AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2004-11-15, 05:08   Link #21
tanuki
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lexander
Cause you know without this guy's official statement Osama wouldn't know what to do with his nuclear weapon.
As if Osama would wait around for somebody to give him permission in the first place to use a nuclear weapon. If he had one, I doubt he'd waste any time sending some flunky martyr for the cause wannabe to use it.
tanuki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2004-11-15, 05:16   Link #22
sarcasteak
WAHA~
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: World overloaded with fun
Age: 29
I thought Lexander's post was funny, but tanuki you just made my day!
__________________
sarcasteak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2004-11-15, 05:16   Link #23
Thany
Unfair
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keitaro
We have no other choice it’s either attack or be attacked. The terrorist were already killing innocent civilian’s way before we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq so declaring war on terrorism wouldn't make a difference either way. The problem itself is religion in general. Without religion most of the past wars wouldn't have happened. So maybe we wouldn't be having this problem right now. That's something to really think about.
Well while the first invasion was quite legitimate IMO, the Iraq's attack was easily and obviously just to get their oil.
And probably one of the reason of this approval.
Of course, like Lexander said, Ben Laden wouldn't have waited for an approval to attack the USA ; it's more like a way to fear the Americans.
__________________
Thany is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2004-11-15, 06:30   Link #24
Green˛
It's Magic
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Up and to the Left
Age: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thany
Of course, like Lexander said, Ben Laden wouldn't have waited for an approval to attack the USA ; it's more like a way to fear the Americans.
So true. It all kind of makes it seem that it's missing the "I'm George W. Bush, and I approve this message" at the end.

Spoiler for fear:
Green˛ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2004-11-15, 06:36   Link #25
tanuki
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamui4356
I agree, the only way to eliminate terrorism, without caving in to their demands or committing genocide, is with good, old fashion investigative work, though afganistan was an exception, as there was a terrorist run puppet government there. It might take 20 or 30 years to track down the terrorists, and would require a multi-national effort, but it can be done. The way Bush is doing things is only creating more terrorism, as you said. However, when anyone points it out, the Bush administration accuses them of having a "dangerous, pre-9/11" view on terrorism...
Use of a large combined military attack force is an appropriate choice when fighting a nation vs. nation war. But to fight terrorism? Most of the war on terror, as you say, should involve investigation work. Would have been better to limit the use of military force mainly to covert special forces operations that surgically eliminated or removed the terrorists for trial elsewhere, with a minimum of collateral damage to nearby property and non-combatant civilians.
tanuki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2004-11-15, 14:43   Link #26
dragonz20
Cantonese Dimples
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North Jersey (near NY city)
Age: 36
Send a message via AIM to dragonz20
Trust me on this, we're using our covert special forces. we've been using them for several decades already and we will be using for decades to come.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tanuki
Use of a large combined military attack force is an appropriate choice when fighting a nation vs. nation war. But to fight terrorism? Most of the war on terror, as you say, should involve investigation work. Would have been better to limit the use of military force mainly to covert special forces operations that surgically eliminated or removed the terrorists for trial elsewhere, with a minimum of collateral damage to nearby property and non-combatant civilians.
__________________
"Pigs who defy Me will suffer the consequences of my Wrath..." -Morino Ibiki-
"In the Rain I was smiling. But I was really crying. I was really crying..." -Seta Soujiro-
"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted,then used against you"
.
dragonz20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2004-11-15, 15:26   Link #27
Ending
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2004
Strange to see people still talking about this ancient topic called "Bin Laden."

