Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 14

Topic closed

Poll

What should we do?

Nothing, leave it as it is.33%33% - 33
Go in, dismantle all the goverments, burn it down.7%7% - 7
Deport everyone to Madagascar.3%3% - 3
Fuck 'em, kill every last one of them. Nukem.42%42% - 42
Bake them cookies and hope they leave us alone.13%13% - 13
Total: 98
2006-02-07 14:00:33
wannabe_tank_whore
Member
+5|7005

Ziggy_79x wrote:

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

In 2002 Iraq only supplied 3.9% of US imports.  I don't think you have been well informed on oil.  Now tell me who the largest supplier is.
You're probably right, I'm not that well informend on oil but I stand by what I said because it dosen't have anything to do with how much they were supplying to the U.S.  It has to do with how much oil they actually have total, and the potential it has for production.  I read somewhere that the oil reserves in countries that aren't in the middle east are being depleted at a very high rate and 30 years from now the middle eastern countries will hold about 90% of the worlds oil reserves.  Anyway, I'm not saying that oil was the only reason the Bush administration wanted to invade Iraq. It was just the biggest reason.

Edit:  Oh, the answer to your question is either canada or venezuela I'm not that sure. But I didn't cheat.
Google ANWR and oil reserve. 

It's Canada.  Venezuela is 5th.  Mexico is 2nd. followed by Saudi Arabia.
2006-02-07 14:05:05
atlvolunteer
PKMMMMMMMMMM
+27|6999|Atlanta, GA USA

Torin wrote:

No, the WMD "evidence", if you can even call it that, was real, but was so weak and relatively unfounded that it shoudl not have been used as the cornerstone of the logic to invade a soverign nation. Yes, the entire world of apparently completely ill-informed intelligence agencies thought Iraq had WMD, goes to show we should have taken more time and effort to ensure those thoughts were actually founded, rather than just jump on them seemingly at a whim. Had we taken the time to continue the weapon inspections and find out one way or another, we would have actually known, but we just jumped the gun and invaded instead.

Yes, Saddam did oppose the UN and did not comply, but that course of action could have been taken to it's natural conclusion, rather than completely bypassing it and invading them like the US did. What do you think will happen if a similiar situation occurs with Iran, who we know actually have the capability to make a nuclear bomb right now? Or North Korea, who we know already has them? It's the right idea to keep on the democratic route with Iran and North Korea, but it's ridiculous to have done the same with Iraq? Or is it just ok now in hindsight of the huge fuckup that is the Iraq invasion.
I'm not sure how we jumped the gun, considering there were 10 years of sanctions and resolutions before actions were taken.

Torin wrote:

And as far as the oil for food corruption goes, don't you think after investigating and bring it all to light, things may have changed in the realm of who would vote to invade Iraq?
That may be true.  Too bad we didn't know about the oil for food scandal before we invaded.

Torin wrote:

As to me saying we weren't even approched with the idea, I mean the American public and Congress. When Bush went to congress saying "blah blah blah they have WMDs I want to invade" and Congress agreed, no mention was made of dethroning Saddam, occupying their country for years on end to rebuild it and force feed them some democracy. We were never approached with the facts that we were going in, we were going to remove and imprison Sadam, we were going to rebuild the entire country, fight an insurgency and force a democracit government onto people with no prior history of democracy or support for it. No, it was simply "we're going in for the WMDs" and that's it, which all turned out to be a damn lie or a very badly informed intelligence community, however you want to look at it.
I'm not sure how else you would read it.  Since we were going in with the intention of looking for WMD, we would need to occupy the country while we did the searching.  With that being said, how else could we have handled the situation?
2006-02-07 14:06:02
HellHead
The fantastic Mr. Antichrist
+336|6937|Germany

Torin wrote:

HellHead wrote:

I´m not callling the war over their a good thing, but Torin, sorry for this now, but there was no chance of changing Iraq from "bad to good" just by " let´s wait , they will figure someting out".
Besides the whole oil story, Hussein was really somebody who had to be stopped. In one or the other way.
Can't the same stance be taken against Kim Jong-il? Do we have the same right to just invade North Korea and force feed democracy on them too? Or do we only have the balls to do it to a nation that we know has no realistic means of fighting back?

