worst president ever.

So the Iraqi ppl didnt deserve the right to vote out their leader who WAS KILLING them? You tell us we dont know what its like to be over in a war torn country fearing for our lives everday. Well I know as much about it as you do, and for the IRaqis its not much different then it was before the war.

Pete is currently sulking around Mt. Hood, shooting with Poor Boyz Productions and hitting on Kristi Leskinen. She hates guys, Pete lamented, so it’s not going good. Apparently Canada isn’t the only thing that’s tough for Pete to get into.

-kamikaze

 
'So the Iraqi ppl didnt deserve the right to vote out their leader who WAS KILLING them? '

They never had a chance!! Of course they would if they could of, but how could they in a dictatorship country? Everything was rigged by the government, there wasn't a chance in hell for them to vote Saddam and his party out.

- Patrick·patproductions.com

Looks like rain to me.
 
smokinskier what you wrote was incoherent as written in english

dont worry about what i can or cant do, worry about what you cant do to me
 
You know what you are right.

I have no idea what that says.

What i meant was that they should have been able to get rid of him on their own but they couldnt they needed help. We are that help

Pete is currently sulking around Mt. Hood, shooting with Poor Boyz Productions and hitting on Kristi Leskinen. She hates guys, Pete lamented, so it’s not going good. Apparently Canada isn’t the only thing that’s tough for Pete to get into.

-kamikaze

 
Oooooohhh those poor Iraqis, not having the freedom to vote out Saddam. Let me educate you a little on the history of Iraq throughout the 20th century.

1958 Army officers overthrew the government and made Iraq a republic. During the coup King Faisal and Prince Abdul Ilah were killed. The army officers set up a three-man Sovereignty Council. The Council consisted of a Shiite Arab, a Kurd, and a Sunni Arab. General Abdul Karin Kassem became the premier of Iraq.

1961 The Kurds asked Kassem to give them complete autonomy in Iraq and a share of the oil revenues. Kassem rejected the plan. As a result the Kurds revolted against the government.

1963 Kassem was assassinated by army officers and members of the Baath Party. Abdul Salam Arif became president and Ahmed Hasan al-Bakr prime minister.

1963 Arif used the military to take complete control of the government and expel the Baath party.

1964 A cease-fire was declared with the Kurds

1966 Arif died. Abdul Rahman Arif, his brother, became the new president.

1968 Al-Bakr overthrew Arif and took control of the government. The Baath party was reestablished.

1970 A new constitution was adopted in Iraq.

1970 Al-Bakr signed an agreement with the Kurds ending all the fighting.

1973 All the foreign oil companies were taken over by the government.

1974 The Kurds and the Iraqis formed and agreement. The Kurds would be allowed to have self-rule and they were given several positions in the government.

1974 New fighting broke out with the Kurds after they rejected revisions to their previous agreement.

March 1975 The Kurds were defeated.

1979 Al-Bakr resigned the presidency. Saddam Hussein succeeded him.

September 1980 Iraq invaded Iran

Do you know how many coup d'etats Iraq has had? At one point, there were 5 different rulers within 7 years. Iraq has been under the control of dicatators for the better part of a century. You would think at some point, the Iraqi people would learn, and establish a just and fair government...maybe a democracy? But no, this never happened.

I recall a similar story involving America and England. I believe that it is up to nations to advance themselves sometimes. There are cases where intervention is warranted, but this isn't one of them. I have heard 'he killed 300,000 of his own people' so many times. This was over many years. In the Rowandan Genocide, over 800,000 people died within a couple years. Mostly within one year, and mostly within one month. Yet we did not intervene, even with a ridiculous amount of warning signs, against aggressors armed with machetes. Do you know why? Because there was no economic gain there. Africa had already been pillaged centuries ago.

During the 1800s, Europeans began colonizing Africa and consolidating power there. They said they were 'bringing civilization and religion' to the people of Africa. And, although they did bring modern technology and ideas of government, mostly they just extracted every resource available from Africa and then left it. Africa didn't seem to benefit that much from the 'civilization' Europeans brought.

Obviously economic interests tend to take priority over aiding people.

smokin weed flippin keys makin crazy gs
 
They can't do it themselves...but they've overthrown several dictators in the past. In any case, within not too long a time Saddam would die of old age, and that would be a perfect opportunity to establish a new government...more than likely, a new dicatorship.

smokin weed flippin keys makin crazy gs
 
OK.

