PDA

View Full Version : Bush Billboard For Real


Neezar
02-10-2010, 04:30 AM
http://l.yimg.com/a/i/ww/news/2010/02/09/billboard.jpg


:laugh::laugh::laugh:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1122

NateR
02-10-2010, 04:50 AM
http://l.yimg.com/a/i/ww/news/2010/02/09/billboard.jpg

YES!!!

DonnaMaria
02-10-2010, 07:18 PM
hahaha! Love it! Brilliant! :w00t:

billwilliams70
02-10-2010, 08:25 PM
Funny, the coolest thing is that it's real and not some rumor.

Later.

Buzzard
02-10-2010, 10:01 PM
I miss him like a bad case of the flu.

KENTUCKYREDBONE
02-11-2010, 02:12 AM
Obama sure does make me miss Bush!

Vizion
02-11-2010, 02:28 AM
I know a guy who knows the guy who did this.

And yes, Obama makes me miss Bush too.

Tyburn
02-12-2010, 12:19 AM
YES!!!

:laugh::laugh:

TheConcretekid
02-12-2010, 03:38 PM
I miss the 4,376 US soldiers that died in Iraq... you know that country with no weapons of mass destruction and no ties to terrorism and no links to 9/11. Meanwhile the 2,973 victims of 9/11 (you'll note that this number is about 1.5 times less than the number of soldiers that were sent to their deaths by Bush) are still waiting for justice

TexasRN
02-12-2010, 05:38 PM
I miss the 4,376 US soldiers that died in Iraq... you know that country with no weapons of mass destruction and no ties to terrorism and no links to 9/11. Meanwhile the 2,973 victims of 9/11 (you'll note that this number is about 1.5 times less than the number of soldiers that were sent to their deaths by Bush) are still waiting for justice


I got this article sent to my facebook inbox and thought I'd share it with you. It was written by the guy who co-wrote Lone Survivor with Marcus Luttrell. It explains quite a bit about the WMD situation.

"DID SADDAM HAVE AN ATOM BOMB?

By Patrick Robinson

Did he have an atom bomb? Of course not.
Did he have a nuclear program? Very definitely.

In the broadest commonsense terms, there is only one reason on this earth to produce Uranium-235 – and that’s to make a nuclear weapon. Uranium-235 is the high-tech name for weapons-grade uranium, the principal component of an atomic bomb, or a guided-missile with a nuclear warhead.

Naturally, anyone trying to make a nuclear weapon would prefer to do so in secret. Which is why we are all obliged to listen to a plethora of rubbish about water-reactors and the possible use of uranium 235 in the production of electricity, and other facile excuses.

Essentially you can forget all about that. If anyone is using a ‘gyro’ to ‘spin’ uranium 238 (regular) into uranium 235 – that someone is trying to make a nuclear weapon. It takes around seven years to spin the 238. Which is a long time, fraught with problems.

The finished article, a deliverable weapon with a nuclear warhead, is probably the result of a 10-year program. And so, the question is, not did this character have an atom bomb ? But, did he have a program that would lead to an atom bomb or nuclear missile ?

Which brings us to Saddam Hussein, who was most certainly ‘spinning’ – cunningly placing his six gyros in the enclosed steel rear compartments of massive trucks running up and down the highway, unapproachable, and unseen by outsiders, especially Hans Blix, who was running around in the desert, under strict Iraqi supervision, trying to find an atom bomb on behalf of the United Nations.

The three giant silver colored trucks were nailed by the CIA’s anti-terrorist operators in Iraq. They were photographed by US satellites, pin-pointed and tracked back and forth along Iraq’s very few highways. Colin Powell made a major international presentation of their existence, with photographs, and great detail.

Inside the trucks, he proclaimed, were the totally incriminating gyros, spinning Saddam ever closer to the elusive uranium 235 and the nuclear weapon it would become.

The subsequent accepted mantra that there were no weapons of mass destruction is at best an absurd conclusion at which to arrive. But, much more importantly, a grotesque journey up the wrong path. Because the real question remains, did Saddam have a nuclear program ? Not the rather primitive query, did he have an atom bomb?

At the time, Donald Rumsfeld remarked, in obvious exasperation, What do you want to do ? Leave the sonofabitch there ‘till he has got one?

The truth is, Saddam did acquire uranium-238 from Niger, he did have gyros in those trucks, they were ‘spinning’ throughout their endless journey, and the Iraqis did get that uranium the hell out of the country before anyone found the spinners in the back.

But find them they did. And how do I know ? Because I was privileged to write the life story of one of the US Navy SEALs who discovered them, buried beneath the desert floor, with the obvious signs of the huge spinners having been ripped out and shipped out. The CIA think to Syria.

Try not to forget, the only reason anyone has to ‘spin’ uranium, is to make weapons grade 235, and that’s because they are trying to make an atom bomb or missile.

The word is program, not bomb. Saddam did not have a nuclear bomb. But he did have a very elaborate nuclear program. That’s why he had to go. Because that nuclear program leads only one way – toward the day its owner decides to launch it.

Why else would he have it?"



