Iraq Insurgents Kill 21 Soldiers, Five Marines

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Oh btw, who do you think SOLD Saddam all those chemical weapons back in the 80's?

Well i would say it is the 90's during our lovely man, Clinton's, administration.

-Kevin

Now you're being a complete idiot. The first Gulf war was in 91, before Clinton was elected. Reagan and Bush I took care of Saddam during the 80's with nice toys to use against Iran (and he used them against his own people).

The Clinton remark show how much of a fanboy you are!

Warmongering assclowns!

 

[Gamingphreek]

Warmongering assclowns!

Maybe you didn't see my statement from the previous post. Here, because you dont seem to be able to think on your own ill quote it right here for you 🙂

You know why do you act like i enjoy this. I enjoy war no more than ANY OF YOU!!!!! I HATE IT!! I HATE IT WHEN PEOPLE DIE!! However, the fact that i know that many many more people would die unless we did something is reason enough to go to war. How many more people have to die before you assholes realize something has to be done!?!?!? You talk to me about ignorance. WE WERE ATTACKED!! Saddam was a terrorist put into power that through clever means disguised his acts. What do you call genocide?? If that isn't an act of terror i dont know what is.

Now you're being a complete idiot. The first Gulf war was in 91, before Clinton was elected. Reagan and Bush I took care of Saddam during the 80's with nice toys to use against Iran (and he used them against his own people).

Oh they simply gave him weapons and said "Here, have fun with these. Make sure to kill tons of innocent people? This is before my time so i cannot accurately answer this question. However i do know enough that no president, liberal or conservative, wants to see thousands of innocent people die.

Forgive my disbelief. I suppose you think Clinton was one of the best presidents we ever had?

-Kevin

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Forgive my disbelief. I suppose you think Clinton was one of the best presidents we ever had?

-Kevin

No. I think GWB is one of the worst (if not the worst) though.

Interesting - Even some of the Repubs in congress see the war for what it was - UNJUSTIFIED!

This is before my time so i cannot accurately answer this question. However i do know enough that no president, liberal or conservative, wants to see thousands of innocent people die.

Uh-huh. You're kidding yourself if you don't think that those against Iran at the time weren't completely happy that Iraq was doing their dirty work. They didn't give - they "provided" as in sold.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Not really. Listen buddy, holding your hands to your ears and screaming "LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA" isn't holding your own in an argument.

Show me where i posted that i was doing that.

Instead of attacking me why dont you respond to my argument. Or... do you not have a response.

-Kevin

I already responded to your argument about Clinton --> "NOT REALLY." <--

"You people are acting like Saddam was the most holy, and moral man on the face of this planet."

Nobody is saying that at all.

"name ONE good thing Saddam or Osama has done in their entire life."

Osama fought to remove Soviet occupation from Afghanistan, and Iraq under Saddam had some of the best treatment of women in the Middle East.

You are doing little more than spouting tired rhetoric, and you almost sound like you think we haven't heard all this before. There are many people who support the war here, and most of them have moved on to more sophisticated arguments to back up their beliefs. Your view is overly simplistic, and you certainly aren't impressing me with your "keen insights".

 

[Gamingphreek]

Ok... i disagree with you... obviously 😛

Just because YOU the american citizen have not seen any justification of this war through intelligence you believe that Bush is a bad president.

I suppose you neglect the fact that Bush is pulling us out of an economic depression which clinton put us in. Also you are ignoring the manner in which he dealt with 9-11. The country didn't fall apart, which means the leader did an admirable job.

-Kevin

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
Ok... i disagree with you... obviously 😛

Just because YOU the american citizen have not seen any justification of this war through intelligence you believe that Bush is a bad president.

I suppose you neglect the fact that Bush is pulling us out of an economic depression which clinton put us in. Also you are ignoring the manner in which he dealt with 9-11. The country didn't fall apart, which means the leader did an admirable job.

-Kevin

This is a topic under heavy debate here. I'm not just about to take your word on it. And I wouldn't expect the country to fall apart after two skyscrapers were knocked over. He did what any other president would do.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
Ok... i disagree with you... obviously 😛

Just because YOU the american citizen have not seen any justification of this war through intelligence you believe that Bush is a bad president.