#1. Only a childish irresponsible person will get into a debate on who started what. Here are the facts- it WAS Bush who DECLARED THE WAR ON TERROR. There have always been terrorist attacks in the US, and if the US is now safer than ever before as Bush says, then why is their martial law in Boston and New York? No other party convention has ever had as much security, yet he still claims we are safer than ever. If we are so safe, than why do we need almost all of our freedoms revoked to stay that way? 'He who would trade safety for freedom deserves neither'

#2. Liberals dont claim anything, do you even know what a liberal is? All they do, is try and not be bigots, and open up their own mind.(which is a fuckload more than i could say about some conservatives)

#3. Why the hell is that fact about WW2 in there? The united states' allies were under attack, and losing the war at that time. Participation was imminent. The US was attacked, not by a terrorist organization, but by a government, hence war was declared on that government, and all other governments that condoned that action. Allies like germany for example. Not to mention, Democrats at that time were like the Republicans of today, strong in the south(tho fdr-johnons changed that around). It was not one persons fault, when will anybody ever learn that? Even Hitler had some reasoning in why he started the third reich.(treaty of versailles anyone?)

#4. Korea was a UN mission to create peace. I dont need to say anymore.

#5. Vietnam was started because of the CIA funding socialist terrorist organizations, and plotting assassinations, as well as the Truman Doctrine. Now Truman was the least liberal president until then, and look at all the fucked up things he participated in like Mccarthyism. In 1962, it was Frances problem, the US only had arbitrators, negotiators, and spies, only a dozen troops were sent there, and for 'diplomatic reasons'.

#6. I dont know what is your definition of mass murder or slaughter, or genocide, but the freshest conflicts in my mind with the 90's were Somalia, Bosnia, and Uganda. Somalia, troops were sent to keep peace, 'do not fire unless fire upon' was the ideology. Uganda could have been prevented, but wasnt because of some idiot in the UN security council asking 'whats in it for us'. Bosnia, i dont know if you remember this, but the UN actually did go to bosnia. I'm sorry, but i think confrontation between armed militias is better than civilian slaughter. Now, what is the difference between ALL of those confrontations and iraq? WAR WAS DECLARED ON IRAQ AND NONE OF THOSE OTHER NATIONS!!!!!GOD FUCKING DAMNIT YOU MORONS. THEY WERE PEACEKEEPING MISSIONS.

7. OF course bin laden should be captured. Here are some places he mite be hiding; Saudi Arabia-US Ally, Pakistan-US Ally, and Afghanistan-US occupied. Those are the 3 most probable places for bin laden, and isnt it funny that 2/3rds of those choices are US Allies?

8. So Al Queida is crippled? back to the begginning, WHY IS NEW YORK AND BOSTON UNDER MARTIAL LAW, IF THE TERRORIST ORGANIZATION THAT IS BY FAR THE MOST LIKELY TO ATTACK IS CRIPPLED? Because they are not crippled, they have evolved, and now, they cannot be found, hence cannot be captured, cannot be accounted for.

9. So what you are saying is that Saddam Hussein, because he killed thousands of people, that war was justified? You didnt say that about Bosnia did ya? Clinton removed Milosevic, a 1/2 the warlords in Somalia. So hows about we forget about your hypocritic reasons for one second.

Golden Wheelchair bound
 
GVAR510 said it well. and wat the fuck is kerry gonna do about iraq and terrorism anyway? all he has said is that bush is doing it wrong but he hasnt made any suggestions. people criticize bush because he didnt connect the dots and stop sept 11 and now he is trying to kill the terrorists and break up there networks to make the world and the US safer and he gets criticized for that to. but during all of this nobody says how he should be doing it they just say hes wrong. if his critics where in his seat they would shit themselves.

I hate Liberals.

Member 6834

Bristol Crew Represent

Swix Website
 
Last time I checked, Al-Qadea was not the only terrorist organization, and there is no martial law, only heavy security, no tanks rolling down neighborhood streets, and the security is for idealistic anarchists who just want to fuck shit up.

Politicaly Active Since 1992

'Soberity is not an option.'

Drivin that Train
 
Ah geez, how about starting the war on terrorism anyway? That CANNOT be counted as a good thing so pretty much all the beginning points are moot anyway. A solitary country to shoudl take it upon itself to wage war on a specific noun. You want to look at casualty rates? Take a loot at the deaths of civilians in the these arab countries that have died since the US started this war. Take a look at the increase in terrorist attacks since the beginning of the war. No, Bush made some horrible choices and spitting out figures about how he crushed the Taliban, removed Saddam, etc. do nothing to change that. Those are broad sucesses that came at a toll not worth their value. Those are not sucesses, those are disasters.

`-=`-=`-=`-=`-=`-=`-=`-=`-=`-=`-=`-=`-=`-=`-=`

'haha he told his parents ahbout his ginormous cock.... what a fag' - linemaverick540

'I wonder why haters tend to be idiots?' J.D._May

 
Terror attacks US soil prior to the war on Terror- Several, after the war on terror- zer, and I don't give a rats ass about spain or bali, I am an american living in America, deal with your own national security.

Politicaly Active Since 1992

'Soberity is not an option.'