~Amy

Tyburn
02-12-2010, 05:48 PM
I miss the 4,376 US soldiers that died in Iraq... you know that country with no weapons of mass destruction and no ties to terrorism and no links to 9/11. Meanwhile the 2,973 victims of 9/11 (you'll note that this number is about 1.5 times less than the number of soldiers that were sent to their deaths by Bush) are still waiting for justice

What of the War in Afghanistan....how many U.S Soldiers have died fighting a JUST war for the Victims of 9/11.

Yes, I get your point about Iraq, and I aggree...BUT, two things should be said about that. Firstly, AFTER making the mistake, Bush DID NOT make the other mistake of pulling out too soon. The Soldiers may not have died for 9/11 sake, but they DID at least free a peoples from a Genocidal Dictator...you know, they didnt die in Vein like they would have done if Bush had listen to the people AFTER the invasion.

Secondly, the main reason the world stood United behind the U.S was because when dealing with the JUST war of Afghanistan, Bush acted beyond reproach. Here he was, Leader of a country that had just been attacked...and rather then rushing to war, he gave Afghanistan an Ultimatum..he gave them the time to act properly, to do the right thing...rather then just squashing them out of revenge...do you know how much restraint that showed in a World Leader of his Ilk.

YES he made a BIG mistake...BUT there were mistakes he could have made and didnt, and there are times he acted far better then a lot of your Presidents have.

Further to that Bush saved the entire planet from meltdown by Bailing out the U.S banks. Again, probably against the wishes of the majority of his country. He had the guts to follow his convictions whether right or wrong, he was at least sincere

He was shyte a public speaking, prone to gaffs...but I truely believe he had a good heart...and I truely believe that his Father is probably more to blame for Iraq...I think Had Bush jr, not been related to Bush snr, that jump to Iraq might not have occured.

Also, there are theories that say Iran was planning on invading Iraq...and the United States HAD to get their first. After YEARS of saying that he's developing Nuclear power to ONLY provide for his country, the President of Iran admitted Yesterday for the first time on the Annerversary of the Revolution...that they nearly have what they need to become Nuclear.

Oil is a precious resource...if Iraq was likely to fall...then America did the right thing in pre-empting...not Iraq...but Iran. :ninja:

Tyburn
02-12-2010, 05:53 PM
Try not to forget, the only reason anyone has to ‘spin’ uranium, is to make weapons grade 235, and that’s because they are trying to make an atom bomb or missile.

The word is program, not bomb. Saddam did not have a nuclear bomb. But he did have a very elaborate nuclear program. That’s why he had to go. Because that nuclear program leads only one way – toward the day its owner decides to launch it.

Why else would he have it?"



~Amy

Unless he could "spin" his way to being able to launch at 45 mins notice the night before the invasion, this doesnt make a difference on the legitamacy of the War.

My guess is, he couldnt launch missiles capable of striking the U.S and being weapons of mass distruction, either nuclear or biochemical, within 45 mins.

To say that...to use that...is a lie. The motivation was a deciet...and I suspect they knew it too. Thousands of countries have "programmes" thats not justification for invasion. Honnestly, some of these writters clutch at straws rather then just saying "we were wrong" :rolleyes:

TexasRN
02-12-2010, 05:59 PM
Unless he could "spin" his way to being able to launch at 45 mins notice the night before the invasion, this doesnt make a difference on the legitamacy of the War.

My guess is, he couldnt launch missiles capable of striking the U.S and being weapons of mass distruction, either nuclear or biochemical, within 45 mins.

To say that...to use that...is a lie. The motivation was a deciet...and I suspect they knew it too. Thousands of countries have "programmes" thats not justification for invasion. Honnestly, some of these writters clutch at straws rather then just saying "we were wrong" :rolleyes:

It shouldn't matter if he could kill us in America or not with his nuclear program. There are millions of humans he could have attacked using it. Does that not matter to you? I don't think any insane dictator should be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. Someday we may decide to stop protecting all those who whine about us taking out these crazy killers. Let's see how you feel then.


~Amy

TexasRN
02-12-2010, 06:01 PM
Something else to make you think....

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3yu5q_byron-macgregor-the-americans_news

It's called "The Americans." It's from 1974 but I think it fits today too.


~Amy

NateR
02-12-2010, 06:33 PM
I miss the 4,376 US soldiers that died in Iraq... you know that country with no weapons of mass destruction and no ties to terrorism and no links to 9/11. Meanwhile the 2,973 victims of 9/11 (you'll note that this number is about 1.5 times less than the number of soldiers that were sent to their deaths by Bush) are still waiting for justice

There are always going to be casualties during war, only a fool would expect that there wouldn't be. Saddam Hussein was a threat to the world and a major source of instability in that region, that was no doubt. So the war was most definitely justified because, as the article that TexasRN posted says, Saddam did have a nuclear weapons program and he definitely did have weapons of mass destruction, that's a fact of history that cannot by denied by any left-wing, brainwashed Liberal nutcase.

However, if you consider how relatively few soldiers we lost compared to how quickly we achieved our goal of taking over Iraq and capturing Saddam and his sons, then the Iraq War is the most successful war in US history.

Our greatest enemy in that war right now is our own media.

NateR
02-12-2010, 06:39 PM
Unless he could "spin" his way to being able to launch at 45 mins notice the night before the invasion, this doesnt make a difference on the legitamacy of the War.

My guess is, he couldnt launch missiles capable of striking the U.S and being weapons of mass distruction, either nuclear or biochemical, within 45 mins.

