Whenever the discussion of the war comes up, people are always quick to argue that leaving saddam hussain, a man who has killed hundreds and thousands of his own people, in power is an inhumane act. I am not against taking Saddam Hussain out of power, i dont think there is one person on this board that would agree Saddam is a good leader, he is not an aset to Iraq, However the americans have taken the attitude that Sadamm needs to be taken out at any expense neccesary, that is what im against, Saddam has not posed a direct threat to any of us yet he has supposedly had these weapons for over 10 years and despite his disagreements with america Saddam has never attacked america with these weapons so he is not a direct threat, when America invades Iraq they are posing a risk to the entire world because so many nations support americas agreements. Is it realy worth risking the lives of our children for a little reasurance that one less nut in the world has the means to destroy us all? :rolleyes:

nice try for a war thread.. sorry I dont think its gonna happen

Okay kid, ever heard of an oppinion? the reason i am posting this is because im tired of war threads because this is a public forum and there will always be debates.

Okay..

well your worng.. Saddam poses a threat to first off his people who he has tortured and raped..

We did find one chemicial plant witch proves he lied and was doing somethin he shouldnt.. causing a threat to the world messin around with chemical weapons

So saddam has raped every iraqi?

Gee he must be a busy man.

edude,

My best friend was raped... its not anything to joke about, she killed her self over it.. so why dont you be quite about a person being raped because it is not funny!

What .. there's no rapists in the USA ???

our leader isnt thats the thing.. Saddam is supportin it he shouldnt be the leader

he has rape froms for god sake and he is there leader.. somethin worng with that picture

Go and see a doctor sonny... he'll help you with that tunnel vision.

Originally posted by i-meals
Okay..

well your worng.. Saddam poses a threat to first off his people who he has tortured and raped..

We did find one chemicial plant witch proves he lied and was doing somethin he shouldnt.. causing a threat to the world messin around with chemical weapons

I don't think anyone disagreed that he was a threat to his own people, but if that is the criteria for "liberating" a country I await the liberation of the congo, Zimbabwe, Tibet ....., but I won't hold my breath as they don't have much oil.

I think most people that are agiant this war believe that Saddam Hussain does have chemical weapons, the problem they have is that they do not beleive that Saddam Hussain is a threat to the western world.

Yes he lies and I suppose the US / UK governments never do that. :rolleyes:

Saddam KILLS his own people, AND he has the power to do alot of damage. He really has to be removed.

Okay kid, ever heard of an oppinion? the reason i am posting this is because im tired of war threads because this is a public forum and there will always be debates.

Why bother putting "kid" in there? It's a cheap shot, and it has nothing to do with the war, your making us think he's young and un-educated. When he clearly is not, and knows quite a bit about what he's talking about.

Is it really worth risking the lives of our children for a little reasurance that one less nut in the world has the means to destroy us all?

The difference between Saddam and a normal nut, is that he controls a COUNTRY. He has alot of power, and has the means to kill us all, where as most nuts don't.

What was Bill Clinton?

Werent Bush's daughters caught drink driving or was it drinking underage?

Pfftt..

At least in Iraq we dont have kids going into schools and shooting everyone, iraq has one of the lowest aids in the world,
for people living in such poverty. Think about that.

Iraq has a very low criminal rate, cant say the same about U.S.A, also iraq has hardly any rape, cant say the same about U.S.A, farout look at all the abortions your country has.

Dont compare to iraq, because you cant, iraqi people are a clean people who dont do such things, their religion prohabits it and commen sense, something you dont have.


Originally posted by i-meals
our leader isnt thats the thing.. Saddam is supportin it he shouldnt be the leader

I think most people that are agiant this war believe that Saddam Hussain does have chemical weapons, the problem they have is that they do not beleive that Saddam Hussain is a threat to the western world.

If you saw a rapist walking towards one of your friends, would you go over there and help your friend out, or would you sit and watch her get taken by this guy? Do the Noble thing, and not just worry about yourself, or do the coward thing, and sit and watch? This is similar situation to Saddam, except making the following changes.
Saddam = Rapist
Surrounding Countries = Friend
You = America

IMO America is doing the Noble thing here. Not to mention there own safety IS at stake as well.

'Why bother putting "kid" in there? It's a cheap shot, and it has nothing to do with the war, your making us think he's young and un-educated. When he clearly is not, and knows quite a bit about what he's talking about.' - mcdesign

all I have to say is thank you for sticking up for me, because your right I maybe young (16 to be exact) but I know what I am talkin about...

To everyone makin wise cracks like the telivison remark.. I simple read and think to myself I made a valid point...

Originally posted by mcdesign
He has alot of power, and has the means to kill us all, where as most nuts don't.

hahaha... you people are funny .

You and i-meals should read this :

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=EPDRS2HASS03MCRBAEZSFEY?type=focusIraqNews&storyID=2456632

If you can't read or understand it , get an interpreter . Because it shows where we'll be heading with the kind of behaviour Mr Bush is exhibiting .

You = America? alas i hope this never happens hahahaha.

YOur nation of freedom is surrounded with kids being raped, kids being kidnapped etc..

NONE OF THIS HAPPENS IN IRAQ! At least our law is better than your boggy law, and your boggy country.

Werent Bush's daughters caught drink driving or was it drinking underage?

Point? You can't control young-ins sometimes, even if your the president. Call me when you have a kid who doesn't drink underage once, and I'll ask you for tips on parenting.

Dont compare to iraq, because you cant, iraqi people are a clean people who dont do such things, their religion prohabits it and commen sense, something you dont have.

That's not a slam or anything, someone's looking to be banned/suspended?

"NONE OF THIS HAPPENS IN IRAQ!" - edude

One question.. what kind of remark is that.. lol, Saddam has rape rooms its a fact...

NONE OF THIS HAPPENS IN IRAQ! At least our law is better than your boggy law, and your boggy country.

I live in Canada, thank you very much.
That doesn't change my thinking this war is justified, and I also like President Bush, he's down to earth and knows what has to be done so he does it. Same as Blair.
The alternative is Al Gore, who would of banned guns completely, so we already know he's a nut. You can't take a countries right to hunt away. Some people depend on it, but this is totally off topic, so i'll go now.

"Point? You can't control young-ins sometimes, even if your the president. Call me when you have a kid who doesn't drink underage once, and I'll ask you for tips on parenting." - mcdesign

Okay mcdesign... do I have to spell it out.. there is a BIG difference between Saddam havin rape rooms and raping people and killin his own people.. and some one drinking.. there is a huge drifference

I back you on this.....I was talking about the post that i QUOTED. :)

Ohh.. sorry then :)

p.s welcome to yet another war thread

Originally posted by mcdesign
The alternative is Al Gore, who would of banned guns completely, so we already know he's a nut.

hmmm.. banning guns in a gun crazed paranoid society .. no we never want that , do we now :)

Hey my neighbour has a gun .. I better buy two :)

I love the narrow minded peopel here :) the ones who make foolish statements :)

Originally posted by mcdesign
If you saw a rapist walking towards one of your friends, would you go over there and help your friend out, or would you sit and watch her get taken by this guy? Do the Noble thing, and not just worry about yourself, or do the coward thing, and sit and watch? This is similar situation to Saddam, except making the following changes.
Saddam = Rapist
Surrounding Countries = Friend
You = America

IMO America is doing the Noble thing here. Not to mention there own safety IS at stake as well.