I never said to just wait around for Iraq to figure things out, but invading Iraq, dethroning their government and forcing democracy down their throats was entirely the wrong decision. You talk about the situation in Iraq like the only choice we had was to go in and do what we did?

In the same right, how can you or anyone supporting the war in Iraq, also support the continued diplomacy with North Korea when we have just as much reason to invade them as we did Iraq? (which equates to almost nothing at all)
The problem with North Korea is the following :
First of all, I´m NOT supporting the war in Iraq the way it goes right now especially for the little unoffical reasons...It should have been a matter of the NATO, all western countries governments concern to stop the situation down there as it was...

And back to topic - Yes I also think that North Korea should be stopped immidately as it is right now, but if any country or group of countries try to itervine there, that means they have to deal with China.
And this my friends out their means WW III...
2006-02-07 14:07:05
aipotwckma
Member
+5|6882
Lets take the perspective from an actual Middle Easterner.[Well.. I'm from the Mid-East but live in the United States..]

Firstly, to all you absolutely ignorant people who think we can just go nuke a whole region of the world, think about it like this. If you were to nuke the Middle East, every part of it, you will drive the world to extinction. Only a few nuclear bombs is enough to wipe out the entire earth's population. The aftermath of mass nuclear bombings would most probably result in the sun being blocked out, mass amount of radiation circulating across a wide area of land, extreme anger among people of the world and just to sum it up, chaos.

Secondly, if you were a Middle-Easterner, would you want to die from a nuclear blast? I certainly don't want to, I don't think you would either. You know what everyone in this world has in common, Middle-Easterner, American, Easterner, Westerner, Northerner, Southerner, White, Black, Brown, Yellow heck even blue... You know what we have in common? WE ARE ALL HUMAN. We have brains, we have faces, hair, eyes, ears we all have these things.

Thirdly, to all those people with women almost bare naked in their sigs, please don't talk about going to heaven or you are superior to all other people and all things related, because with those charactaristics, you are very very far off. I am extremly disgusted on how people always use profanity in making their points. It is useless, or atleast I will view it as that. If you want to address anything when it comes to debate, do it politely and humanely.
2006-02-07 14:10:38
Hero764
Member
+0|6912
Indirectly drive the world to extinction you mean.

May I add that the radiation could probably be carried around other areas besides the Middle East by wind.
2006-02-07 14:15:59
wannabe_tank_whore
Member
+5|7005
Torin, “There is nothing patriotic about hating your country, or pretending that you can love your country but despise your government. There is nothing heroic about turning your back on America, or ignoring your own responsibilities.”



Author – Bill Clinton, May 5, 1995.
http://www.clintonfoundation.org/legacy … -state.htm
2006-02-07 14:19:37
Torin
Member
+52|6920

atlvolunteer wrote:

I'm not sure how we jumped the gun, considering there were 10 years of sanctions and resolutions before actions were taken.
We invaded based on weak, unsupported evidence. Sure, it was the only evidence the intelligence community had, but is that any excuse? You've got a bad situation and barely any intelligence about it, do you act on your limited intelligence or do you gather good intelligence first? Well, supporters of the war would say act on the intelligence you've got, because everyone thought it was true. Supports of common sense would say more should have been done to gather intelligence prior to making any decision at all.

atlvolunteer wrote:

I'm not sure how else you would read it.  Since we were going in with the intention of looking for WMD, we would need to occupy the country while we did the searching.  With that being said, how else could we have handled the situation?
How is occupying a country to search for weapons the equivalent of invading a country, dethroning their government, fighting an insurgency, trying to rebuild their infrastructure and establishing a new government for them? Seems like quite a stretch to assume all of that based on a request to go in and look for weapons.

HellHead wrote:

And back to topic - Yes I also think that North Korea should be stopped immidately as it is right now, but if any country or group of countries try to itervine there, that means they have to deal with China.
And this my friends out their means WW III...
Right, like I said, the US has the balls to invade a country that for all intents and purposes can't fight back, but is relegated to democracy when it comes to someone like North Korea. If Democracy is good enough for North Korea, why not Iraq? This goes out to all of you that support the war in Iraq and have enough common sense to see the stupidity in invading someone like North Korea.
2006-02-07 14:27:48
wannabe_tank_whore
Member
+5|7005

Torin wrote:

Right, like I said, the US has the balls to invade a country that for all intents and purposes can't fight back, but is relegated to democracy when it comes to someone like North Korea. If Democracy is good enough for North Korea, why not Iraq? This goes out to all of you that support the war in Iraq and have enough common sense to see the stupidity in invading someone like North Korea.
Maybe the government knows something we don't about North Korea?
2006-02-07 14:30:23
HellHead
The fantastic Mr. Antichrist
+336|6937|Germany
So, Torin, to put this whole discussion onto the top of the needle :

Your talking about all the things that were done wrong...