To say that...to use that...is a lie. The motivation was a deciet...and I suspect they knew it too. Thousands of countries have "programmes" thats not justification for invasion. Honnestly, some of these writters clutch at straws rather then just saying "we were wrong" :rolleyes:

That's a silly line of reasoning and it completely ignores the facts of Saddam's past actions. Everyone who argues against the War in Iraq loves to conveniently forget the chemical weapons attack that Saddam ordered on Halabja in 1988. That is the proof that Iraq did have WMD and was more than willing to use them against unarmed civilians.

So, we should not have gotten involved in Iraq because he wasn't a direct threat to the US yet? That's idiotic. So were we just supposed to wait until he nuked Israel or France or England before we got off our asses and did something about it? (well of course, France was safe because they were in league with the bastard)

NateR
02-12-2010, 06:40 PM
I got this article sent to my facebook inbox and thought I'd share it with you. It was written by the guy who co-wrote Lone Survivor with Marcus Luttrell. It explains quite a bit about the WMD situation.

"DID SADDAM HAVE AN ATOM BOMB?

By Patrick Robinson

Did he have an atom bomb? Of course not.
Did he have a nuclear program? Very definitely.

In the broadest commonsense terms, there is only one reason on this earth to produce Uranium-235 – and that’s to make a nuclear weapon. Uranium-235 is the high-tech name for weapons-grade uranium, the principal component of an atomic bomb, or a guided-missile with a nuclear warhead.

Naturally, anyone trying to make a nuclear weapon would prefer to do so in secret. Which is why we are all obliged to listen to a plethora of rubbish about water-reactors and the possible use of uranium 235 in the production of electricity, and other facile excuses.

Essentially you can forget all about that. If anyone is using a ‘gyro’ to ‘spin’ uranium 238 (regular) into uranium 235 – that someone is trying to make a nuclear weapon. It takes around seven years to spin the 238. Which is a long time, fraught with problems.

The finished article, a deliverable weapon with a nuclear warhead, is probably the result of a 10-year program. And so, the question is, not did this character have an atom bomb ? But, did he have a program that would lead to an atom bomb or nuclear missile ?

Which brings us to Saddam Hussein, who was most certainly ‘spinning’ – cunningly placing his six gyros in the enclosed steel rear compartments of massive trucks running up and down the highway, unapproachable, and unseen by outsiders, especially Hans Blix, who was running around in the desert, under strict Iraqi supervision, trying to find an atom bomb on behalf of the United Nations.

The three giant silver colored trucks were nailed by the CIA’s anti-terrorist operators in Iraq. They were photographed by US satellites, pin-pointed and tracked back and forth along Iraq’s very few highways. Colin Powell made a major international presentation of their existence, with photographs, and great detail.

Inside the trucks, he proclaimed, were the totally incriminating gyros, spinning Saddam ever closer to the elusive uranium 235 and the nuclear weapon it would become.

The subsequent accepted mantra that there were no weapons of mass destruction is at best an absurd conclusion at which to arrive. But, much more importantly, a grotesque journey up the wrong path. Because the real question remains, did Saddam have a nuclear program ? Not the rather primitive query, did he have an atom bomb?

At the time, Donald Rumsfeld remarked, in obvious exasperation, What do you want to do ? Leave the sonofabitch there ‘till he has got one?

The truth is, Saddam did acquire uranium-238 from Niger, he did have gyros in those trucks, they were ‘spinning’ throughout their endless journey, and the Iraqis did get that uranium the hell out of the country before anyone found the spinners in the back.

But find them they did. And how do I know ? Because I was privileged to write the life story of one of the US Navy SEALs who discovered them, buried beneath the desert floor, with the obvious signs of the huge spinners having been ripped out and shipped out. The CIA think to Syria.

Try not to forget, the only reason anyone has to ‘spin’ uranium, is to make weapons grade 235, and that’s because they are trying to make an atom bomb or missile.

The word is program, not bomb. Saddam did not have a nuclear bomb. But he did have a very elaborate nuclear program. That’s why he had to go. Because that nuclear program leads only one way – toward the day its owner decides to launch it.

Why else would he have it?"



~Amy

Excellent article, thanks for posting it. :cool:

Tyburn
02-12-2010, 06:46 PM
It shouldn't matter if he could kill us in America or not with his nuclear program. There are millions of humans he could have attacked using it. Does that not matter to you? I don't think any insane dictator should be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. Someday we may decide to stop protecting all those who whine about us taking out these crazy killers. Let's see how you feel then.


~Amy

My question is WHY Iraq, and WHY at that time. You act as if Saddam had just done something increadibly mean...He had been doing things like gassing his people for MORE THEN THIRTY YEARS...did it not matter to you in 1988?? Evidently not.

Whilst we are on the subject...how many dictators do you think are in the world? there are many...who do damage to their own and others...but I dont see you rushing to help them all.

And Finally...you didnt go to war on the premise of Regieme Change due to Tyrany. You went to war on the premise of Regieme Change due to accusations of the supposed ability to do EXACTLY what I stated above.

So you tell me Amy...on the basis of what you have read...is the following true or not.

Saddam had Weapons of Mass Distruction either biological or Nuclear, that he could arm, launch, and extend as far as Continental America itself, within an hour of deciding he wished to attack.

