Reports here say any day now on Iraq

[classy]

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: classy
Bush doesn't want to have a war, Bush wants to commit murder. And he's a disgraceful and ignorant man. I can't remember a time when our country was so looked down upon. He is a poor leader and even worst human being.

Even worse than you? Wow that is bad.

Yea but I am not planning on being a murderer. 😛

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: JackBurton

No one is arguing that Saddam is a ruthless and horrible dictator. But the cost of war is not worth it. Millions of civillians and hundreds of thousands of children have already been killed and/or are dying of starvation by the First Gulf War and UN sanctions on Iraq. The people of Iraq do not deserve to die over a political chess game, period.

Hey, I guess it would have been a bad idea to invade Germany when Hitler was quietly building his military back up. I guess it was a better move to just sit back and wait for Hitler to build up his army to its fullest and then wait for him to attack a country. Everyone knew he was rebuilding his military but chose to ignore it. But hey, "the cost of war wasn't worth it." I swear, some people don't learn from history. But I'll be damned if I'm going to repeat it! I support ONE team and ONE team only, and that is MY team, the US. I could give a sh!t what other coutries think! That little b!tch Saddam is guilty of funding terrorism, and I'm POSITIVE 95% of that terrorism is targeted at the US. You can hide your f@@king head in a hole in the ground and think if you don't do anything everything will be A.O.K, but it isn't and it won't. You know it's funny, I hear A LOT of anti-Bush people talking about this bullsh!t rumor that Bush knew about the 9/11 attack before it happened. But if the US DID know about it and targeted Afghanistan, all these f%%king p&ssies would be protesting the war on Afghanistan. "Hey, what did they do to us?" I swear to God...

Quite a lot of rhetoric there and not a lot of facts. Emotional outbursts really solve a lot...

 

[konichiwa]

<< Yes, Belgium has ignored all of the other despots of the world and decided to try to try Sharon for something in which he has only been found indirectly responsible for. >>

Sharon is "indirectly responsible" for the deaths of those palestinians like Osama Bin Laden is "indirectly responsible" for the September 11th attacks; he didn't pull the trigger but he organized it and let it occur.

 

[FrontlineWarrior]

hahahaha this is all so funny. why bother with konichiwa or hagbard? war is going to happen so just sit back and be content that saddam is going to be gone soon. 🙂
i would have mentioned bluga in that list, but no one takes that idiot seriously anyway.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: konichiwa
<< Yes, Belgium has ignored all of the other despots of the world and decided to try to try Sharon for something in which he has only been found indirectly responsible for. >>

Sharon is "indirectly responsible" for the deaths of those palestinians like Osama Bin Laden is "indirectly responsible" for the September 11th attacks; he didn't pull the trigger but he organized it and let it occur.

Once again it seems you haven't done your homework.

bin Laden is part of an organization that deliberately attacked civilians. He knew of the attack before hand and what the consequences would be.

Sharon allowed the Christian Phalangists into the the refugee camp to search for Palestinian terrorists. There are no indications that he knew before hand that the killings of innocents would take place. He is responsible because he was in military charge of the area and theoretically should have know that the Phalangists might take revenge for the killing of one of their politicians(typing from memory, can't remember his name) the week before. That is why the Kahn commission found him indirectly responsible.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: classy
Bush doesn't want to have a war, Bush wants to commit murder. And he's a disgraceful and ignorant man. I can't remember a time when our country was so looked down upon. He is a poor leader and even worst human being.

Even worse than you? Wow that is bad.

Yea but I am not planning on being a murderer. 😛

Most murderers realize the error of their ways.

 

[FrontlineWarrior]

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: BD231
Someone has to take Saddam and his boie'z out (he's a guy who has proven himself as a ruthless bastard no?), since nobody else cares to do so why not reap the long term benefits of liberating Iraq?. I'm sure most the un-brainwashed U.S. haters over there are all for it, and I doubt Bush is on a crusade to rob the place. We go in, take out the bad guys, help the people get their crap together and leave with a country that's good for oil trade. We've neutralized an obvious potential threat to the US in the process also.

No, you'll be there a very long time, and while some of your citizens will get rich from it, you're taxpayers are going to foot the enormous bill. A bill, btw, that will increase as you take on every other dictator in the world your president decides he doesn't approve of. Happy hunting.

ahh yes, all about oil vs. it will cost a lot of money. which one will you pick in your next argument? lol

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: FrontlineWarrior

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: BD231
Someone has to take Saddam and his boie'z out (he's a guy who has proven himself as a ruthless bastard no?), since nobody else cares to do so why not reap the long term benefits of liberating Iraq?. I'm sure most the un-brainwashed U.S. haters over there are all for it, and I doubt Bush is on a crusade to rob the place. We go in, take out the bad guys, help the people get their crap together and leave with a country that's good for oil trade. We've neutralized an obvious potential threat to the US in the process also.