Imagine to be the president of the USA, what would YOU have done ?
2006-02-07 14:32:59
Torin
Member
+52|6920

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Torin, “There is nothing patriotic about hating your country, or pretending that you can love your country but despise your government. There is nothing heroic about turning your back on America, or ignoring your own responsibilities.”



Author – Bill Clinton, May 5, 1995.
http://www.clintonfoundation.org/legacy … -state.htm
And? Just because a democratic president said it, doesn't mean it has any particular sway over my opinion.

There is also nothing patriotic about supporting a government intent on making bad decisions and causing strife in the world.

There is nothing patriotic about supporting a stupid president just because he is the president. In a society where less than half of the population votes, what value does the office of the president have when it is really only supported officially by roughly 25% of the population? This isn't "back in the day" when nearly everyone voted for the president because of the domestic changes that were needed. Nowadays, voting for the president is merely an expression of your political standing, and not a representation of what you can expect to have done with our country. How many people voted for Bush thinking "yeah, let's go bust up Saddam, kill off 2000+ of our troops and spend 3 billion of our hard earned dollars doing it!" ?

I love my country, I love the government my country was founded on but I despise the administration and what democracy actually stands for today. A democracy is meant to represent the people, not 25% of the population. Democracy is a joke as it stands today. What representation do I have? Who actually has representation nowadays, the top 1% of the income earners in the country, the dwindling few who still support the war and the religious right? Yeah, that's some damn good representation, especially for a middle-class, agnostic, liberal democrat.

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Torin wrote:

Right, like I said, the US has the balls to invade a country that for all intents and purposes can't fight back, but is relegated to democracy when it comes to someone like North Korea. If Democracy is good enough for North Korea, why not Iraq? This goes out to all of you that support the war in Iraq and have enough common sense to see the stupidity in invading someone like North Korea.
Maybe the government knows something we don't about North Korea?
Yeah, like real evidence they actually have nuclear weapons?

Last edited by Torin (2006-02-07 14:40:46)

2006-02-07 14:38:21
Torin
Member
+52|6920

HellHead wrote:

So, Torin, to put this whole discussion onto the top of the needle :

Your talking about all the things that were done wrong...

Imagine to be the president of the USA, what would YOU have done ?
Well to preface whatever I have to say, I would not run for president, because I do not have the necessary character to take on the responsibility of such a position. Neither obviously does Bush, but he went ahead with it anyways.

But if I had to say, I would have strove to gather solid evidence, not some heresay that happened to back up my intentions. Bad intelligence, even if it is your only intelligence, is not worth using. If you can't support it with multiple other sources, it's not good intelligence, and certainly not worth using to support invading a soverign nation.

If I was able to gather solid evidence that he had or was making WMDs (not that I would have since we know now he had none and was not making any), I would have invaded for the purpose of removing the weapons and the capability of manufacturing those weapons, but not to take down the government, rebuild the country, build a new government, etc. We simply took it way too far. Once we got in and found out there were no WMDs, we should have left. And we should not have gone in like invaders in a war, we should have gone in like weapon inspectors with a military escort.

Last edited by Torin (2006-02-07 14:50:11)

2006-02-07 14:43:56
wannabe_tank_whore
Member
+5|7005

Torin wrote:

HellHead wrote:

So, Torin, to put this whole discussion onto the top of the needle :

Your talking about all the things that were done wrong...

Imagine to be the president of the USA, what would YOU have done ?
Well to preface whatever I have to say, I would not run for president, because I do not have the necessary character to take on the responsibility of such a position. Neither obviously does Bush, but he went ahead with it anyways.

But if I had to say, I would have strove to gather solid evidence, not some heresay that happened to back up my intentions. Bad intelligence, even if it is your only intelligence, is not worth using. If you can't support it with multiple other sources, it's not good intelligence, and certainly not worth using to support invading a soverign nation.