If the answer is NO...then the whole reason for going to war was completely and utterly WRONG.

Further more...had you been taking notice of the Iraq Enquiry, you would have known that Bush and Blair met about Regieme Change in Iraq more then a year before invading. probably before UN Inspectors were even looking for weapons...and our Armed Forces were ordered to support yours, we were pledged more then a year before the invasion, to actively support you, the prime minster did that without consulting parliament, or his own Cabinet, without informing the Ministry of Defence...infact, they were the last to know, that they were going to be forced to help...no wonder they were so unprepared...apparently too much pre-planning would have drawn too much attention....if this was innocent, then why hide your light under a bushell for a year whilst you make secret pacts against other countries?? I thought the United States disliked Dictators?? what about Tony Blair...did it not cross their minds as bizzare that he made this decision completely on his own?? So much for democrasy....the ends do not justify the means. Tony Blair had no right to make any comment, let alone committment...do you want me to post what those who have spoken under oath have said transpired between Bush and Blair...because it sounds absolutely sordid...secret little meetings...its shameful Amy, SHAMEFUL

Tyburn
02-12-2010, 06:51 PM
That's a silly line of reasoning and it completely ignores the facts of Saddam's past actions. Everyone who argues against the War in Iraq loves to conveniently forget the chemical weapons attack that Saddam ordered on Halabja in 1988. That is the proof that Iraq did have WMD and was more than willing to use them against unarmed civilians.

So, we should not have gotten involved in Iraq because he wasn't a direct threat to the US yet? That's idiotic. So were we just supposed to wait until he nuked Israel or France or England before we got off our asses and did something about it? (well of course, France was safe because they were in league with the bastard)

Oh...this was about Halabja?? you think it takes the United States THIRTY YEARS to decide to make ammends...what did they do Nathan? discuss in congress for three decades whether that gassing was an act of Genocide or not??

pull the other leg! If they cared about what happened in 1988 they would have acted in 1988!!

...and ANY country could become a threat to you...you cant invade them all because they "might"

Sorry but justification is based on the reasons the US gave for the war.

He wasnt a direct threat...therefore they lied, therefore it was unjust.

...and the French have nothing to do with it.

Tyburn
02-12-2010, 06:57 PM
There are always going to be casualties during war, only a fool would expect that there wouldn't be. Saddam Hussein was a threat to the world and a major source of instability in that region, that was no doubt. So the war was most definitely justified because, as the article that TexasRN posted says, Saddam did have a nuclear weapons program and he definitely did have weapons of mass destruction, that's a fact of history that cannot by denied by any left-wing, brainwashed Liberal nutcase.

However, if you consider how relatively few soldiers we lost compared to how quickly we achieved our goal of taking over Iraq and capturing Saddam and his sons, then the Iraq War is the most successful war in US history.

Our greatest enemy in that war right now is our own media.

:laugh: The thing that said he was a threat to the world, was the United Nations, because he wouldnt comply with international law.

So him breaking International Law, makes him a threat to the world...but YOU breaking International Law doesnt matter :huh: Ask yourself why Saddam was tried by his own people...and not in any proper independant court...not even your own.

See when you break the law, to punish a law breaker...you dont gain anything in a moral sense. Your no fool. I know you understand what I mean.

btw...I also know you hate the UN...but always neglect to keep in mind who was a big part of setting it up and WHY they set it up. To answer....it was The United States of America, to stop any Country from acting in a Unilateral way.

Tell me how Iraq matches up with that ideology Nathan?

NateR
02-12-2010, 07:03 PM
Oh...this was about Halabja?? you think it takes the United States THIRTY YEARS to decide to make ammends...what did they do Nathan? discuss in congress for three decades whether that gassing was an act of Genocide or not??

pull the other leg! If they cared about what happened in 1988 they would have acted in 1988!!

Ummmm, did you forget your history lessons? We did attack Saddam Hussein in 1990. Not 30 years after the event, only 2 years after, but we made the mistake of pulling out of the country too soon before we had killed Saddam.

NateR
02-12-2010, 07:06 PM
:laugh: The thing that said he was a threat to the world, was the United Nations, because he wouldnt comply with international law.

So him breaking International Law, makes him a threat to the world...but YOU breaking International Law doesnt matter :huh: Ask yourself why Saddam was tried by his own people...and not in any proper independant court...not even your own.

See when you break the law, to punish a law breaker...you dont gain anything in a moral sense. Your no fool. I know you understand what I mean.

btw...I also know you hate the UN...but always neglect to keep in mind who was a big part of setting it up and WHY they set it up. To answer....it was The United States of America, to stop any Country from acting in a Unilateral way.

Tell me how Iraq matches up with that ideology Nathan?

Well, I don't agree with everything the US does and forming the UN is pretty high up on the list of our greatest mistakes.

Giving non-democratic nations run by dictators, with no concept of human rights, the same equal voice as democratic free nations is the stupidest thing we could have ever done.

Bonnie
02-12-2010, 07:17 PM
I don't have a problem with them taking Saddam and his two evil spawns out. I wish they could have gotten Bin Laden first because I think that would have been more effective in the long run on many more levels.

I understand now why Bush Sr. did not take him out at the time it would have seemed perfect to do so. It wasn't just a matter of taking Saddam out. They obviously thought about the domino effect that action would have on that part of the world and on us.

I just question the order in which things were done and how much thought was given to what was going to happen AFTER we took Saddam out and what that would mean for us militarily long-term.

And now there's Iran (not to mention that little nut in North Korea).

TexasRN
02-12-2010, 07:24 PM
My question is WHY Iraq, and WHY at that time. You act as if Saddam had just done something increadibly mean...He had been doing things like gassing his people for MORE THEN THIRTY YEARS...did it not matter to you in 1988?? Evidently not.

Whilst we are on the subject...how many dictators do you think are in the world? there are many...who do damage to their own and others...but I dont see you rushing to help them all.

And Finally...you didnt go to war on the premise of Regieme Change due to Tyrany. You went to war on the premise of Regieme Change due to accusations of the supposed ability to do EXACTLY what I stated above.

So you tell me Amy...on the basis of what you have read...is the following true or not.

Saddam had Weapons of Mass Distruction either biological or Nuclear, that he could arm, launch, and extend as far as Continental America itself, within an hour of deciding he wished to attack.

If the answer is NO...then the whole reason for going to war was completely and utterly WRONG.

Further more...had you been taking notice of the Iraq Enquiry, you would have known that Bush and Blair met about Regieme Change in Iraq more then a year before invading. probably before UN Inspectors were even looking for weapons...and our Armed Forces were ordered to support yours, we were pledged more then a year before the invasion, to actively support you, the prime minster did that without consulting parliament, or his own Cabinet, without informing the Ministry of Defence...infact, they were the last to know, that they were going to be forced to help...no wonder they were so unprepared...apparently too much pre-planning would have drawn too much attention....if this was innocent, then why hide your light under a bushell for a year whilst you make secret pacts against other countries?? I thought the United States disliked Dictators?? what about Tony Blair...did it not cross their minds as bizzare that he made this decision completely on his own?? So much for democrasy....the ends do not justify the means. Tony Blair had no right to make any comment, let alone committment...do you want me to post what those who have spoken under oath have said transpired between Bush and Blair...because it sounds absolutely sordid...secret little meetings...its shameful Amy, SHAMEFUL

Dave, I may just smack you upside your head for defending Saddam's right to have a nuclear program. Do you really think it's ok? Really? I can't help if you don't like that your government doesn't ask YOUR permission to do what needs to be done. I don't feel that I need to know every detail of our secret intelligence. I know Saddam was a threat to our safety. Therefore, he needed to be taken out.

I do believe Saddam had weapons he could use to harm Americans. So the answer to your huge question is YES. So there. Chemical, nuclear, biological weapons can be used by people, they don't all require launching. This is a topic that I will fight you over, Dave. You know there are times that your attitude against the American govt makes me angry and this is one of them. :angry:


~Amy

Bonnie
02-12-2010, 07:33 PM
Well, I don't agree with everything the US does and forming the UN is pretty high up on the list of our greatest mistakes.

Giving non-democratic nations run by dictators, with no concept of human rights, the same equal voice as democratic free nations is the stupidest thing we could have ever done.

People who are not given a "voice" feel powerless and in turn usually resort to foolhardy actions. At least this way, they can't use the excuse of being "left out", and if/when they do break the rules, it's easier for the rest to band together (w/o looking like the big bad bullies) to bring them in line.....at least that's how it should work. :wink:

Tyburn
02-12-2010, 07:34 PM
Ummmm, did you forget your history lessons? We did attack Saddam Hussein in 1990. Not 30 years after the event, only 2 years after, but we made the mistake of pulling out of the country too soon before we had killed Saddam.

ohh...I forgot about that :blink: :laugh:

Tyburn
02-12-2010, 07:41 PM
Well, I don't agree with everything the US does and forming the UN is pretty high up on the list of our greatest mistakes.

Giving non-democratic nations run by dictators, with no concept of human rights, the same equal voice as democratic free nations is the stupidest thing we could have ever done.

they dont have an equal voice.

Thats why there is something called a "Security Council" the major powers, and the major allies of the Second World War have jurisdiction OVER those dictators. The United Nations is more about representation, then equality.

The United States has a Seat on the Security Council, its the leading super-power of the day, and although they came in late to the war, they did smush the Japanese

The United Kingdom has a Seat on the Security Council, it was the part of Europe that led the attacks against the Germans

France has a Seat on the Security Council...mainly I think in honour of le Resistance...because I dont see any other good reason for them to have a seat do you :laugh:

But then you have the issues...see during the 1940s the Americans and the British were on the same side as other countries which we now...have reservations about.

The Peoples Republic of China has a seat as the allied force in the Pacific

Russia has a seat also.

Then there are various other security type councils where some states are allowed the voice for a few months on a rotational basis :laugh: but those dont matter...because only the permanent members of the Security Council have the International Veto...thats what you got from France. :ninja:

Tyburn
02-12-2010, 07:50 PM
People who are not given a "voice" feel powerless and in turn usually resort to foolhardy actions. At least this way, they can't use the excuse of being "left out", and if/when they do break the rules, it's easier for the rest to band together (w/o looking like the big bad bullies) to bring them in line.....at least that's how it should work. :wink:

indeed. Its not a perfect system...because the one thing it cant do properly is enforce.