If America is doing the noble thing then when it has finished in Iraq it will go to Africa and remove mugabe, except of course this won't happen, becuase the US is not doing this for noble reasons it just wants a huge military prescence in the middle east and a secure supply of oil.

Interestingly enough .. I heard that now Syria is getting worried , because the british intelligence has leaked out that they are next .

Joy to the world .

well in a matter of minutate this thread has received alot of post... and I for one am not wasting my day here debatin...

Sorry I am retearting so I my friends can have a productive day :)

p.s... I think you all would be smart if you do what I am doing...

Originally posted by fantasmic0
Interestingly enough .. I heard that now Syria is getting worried , because the british intelligence has leaked out that they are next .

Joy to the world .

Syria may well be next, but then that's in the middle east, when the US actually do something about one of the many dictatorships in africa who commit attrocities on their own people and neighbours then I will change my opinion on Bush and co, but whilst they target the middle east, it appears they are only doing what people like Rumsfeld have been harping on about for years (before 9/11), which is establishing a large presence in the middle east to safeguard Americas energy needs.

Originally posted by bagpuss
I don't think anyone disagreed that he was a threat to his own people, but if that is the criteria for "liberating" a country I await the liberation of the congo, Zimbabwe, Tibet ....., but I won't hold my breath as they don't have much oil.

I think most people that are agiant this war believe that Saddam Hussain does have chemical weapons, the problem they have is that they do not beleive that Saddam Hussain is a threat to the western world.

Yes he lies and I suppose the US / UK governments never do that. :rolleyes:

I totally agree. If the Bush administration at least would be honest about why they go into this war, but they are not. To say that it's to liberate the Iraqi people, may be part of the reason/truth (maybe nr. 3-4 on the list) but they present this like, this is their main reason = :puke: How naive can you possible be? (Im not saying Russia and France are any better and think about the Iraqi people either) The allies never gave a damn about Afghanistan/Iraq before the attack on WTC - after Afghanistan - they said they did it to free the afghan people.

To say that Iraq have had 12 years to get rid of their so called weapons of mass destruction (which country do you think has the most? - USA, that's right.) is simply not true. We have not put the same kind of pressure on Iraq in the last 12 years as we have the recent couple of months. We should have given the proces more time. If Iraq destroyed 5-10 missles every day for a year Sadaam would eventually have to decide whether or not to disarm completely or not - and then the war would be JUST!

Well, I never planned on saying anything but this thread just got me convinced to share my view...

Like a coin, there are two sides in every story... we, Im afraid are just the audience...a lot of politics and personal agenda is at work right now, even in the midst of this war.

So I don't think we can say who is "Noble" and who is "Evil"... sure we have a few facts, but I don't think it is enough for us to choose "FULL" sides. Just pray to God that this war will end soon, with the best concluded solution, a lot of innocent people are suffering.. and all they want is to live peacefully.

We are all sinners, and we are no better...

That's all, I'll shutup now.

Saddam has rape rooms its a fact
Link to that please? Thanks.

I wonder if you were SO concern about the iraqi people, why did you allowed and supported the worst Saddam era in the 80's?

He did your dirty job, now, he's not good anymore, right?

Just because our government backed someone years ago does not mean we have to continue to do so forever afterwards.

These are different times and we are under different leadership than we were then.

I am not going to try to change anyone's mind because it can't be done, just as nobody is going to change mine either. It's pointless.

Ok, then I have to repeat the same old examples

Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia... USA is supporting those countries TODAY, not years ago.

hmmm, where did you hear that? I like see the proof.

Saddam has rape rooms its a fact...

hmmm, where did you hear that? I like see the proof.

which country do you think has the most? - USA, that's righ

Actually, the US was never ordered to disarm by any world governmental body (ie, the league or the UN). Iraq was infact ordered to disarm 12 years ago. The "country" disobeying resolutions for the longest is Israel.

sorry to hijack this thread for a second...

in the midday news here they mentioned that there were reports saying that 7 captured Americans were executed? :confused:
Can anyone confirm or dismiss it as media gossip?

Originally posted by CareBear
sorry to hijack this thread for a second...

in the midday news here they mentioned that there were reports saying that 7 captured Americans were executed? :confused:
Can anyone confirm or dismiss it as media gossip?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82285,00.html

I don't think it has been 100% confirmed yet.

Originally posted by Hiccups
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82285,00.html

I don't think it has been 100% confirmed yet. Thanks.. they didn't say it referred to previous events... I thought it was something that happened just yesterday/today.
I really hope they weren't :(

Originally posted by edude
You = America? alas i hope this never happens hahahaha.

YOur nation of freedom is surrounded with kids being raped, kids being kidnapped etc..

NONE OF THIS HAPPENS IN IRAQ! At least our law is better than your boggy law, and your boggy country.

I won't get in a debate about the war because you won't change my mind and I won't change yours, but I do have a question for you. Since you insinuate that Iraq is safer to live in why do we have so many Iraqy people trying to come to the US andso few Americans going to live in Iraq. With all of our faults, and yes we do have some, this is still a much better palce to live than Iraq will ever be.

Originally posted by akash
Actually, the US was never ordered to disarm by any world governmental body (ie, the league or the UN). Iraq was infact ordered to disarm 12 years ago. The "country" disobeying resolutions for the longest is Israel.

Its true that Iraq agreed to UN resolution 1441, but if you read the resolution it does NOT set a time frame, nor does it give permission to the US Government (even under 687) to declare war on this/any country. It's also very clear in 1441 that ONLY the UN can decide to take "severe consequences" against Iraq. Its in my opinion that the Bush Administration is in breach of international law by declaring war on a country that has never threatened the US or its interest. 50 years of foreign relations down the tubes, and a patriot act that allows the president to declare war on whoever they want when they want.

Heil Bush

Seriously though, I hope voters wake up next election. This war is a waste of tax payer money. Not to mention the economy sucks and everything that comes along with a bad economy such as crime, poverty, etc..

"well in a matter of minutate this thread has received alot of post... and I for one am not wasting my day here debatin...

Sorry I am retearting so I my friends can have a productive day"

For everyone askin for links and info from me.. please go to page one last post on the page.. well acutaly the last two.. i delcared my self from debatin here.. I just wanted to point it out. so you didnt think i was runnin

Its in my opinion that the Bush Administration is in breach of international law by declaring war on a country that has never threatened the US or its interest.
Forget International Law, Bush is violating what the constitution has drawn out. Congrss has only given Bush authority to secure the nation by using military force when it is directly threatened. Iraq thus far hasn't threatened us, thus this pre-emptive strike was not warranted and a formal declaration of war is needed from congress to attack Iraq in such a manner - but seeing as how 99% of the senate and a striking majority of the house support the war, the declaration of war would have been passed anyways and we'd be in the same boat. Basically, Bush is not the only one at fault, but many of our elected representatives are also to blame for this war.

Iraq thus far hasn't threatened us...Not that we know of at least. The sense of urgency leads me to believe there was something brewing that we just don't know about. All speculation.

Originally posted by akash
Forget International Law, Bush is violating what the constitution has drawn out. Congrss has only given Bush authority to secure the nation by using military force when it is directly threatened. Iraq thus far hasn't threatened us, thus this pre-emptive strike was not warranted and a formal declaration of war is needed from congress to attack Iraq in such a manner - but seeing as how 99% of the senate and a striking majority of the house support the war, the declaration of war would have been passed anyways and we'd be in the same boat. Basically, Bush is not the only one at fault, but many of our elected representatives are also to blame for this war.

Well said. I completely agree. Hopefully we can get this over with, start rebuilding our economy, and re-elect new officials that care more about Americans then it does Iraqi's and oil.

Originally posted by edude
So saddam has raped every iraqi?

Gee he must be a busy man.

He must of raped you or caused you to flee with your tail between your legs in some way or form. You left 12 years ago. (Well another thread you posted in said 30 years, so it is hard to tell the truth with you). I bet some in your country call that cowardice.

Originally posted by akash
Iraq thus far hasn't threatened us,

The same argument was made by the Clinton Whitehouse in regards to Al Queda. First it was "they provide no direct threat", then it was "be careful overseas, but there is no state-aide threat". Then came 911.

It will always be argued, could Saddam threaten the US in some way? Ex.. WMD proliferation? Many will argue whether it was possible. Instead of letting time tell us, we decided on a preemptive response. As you said:

Congrss has only given Bush authority to secure the nation by using military force when it is directly threatened

If he (and millions of other Americans agree) believes that WMD proliferation poses a direct threat, then the argument could be made we are acting in self defense.

Lets say that you and your wife (mom- whoever) are walking in an alley and you see two guys (rough looking guys) coming toward you (no one else is around), they start reaching in there pockets, what would you do if you can not run? lets say you are a black belt and have the power to preemptively strike to avoid a possible issue. Would you?

Lets say you avoid direct conflict and your worse fear is realized. They pull guns, shoot you and rape your wife in front of you before you die. In your last dying thought would have wished you used preemptive aggression?

The same could be said for this war in Iraq. While you may not agree with it, it is a valid arguement. But like you said. if it turns out to be wrong or if the majority of Americans find this doctrine wrong, then in a few years we all vote and can decide. :). We have done this in every war we have fought. We laugh at Nixon now, but he won election because he ran on the platform he would end the Vietnam war and pull the US out.

Originally posted by UmBillyCord
Lets say that you and your wife (mom- whoever) are walking in an alley and you see two guys (rough looking guys) coming toward you (no one else is around), they start reaching in there pockets, what would you do if you can not run? lets say you are a black belt and have the power to preemptively strike to avoid a possible issue. Would you?

Lets say you avoid direct conflict and your worse fear is realized. They pull guns, shoot you and rape your wife in front of you before you die. In your last dying thought would have wished you used preemptive aggression?

The same could be said for this war in Iraq. While you may not agree with it, it is a valid arguement. But like you said. if it turns out to be wrong or if the majority of Americans find this doctrine wrong, then in a few years we all vote and can decide. :) Except Iraq hasn't threatened the US by "reaching into its pockets" unless I missed something.:confused:

Or so you do attack them and kill them and claim self defense.. the police eventually comes, looks in their pockets and pulls out a pack of cigarettes and a lighter. Then what?

Lets say that you and your wife (mom- whoever) are walking in an alley and you see two guys (rough looking guys) coming toward you (no one else is around), they start reaching in there pockets, what would you do if you can not run? lets say you are a black belt and have the power to preemptively strike to avoid a possible issue. Would you?
Sorry UBC, but I fail to see that analogy as aceptable, Iraq wasent doing anything to be a threat to the USA in the last 12 years, well, telling the truth, never has been a threat to USA, they invaded Kuwait, not USA.

Jorge, you do not know that they haven't been a threat and aren't a threat. You assume too much and will not admit that you just might not know everything. I know it's hard, but face the facts -- you don't have all the facts and neither do I or anyone else around here.

Originally posted by UmBillyCord
The same argument was made by the Clinton Whitehouse in regards to Al Queda. First it was "they provide no direct threat", then it was "be careful overseas, but there is no state-aide threat". Then came 911.

It will always be argued, could Saddam threaten the US in some way? Ex.. WMD proliferation? Many will argue whether it was possible. Instead of letting time tell us, we decided on a preemptive response. As you said:

If he (and millions of other Americans agree) believes that WMD proliferation poses a direct threat, then the argument could be made we are acting in self defense.


So, U.S. can invade any country they like. Isn't it?

Jorge, you do not know that they haven't been a threat and aren't a threat. You assume too much and will not admit that you just might not know everything. I know it's hard, but face the facts -- you don't have all the facts and neither do I or anyone else around here.

Ok, let me rephrase it then. as far as I know Iraq wasent doing anything to be a threat to the USA in the last 12 years, well, telling the truth, never has been a threat to USA, they invaded Kuwait, not USA.

Originally posted by iWebbers.com
So, U.S. can invade any country they like. Isn't it?
Nooo, they need a valid excuse ;)

The problem is that after this, they will help to Colombia, and the relationships with Venezuela are not that good, Chavez was recently victim of a cup that the USA applauded.
Do you know, Colombia and Venezuela are neighbors, do you remember the excuse to start the Vietnam war, right?

Originally posted by Jedito
Nooo, they need a valid excuse ;)


The excuse can always be "a potential threat".

Originally posted by DizixCom
Jorge, you do not know that they haven't been a threat and aren't a threat. You assume too much and will not admit that you just might not know everything. I know it's hard, but face the facts -- you don't have all the facts and neither do I or anyone else around here.

and U.S. just keep those evidences "private". Then, they can start the invasion.

That is what I learn from those war threads recently.

Originally posted by iWebbers.com
So, U.S. can invade any country they like. Isn't it?


Maybe this should be your question if you want to have mature debate-

Can the US use preemptive measures if it feels it is in direct threat from another organization or country?

I would have responded:

If you believe in the Wolfowitz Doctrine (which I have stated before, I myself do not), then yes. IF certain triggers or criteria are met. Those were apparently met in Iraq according to our current leadership (even Clinton agreed they were meet - but he apposed military aggression).

People who debate the other side tend to always do what you did and drop all gray out of the equation.

*In a southern hick voice *

Shucks. Dis be meaning we can bomb an-e-buddy!"

If you do not see gray (the arguments and criteria that is used to decide such acts), then it is no use debating. It is the gray that should be debated. No one ever said the "US can invade any country they like".

My point is this. If you do not like some doctrine or ideal, then you need to attack its principals. The foundation it stands on. Your question did not do this. It was loaded from the start. Like the moronic questions Al Jazeera baffons ask during war breifings.

Originally posted by CareBear
Except Iraq hasn't threatened the US by "reaching into its pockets" unless I missed something.:confused:


You do not follow the news then. The US has drawn out numerous points as to why it feels threatened.

Originally posted by CareBear

Or so you do attack them and kill them and claim self defense.. the police eventually comes, looks in their pockets and pulls out a pack of cigarettes and a lighter. Then what?

No one said he "killed them" in my analogy. I like your escalation though. ;)

To answer your question - I would pay for it (my mistake). I would go to jail. Of course with today's lawyers I could probably win. :)

Now that is your argument. And I will be the first to say, with 100% honesty, I agree and value it.

But in turn, I ask that you understand mine. What about my 'what if? '

You see, it isn't a question about who is right or wrong now, but who will be right or wrong when this all comes out in the wash. That is the way life is. It is a serious of successes and mistakes. I choose to think we will find WMD and links to Al Queda when it is all said an done. if that is the case, then Iraq had their hands in their pockets. ;)

Originally posted by Jedito
Nooo, they need a valid excuse ;)

The problem is that after this, they will help to Colombia, and the relationships with Venezuela are not that good, Chavez was recently victim of a cup that the USA applauded.
Do you know, Colombia and Venezuela are neighbors, do you remember the excuse to start the Vietnam war, right?

Can I be the first to say "Shut the hell up" with all the extra crap. I am so sick of reading your broken English and flames on America that have nothing to with this debate.

You are like my little sister.

"Oh yeah, well he did this.... ":bawling:

"Well this one time in band camp...." :bawling:

Unless I missed something, the debate is on Iraq and the aggression against it. If you want to post your cut and paste BS, that has been proven wrong by me and a few others, multiple time, then do it in a related thread.

I said in another thread I respected your facts. But the more I read, they seem to be nothing more then off the wall comments, derived from resentment toward the country you live in now.

No one said he "killed them" in my analogy. I like your escalation though

How do you call kill more than 400 civilians already in your analogy? hurt them?


To answer your question - I would pay for it (my mistake). I would go to jail. Of course with today's lawyers I could probably win.
Sure, like after Vietnam


But in turn, I ask that you understand mine. What about my 'what if? '

Well, you can start a new Lombroso-Like doctrine too.


Can I be the first to say "Shut the hell up" with all the extra crap. I am so sick of reading your broken English and flames on America that have nothing to with this debate.

You are like my little sister.

"Oh yeah, well he did this.... "

"Well this one time in band camp...."

Unless I missed something, the debate is on Iraq and the aggression against it. If you want to post your cut and paste BS, that has been proven wrong by me and a few others, multiple time, then do it in a related thread.

I said in another thread I respected your facts. But the more I read, they seem to be nothing more then off the wall comments, derived from resentment toward the country you live in now.
As far as I know this thread is called, "Its not Saddam is the world".
If you don't like what I say, just skip it, you're not forced to read it.
BTW, if you're sick of read my bad english, podemos hablar en español, el cual manejo mucho mejor, pero no se si vos sabras.


If you want to post your cut and paste BS, that has been proven wrong by me and a few others, multiple time, then do it in a related thread.

I missed this part, what BS has been proved wrong by you and a few others?

Edited: added some text.

To UmBillyCord:
The U.S. keeps all "evidences" that show Iraq is a threat to them private. And it leads to me that the final decision is controlled by a few people. All outsiders don't know what their criteria is.

So, from outsider's view (including me), "U.S. can invade any country they like" is no different to "certain triggers or criteria are met".

Also, the intention of this war is even suspicious when the U.S. government are just giving away all contract (reconsturction of Iraq) to US companies (in the expense of other countries, if possible). Your vice-predestian holds a large share of one company.

edit: some grammar

Originally posted by dapon
I won't get in a debate about the war because you won't change my mind and I won't change yours, but I do have a question for you. Since you insinuate that Iraq is safer to live in why do we have so many Iraqy people trying to come to the US andso few Americans going to live in Iraq. With all of our faults, and yes we do have some, this is still a much better palce to live than Iraq will ever be.

Who is insinuating that it's better to live in Iraq than The States, and whats that got to do with the war?

Originally posted by Jedito
How do you call kill more than 400 civilians already in your analogy? hurt them?


Sure, like after Vietnam


Well, you can start a new Lombroso-Like doctrine too.


As far as I know this thread is called, "Its not Saddam is the world".
If you don't like what I say, just skip it, you're not forced to read it.
BTW, if you're sick of read my bad english, podemos hablar en español, el cual manejo mucho mejor, pero no se si vos sabras.


I missed this part, what BS has been proved wrong by you and a few others?

Edited: added some text.

Your logic just keeps getting worse. Show me where the thread says "bring up all the history you can, that has no correlation to this argument, and post it". Please show me this.

Your whole existence on these Other Forums now, and it has been since 9/11 debates (I went back and re-read them. One you cut and pasted your same post from over a year ago, into a recent thread. Same non related, personal baggage you still carry), has been to point out all the things the US has done and been burned with (Some burned only in your opinion - no fact). I challenge you to stick with the current debate. Who the hell cares about some other political issues that are unrelated. Of course almost every other country is going to have some negative or positive thing to say about the US. We have our hand in almost everything. We are not the Solomon Islands. Hell, you got your panties in a bundle when I brought up the Falkland war. You got all upset saying it had nothing to do with the debate. Funny thing is you consistanly bring up things unrelated.

Originally posted by UmBillyCord
You do not follow the news then. The US has drawn out numerous points as to why it feels threatened.I do follow the news but the claim presented to the UN contained plagiarism and fabricated evidence, doesn't make anything else said very trustworthy. That's just how I feel it, you obviously see it differently and that's your right :).

To answer your question - I would pay for it (my mistake). I would go to jail. Of course with today's lawyers I could probably win. :)Or they with today's lawyers could charge you with (attempted) homocide and maybe win... there's always a downside :D

But in turn, I ask that you understand mine. What about my 'what if? 'My problem with the whole thing is more morally then practical I guess I'll admit that :).
In my opinion attacking first without proper motivation (in this scenario you feel threatened by those two but don't really have any proper justification) is wrong.
If you do attack them and they did have a gun in their pocket then it's likely they may have been planning to use it and if so you saved your own and your gf's life but you're never going to be able to proove 100% they were going to use it on you.
Also in my view it creates a situation in which you'll feel overconfident. Next time a similar situation comes up it'll feel more natural to take instant action pre-emptively because the last time it sure saved your life but that doesn't mean it will turn out the same way.
Bottom line of my point is that I think there are just too many unknowns to risk it. It also sets precedent and puts a bit more weight onto side of global instability.
I don't think the bad it could prevent outweighs the bad that might result because of it (if that sentence makes any sense :) ).