If I was able to gather solid evidence that he had or was making WMDs (not that I would have since we know now he had none and was not making any), I would have invaded for the purpose of removing the weapons and the capability of removing those weapons, but not to take down the government, rebuild the country, build a new government, etc. We simply took it way too far. Once we got in and found out there were no WMDs, we should have left. And we should not have gone in like invaders in a war, we should have gone in like weapon inspectors with a military escort.
How old are you?
2006-02-07 14:46:11
Torin
Member
+52|6920
What does that matter?
2006-02-07 14:49:30
Ziggy_79x
Member
+4|6913

Torin wrote:

How many people voted for Bush thinking "yeah, let's go bust up Saddam, kill off 2000+ of our troops and spend 3 billion of our hard earned dollars doing it!" ?
The cost of the war in Iraq is approaching the 300 billion mark. I figured it might be a typo but just in case.
I agree with Marconius in the fact that we should take care of the problems that we have in our own country before "we" (our government and current administration) worry about other countries problems. I mean around  30% of the homeless people in our country are VETERANS FFS! People that fought for this country for whatever screwed up reason the powers that be decided on and the government totally turns their backs on them. And I read somewhere that Bush is or was planning on cutting veteran benefits. Sure, he can send these men and women to fight his war, experience hell, and make him and his buddies some money, but he will make sure that they get less healthcare and less benefits when they get home. SICK.....JUST SICK
2006-02-07 14:51:18
Torin
Member
+52|6920
300 billion, that's what I meant.

Oh, and I agree entirely on the domestic focus, or the current apparent lack thereof. All the issues we have inside our own borders, and we're spending hundreds of times more on Iraq? I mean, this Iraq thing is certainly our pickle now, but it wasn't always that way.

Imagine what could have been done domestically with that 300 billion? We're wankering on about social security (or again the impending lack thereof), lack of funding for a huge list of social programs, poor public education and medical benefits for our citizens that need it, but its ok to just go and blow 300 billion fighting some other country's fight? Shit, imagine if we spent 300 billion on every country out there that was under the reign of some sadistic dictator.

And the funny/sad thing, is that 300 billion is just to date. Anyone with a wink of sense know that this situation in Iraq is a ways from over, I wouldn't be surprised for it to end up costing the public a good 500-600 billion before it's said and done. And what will we have to show for it? A corrupt foreign democracy and increased global terrorism! I'm glad my tax dollars are so well spent!

Last edited by Torin (2006-02-07 14:56:08)

2006-02-07 14:55:42
--->[Your]Phobia<---
Member
+35|6984|UK - England
Well I just voted - nothing leave it as it is.. I guess we have at least 5 dum ass ppl who want to nuke it. Mate try it.. I wanna see what happens.. The country that attempts this will surley be sorry.
BUT EVERYONE is entitled to their own opinion, so I'll leave it at that.

Last edited by --->[Your]Phobia<--- (2006-02-07 14:56:12)

2006-02-07 15:05:22
Marconius
One-eyed Wonder Mod
+368|6922|San Francisco
I'll preface this by saying that I have very strong inclinations that 9/11 was an inside job, and had several years of planning behind it masterminded by the PNAC group (Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, etc.).  It's also really hard to speculate since we were fed false information by the Bush administration so far.

Anyways, if I were President, and 9/11 happened upon its own accord, I would've frozen Al Qaeda's assets, disassembled the fake charities set up to fund them, and would've asked for aid in hunting their leaders down, interrogating (Read: NOT torture) and imprisoning them.  This could've all been done in 2001 as we had all the information we needed to do so back then.

As for Iraq, I'm with Torin in wanting much more conclusive evidence before any action was taken.  If they proved to be a clear and present danger to us, I'd open up diplomatic negotiations in every attempt to forego a conflict.  I would absolutely not pre-emptively strike them.
2006-02-07 15:55:34
Berserk_Vampire
Banned
+7|6916
Yes but not as much as im sick of seeing the mentality of the U.S and besides if any one did nuke the Middle East then who would stand up to the U.S with those lovely Suicide Bombings of Holy Anti American Bastardization.

What we should do first is get rid of the United States (one of the biggest problems of the world)  then we will see how Afghanistan acts i bet you they would calm down alot.