Thats why the United Nations is a think tank rather then a Government...it can make laws...but if someone breaks it...like Iraq...all it can do really is lay afew sanctions in terms of trade...and if someone like The U.S breaks it...all it can really do is give them a verbal bollocking...it cant stop anyone from doing anything...its more like a world opinion poll on matters beyond a single countries jurisdiction...it is also a way for fractions to work in a manner other states cant condemn them for...like...supposing the UN had voted yes to the war...then those who voted no...couldnt condemn the US because the majority of the world supported them.

People get at France because they vetoed...but they vetoed because of the British, not because of the Americans...and neither the Americans nor the British violated their own set of laws. They could argue that the UN never got the chance to vote, ego, the jury was just permanently out...the UN neither said yes nor no, ergo it abstained.

but if France had not have vetoed...the world would either have said no, which wouldnt have stopped the powers that be anyway..OR worse...Either Russia or China would have used their veto...I mean...noone likes france anyway...so we just tut and shake our heads at them...but if Russia or China had vetoed the US...then it would look like a Cold War style slight...and Russia certainly WOULD have done so because they were getting pissy about the U.S plans to expand Starwars...even though it had nowt to do with them or their land at all...they would have done it just to show they really were going to be anti-american for the hell of it.

Like I said...it was a Mistake by Bush...but I believe his only Foreign Policy mistake...and at least it had a good outcome...with the occasions of his terms of office, I think people should cut him some slack personally

Bonnie
02-12-2010, 07:54 PM
9/11 was a legitimate cause to take action against those who harmed us. I do think Saddam was a threat (any loose cannon is); I just don't know if he was that immediate a threat to divert from going all out to get Bin Laden first.

I do think Bush used it as an opportunity for us to get a toe-hold in that part of the world. It would give us access to a region where we obviously have interest due to the oil, but also give us a reason to set up a base of military operations, again for obvious reasons. What better way to keep an eye on your enemies than to be in their backyard. :wink:

Tyburn
02-12-2010, 07:58 PM
Dave, I may just smack you upside your head for defending Saddam's right to have a nuclear program. Do you really think it's ok? Really? I can't help if you don't like that your government doesn't ask YOUR permission to do what needs to be done. I don't feel that I need to know every detail of our secret intelligence. I know Saddam was a threat to our safety. Therefore, he needed to be taken out.

I do believe Saddam had weapons he could use to harm Americans. So the answer to your huge question is YES. So there. Chemical, nuclear, biological weapons can be used by people, they don't all require launching. This is a topic that I will fight you over, Dave. You know there are times that your attitude against the American govt makes me angry and this is one of them. :angry:


~Amy

Well...I think its dangerous for any state to tell another state what it can and can not do within its own boarders...its called State Soverignty...You wouldnt take kindly if some other country told your country what you could and could not do on your land.

The US has no jurisdiction outside of its own boarders...except in a realm or territory....Noone stopped you creating Nuclear weapons...its a difficult subject, and one I would go about in a different way.

No, I do not think that Iran should be allowed to create Nuclear Bombs...but within their own boarder they do have lawful jurisdiction...so if I was a Government fearful of Iran...I would use old fashioned methods....I might do what Israel does...not declaire war...but simply take out the nuclear institutions as they are developing. Dropping a bomb on one low manned facility probably wont lead to direct warfare on a huge scale.

Or I would support State Sponcered Assasinations. I would simply fund a secret service opp to ensure regime change takes place Salvador Allende style (Your Government used to do that to stop the spread of Communism getting to close) you dont even need to endanger your own troops...there will be millitant wings in Iran that would do it for you if funded and supported...if they fail it just looks like a coup...if they are successful you have a homegrown allied force...who will be your friends...you dont then need to worry about them with nukes do you :)

Do you understand what I am saying :huh:

Tyburn
02-12-2010, 08:01 PM
9/11 was a legitimate cause to take action against those who harmed us. I do think Saddam was a threat (any loose cannon is); I just don't know if he was that immediate a threat to divert from going all out to get Bin Laden first.

I do think Bush used it as an opportunity for us to get a toe-hold in that part of the world. It would give us access to a region where we obviously have interest due to the oil, but also give us a reason to set up a base of military operations, again for obvious reasons. What better way to keep an eye on your enemies than to be in their backyard. :wink:


indeed...and you are still fighting those who harmed you today...in afghanistan...and that is possibly the most Just war that ever occured, as the allied force even offered the host country complete freedom if they hand over the terrorists.

I also wonder whether it was to be able to stop iran...I really wonder if this whole thing has a bigger motive, that may just absolve the U.S in the long run. Suppose the U.S had not invaded, and then Iran had instead. Iran would then be able to threaten to do what Russia does to the Eastern Bloc...tern off the gas if you dont coorperate...:ninja:

rearnakedchoke
02-12-2010, 08:02 PM
How could you not miss Bush?

TexasRN
02-12-2010, 08:05 PM
Well...I think its dangerous for any state to tell another state what it can and can not do within its own boarders...its called State Soverignty...You wouldnt take kindly if some other country told your country what you could and could not do on your land.

The US has no jurisdiction outside of its own boarders...except in a realm or territory....Noone stopped you creating Nuclear weapons...its a difficult subject, and one I would go about in a different way.