I suppose you neglect the fact that Bush is pulling us out of an economic depression which clinton put us in. Also you are ignoring the manner in which he dealt with 9-11. The country didn't fall apart, which means the leader did an admirable job.

-Kevin

Bush had my 100% support right after 9-11. His speach on the rubble of the trade center was breath taking. He blew it all away with the warmongering Iraq and, to a lesser degree, spending us into a sh!thole. The deficits are staggering and he and his republican buddies in congress haven't found a spending bill that they didn't like.

Add the fact of BIGGER, MORE INTRUSIVE GOVERNMENT that the current leadership is installing, you have the basis for why I feel the way I do. I won't budge on the issue. You're wasting your time thinking you can change anything with your spouting of rhetoric!

 

[Gamingphreek]

Uh-huh. You're kidding yourself if you don't think that those against Iran at the time weren't completely happy that Iraq was doing their dirty work. They didn't give - they "provided" as in sold.

Like i said. I cannot accurately argue against you here. I do not have that knowledge of that because i wasn't alive at the time.

Osama fought to remove Soviet occupation from Afghanistan, and Iraq under Saddam had some of the best treatment of women in the Middle East.

Osama fought to remoce the Soviets? I was under the impression that Osama was a terrorist leader. Stop fooling yourself, he only wanted them out of afghanistan because it was against his religious views.

As for Saddam. He had good treatment of women!?!? And that is a plus. I though everyone was supposed to be treated equal. The fact that he didn't slaughter the women is considered a positive attribute. Hardly.

-Kevin

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Uh-huh. You're kidding yourself if you don't think that those against Iran at the time weren't completely happy that Iraq was doing their dirty work. They didn't give - they "provided" as in sold.

Like i said. I cannot accurately argue against you here. I do not have that knowledge of that because i wasn't alive at the time.

Osama fought to remove Soviet occupation from Afghanistan, and Iraq under Saddam had some of the best treatment of women in the Middle East.

Osama fought to remoce the Soviets? I was under the impression that Osama was a terrorist leader. Stop fooling yourself, he only wanted them out of afghanistan because it was against his religious views.

As for Saddam. He had good treatment of women!?!? And that is a plus. I though everyone was supposed to be treated equal. The fact that he didn't slaughter the women is considered a positive attribute. Hardly.

-Kevin

You failed history, didn't you?

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Uh-huh. You're kidding yourself if you don't think that those against Iran at the time weren't completely happy that Iraq was doing their dirty work. They didn't give - they "provided" as in sold.

Like i said. I cannot accurately argue against you here. I do not have that knowledge of that because i wasn't alive at the time.

Osama fought to remove Soviet occupation from Afghanistan, and Iraq under Saddam had some of the best treatment of women in the Middle East.

Osama fought to remoce the Soviets? I was under the impression that Osama was a terrorist leader. Stop fooling yourself, he only wanted them out of afghanistan because it was against his religious views.

As for Saddam. He had good treatment of women!?!? And that is a plus. I though everyone was supposed to be treated equal. The fact that he didn't slaughter the women is considered a positive attribute. Hardly.

-Kevin

Osama was a rebel fighter (being funded by the US) who fought to remove Soviets from Afghanistan. As for removing them for his religious views... well, what is good then? Is fighting gay marriage because it's against your religious views good? Or not doing your job as a pharmacist by not distributing prescribed medication that is against your religious views?

So should we not see Abraham Lincoln as a good man for freeing blacks simply because they should have been free to begin with?

Edit: I wasn't alive at the time either. That's why I go and read up about these things before coming over here and acting like I know what I'm talking about.

 

[Gamingphreek]

And I wouldn't expect the country to fall apart after two skyscrapers were knocked over. He did what any other president would do.

They were not merely "knocked over". They were blown apart... along with all the innocent people inside.

He blew it all away with the warmongering Iraq and, to a lesser degree, spending us into a sh!thole. The deficits are staggering and he and his republican buddies in congress haven't found a spending bill that they didn't like.

I do agree with you that Iraq was of economic interest. However, the fact that the leader there was evil, and he comitted so many crimes, and was a threat pretty much necessitated action. Do you really think if Iraq was a peaceful nation, democratic or not, that Bush would have simply invaded it?

I dont think i can change anyones mind on this. We are all educated people, and we all have strong opinions on this issue. I feel arguing about this brings both of us a much greater amount of knowledge. I have learned so much from this thread alone. Simply being on the forums and posting in the P&N section has taught me to respect peoples views to a much larger degree.

Good discussion, and good luck in the future to everyone.

-Kevin

 

[Gamingphreek]

You failed history, didn't you?

I am 17 years old. While i can accurately convery my point of view on topics such as in this thread, i am not all knowing. I have not studied this part of history in depth, nor was i alive to experience it. FYI however, the history that we didn study, for those of you who reside in Virginia, i passed my History SOL (Standard Of Learning) with a perfect score. Im no slouch, i just am not able to argue this point.

-Kevin

 

[Gamingphreek]

Edit: I wasn't alive at the time either. That's why I go and read up about these things before coming over here and acting like I know what I'm talking about.

As my other posts show, i am not arguing the point in depth on that part, nor can I. The most i can say is that Osama and Saddam were not doing those things for the greater good of the world, as you might be trying to say they are.

-Kevin

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Edit: I wasn't alive at the time either. That's why I go and read up about these things before coming over here and acting like I know what I'm talking about.

As my other posts show, i am not arguing the point in depth on that part, nor can I. The most i can say is that Osama and Saddam were not doing those things for the greater good of the world, as you might be trying to say they are.

-Kevin

This point is very important in arguing most of the other points you are. Your lack of understanding of that calls into question your understanding of everything else you are talking about.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Edit: I wasn't alive at the time either. That's why I go and read up about these things before coming over here and acting like I know what I'm talking about.

As my other posts show, i am not arguing the point in depth on that part, nor can I. The most i can say is that Osama and Saddam were not doing those things for the greater good of the world, as you might be trying to say they are.

-Kevin

This point is very important in arguing most of the other points you are. Your lack of understanding of that calls into question your understanding of everything else you are talking about.

The fact that i was not alive in the 80's does not mean i know nothing about the 90's or the 00's.

I have asked my dad and he did say that there was probably some weapons funneling between the US and Iraq. However, these weapons were not given to them for the purpose of genocide. They were given to them for the purpose of using them against Iran.

Your post has no basis and basically you are saying that i know nothing, which based on my previous posts is completely false.

-Kevin

 

[BBond]

Why don't you READ. Maybe you can catch a glimpse of what went on before you were born rather than just ignorantly spouting the party line.

 

[Gamingphreek]

I just asked someone who WAS alive at that time. That is better information than any book can give.

Why don't you think!?!

-Kevin

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Edit: I wasn't alive at the time either. That's why I go and read up about these things before coming over here and acting like I know what I'm talking about.

As my other posts show, i am not arguing the point in depth on that part, nor can I. The most i can say is that Osama and Saddam were not doing those things for the greater good of the world, as you might be trying to say they are.

-Kevin

This point is very important in arguing most of the other points you are. Your lack of understanding of that calls into question your understanding of everything else you are talking about.

The fact that i was not alive in the 80's does not mean i know nothing about the 90's or the 00's.

I have asked my dad and he did say that there was probably some weapons funneling between the US and Iraq. However, these weapons were not given to them for the purpose of genocide. They were given to them for the purpose of using them against Iran.

Your post has no basis and basically you are saying that i know nothing, which based on my previous posts is completely false.

-Kevin

Of course they weren't given to them for genocide, but there were few complaints because Iraq was the enemy of our enemy (at the time), Iran.

Just because someone was alive at the time doesn't mean that they know better than any other source. I was alive at the time and had no clue about the goings on until years later.

 

[robertcloud]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
I just asked someone who WAS alive at that time. That is better information than any book can give.

Why don't you think!?!

-Kevin

Some random uneducated hack is able to explain history better than a history textbook? And the fact that you scored a perfect on your history exam is a perfect indication that our secondary education system is terrible.

Edit: And I just had to laugh out loud when you started spewing about Clinton and Iran.

And Bush's economical model is unsound from both a classical and a Keynesian economic model. Clinton did not put the US in an economic depression, it is laughable to suggest that he did.