In the eyes of Americans all middle east countries are Terrorist and in the eyes of every one else but the States you are terrorists because of you're gay ways and military mentalities.

PS and Mcdonalds.
2006-02-08 00:18:14
Greenie_Beazinie
Aussie Outlaw
+8|7041

Cougar wrote:

Am I the only person that is SICK of hearing about all the stupid shit that the people in the middle east do on a day to day basis?!  I'm so tired of it, what is wrong with these people??  Here's a list of the top 10 things that I'm sick of hearing:
Coug Out.
Funny, cause most of this wouldnt be happening if you yanks didnt stick your noses where they dont belong
2006-02-08 06:17:31
Cougar
Banned
+1,962|6992|Dallas

tF-voodoochild wrote:

Cougar wrote:

tF-afrojap wrote:

HellHead
wannabe_tank_whore
Torin
General_CoLin_Tassi
Marconius
Ziggy_79x

Thank you all for contributing to the thread in a meaningful way. Glad to see this post turn into something.
Uhh, yeah...you forgot Cougar there mate.  I kinda sorta made this thread.  I'm working towards a copyright too.
Yeah, your contributions were really meaningful.

Let's take a look back at some of your better ones...

Cougar wrote:

poopy

Cougar wrote:

I've typed to much today, so HellHound or whatever your name is, yeah.  Thats all, just a yeah.  Damn the man.

Cougar wrote:

Agreed.  I donkey punched a MEC chick once.
By the way this thread was sounding I figured it could use a little humor. 

Your welcome.
2006-02-08 06:26:24
Cougar
Banned
+1,962|6992|Dallas

Greenie_Beazinie wrote:

Cougar wrote:

Am I the only person that is SICK of hearing about all the stupid shit that the people in the middle east do on a day to day basis?!  I'm so tired of it, what is wrong with these people??  Here's a list of the top 10 things that I'm sick of hearing:
Coug Out.
Funny, cause most of this wouldnt be happening if you yanks didnt stick your noses where they dont belong
Aren't you that Aussie emo fag?

Shaddup
2006-02-08 06:27:42
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6944
its the poor countries in ME are having a lot of problems, the UAE, Bahrain and Saudi arabia doesnt have that kinda shit, UAE: has best city in world: dubai, Bahrain: has an F1 circuit, good enough for a country, and saudi... well i dont know much about it... but my teacher used to teach there and said it was nice
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2006-02-08 06:29:12
Greenie_Beazinie
Aussie Outlaw
+8|7041

Cougar wrote:

Greenie_Beazinie wrote:

Cougar wrote:

Am I the only person that is SICK of hearing about all the stupid shit that the people in the middle east do on a day to day basis?!  I'm so tired of it, what is wrong with these people??  Here's a list of the top 10 things that I'm sick of hearing:
Coug Out.
Funny, cause most of this wouldnt be happening if you yanks didnt stick your noses where they dont belong
Aren't you that Aussie emo fag?

Shaddup
You faggots dont know what emos are.
2006-02-08 06:33:03
[A-A]Sgt.Sonner
Member
+0|6911|Denmark

hurricane2oo5 wrote:

no im sick off the middle east too. why dont all the good countries in the world save up all thier money and buy a big nuke. we could bomb the middle east and wipe it all out. i then suggest we turn the whole area into a holiday resort
fankoo
I hope you are kidding!! If not you are no better than hitler was!
2006-02-08 07:10:29
whittsend
PV1 Joe Snuffy
+78|6986|MA, USA

Marconius wrote:

I'll preface this by saying that I have very strong inclinations that 9/11 was an inside job, and had several years of planning behind it masterminded by the PNAC group (Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, etc.).  It's also really hard to speculate since we were fed false information by the Bush administration so far.
Um, are you suggesting that the Bush Administration organized the 9/11 attacks?

Let me state something before I continue.  I think that Bush is a shitty President.  Possibly the shittiest in my lifetime (which stretches back to LBJ).  I also have grave reservations about US action in Iraq.

Nevertheless, If I am not misinterpreting what you typed (and I certainly hope I did), that is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard.  That is Michael Moore wet dream fantasyland.  Where would you possibly get such nonsense?

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

...and saudi... well i dont know much about it... but my teacher used to teach there and said it was nice
I bet your teacher wasn't a woman.

Topic closed

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 14

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard