Your opinions on the war thus far

[not really ken]

It's a pity about 90% of the board dosen't realize/accept this.

its a pity that Bush isn't invading and occupying Zimbabwe in order to install a democracy there and sit back hoping for the knock on affect onto other African countries.!!!

 

[not really ken]

In all likelihood, the civilian casualty count is less than half of 50,000.

now who's pulling statistics outta their ass.

 

[PuffnScruff]

ok everyone is pulling statistics out of their ass, does anyone really have a real number of civillian casualties? i doubt it. so everyone should just drop that.

 

[Duke]

(...) and installed a nascent democracy that might motivate citizens of other Middle Eastern countries to reform their governments as well. That was the penultimate reason for the war.

You meant: and installed a meek and penis gobbling government that would have to do everything big uncle Sam said and put up with the all the shit Sammy demanded.

would anyone you actually live in a country that was run by saddam?
do you not feel that saddam was a threat?
why was he not a threat?
what do think would have been a better way to deal with saddam?

Those are (except for the last) incredibly stupid questions.

Of course nobody would want to live in a country run by Saddam. I can't comprehend why some Americans use arguments to the extent of:
"If you think Saddam wasnt so bad go live in his Iraq" and remarks of those kind. Nobody with half a brain ever argued Saddam wasn't a big asshole.


Second. Was Saddam a threat? Yes, to himself and to the Iraqi people. To the US? haha, please.

Why was he not a threat? Err, with what should he've been threatening?


And all that bullshit talk we're getting right now with liberating the Iraqi people. Oh yeah, the great crusader USA. Boy oh boy, knight in shining armour USA. Let them finish up quickly in Iraq, USA has about 30 African nations to purge of dictators. Send some of those Marines over to Sudan, where real atrocities are taking place. But no they won't. Of course they won't. This was never about liberating the Iraqi people.


This was all about politics. This was all about getting rid of an old enemy, setting up a new platform for power, expanding the sphere of influence in the Middle East, a military warning to every little dictator out there. But not only foreign politics. Also internally. People were scared, confused after 9/11. What better way to resolve the nation and boost morale than with a proper war? Exactly. The oil? An economic bonus, just like the rebuilding contracts of which the big ones go to American corporations. The money earned from that end up in the pockets of the already rich.


And the average American is paying for this all. With their money. And the blood of their children. And what are they getting back? Well, just a little over 50% (about the percentage of Bush voters) get satisfaction. We surre showed them terrrrorrrists!!! The paranoia level drops a bit. Of course, every once in a while there's some terrorist alert level colour code upgrade downgrade update to keep the people alert and on their toes. And a certain Act which gave the government such frightening power over Joe Average that the Founding Fathers would stir in their graves got passed so fast that if was too late before anyone actually noticed that might be a bad thing. But hey, all in the best interest of the country.

It's so, so much deeper than oil...

 

[Little Skittle]

its a pity that Bush isn't invading and occupying Zimbabwe in order to install a democracy there and sit back hoping for the knock on affect onto other African countries.!!!

so its ok to invade and occupy other countries such as Zimbabwe....but ur against Iraq?

 

[Duke]

so its ok to invade and occupy other countries such as Zimbabwe....but ur against Iraq?

Don't be stupid. Don't you see he's pointing out the hypocrisy of the Bush reasoning of liberating the Iraqi people?

 

[Little Skittle]

Don't be stupid. Don't you see he's pointing out the hypocrisy of the Bush reasoning of liberating the Iraqi people?

but by saying "its a pity" didnt he mean he'd support occupation of zimbabwe?

 

[Duke]

He was being sarcastic I trust

 

[Little Skittle]

He was being sarcastic I trust

at first, i thought he was too, but he used the same phrase ZeroCool did, while quoting him, making me think he was not being sarcastic

 

[AmerikazMost]

it's a pitty you think it is Americas Right and duty to shape the world in it's vision.

he never said the reason was morally right, just that it was in fact the reason.