Yankees are willing to use nukes if they are threatened, chinese and russian are the same or otherwise all of them would had joined to "ban-the-nukes" treaty and destroyed all their A-bombs. But they haven't, so I can understand why the current-underdogs-of-media would just love to bomb the hell out from us all.
Ending is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2004-11-15, 15:30   Link #28
Keitaro
*Kyuuketsuki Otaku*
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Somewhere in Hawaii
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreamless
Declaring some kind of official war doesn't help the situation much except giving Bush some excuse to attack Iraq which actually has nothing to do with terrorism.
Their is some evidence that Sadam has had contact or tried to contact certain terrorist organizations such as the now infamous Al Qaeda. Heck I wouldn't be surprised one bit if Sadam and his henchmen were somehow involved in the 9-11 attacks after all. Also lets not forget about WMD's. At the time their was overwhelming evidence that Sadam had some kind of WMD's. We haven't found any yet because I think they had enough time to get rid of any evidence of them long before we invaded. As a matter of fact I believe some of them we moved into Syria on large trucks seen crossing over into Syria just before the first U.S. soldier set foot on Iraqi soil. Satellite photographs were taken of large trucks leaving a suspected weapons plant in Iraq. These photographs were shown during the Secretary of State Colin Powell's speech made to the U.N. along with other strong evidence of WMD's.

The risks of Sadam possibly having WMD's is simply too much of a risk and with Sadam misleading and denying the U.N. weapons inspectors ever since the first gulf war that made it even more suspicious. So the Bush administration took action.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thany
Well while the first invasion was quite legitimate IMO, the Iraq's attack was easily and obviously just to get their oil.
Oh boy not the "we only did it for the oil" speech again. Sure oil was part of it but it wasn't only for oil. They’re lots of other legitimate reasons why we decided to invade Iraq. For instance the possibility of Iraq having WMD's or in the process of restarting their WMD programs once again, what about liberating the Iraqi people from tyranny.


Hm...I'm starting to think I'm the only animesuki member here that supports Bush and the war on terror (Iraq included).
__________________
Keitaro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2004-11-15, 15:36   Link #29
dragonz20
Cantonese Dimples
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North Jersey (near NY city)
Age: 36
Send a message via AIM to dragonz20
you're not alone. i also believe that this war is for more than just wmds (and no it's not oil you twits).


Quote:
Originally Posted by Keitaro
Hm...I'm starting to think I'm the only animesuki member here that supports Bush and the war on terror (Iraq included).
__________________
"Pigs who defy Me will suffer the consequences of my Wrath..." -Morino Ibiki-
"In the Rain I was smiling. But I was really crying. I was really crying..." -Seta Soujiro-
"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted,then used against you"
.
dragonz20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2004-11-15, 15:55   Link #30
Kamui4356
Aria Company
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keitaro
Their is some evidence that Sadam has had contact or tried to contact certain terrorist organizations such as the now infamous Al Qaeda. Heck I wouldn't be surprised one bit if Sadam and his henchmen were somehow involved in the 9-11 attacks after all.
Not quite, some mid level people in iraqi intelligence tried to work out a deal with some mid level people in al qaeda, but it never amounted to anything. All the intellegence that we have that has been made public points to there being no connection, regardless of attempts. It's a huge and unfounded leap to go from some fruitless mid-level meetings to an operational link. Hell, bush himself said it wasn't true, while almost everyone else in the administration, including cheney, continued to lie to the american people, saying there were clear operational links. That way bush himself comes off as honest, while he still succeeds in planting the lie in the minds of the american people.
__________________
Kamui4356 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2004-11-15, 16:02   Link #31
LoveOfAnime
~Lost in the Moonlight~
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: WA State
Age: 40
Send a message via MSN to LoveOfAnime Send a message via Yahoo to LoveOfAnime
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keitaro
Their is some evidence that Sadam has had contact or tried to contact certain terrorist organizations such as the now infamous Al Qaeda. Heck I wouldn't be surprised one bit if Sadam and his henchmen were somehow involved in the 9-11 attacks after all. Also lets not forget about WMD's. At the time their was overwhelming evidence that Sadam had some kind of WMD's. We haven't found any yet because I think they had enough time to get rid of any evidence of them long before we invaded. As a matter of fact I believe some of them we moved into Syria on large trucks seen crossing over into Syria just before the first U.S. soldier set foot on Iraqi soil. Satellite photographs were taken of large trucks leaving a suspected weapons plant in Iraq. These photographs were shown during the Secretary of State Colin Powell's speech made to the U.N. along with other strong evidence of WMD's.

The risks of Sadam possibly having WMD's is simply too much of a risk and with Sadam misleading and denying the U.N. weapons inspectors ever since the first gulf war that made it even more suspicious. So the Bush administration took action.