It is extremely unsound to run a deficit in a time of economic growth(now). The Keynesian model, which has been popular until very recently, suggests that deficits are to be run during a recession, and there should be a surplus to pay for the deficit when the economy is growing. I'm sure you know this well since your are such a stellar student Gamingphreek.

Clinton understood this, it seems that Bush doesn't.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
Your post has no basis and basically you are saying that i know nothing, which based on my previous posts is completely false.
-Kevin

This is not what I'm saying at all. You may know some facts, but you don't actually understand the historical significance of them. Not knowing the actions of the US in the 80s calls into question your understanding of current events, where many people who drove policy in the 80s are right back at it. And just to reiterate, just "your dad" is not a reliable source.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: robertcloud

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
I just asked someone who WAS alive at that time. That is better information than any book can give.

Why don't you think!?!

-Kevin

Some random uneducated hack is able to explain history better than a history textbook? And the fact that you scored a perfect on your history exam is a perfect indication that our secondary education system is terrible.

Edit: And I just had to laugh out loud when you started spewing about Clinton and Iran.

And Bush's economical model is unsound from both a classical and a Keynesian economic model. Clinton did not put the US in an economic depression, it is laughable to suggest that he did.

It is extremely unsound to run a deficit in a time of economic growth(now). The Keynesian model, which has been popular until very recently, suggests that deficits are to be run during a recession, and there should be a surplus to pay for the deficit when the economy is growing. I'm sure you know this well since your are such a stellar student Gamingphreek.

Clinton understood this, it seems that Bush doesn't.

Wow! :beer:

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: Engineer
Wow! :beer:

Especially as seeing how robertcloud has made posts with religious slants that I strongly disagree with, it's nice to see that he isn't just another Rebuplican hack who tows the party line on all issues.

Free thinking is good, I think.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Some random uneducated hack is able to explain history better than a history textbook? And the fact that you scored a perfect on your history exam is a perfect indication that our secondary education system is terrible.

That "uneducated hack" is my dad. Keep posting sh!t that. It seems the only way you can get your point across is to insult someone. He is also not uneducated... 4 Years a Penn State University. Dont you feel dumb now?

Additionally i am a 17 year old. I have not taken any college level history and therefore have not studied that time period. The current history curriculum i am enrolled in, covers the founding of America, up to the Vietnam war.

Instead of insulting me constantly why dont you provide a counter argument? All you guys are doing is insulting me and providing theory.

-Kevin

 

[Darkhawk28]

:roll:So your argument against widely known history is "My daddy told me so"?

 

[robertcloud]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Some random uneducated hack is able to explain history better than a history textbook? And the fact that you scored a perfect on your history exam is a perfect indication that our secondary education system is terrible.

That "uneducated hack" is my dad. Keep posting sh!t that. It seems the only way you can get your point across is to insult someone. He is also not uneducated... 4 Years a Penn State University. Dont you feel dumb now?

Additionally i am a 17 year old. I have not taken any college level history and therefore have not studied that time period. The current history curriculum i am enrolled in, covers the founding of America, up to the Vietnam war.

Instead of insulting me constantly why dont you provide a counter argument? All you guys are doing is insulting me and providing theory.

-Kevin

Graduating from PSU isn't impressive, any retard can do that(though I'm not necessarily saying your dad is one).

I just asked someone who WAS alive at that time. That is better information than any book can give.

That is complete bullsh|t. My dad went to a much better school than PSU, but I don't expect him to remember the intricacies of geopolitics from history class. I don't know what sort of twisted adoration you have for your father, but i'd bet his knowledge is not as complete as you may think.

Better information than any book can give? Complete hogwash.

Instead of insulting me constantly why dont you provide a counter argument? All you guys are doing is insulting me and providing theory.

Counter arguement? You're just an ignorant kid(self admitted). You don't have an arguement, all you have is mindless drivel.

But I will humour you:
Clinton did not depress the economy.
Bush is not using sound economic strategy.
There were no ties between Hussein and Al-Qaeda.
There were no WMD's in Iraq.
Hussein did not fly planes into US buildings.
Hussein invading Kuwait was not terrorism.
The US supplied Bin Laden with small and medium arms for the Afghani fight against Soviet occupation.
The US supported the secular Iraqi government during the fight against Khomeni's regime.