The basic idea was to encourage the spread of democracy throughout the Middle East so that the region would be full of friendly governments that would be willing to cooperate and share their resources with the United States. It had nothing to do with Iraq being a threat to our freedom or safety.

 

[TecK NeeX]

The basic idea was to encourage spread of democracy throughout the Middle East so that the region would be full of friendly governments that would be willing to cooperate and share their resources with the United States. It had nothing to do with Iraq being a threat to our freedom or safety.

So what you're saying is, every Middle Eastern nation that posed no threat to you're freedom and safety whatsoever should forcefuly Cooperate and share their resources with the United States, oust every Middle Eastern leader and replace them with pro-american 'friendly' puppets, or face invasion, murder and occupation? who the fuck are you or the U.S to place such ultimatums? fuck your freedom, fuck your democracy, fuck your policies and hopefuly every son of a bitch in a u.s military uniform in Iraq and Afghanistan return home in a coffin.

Earlier today i was wondering why the death of 16 u.s soldiers killed in that helicopter crash the other day brought a smile to my face, I now know why. thank you :thumb:

That policy of yours sounds like something i would read from a Hitler book titled "Reasons to invade a country"

Reason 1 - If they're not friendly to us. Bomb Them
Reason 2 - If they dont share their resources. Bomb Them
Reason 3 - If they're no threat to us but refuse to cooperate with us: Bomb Them

 

[Duke]

he never said the reason was morally right, just that it was in fact the reason.

The basic idea was to encourage the spread of democracy throughout the Middle East so that the region would be full of friendly governments that would be willing to cooperate and share their resources with the United States. It had nothing to do with Iraq being a threat to our freedom or safety.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!

*wipes tears from eyes*


Did i read that correctly?


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!


oh god, you just made my day.


TecK, you show 'em, holmes!

That policy of yours sounds like something i would read from a Hitler book titled "Reasons to invade a country"

Reason 1 - If they're not friendly to us. Bomb Them
Reason 2 - If they dont share their resources. Bomb Them
Reason 3 - If they're no threat to us but refuse to cooperate with us: Bomb Them

lmao

 

[not really ken]

so its ok to invade and occupy other countries such as Zimbabwe....but ur against Iraq?

The 'its a pity' remark was a play on words, and the point I made was pointing out the seismic hypocrisy of the USA.

 

[not really ken]

he never said the reason was morally right, just that it was in fact the reason.

The basic idea was to encourage the spread of democracy throughout the Middle East so that the region would be full of friendly governments that would be willing to cooperate and share their resources with the United States. It had nothing to do with Iraq being a threat to our freedom or safety.

BAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
*breathes*
HAHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

I don't know whether to cry or laugh. Are you being serious. Is this the truth that they're secretly teaching you in Sunday school or something. You really believe that there is no problem with this. That you can murder, occupy, villify and plunder just because they don't like to give you oil on demand at the price you want it? Or what?
You admit that Iraq was NO threat to your freedom or safety and that wasn't even the reason for invading, you also don't give a fuck that this 'reason' is morally right, but it was just THE reason for invading.
Well, you know what, I really do hope to God that every man, woman and dog that is in the US army currenty in Iraq loses their life in the most horrendous fashion.

Teck Neekz :thumb:

 

[AmerikazMost]

lmao @ all of you

Somebody quote in my post where I said that it was OK? Please, do it, because I can't seem to find it.

he never said the reason was morally right, just that it was in fact the reason.

Does that not imply that I believe that it is morally wrong? This is the third thread in WoW in the last week that I've seen you people put words into someone else's mouth.

I simply explained Bush's reasoning. Did I say I thought it was reasonable? No. So shut the fuck up.






Oh, yeah..

Congratulations writing a big smack of text for nothing. :thumb:

 

[AmerikazMost]

Oh, just for some proof that I think Bush is a fucking idiot and I don't support his policies, I made this thread a little while back:

http://www.2pacboard.com/forum/thread137183.html
so..