No, you'll be there a very long time, and while some of your citizens will get rich from it, you're taxpayers are going to foot the enormous bill. A bill, btw, that will increase as you take on every other dictator in the world your president decides he doesn't approve of. Happy hunting.

ahh yes, all about oil vs. it will cost a lot of money. which one will you pick in your next argument? lol

My crystal ball.

Hagbard will predict that a lot of American soldiers will be killed by the nerve gas that Saddam doesn't have because he has disarmed.



Oh wait, he already did that.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Well, if you're naive enough to believe that Saddam disarmed, then I can understand why you think the world economy hinges on the Joneses roadtrip in their large, evil, gas guzzling, Alaskan wildlife killing SUV

a) My point was not to show that Saddam disarmed or didn't disarm, but that the Bushit has changed from "disarm" to "Saddam must be ousted"

b) You believe that this war teeters on anything other than oil? Who's naive now?

c) "evil, gas guzzling, Alaskan wildlife killing SUV"

I don't know about evil, but gas guzzling, wildelife killing, sure. Have any evidence to point otherwise?

Prove to me that this war is all about the oil. Tell me how the US is going to plant its flag and take over those oil fields. You claim it, let's see it.

Have you read this? They do make a pretty convincing arguement to me and they even discribe how, and that we have been planning to do it for years.

 

[GasX]

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: konichiwa
"disarm, now! or we'll attack!"

<saddam disarms>

"uhh, we're attacking anyway!"

Exactly. I rather doubt any other country will fall for that one again (hint North Korea). Oh, and I forget to mention, this was from Global National news, they're telling journalists to get out NOW and any other foreigners.

Saddam is disarming?


riighhhtttt......

 

[drewshin]

how do you think bush is going to pay for this war? with more tax cuts? heh heh
first you have the cost of the war, the money paid to win support of allies, the cost of occupation afterwards.

if you have to give this administration any credit, they know this war is going to cost bigtime, therefore the easiest -- path of least resistance, is to use oil as some sort of payment policy to compensate them for the costs, and reap extra benefits while they are doing it... i wonder how they will spin it? they will probably say that since they and the british were attacking forces, they deserve compensation from the new iraqi government in terms of oil contracts, cheap oil, etc.

the u.s. paid almost nothing in the first gulf war simply because of this tactic. occupying iraq makes the most sense in laying a foundation for access to cheap oil for some time to come.

 

[JellyBaby]

you have the cost of the war, the money paid to win support of allies, the cost of occupation afterwards.

Nevermind the costs Saddum has WMD!

As for spinning anything in the post-invasion time period, it's not a problem. At some point the US media will give up on a the story especially if something new pops up. Your average Amercian will probably stop hearing about the goings-on inside Iraq about 6 month to a year after the conquest.

 

[JackBurton]

Quite a lot of rhetoric there and not a lot of facts. Emotional outbursts really solve a lot...

Sorry, let me go ask the CIA if they'd hand me over there info so I can make you happy.

 

[jurzdevil]

as much as i want to see a war and see saddam shot in the head its a bad idea. bush needs to wait for iraq or north korea to screw up. once either country does something we accuse them of... ***ts goning to hit the fan.

If we dont give them a reason to use these weapons, then they can't use them. If they do use them, theres your smoking gun now lets bomb them to hell.

Its a big game of chess. Wait for the enemy to make the first move then go for the throat.

 

[honz]

Originally posted by: konichiwa
"disarm, now! or we'll attack!"

<saddam disarms>

"uhh, we're attacking anyway!"

hmm, wasn't it a couple weeks ago that UN council said he had till friday or something to get rid of them?? its past overdue, hope you've got some french babes, cuz we're comin =)

 

[JellyBaby]

Originally posted by: jurzdevil
as much as i want to see a war and see saddam shot in the head its a bad idea. bush needs to wait for iraq or north korea to screw up. once either country does something we accuse them of... ***ts goning to hit the fan.

If we dont give them a reason to use these weapons, then they can't use them. If they do use them, theres your smoking gun now lets bomb them to hell.

Its a big game of chess. Wait for the enemy to make the first move then go for the throat.

Well Bush moved a pawn first by calling out NK on violating international agreements vis a vis nookular weapons programs. Not exactly the best timing for it especially after the Axis of Evil speech. But brave if not tactful.