Oh boy not the "we only did it for the oil" speech again. Sure oil was part of it but it wasn't only for oil. They’re lots of other legitimate reasons why we decided to invade Iraq. For instance the possibility of Iraq having WMD's or in the process of restarting their WMD programs once again, what about liberating the Iraqi people from tyranny.


Hm...I'm starting to think I'm the only animesuki member here that supports Bush and the war on terror (Iraq included).
By liberating them from Tyranny I suppose you mean Killing off upwards of 100,000 Iraqi Citizens. Keeping AID out! Sounds Liberating to me! You need to read some international views.

Check THIS! out.

READ THIS

When are people gonna open their eyes and see that this isn't some nice liberation but a bloody MASSACRE in the name of defending Terrorism. Just ask Karl Rove.

Sorry I am not trying to incense anyone or cause flame wars or anything but it just kills me that all these people are dying horrible deaths and NO ONE CARES!
__________________
LoveOfAnime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2004-11-15, 16:34   Link #32
7thMethuselah
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Antwerp area, Belgium, Europa
Age: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keitaro
Their is some evidence that Sadam has had contact or tried to contact certain terrorist organizations such as the now infamous Al Qaeda. Heck I wouldn't be surprised one bit if Sadam and his henchmen were somehow involved in the 9-11 attacks after all. Also lets not forget about WMD's. At the time their was overwhelming evidence that Sadam had some kind of WMD's. We haven't found any yet because I think they had enough time to get rid of any evidence of them long before we invaded. As a matter of fact I believe some of them we moved into Syria on large trucks seen crossing over into Syria just before the first U.S. soldier set foot on Iraqi soil. Satellite photographs were taken of large trucks leaving a suspected weapons plant in Iraq. These photographs were shown during the Secretary of State Colin Powell's speech made to the U.N. along with other strong evidence of WMD's.
Saddam may have had contact with islamic groups but he certainly wasn't supporting them. Saddam was a control freak who wanted to have full control over everything, that is one of the reasons why Iraq was a secular state, to prevent some Ayatollah of interfering. In stead of supporting them there is more than enough evidence that he persecuted them,. The reason? Saddam didn't want anything in his country to have power, a strong islamic group would lead to serious problems, so instead of seeing his power contested he kicked them out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by keitaro
The risks of Sadam possibly having WMD's is simply too much of a risk and with Sadam misleading and denying the U.N. weapons inspectors ever since the first gulf war that made it even more suspicious. So the Bush administration took action.
Actually after the first Gulf War there were UN inspectors in Iraq for years, not only did those inventarise but also destroyed just about every weapon they could find. Saddam finally kicked them out. Then before the second Gulf War, there were UN inspectors in Iraq again, these inspectors have clearly stated that : given the chance (read: if Un sanctions were to be dropped) Saddam could make them again (in fact he had plans for it) but he didn't have any at that moment. Saddams installations had been destroyed afet Gulf War I, and he lacked the resources to fully rebuild the arsenal.
He kicked the Un inspectors out a second time because he knew war was unavoidable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keitaro
Oh boy not the "we only did it for the oil" speech again. Sure oil was part of it but it wasn't only for oil. They’re lots of other legitimate reasons why we decided to invade Iraq. For instance the possibility of Iraq having WMD's or in the process of restarting their WMD programs once again, what about liberating the Iraqi people from tyranny.
True, the suspected real reasons behind the war are simple : The US are currently the only superpowe rin the world and they would want that to remain thus

1. they wanna stop WMD, Saddam didn't have any anymore, but he did have plans to start up his WMD program, if the oppurtunity arised

2. oil, a reason but not the only one

3. CONTROL: This is the REAL reason for the war in Iraq : pick up a map and see where the US have troops deployed. Yup there are US Troops EVERYWHERE! This allows them to intervene in any area where they have interests.
Now consider this: In the Gulf Area only Saoudi Arabia has US bases, but in the years before the war in Iraq the climate has changed alot, and many Saudi's want those troops out. Add to that a growing anti US climate in the entire Middle East, and the fact that the Saudi king and prince may be pro-US , everybody else is not, so getting kicked out of Saudi Arabia is not unrealistic at all. Now if the US can put a government into Iraq which is favorable to them (just like Saddam was at first!!), they would have a strong influence in the Middle East and over oil reserves, this would allow them to keep a very strong influence in the area and a strong influence on oil.