Drivin that Train
 
the bit about the detroit murders was in response to the comparison of U.S. soliders killed to murders in detroit, in another incarnation of this little dem-bashing piece making the internet rounds. There are rebuttals to each of the points in the original if you just read it. just c+p from another forum

 
exactly, we should deal with our own national security...now why'd we go to war in iraq then? oh right the terrorists were there (proven lie#1)...oh and they had WMDs (proven lie#2)...now im not saying the US should be totally isolationist, but shit maybe all these terrorists wouldnt hate us so much if we just minded our own business a little more, theres plenty of domestic issues to work on

 
the 9/11 commission reported that the supposed link between 9/11 terrorists and saddam was made under misinformed intelligence, and that no link exists

 
EXACTLY bigj, you don't give a flying fuck about other countries. Then why the hell are you so keen on us 'helping' Iraq?

Conservatives on this site have no argument, whenever they post, liberals come in and absolutely destroy their insubstantial statements. Although I am a democrat, I know you guys can do a little better. With the exception of Anewmorning, who says some intelligent things, your side is poorly represented. Bigj is about the second best you've got.

smokin weed flippin keys makin crazy gs
 
Its not like there were no terrorists in Iraq, Zawabi or whatever had done a lot of work there and has ties to both Al Qaeda and Saddam. While Al Qaeda might not be there that is no reason to say that terrorists are not there. It is another one of those lumping statements in which terrorists become Bin Laden. There were people who were terrorists in Iraq such as Zahabi or whatever, but not nessisarily al Qaeda proper.

Politicaly Active Since 1992

'Soberity is not an option.'

Drivin that Train
 
ok, i'll admit i am unaware of how many lower profile terrorists that were in iraq or that we have detained in iraq, but that is besides the point, we were lead to believe, and the reason bush gave us for going to war in iraq, was the ties to al qaeda terroists and bin laden, that has been proven false

 
I don't give a fuck about nations who don't do anything to eliminate the terrorist theat themselves. Our boys are out there fighting for a safer world while other nations are reaping the benefits without the sacrifices. I don't like the fact that in our attempt to rid the world of terrorism we are faced with opposition but they still get the payoff. Could the iraqi people do anything to premote their national security and fight terror before we came in, no because they were ruled by a despot who had terrorist connections (Zawabi or whatever his name is). So, I do care about helpless nations who are being oppressed by a ruthless terror connected despot, but I don't give a fuck about European nations who don't give a fuck about what we are doing over there.

Politicaly Active Since 1992

'Soberity is not an option.'

Drivin that Train
 
what if they dont want the help? suppose your friend's dad was abusive, u told her to press charges but she didnt want to, would you sacrfice your own life and money so that you could sue the abusive dad, even though she didnt want the help. and that's assuming you actually care about the iraqis. iv heard all the stats about how many iraqis saddam killed, id like to know how many we have killed while 'liberating' them. yes casualties are inevitable, but where do you draw the line?

 
I am pretty sure that they don't get up to 300,000, and they looked pretty happy tearring down those statues last year and hitting his icons with shoes, but they were mad because we took their abusive father away weren't they

Politicaly Active Since 1992

'Soberity is not an option.'

Drivin that Train
 
Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, all have had a much bigger connection to training terrorists. Lets not even forget about Jordan, do you have any fucking idea how many terrorists were trained there? CANADIAN terrorists were trained there for christs sake.

Golden Wheelchair bound
 
that what a dark decade that was, the 90s: peace, prosperity, balanced budgets, record surpluses. I hope we never have to live through that again

 
Capurnicus, it is a losing argument becuase anything could happen. japan could be supplying the us with food but they are not. russia could be selling nukes to canada but they are not. no significant evidance was found and i doubt that saddam was selling osama weapons. not like osama has missles and shit. the only weapons he has are ak-47s (can be bought on the russion black market for around $70) and some homemade explosives. besides, Osama and Saddam arnt exactly friends, infact they are the oppsite of friends...

[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

'What Kind of skis are those?' -this stupid poser kid

'Line' -me

'who makes that?' -this stupid poser kid

'Line' -me

www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com

 
Alright, but telling me that suppy can be met by demand doesn't really do me any good. Do you have anything to back up what you're saying? All you're saying is ' Saddam didn't do it.' But what makes you think that? He had every reason to. He hates us, so do the terrorists. You're telling me he wouldn't want to help get revenge on us after we owned him in the Gulf war.

How do you know all he has are AK47's and pipebombs? I can't just assume that this is true just because you say so. What makes you think this? Same with Saddam and Osama, why??

- Patrick·patproductions.com

Looks like rain to me.
 
if all the terrorists responsible for the for 911 were harboured and trained etc in afganistan (most of them were saudis though) why did the us send like 2000 troops there and send way more to iraq who have not yet caused a terrorist attack. im tired i hope this made sense

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top