No, I do not think that Iran should be allowed to create Nuclear Bombs...but within their own boarder they do have lawful jurisdiction...so if I was a Government fearful of Iran...I would use old fashioned methods....I might do what Israel does...not declaire war...but simply take out the nuclear institutions as they are developing. Dropping a bomb on one low manned facility probably wont lead to direct warfare on a huge scale.

Or I would support State Sponcered Assasinations. I would simply fund a secret service opp to ensure regime change takes place Salvador Allende style (Your Government used to do that to stop the spread of Communism getting to close) you dont even need to endanger your own troops...there will be millitant wings in Iran that would do it for you if funded and supported...if they fail it just looks like a coup...if they are successful you have a homegrown allied force...who will be your friends...you dont then need to worry about them with nukes do you :)

Do you understand what I am saying :huh:


So we should allow genocide and female circumcision and evil dictators building an aresenal of nuclear weapons to attack us just because it isn't on our soil? I won't agree to that. I will not sit idly by and let another country who has sworn to hate us and destroy us at every turn build up WMDs. That's just stupid.

We are not allowed to assassinate other leaders any more. We signed an agreement stating that. And we cannot just go around bombing sites where we think nuclear weapons are being stored or made either. That's just not safe.

So I guess I don't understand what you are saying.


~Amy

Tyburn
02-12-2010, 08:08 PM
I am quite naughty really...because I am in favour of torture in interrogations, and state sponcered assassinations in foreign countries :laugh: they couldnt figure me out in Peace Studies.

perhaps Andreas was right...its the passive aggressive style...but it saves lives and makes you look...innocent.

Imagine if the U.S had managed to either provide or fund someone homegrown, and they had shot Saddam using a sniper or something...how many lives would have been saved...and you get the same result. regieme change...threat neutralized (well especially if you use homegrown people)

I just dont understand the large scale, tanks, and hundreds of military men and women...isnt that a far harder way?? How difficult can it be?? if the U.S President is the most guarded and important figure on the planet, and someone manage to kill one, and throw a shoe at another...surely it must be within our capacity to get close enough to a dictator to kill them unseen :ninja:

Tyburn
02-12-2010, 08:13 PM
So we should allow genocide and female circumcision and evil dictators building an aresenal of nuclear weapons to attack us just because it isn't on our soil? I won't agree to that. I will not sit idly by and let another country who has sworn to hate us and destroy us at every turn build up WMDs. That's just stupid.

We are not allowed to assassinate other leaders any more. We signed an agreement stating that. And we cannot just go around bombing sites where we think nuclear weapons are being stored or made either. That's just not safe.

So I guess I don't understand what you are saying.


~Amy

WTF "we cannot just go around bombing sites where we think nuclear weapons are being stored or made"...but you can launch full scale invasions...thats okay is it??? Why cant you...Israel does!! in terms of morality and casualties...I think my idea is better then yours. You are the U.S you can do whatever you like...who do you think would stop you?? You take out a nuclear power plant...and what are they going to do about it?? stamp their feet, have a tantrum...but they cant launch nukes coz you just blew up their facility...and if they make another...you just do it again...and again...its cost effective, morally sound, and saves on human lives...

:laugh: but you signed a pact. so lets forget it and go for full scale invasion instead. :laugh:

As for signing a pact...yeah and you signed a pact also not to use Torture in Interogations...and understandibly you had to violate that...its political...treaties can be reformed anyway. All you do is you arrange a vote to abscond or end the treaty...its hopefully what we will do with your treaty on extradition shortly. Once you are free from the treaty you dont even have it on your conscience

TexasRN
02-12-2010, 08:16 PM
I am quite naughty really...because I am in favour of torture in interrogations, and state sponcered assassinations in foreign countries :laugh: they couldnt figure me out in Peace Studies.

perhaps Andreas was right...its the passive aggressive style...but it saves lives and makes you look...innocent.

Imagine if the U.S had managed to either provide or fund someone homegrown, and they had shot Saddam using a sniper or something...how many lives would have been saved...and you get the same result. regieme change...threat neutralized (well especially if you use homegrown people)

I just dont understand the large scale, tanks, and hundreds of military men and women...isnt that a far harder way?? How difficult can it be?? if the U.S President is the most guarded and important figure on the planet, and someone manage to kill one, and throw a shoe at another...surely it must be within our capacity to get close enough to a dictator to kill them unseen :ninja:

I would rather declare war on a country openly and use my forces to annihilate yours than hire some homegrown boy to shoot the leader. Taking out a leader doesn't do anything other than make him a martyr for their cause. Besides, we tried to use homegrown forces to fight things....we used Afghanis to fight Russia!!! We armed them and taught them how to fight. Now they have turned against us and have terrorized us.


~Amy

TexasRN
02-12-2010, 08:21 PM
WTF "we cannot just go around bombing sites where we think nuclear weapons are being stored or made"...but you can launch full scale invasions...thats okay is it??? Why cant you...Israel does!! in terms of morality and casualties...I think my idea is better then yours. You are the U.S you can do whatever you like...who do you think would stop you?? You take out a nuclear power plant...and what are they going to do about it?? stamp their feet, have a tantrum...but they cant launch nukes coz you just blew up their facility...and if they make another...you just do it again...and again...its cost effective, morally sound, and saves on human lives...