The war in Iraq is a war about control, it's a war the Us is waging to keep control over the world, or at least over their own interests, oil is only a secondary motive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keitaro
Hm...I'm starting to think I'm the only animesuki member here that supports Bush and the war on terror (Iraq included).
I support the war on terror, but Iraq is not a part of it, there were no terrorists in iraq before the US invasion, Saddam allready took care of them, he eliminated anyone who was against him or had any influence. Iraq is a different issue, Iraq was invaded to regain control in a region which is strategically important and has a major influence on the US and Western economies.

The US did indeed liberate Iraq from a tyrant, but it has to stabilise the country (and fast) or the end result will be evn worse than Saddam.
__________________

7thMethuselah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2004-11-15, 16:48   Link #33
Keitaro
*Kyuuketsuki Otaku*
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Somewhere in Hawaii
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoveOfAnime
By liberating them from Tyranny I suppose you mean Killing off upwards of 100,000 Iraqi Citizens. Keeping AID out! Sounds Liberating to me!
Eh...Sadam is believed to have killed over 200,000 of his own people. Sadam is an insanely evil man torturing his own people using his secret police. If you spoke badly of Sadam or of the government and if government officials found out about it his secret police would be paying you a special visit. Not something you want to look forward too I say. Also that 100,000 Iraqi's civilians you mention of is only an estimate. So it might in fact be actually lower then it is proclaimed to be. See this MSNBC article. As with any war sadly their will always be causalities, Just look at WWII, a lot of innocent civilians died, entire cities were turned into ruins. The amount of deaths in this war is very low compared to other wars in the past.

This argument can go on forever. I just hope that us Americans won't turn our backs on our military like we did in Vietnam. My uncle was spit on and spoken badly of after returning from Vietnam. He has long since passed away and I will never forget the horrible stories he told me when he was alive.
__________________
Keitaro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2004-11-15, 17:04   Link #34
Reaver4k
Lucy's "Play Thing"
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Canada
Age: 27
Send a message via MSN to Reaver4k
The whole thing is about Oil Damn it.... The first Gulf war was about Oil, Becuase Saddam Needed it to pay off war detbs from the Iran-Iraq war
Reaver4k is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2004-11-15, 17:14   Link #35
phoenixfire92983
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: California
Age: 30
Send a message via ICQ to phoenixfire92983 Send a message via AIM to phoenixfire92983 Send a message via MSN to phoenixfire92983
Quote:
Now if the US can put a government into Iraq which is favorable to them (just like Saddam was at first!!), they would have a strong influence in the Middle East and over oil reserves, this would allow them to keep a very strong influence in the area and a strong influence on oil.
I hate to pop your bubble, but the United States has very little influence in the Middle East. The Middle East is absolute chaos right now. Let's take your assumption and say that Iraq is basically the US's puppet country. So that gives the US Iraq, Isreal, and Kuwait and thats about as far as our control goes. Kuwait is a tiny country....Isreal is always under constant attack against Palestinians and terrorists...then there's Iraq which is so broken already by all of its religous factions that its a miracle that all the groups can even sit down together at a table. Yup, things are going great for the US.

Moreover, those three countries are right by Iran which is not good news. There's also Syria, which tends to act as a terrorist hide out. There's Egypt which has terrorist continuing to make their mark on that country. Lebanon also has terrorist problems. There's Turkey which is only on minimally good terms with the US. If you remember, they would only let the US go thru them to Iraq if they could send some troops with us that would head right into one of the religious faction groups that they hate *sigh*