‹^› ‹(•¿•)› ‹^›

(compliments of Big_R's sig)

 

[not really ken]

lmao @ all of you

Somebody quote in my post where I said that it was OK? Please, do it, because I can't seem to find it.

Who cares whether you think it's ok or not, show us where we attacked you personally?

Does that not imply that I believe that it is morally wrong? This is the third thread in WoW in the last week that I've seen you people put words into someone else's mouth.

Nobody ever claimed that you believed it to be wrong or right!

Did I say I thought it was reasonable? No. So shut the fuck up.

Who cares whether you think it's reasonable or not?

I simply explained Bush's reasoning.

(who is the elected president and has a great deal of support from the US.)
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAH!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

 

[AmerikazMost]

Who cares whether you think it's ok or not, show us where we attacked you personally?

Ok..

BAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
*breathes*
HAHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

I don't know whether to cry or laugh. Are you being serious. Is this the truth that they're secretly teaching you in Sunday school or something. You really believe that there is no problem with this. That you can murder, occupy, villify and plunder just because they don't like to give you oil on demand at the price you want it? Or what?
You admit that Iraq was NO threat to your freedom or safety and that wasn't even the reason for invading, you also don't give a fuck that this 'reason' is morally right, but it was just THE reason for invading.
Well, you know what, I really do hope to God that every man, woman and dog that is in the US army currenty in Iraq loses their life in the most horrendous fashion.

Teck Neekz :thumb:

In each of those you pointed me out, and tried to insult my knowledge or put shitty opinions in my mouth. To me, that's personal.

The fact is I don't believe any of the shit you guys said I did, and to me, that was offensive.

 

[Duke]

lmao @ all of you

Somebody quote in my post where I said that it was OK? Please, do it, because I can't seem to find it.

Does that not imply that I believe that it is morally wrong? This is the third thread in WoW in the last week that I've seen you people put words into someone else's mouth.

I simply explained Bush's reasoning. Did I say I thought it was reasonable? No. So shut the fuck up.






Oh, yeah..

We know Bush' reasoning. He's explained a gazillions times. What's interesting are the reasons he's not telling.

And oh yeah, those BAHAHAHAHA's really cost me a lot of typing.


p.s. don't be surprised if people might assume your stance is such and such. Its rather normal people take positions in debates. When you just rattle of (vague(ish)) facts or statements and later claim you never supported this or that position is a bit silly. Make your position known, then argue. Your post that caught all those BAHAHHA replies looked a lot like that was your position on the situation as well.

If i make a post saying black people are trash, i'm gonna catch heat. If i then reply and say "hey i only said what Ku Klux Grand Dragon was thinking" i'm looking like an idiot.

So, uhm, say what you think and stop confusing people here or go home. It fucks up the threads. Cos this thread has suffered now more than a page full of replies which were actually pointless.

 

[AmerikazMost]

We know Bush' reasoning. He's explained a gazillions times. What's interesting are the reasons he's not telling.

And oh yeah, those BAHAHAHAHA's really cost me a lot of typing.


p.s. don't be surprised if people might assume your stance is such and such. Its rather normal people take positions in debates. When you just rattle of (vague(ish)) facts or statements and later claim you never supported this or that position is a bit silly. Make your position known, then argue. Your post that caught all those BAHAHHA replies looked a lot like that was your position on the situation as well.

If i make a post saying black people are trash, i'm gonna catch heat. If i then reply and say "hey i only said what Ku Klux Grand Dragon was thinking" i'm looking like an idiot.

So, uhm, say what you think and stop confusing people here or go home. It fucks up the threads. Cos this thread has suffered now more than a page full of replies which were actually pointless.

People were talking about why the U.S. invaded Iraq, so I simply told them Bush's thought process. I wasn't debating, I was discussing. I didn't think people would assume I supported it, especially with my history of Bush hating on here, but I'll make sure I make it more clear next time.