The policy of the war seems to be the opposite though which is a bit puzzling. "Only shoot when shot at" doesn't seem like a very effective way of maximizing your troop's safety.

Originally posted by UmBillyCord
Can I be the first to say "Shut the hell up" with all the extra crap. I am so sick of reading your broken English and flames on America that have nothing to with this debate.

You are like my little sister.

"Oh yeah, well he did this.... ":bawling:

"Well this one time in band camp...." :bawling:

Unless I missed something, the debate is on Iraq and the aggression against it. If you want to post your cut and paste BS, that has been proven wrong by me and a few others, multiple time, then do it in a related thread.

I said in another thread I respected your facts. But the more I read, they seem to be nothing more then off the wall comments, derived from resentment toward the country you live in now.

Funny thing is you consistanly bring up things unrelated.

Originally posted by iWebbers.com
To UmBillyCord:
The U.S. keeps all "evidences" that show Iraq is a threat to them private. And it leads to me that the final decision is controlled by a few people. All outsiders don't know what their criteria is.


I could easily agree with this if I were an outsider looking in. Much of the intelligence we have is kept simply to protect the source. As a former ground intel guy in the USMC, I understand why we do this.

As I stated before, if we are wrong, then we pay for it. But I have faith in the course we lead.


So, from outsider's view (including me), "U.S. can invade any country they like" is no different to "certain triggers or criteria are met".
[/B]

This I do not see. You clearly are comparing a loaded, black and white question, to one that include gray, which is really what the debate is about.


Also, the intention of this war is even suspicious when the U.S. government are just giving away all contract (reconsturction of Iraq) to US companies (in the expense of other countries, if possible). Your vice-predestian holds a large share of one company.
[/B]

This is false too. Please read what is going on. The oil field contract was done. As you notice they are already there, stopping the fires and repairing the wells.

The debate about contracts and reconstruction is being waged right now in the UN. Blair is here to mend wounds between traditional allies. I am sure Bush wants only US/UK/Spain/other supporters to have a say. Blair wants the UN to have a say. I assure you, reconstruction contracts will be widely dispersed.


But this raises a question. For a country who has battled the US in this war from the start, and still is, why do they want a say in post war reconstruction? Seems like by having a say, they supported it in reality. Why is that? Because these Saddam Iraq contracts are huge. If they do not have a say, those contracts could be thrown out in a post Saddam Iraq. Seems just as greedy to me. This same country wants to not pay one UN dollar that comes from their portion. However they want a say in reconstruction? They do not support us. They do not want to pay a dime. But they want just as much say as the US in the end? Kind of like showing up to a poker table and not playing with chips while everyone else is. :rolleyes:

Your logic just keeps getting worse. Show me where the thread says "bring up all the history you can, that has no correlation to this argument, and post it". Please show me this.

Let me ask you were it say that I can't say whetver is relationed with the USA foreing policy.

Your whole existence on these Other Forums now, and it has been since 9/11 debates (I went back and re-read them. One you cut and pasted your same post from over a year ago, into a recent thread. Same non related, personal baggage you still carry), has been to point out all the things the US has done and been burned with (Some burned only in your opinion - no fact).
Which one burned only in my opinion and no fact?

Who the hell cares about some other political issues that are unrelated.
It does care, you wont understand the pressent if you don't give importance to the past, the history of the USA foreing policy is totally relevant.

Hell, you got your panties in a bundle when I brought up the Falkland war. You got all upset saying it had nothing to do with the debate. Funny thing is you consistanly bring up things unrelated.
I think that Argentina has nothing to do here, because is not the country under attack, nor the agressor, if you want to bring here, I see it totally irrelavant (althrough you already did it in some other threads trying to "attack" me or upset me), and as far as I remember, I politely ansewered your irrelevants questions.

Originally posted by CareBear

My problem with the whole thing is more morally then practical I guess I'll admit that :).
In my opinion attacking first without proper motivation (in this scenario you feel threatened by those two but don't really have any proper justification) is wrong.
If you do attack them and they did have a gun in their pocket then it's likely they may have been planning to use it and if so you saved your own and your gf's life but you're never going to be able to proove 100% they were going to use it on you.
Also in my view it creates a situation in which you'll feel overconfident. Next time a similar situation comes up it'll feel more natural to take instant action pre-emptively because the last time it sure saved your life but that doesn't mean it will turn out the same way.
Bottom line of my point is that I think there are just too many unknowns to risk it. It also sets precedent and puts a bit more weight onto side of global instability.
I don't think the bad it could prevent outweighs the bad that might result because of it (if that sentence makes any sense :) ).

The policy of the war seems to be the opposite though which is a bit puzzling. "Only shoot when shot at" doesn't seem like a very effective way of maximizing your troop's safety.

Understood my friend. I see your side just as clear as I see mine. But I like mine more. :stickout:

Only time will tell. If the whole WMD and Al Queda links are wrong in the end, I will be the first one to come here and say I chose poorly. ;)

Let me ask you were it say that I can't say whetver is relationed with the USA foreing policy.

It is called common sense. If you are talking apples, why compare to oranages?

ME - "Did anyone watch that Lakers Vs. Bulls basketball game?"

Another poster - "Yes, it was great."

You - "Basketball sucks because Neismith was from the North East".

See my point?

Which one burned only in my opinion and no fact?

For one, your comment that your country (is it still your country? I mean you are a slave to the US dollar now that you choose to live here) never has received US aid. But the simple afct that I pointed out is the IMF, where the largest contributer (~18% of all money and votes), is the US. Yes, that means your country used and spent US aid. Even your president, in the article I showed you, called it "Aid". And pointed out the importance of convincing the US Treasury Sec. why they need more IMF lending.

The other one I recall is where you said Blix said he had access to anywhere and everywhere in Iraq for inspections. But then someone posted the article in full and he pointed out some things things that Iraq was not allowing or making difficult.

It does care, you wont understand the pressent if you don't give importance to the past, the history of the USA foreing policy is totally relevant.

Sounds good. But I will refrain from including the overwhelming majority of positive and successful foreign policy that has nothing to do with this. If you want to talk apples, but then throw in oranges because you have some emotional baggage about America, that is your deal. But I will point out its irrelevance in the debate.

I think that Argentina has nothing to do here, because is not the country under attack, nor the agressor, if you want to bring here, I see it totally irrelavant (althrough you already did it in some other threads trying to "attack" me or upset me), and as far as I remember, I politely ansewered your irrelevants questions.

You are correct. I am referring to your post "Argentina has never invaded another country". Then I said "What about the Falkland Islands". Remember? Quit relivent. But since you didn't like the inclusion, you got all upset. Saying it was irrelivent and that the isalnds are not called Falklands but Maverns (or whatever - didn't have time to Google).

These are tiresome to me. So I will bowout with you and continue with logical people, who stick to the debate at hand.