Overall, its gonna take a really long time before peace can exist in that area of the world. Even if we had access to Iraq's oil, it wouldn't help our influence in that area much. The middle east is the real area with lots of control. Every country needs oil and they happen to have the largest reserves in the world. They are some of the most influencial countries economically, therefore a lot of countries aren't willing to stand up against them and say 'hey, what's happening with this terrorist activity and your wars over religion are not cool'.
phoenixfire92983 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2004-11-15, 17:55   Link #36
7thMethuselah
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Antwerp area, Belgium, Europa
Age: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by phoenixfire92983
I hate to pop your bubble, but the United States has very little influence in the Middle East. The Middle East is absolute chaos right now. Let's take your assumption and say that Iraq is basically the US's puppet country. So that gives the US Iraq, Isreal, and Kuwait and thats about as far as our control goes. Kuwait is a tiny country....Isreal is always under constant attack against Palestinians and terrorists...then there's Iraq which is so broken already by all of its religous factions that its a miracle that all the groups can even sit down together at a table. Yup, things are going great for the US.
i think you misunderstood my post, I didn't say the US have control, I'm saying they want control and influence in the Middle East.
If the US can stabilise and install a government in iraq which is allied to them, then the situation we get in the Middle East would be this

1. A big direct influence on 1/3 (can't remember exact nr) of all oil in the middle East (influence in Iraq and Kuwait)
2. A strong military presence in the Middle East along with a strong ally. The entire Middle East combined is no match for the US army and Israel, so this military presence would give the US a strong indirect control over oil reserves in the area, even if the countries are relatively hostile. None of them would dare go against them out of fear for military retaliation, Israel alone can beat up Syria, Egypt and Jordan combined (it did so often in the past), having 100 000 + US troops as well would really calm the Arab countries down. These Arab countries haven't got such a strong grip on their own power either.

So add these up, along with the fact that the Arab isn't as united as it often tries to portray itself, and the fact that Egypt has become alot more moderate, would mean:
If the US succeeds, they would be a key player in this region.

So imho the Iraq war is about gaining control (both direct and indirect) over the region, they don't have it yet, but it seems as if the whole situation isn't going entirely as planned. Currently the Middle East is one of the few regions on the planet in which the US doesn't have a big control. Considering the fact that China is growing stronger, being the one that calls the shots in the Middle East would prove a major US advantage over China.
__________________

7thMethuselah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2004-11-15, 18:06   Link #37
NoSanninWa
Weapon of Mass Discussion
*Fansubber
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New York, USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keitaro
Their is some evidence that Sadam has had contact or tried to contact certain terrorist organizations such as the now infamous Al Qaeda. Heck I wouldn't be surprised one bit if Sadam and his henchmen were somehow involved in the 9-11 attacks after all.
There's a good deal of evidence about this. The evidence says rather clearly that Osama sent people to contact Saddam. Unfortunately for Osama, Saddam always refused these overtures. That's the result of a great deal of US government investigation. Even our president accepted the results of the commission although he continued to ignore it.
__________________

