Oil for Food Scandal" ring any bells?
quote:
Originally posted by LazFX
blah blah blah
You wonder why the rest of the world hates you Posted by LazFX on Sep-12-2006 08:35:
quote:
Originally posted by _Ocean_Drive_
You wonder why the rest of the world hates you
and I wonder why u cannot answer my question?? WOuld you not agree that diplomacy would be the best against the bigger threats?
or you just going to try to make me feel bad by saying that the rest of the world hates me?? Posted by _Ocean_Drive_ on Sep-12-2006 10:02:
quote:
Originally posted by LazFX
WOuld you not agree that diplomacy would be the best against the bigger threats?
I 100% agree - diplomacy would have been the BEST thing Bush could've done on September 12th.
The vast majority of the world was in mourning for America that day. He had the majority of the world on his side, and he threw it back in everyone's faces.
He went out to get revenge and retalliation. Because someone had punctured American secutiry, he needed to exert himself. When a bully gets hit, they need to fight back to show they're not afraid, and that's exactly what he did. He resorted to bombs and military lives to go into Afghanistan to start one quagmire. He then went into Iraq, after he and Rumsfeld profusely declared that there WERE WMDs. Bush is a puppet for the neo-cons, plain and simple.
Post 9/11, Bush should've gone to Saudi and said "help us get these people".
And with regard to Iran, he doesn't have to threaten war. He can say "if you launch anything against Israel, look what we can do to you".
All talk, no war. Diplomacy as you call it. It is a far better way to resolve conflict, such as dictatorships (Spain for example)
It's EXACTLY what happened after World War I, the wester powers crippled Germany. There was no Marshall plan. They didn't help Germany rebuild or anything. And 15 years later...
quote:
Originally posted by LazFX
or you just going to try to make me feel bad by saying that the rest of the world hates me??
I wish that weren't the case. But I can't help feel angry when America sends in the CIA to topple a fairly elected Chilean leader and replace him with a dictator. Bush is "for free nations" and then doesn't acknowledge an elected Hamas.
I can tell you that a Lebanese father probably doesn't look too kindly on America after a Lockheed-Martin warhead kills his wife and children. Or a Palestinian whose livelyhood is destoryed by some Israeli's who bulldoze their land and crops and then piss and moan how hard done-by Israel is.
And please, remember who Bin-Laden was funded by...
Pages (2): [1] 2»