For one, your comment that your country (is it still your country? I mean you are a slave to the US dollar now that you choose to live here) never has received US aid. But the simple afct that I pointed out is the IMF, where the largest contributer (~18% of all money and votes), is the US. Yes, that means your country used and spent US aid. Even your president, in the article I showed you, called it "Aid". And pointed out the importance of convincing the US Treasury Sec. why they need more IMF lending.

Well.. I still do not agree with your view. What's the USA deficit? where is getting the money from? is it from the IMF? following your logic do USA is giving aim to itself then?
(just to note, that conversation came after one of your irrelevant remarks in another thread)



Sounds good. But I will refrain from including the overwhelming majority of positive and successful foreign policy that has nothing to do with this. If you want to talk apples, but then throw in oranges because you have some emotional baggage about America, that is your deal. But I will point out its irrelevance in the debate
I still think that's relevant, sorry for not share your view

am referring to your post "Argentina has never invaded another country". Then I said "What about the Falkland Islands". Remember? Quit relivent. But since you didn't like the inclusion, you got all upset. Saying it was irrelivent and that the isalnds are not called Falklands but Maverns (or whatever - didn't have time to Google).

I wasent upset, I said that "Las Malvinas" (that's the name) is argentinian territory, and that could be a whole new debate, and I don't see how I was upset answering that, indeed, I added an smile to it.

"Why bother putting "kid" in there? It's a cheap shot, and it has nothing to do with the war, your making us think he's young and un-educated. When he clearly is not, and knows quite a bit about what he's talking about."

The reason was that although he may have a valid point, his original post was very immature and because im a nice guy i wasnt going to get aggresive ;)

Jorge, let me be blunt.

You live in the US now. I take it you are not a US citizen. You are not protected under our Constitution. So you come here and live in this country that you have nothing but negative comments about. You live your life off of the dollars that you make on US servers and US companies. You have no problem with this. But in every chance you get, you bash America. I have yet to see you post a positive about the US.

Now since you despise the US Gov't so much, I ask, why do you volunteeringly live in the US? Why do you choose to support you and your family with US dollars?

Let me take it further....

Why don't you go back home? Serious. Do you know that the same Gov't you hate and despise is the same Gov't you voluntarily support? Did you know that you are volunteering your tax dollar to this war?

Did you know that since you are not a US citizen, you have no First Amendment rights. Of course we do not care as Americans, we welcome anyone to come here and speak freely. But the point is, you are a foreigner. Here on his own accord. Not forced. YOU Jorge are supporting the war in Iraq simply by being in the US and paying taxes to our Gov't. How do you think this war will be funded? By selling Girl Scout cookies in other countries. No. Taxes. The same ones you now pay.

Now further...

I say you are a hypocrite. And in my opinion a coward. You are not strong enough to pack up and move back. You are not strong enough to find foreign servers and companies to run your business. You come here on your own. (I didn't see the invite sent by our Gov't "Jorge, come to America". ), you pay taxes which support our foreign policy. You are a hypocrite.

Now I say this. If you were no coward, you would pack up and head home. Back up your mouth and beliefs like men and women of courage do, and get out of America. Go somewhere else. Show me you are a Do'er and not some weak Say'er.

If you can not do this, then you are NO better then the rest of them that choose to live here as a foreigner and complain about our policies. In essence, you are a whore to the US and its Greenback.


As an American it is my right, protected under law and the First Amendment, that I can protest and not agree with my country. I earned that right as a citizen of this country. You are no citizen. You came here on your own. Maybe you should vote with your actions and dollars. Go home. Move your business of US companies.

In fact, I challenge you. If you can not do this. Then maybe you should shut up about how much you hate the US and it policies.

Just a thought.


<EDIT>

If you do not live here (I apolgize as I assume you do from reading old post where you said you were moving here) , then my arguement will change to the simple fact that you still host on US servers and with US companies. These companies pay taxes to the Gov't you hate so much.

I live in Argentina, and also, I repeated it a lot of time, my biggest problem is with the USA foreing policy, which I had to personally suffer with the death of relatives.

then my arguement will change to the simple fact that you still host on US servers and with US companies. These companies pay taxes to the Gov't you hate so much.
So, you say that since I use a cab to come home, I should allow to the cabman have sex with my mother?

Originally posted by Jedito
I live in Argentina, and also, I repeated it a lot of time, my biggest problem is with the USA foreing policy, which I had to personally suffer with the death of relatives.

So, you say that since I use a cab to come home, I should allow to the cabman have sex with my mother?

Jorge, this makes absolutely no sense. I mean even if I spoke 40 languages, I would still be lost.

Facts:

1) You host your business on US servers.
2) You use many US businesses to profit and put food on your families table.
3) You hate American Policy and the US Gov't.
4) By using these US based companies, you are supporting our policies indirectly.
5) Your dollars you use to pay these companies gets broken down. Over 25% will end up in the same Gov'ts hands you hate.
6) Those dollars are paying for the US foreign policy.

Those are facts.

Now what I say, is don't support us. Stop using US products and services. Vote with your dollar. Take a stand. Because from what I read in your postis all talk.

I myself cancelled my trip to Paris to watch Lance kick ass agin and win #5 in the Tour. Instead I am going to Hawaii. I stopped buying french products. Why? Simply because it will let me sleep better at night knowing I stood up for my beliefs and took action. Key word - acted. Anyone can talk! Leaders and people with courage will act.

Look at the protestes who are against the war. They acted. Look at the Germans. They are boycotting our products. Is that going to change things? No. But they can be proud they just didn't talk.

Can you not see this point?

Jorge, I like you. But your constant negative US bashing, including policy not even related to a topic at hand, just gets on my nerves.

Jorge, this makes absolutely no sense. I mean even if I spoke 40 languages, I would still be lost.

LOL, I knew that this can happen :)
My analogy was, since I use the cab service, should him allow to do whatever he want, even if I think that is wrong?

Do you use your car or any machine that use oil?
Do you know where the oil come from?

Stop using car, bus, airplanes, even electricity if you coherent with your statements.

And I'll say it again, since seem you missed that part. I have no problem with USA, my problem is with the USA foreign policy.
Damn, I admire USA in a lot of ways, I visited like 10 times, I love a lot of things about your country,.
Because of that I'm not able to criticize it?, and say what I think is wrong?

I understand that you feel bad because I talk some bad things about your country, now, put yourself in my shoes, and think how can I feel, because your country foreing policy killed some of my relatives?
I don't want all you death, I would love a change in the USA foreing policy, that's all.

Do you use your car or any machine that use oil?

Sure.

Do you know where the oil come from?

Yes. From Cows.

Stop using car, bus, airplanes, even electricity if you coherent with your statements.

But you see. Iraqi oil is just one contributer to the fuel that powers my car. I have already said I will no longer buy French products. So I have acted. ;)

Another example. I am close to marriage. When I buy a ring I will research and insure it didn't some from West Africa. it is my own simple protest. Nothing more.