There's not that fine a line between willing suspension of disbelief and something just being stupid.
NoSanninWa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2004-11-15, 21:46   Link #38
Sanjuronord
セクシーなパイロット
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Kentucky
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keitaro
We have no other choice it’s either attack or be attacked.
Iraq was going to attack us? Shocking!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keitaro
The terrorist were already killing innocent civilian’s way before we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq so declaring war on terrorism wouldn't make a difference either way.
Not examing what caused anti-US terrorism is a sure fire way to not fix the problem. This is just a means of controlling the fire and will not put it out. It's the same stupid mentality that brought us the "war on drugs" and the "war on crime", and last I checked we hadn't really accomplished alot there either. The "war on terror" is in essence being used as a package for legislation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keitaro
I like the idea of a one world government. I think it'll be good thing. The day our world fully matures is the day E.T will contact us formally.
Too late aliens came and left, they put up a sign that says, "Don't Enter!" to warn the others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keitaro, but later fixed by SanjuroNord
If you spoke badly of Bush or of the government and government officials found out about it the secret service/FBI/CIA would be paying you a special visit. Not something you want to look forward too I say. Also that 100,000 Iraqi's civilians you mention of are only an estimate. So it might in fact be actually higher (since they couldn't access the hot spots like Fallujah) then it is proclaimed to be. See this MSNBC article. As with any unpopular military occupation sadly their will always be causalities....
Fixed As for the estimate I read somewhere that the other estimates aren't including many males as they're being considered "hostiles". Not sure on the truth of that, but the other estimate (based solely on how it's being done) seems to be a better represenation of the impact of the "war" on them. As for saddam killing 200,000, well according to this estimate we've almost met his 20 year record in a couple of years! Iraq who loves you?!?!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keitaro
This argument can go on forever. I just hope that us Americans won't turn our backs on our military like we did in Vietnam. My uncle was spit on and spoke badly after returning from Vietnam. He has long passed away and I will never forget the horrible stories he told me when he was alive.
Agreed, the majority of the soldiers weren't at fault, same as the soldiers in Iraq. Though some do need to stand trial for their actions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keitaro
The risks of Sadam possibly having WMD's is simply too much of a risk and with Sadam misleading and denying the U.N. weapons inspectors ever since the first gulf war that made it even more suspicious. So the Bush administration took action.
But he apparantly didn't have the weapons...The man was a dictator, of course he didn't come out and say he was whipped by the Americans...bet that would go over real well. If he couldn't win a real battle, he probably thought he could at least win a fictional one with misinformation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keitaro, but later fixed by SanjuroNord
They’re lots of other bullshit reasons why we justified invading Iraq. For instance the possibility of Iraq having WMD's or in the process of restarting their WMD programs once again but without buying them from us this time..., what about liberating the Iraqi people from tyranny that we used to support but suddenly don't...but don't worry this time we're gonna give you an A+ government...you can trust us!
Fixed Seriously, they have no reason to trust us. Or are we going to let an anti-America/anti-Democracy candidate run as well? Sorry if I seem to be picking on you Keitaro but you seemed like the funnest one to argue with...

As for Osama getting approval from the church nuts....Does that mean he doesn't have to do a 1000 "Hail Allah's" or something after this attack?
Sanjuronord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2004-11-15, 22:57   Link #39
Keitaro
*Kyuuketsuki Otaku*
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Somewhere in Hawaii
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanjuronord
Iraq was going to attack us? Shocking!


Not examing what caused anti-US terrorism is a sure fire way to not fix the problem. This is just a means of controlling the fire and will not put it out. It's the same stupid mentality that brought us the "war on drugs" and the "war on crime", and last I checked we hadn't really accomplished alot there either. The "war on terror" is in essence being used as a package for legislation.


Too late aliens came and left, they put up a sign that says, "Don't Enter!" to warn the others.


Fixed As for the estimate I read somewhere that the other estimates aren't including many males as they're being considered "hostiles". Not sure on the truth of that, but the other estimate (based solely on how it's being done) seems to be a better represenation of the impact of the "war" on them. As for saddam killing 200,000, well according to this estimate we've almost met his 20 year record in a couple of years! Iraq who loves you?!?!


Agreed, the majority of the soldiers weren't at fault, same as the soldiers in Iraq. Though some do need to stand trial for their actions.


But he apparantly didn't have the weapons...The man was a dictator, of course he didn't come out and say he was whipped by the Americans...bet that would go over real well. If he couldn't win a real battle, he probably thought he could at least win a fictional one with misinformation.


Fixed Seriously, they have no reason to trust us. Or are we going to let an anti-America/anti-Democracy candidate run as well? Sorry if I seem to be picking on you Keitaro but you seemed like the funnest one to argue with...

As for Osama getting approval from the church nuts....Does that mean he doesn't have to do a 1000 "Hail Allah's" or something after this attack?
Ah...ok, I'm fine. I really I'm, see look, I'm smiling really....glad you find my posts amusing.

Now where did I put my .357
__________________
Keitaro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2004-11-15, 23:09   Link #40
Kamui4356
Aria Company
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanjuronord
The man was a dictator, of course he didn't come out and say he was whipped by the Americans...bet that would go over real well. If he couldn't win a real battle, he probably thought he could at least win a fictional one with misinformation.
Thinking back, I don't see why we didn't include Saddam stepping down and being tried for war crimes in the cease fire terms after the first gulf war. It would have made a lot more sense then leaving him in power, and saved thousands of lives and billions of dollars. I'm sure we could have found someone that we could have 'managed' in the Iraqi government at the time.
__________________
Kamui4356 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 21:58.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
We use Silk.