This is why I said to you. Maybe you should act. Think about what I said. In an indirect way, you are supporting US policy.



put yourself in my shoes, and think how can I feel, because your country foreing policy

Jorge, I have said many times over that I do not agree with everything the US does. I am sure there will be many more things. I absolutely hate the death penality. I have our stance on the environment. There is a lot I dislike. ;)

But you see. Iraqi oil is just one contributer to the fuel that powers my car.
One, but still you use Iraqi oil in someway
The 65 % of the oil used in USA come from the Gulf Region (call it Saudi Arabia or Iraq), both countries are well know violators of human rights (15 of the 21 terrorist on the WTC attack were from Saudi Arabia)


Jorge, I have said many times over that I do not agree with everything the US does. I am sure there will be many more things. I absolutely hate the death penality. I have our stance on the environment. There is a lot I dislike.
Would you believe in a liar? that's how I see to the USA foreing policy, everytime that I hear that you'll "liberate" a country, it scares to me. I saw it countless time doing the opossite, and it hard to me to believe that this time they're doing it for the correct reason, more if you take in count that not proof has been show of the ties with Al-Quaeda or the possession of WMD.

I don't think the US has ever claimed ties between the Iraqi regime and Al-Quaeda. They suspect there are.
The first would need proof to back it up, the second doesn't. Fine line.

The US has already assigned the oil contracts to various US oil companies.. Guess whos on the board of directors for one of those oil companies?? That' s right.. Vice President, Dick Cheney!

Originally posted by universal2001
The US has already assigned the oil contracts to various US oil companies.. Guess whos on the board of directors for one of those oil companies?? That' s right.. Vice President, Dick Cheney!
Heh Nothing like them confirming what we thought the reason was all along eh? Typical.

Originally posted by CareBear
I don't think the US has ever claimed ties between the Iraqi regime and Al-Quaeda. They suspect there are.
The first would need proof to back it up, the second doesn't. Fine line.
They did in fact claim it and still maintain they support 'terroist' orginizations. They quickly switched to weapons, then back and forth for a while before setting on weapons.

Show me proof they (the US) have already done that, so far the United Nations is going to be managing all of the money that Iraq makes off of oil sales for rebuilding the country and for food aid.

Now I truly think we are there for the wrong reasons (oil) and Saddam was a great scapegoat because he is a lunatic, but there are many other leaders of Countries where they are just as bad. It just so happens that Iraq has the largest untapped oil reserves in the World at this time.

Oh yeah, I can say what I want, I was there the first time. :D

Originally posted by Picard102
They did in fact claim it and still maintain they support 'terroist' orginizations. They quickly switched to weapons, then back and forth for a while before setting on weapons. Weird cause the last time I read an interview Bush gave he was asked and said: "I can't make that claim" or something close to that and I don't think it was from that long ago

Originally posted by UmBillyCord
You live your life off of the dollars that you make on US servers and US companies. You have no problem with this. But in every chance you get, you bash America. I have yet to see you post a positive about the US.
Yeah. What's up with that? :angry:

NEWS STORY + I HAVE EVIDENCE.. read below
=====

Now, after the war started, it seems there are not just political but also financial reasons for Mr. Cheney's strong support for the raids on Iraq. When it comes to making money from a war in Iraq, few can match the firepower of the company once headed by Dick Cheney, Reuters reported.

Houston-based Halliburton Co. can build roads and bridges and camps for US forces. It can transport personnel and provide other logistics. And after the war, assuming a U.S. victory, it can help restore Iraq's infrastructure and oil production.

At the same time, the company's oilfield services business, which is second only to Schlumberger Ltd., is likely to supply most of the heavy equipment to fight fires in oil wells and oil fields.

And should the U.S. emerge victorious, Halliburton -- which develops oil fields and drills for oil all over the world -- has the connections and businesses to play a major role in "rebuilding" Iraq.

"They have the businesses. They have the government relationship already well-established, and, as we all know, Cheney was the CEO, so it makes logical sense," said Denis Walsh, an equity analyst who covers the energy sector for State Street Research and Management.

===========

:)

OH BTW, you can read that Dick is really was their CEO...

Dick Cheney Resumes Role as Chairman of Halliburton Company, (February 1, 2000)
http://www.halliburton.com/news/archive/2000/corpnws_020100.jsp


And later on you see this..

LESAR TO SUCCEED CHENEY AS HALLIBURTON CHAIRMAN AND CEO
http://www.halliburton.com/news/archive/2000/corpnws_072500.jsp

Halliburton Company's (NYSE:HAL) chairman of the board and chief executive officer, Dick Cheney, announced today that he has accepted the invitation of George W. Bush to be Bush's Republican Party vice presidential running mate.

At a special meeting of Halliburton's board of directors today, the board accepted Cheney's resignation as chairman of the board and chief executive officer of the company effective at the close of business on August 16, 2000. The Halliburton board then elected David J. Lesar, 47, to the board of directors and named him the company's chairman of the board, president and chief executive officer, also effective at the close of business on August 16.

Originally posted by FTPguy
Yeah. What's up with that? :angry:

Nothing wrong at all with that.

Again, this is supposition, we won't be making those decisions *this time*, in 1991 it was a completely different story. Trust me the UN is going to watch our oil greedy hands.

Oh well, at least the 85,000 or so people employed by Halliburton will have jobs... I mean, if they didn't go to war, imagine how many people would be jobless..

death to people or loss of jobs?
hmmm..

Originally posted by CareBear
I don't think the US has ever claimed ties between the Iraqi regime and Al-Quaeda. They suspect there are.
The first would need proof to back it up, the second doesn't. Fine line.

Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice alleged that al-Qaida operatives have had a direct relationship with the Iraqi government. "There clearly are contacts between al-Qaida and Iraq that can be documented" she said.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,64110,00.html

Originally posted by universal2001
Oh well, at least the 85,000 or so people employed by Halliburton will have jobs... I mean, if they didn't go to war, imagine how many people would be jobless..

death to people or loss of jobs?
hmmm..

Loss of jobs.

universal2001, how about you post the source. ;)

.... for god sake .. please wash your faces with some cold water and see what is going around you ..

all Iraqi ppl fight US troops ... they are not soldeirs in Civilian wear .. what fighting US troops are civilians .. ppl In middle-east are territorial .. cordish can not live with She'a .. she'a can not live with Sonna .. and the 3 are muslims ... how you can expect to welcome your troops ... some ppl cheated Bush and Bush cheat you now .. no one there ask for US 'help' ... you can search the net for what happend today in UN's security council

your soldiers are trapped .. take care .....


in such war ..... no one will win

Originally posted by smartbackups
Again, this is supposition, we won't be making those decisions *this time*, in 1991 it was a completely different story. Trust me the UN is going to watch our oil greedy hands.

I take it you're from France then? With the 'OUR oil greedy hands' and all?

Originally posted by 2Mhost
.... for god sake .. please wash your faces with some cold water and see what is going around you ..

all Iraqi ppl fight US troops ... they are not soldeirs in Civilian wear .. what fighting US troops are civilians .. ppl In middle-east are territorial .. cordish can not live with She'a .. she'a can not live with Sonna .. and the 3 are muslims ... how you can expect to welcome your troops ... some ppl cheated Bush and Bush cheat you now .. no one there ask for US 'help' ... you can search the net for what happend today in UN's security council

your soldiers are trapped .. take care .....


in such war ..... no one will win

Me not to bright. But me never heard of a "cordish". And what be a "she'a"? Is that one of them Princess Warriors I saw on da TV? Oh, and a Sonna. Is dat you sista? Or are these words are like the term "unlimted bandwidth" for $2.95. Just a bunch of unedumacated poop?

ROFLMAO :laugh:

No I fought there in 1990 and 91 for the USA. If you saw what I saw you would much better understand. USA is greedy for oil, it is in our best interest to keep very large supplies of oil in the world. We are the largest consumer of oil in the entire world by a large percentage. We had much more reasons than "environmental impact" to seize the souther oil fields first. Saddam needs to get down, unfortunately middle eastern countries, european countries (france, russia) are too damn blind and even more money starved than the USA. So it is left to us, the Coalition to take him out.

When you were a kid, heck even as an adult, I am sure you hated when someone constantly told you how to do something, that what you were doing is totally wrong and constantly correcting you? Right or wrong that is what the US and the Coalition does. That is the perception that the US has to overcome with the rest of the world.

Originally posted by lightnin
I take it you're from France then? With the 'OUR oil greedy hands' and all?

Wow, yet another service person. The webhosting industry must be attracting them in droves.

True, I have gone to many industry conventions and I would have to say that 30 - 40 % of the people there are prior service. Makes for some really great times at the bars.

Originally posted by smartbackups
True, I have gone to many industry conventions and I would have to say that 30 - 40 % of the people there are prior service. Makes for some really great times at the bars.

Hmmm... I do too. Haven't seen you before. I'll track you down next time so you can buy me a beer. ;)

I only attend east coast ones that are within driving distances. ISPCon Baltimore, WebHosting Expo in DC, LinuxWorld in NYC, etc. Considering the thousands that attend that is not a suprise, no matter how much I stand out.

Originally posted by UmBillyCord
universal2001, how about you post the source. ;)

what u don't believe Vice Pres Dick was CEO of that company?? Goto their company webpage, its got his name in their press release!!!

Originally posted by edude
NONE OF THIS HAPPENS IN IRAQ!

No, but THIS (http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/crimes/) happens in Iraq...

Originally posted by smartbackups
WebHosting Expo in DC

You call that thousands? Wish I would have went to that one.

Yeah I was mad, we brought 100 T-shirts to give out, I was freaking it would not be enough, we came home with 20 or so.

Originally posted by universal2001
what u don't believe Vice Pres Dick was CEO of that company?? Goto their company webpage, its got his name in their press release!!!

No. I believe he was. I am referring to the article you posted. The article was very much an anti Bush/VP Dick article.

Originally posted by 2Mhost
.... for god sake .. please wash your faces with some cold water and see what is going around you ..

all Iraqi ppl fight US troops ... they are not soldeirs in Civilian wear .. what fighting US troops are civilians .. ppl In middle-east are territorial .. cordish can not live with She'a .. she'a can not live with Sonna .. and the 3 are muslims ... how you can expect to welcome your troops ... some ppl cheated Bush and Bush cheat you now .. no one there ask for US 'help' ... you can search the net for what happend today in UN's security council

your soldiers are trapped .. take care .....
Thanks for the info. I'll file that under "unfound."

Originally posted by 2Mhost


all Iraqi ppl fight US troops ... they are not soldeirs in Civilian wear .. what fighting US troops are civilians ..


"Villafane, 31, who is in the same unit as Horgan, said the Iraqis were wearing army clothes under their civilian garb. Villafane's left arm was severely wounded."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/03/27/sprj.irq.wounded/index.html

Originally posted by edude
What was Bill Clinton?

Werent Bush's daughters caught drink driving or was it drinking underage?

Pfftt..

At least in Iraq we dont have kids going into schools and shooting everyone


No they store their weapons in their schools (there was a recent report about them finding weapons stored in a school) and encourage kids to kill Iraqi enemies.

Originally posted by Radix
No they store their weapons in their schools (there was a recent report about them finding weapons stored in a school) and encourage kids to kill Iraqi enemies.

According with CNN, they think that those weapons were leave there before the soldiers change their clothes and surrender as civilians.

Originally posted by Jedito
According with CNN, they think that those weapons were leave there before the soldiers change their clothes and surrender as civilians.

Whats that got to do with anything? :confused:

Radix funny..

I think you know what i meant, what was columbine and all those other incidents? go fix your country up before you fixing others. Who the hell do you think you are? god on earth?


Never has their been incited hate against others in iraq, people live as neighbours, no one goes around shooting each other as in the U.S. YOur country is full of crime, drugs and poverty, why dont you fix this?

U.S will never control iraq, any puppet government will fall.

Arab countries have more peace inside then your country, admit it.

Crime rates are low to none, no incidents of kidnapping, no incidents of rape.

Cant say the same about the U.S, go fix your country then come talk.

Originally posted by edude
Radix funny..

I think you know what i meant, what was columbine and all those other incidents? go fix your country up before you fixing others. Who the hell do you think you are? god on earth?


Never has their been incited hate against others in iraq, people live as neighbours, no one goes around shooting each other as in the U.S. YOur country is full of crime, drugs and poverty, why dont you fix this?

U.S will never control iraq, any puppet government will fall.

I see. Well if I were a coward and fleed my country to live in Australia, I guess I wouldn't feed forums this crap. If you call gasing of Kurds pieceful, you are a ding dong! If you think acid baths are not a crime, get your head fixed.

How come you don't live in Iraq? Scared about something? Sissy!

Originally posted by Radix
Whats that got to do with anything? :confused:
Those weapons at the school man.. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by edude
Arab countries have more peace inside then your country, admit it.

Crime rates are low to none, no incidents of kidnapping, no incidents of rape.

Cant say the same about the U.S, go fix your country then come talk.

I have removed my post as it is rediculous to argue with someone who also said about the death of Americans during 9/11 "I could careless about what happened"

Your comparison to a melting pot and a homogeneous culture that can't even get along with each neighbor, is too far fetched for even me to argue.

Damn, this war thread is even more pathetic than all the others, I'm impressed.

UBC, I don't how is it in another countries , but I'm sure that death penalty is against the constitution in Argentina for ordinary crimes, is only permited for exceptional cases, such as war crimes and treason, but under military law.

Hopefully someday, with more EU pressure, the US will drop their use of it. If you look at the link you will see almost every single middle east country also supports the death penalty.

Closed. I think it resorted to namecalling a long time ago. I won't take the time clean it myself and I want to keep it as it does have some good discussion, so if you see a post that has name calling, please report it using the report link (only report it ONCE). Posts will be cleaned as the reports come in :)