:laugh: but you signed a pact. so lets forget it and go for full scale invasion instead. :laugh:

As for signing a pact...yeah and you signed a pact also not to use Torture in Interogations...and understandibly you had to violate that...its political...treaties can be reformed anyway. All you do is you arrange a vote to abscond or end the treaty...its hopefully what we will do with your treaty on extradition shortly. Once you are free from the treaty you dont even have it on your conscience

Ok, here you go making me want to smack you again. Seriously. I do not think bombing nuclear stores is safe. Because um....they are NUKES!!! Let's not kill the population with radiation and make us end up killing children with nuclear fallout. That's what I'm saying. It isn't safe to just go dropping bombs on sites that may or may not harbor nuclear stores without adequate intel first. AND....not declaring war but still bombing and using terrorist tactics to assassinate leaders is cowardly. You are saying we should be cowards and hide behind an innocent facade while working behind the scenes as terrorists. Not gonna happen.

We aren't going to agree on this issue at all because of your warped sense of what American govt is supposed to be.


~Amy

Bonnie
02-12-2010, 08:29 PM
indeed...and you are still fighting those who harmed you today...in afghanistan...and that is possibly the most Just war that ever occured, as the allied force even offered the host country complete freedom if they hand over the terrorists.

I also wonder whether it was to be able to stop iran...I really wonder if this whole thing has a bigger motive, that may just absolve the U.S in the long run. Suppose the U.S had not invaded, and then Iran had instead. Iran would then be able to threaten to do what Russia does to the Eastern Bloc...tern off the gas if you dont coorperate...:ninja:

Very possibly. It put us right next door to Iran, "Howdy, neighbor!" :laugh: And think about it, Saddam was the path of least resistance; he made it easy to target him due to his past actions and his cat & mouse games with UN inspectors looking for nuclear weapons that we suspected he had.

What really gets me is that a lot of those hi-jackers were Saudi or came thru Saudi Arabia. That really burns. And no matter how much good we do for the people over there, they will never willingly accept us being there especially long-term.

CAVEMAN
02-12-2010, 10:01 PM
We had every right to go into Iraq and take out Saddam. There is no doubt the man had nuclear capabilities. AND I hope that Obama will take the very same actions if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad continues to develop a nuclear program for Iran.

Tyburn
02-12-2010, 10:21 PM
Ok, here you go making me want to smack you again. Seriously. I do not think bombing nuclear stores is safe. Because um....they are NUKES!!! Let's not kill the population with radiation and make us end up killing children with nuclear fallout. That's what I'm saying. It isn't safe to just go dropping bombs on sites that may or may not harbor nuclear stores without adequate intel first. AND....not declaring war but still bombing and using terrorist tactics to assassinate leaders is cowardly. You are saying we should be cowards and hide behind an innocent facade while working behind the scenes as terrorists. Not gonna happen.

We aren't going to agree on this issue at all because of your warped sense of what American govt is supposed to be.


~Amy

:laugh: Amy...Bombing a Nuclear plant wont always cause any nuclear explosion. Nukes can withstand a lot of heat without detonation...infact I'm not sure any level of outside heat can set one off...they work by splitting atoms. Bombing a nuclear facility...especially before the correct uranium is spun as you put earlier...wont cause a nuclear detonation.

Its not cowdly. Its being sensible. Face it...you cant fight everyone who might be able to hurt you like you've been doing. There is no need to sacrifice good men if you dont absolutley need to. I'm suprised considering your profession you wouldnt be inclined to risk as little people as possible to achieve the objective.

What I saying is...you should either follow rules, or you should skirt round the rules. What you dont do is break them :ninja:

Tyburn
02-12-2010, 10:24 PM
We had every right to go into Iraq and take out Saddam. There is no doubt the man had nuclear capabilities. AND I hope that Obama will take the very same actions if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad continues to develop a nuclear program for Iran.

You have NO rights outside of your own jurisdiction...and there is GREAT doubt the man had nuclear capabilities.

Iran is the real threat...always was...thats the place you should watch. Saddam played silly beggers a lot...but his power was in keeping everyone guessing, a big bluff....Iran wont bother with playing silly beggers...the first time you know Iran has nukes will be when Starwars shoots them out of the sky...the profiles are so completely different.

Tyburn
02-12-2010, 10:51 PM
Very possibly. It put us right next door to Iran, "Howdy, neighbor!" :laugh: And think about it, Saddam was the path of least resistance; he made it easy to target him due to his past actions and his cat & mouse games with UN inspectors looking for nuclear weapons that we suspected he had.

What really gets me is that a lot of those hi-jackers were Saudi or came thru Saudi Arabia. That really burns. And no matter how much good we do for the people over there, they will never willingly accept us being there especially long-term.

I think you've got a good point Bonnie. The major issue facing the US Military is Geography. Even fighting the wars right now, you have relied heavily on your allies because you cant do trips without a fuel stop off. You also often need bases in friendly countries close to the warzone.

Now what effectively has happened with Iraq is that you have created a boarder with the U.S on which you can rely. Its local, it can be used as a battlefield base.

IF it is ever shown to be proven that the U.S moved to prevent Iran rather then pre-empt Iraq...then in my eyes she will be totally exhonorated, because she will have sacrificed her own pride and her own image, for the sake of the whole worlds future...A country that is prepared to be riddiculed because the truth is too difficult to explain...but knows that what its doing had to be done in order to save all those who take offense...thats truely and utterly selfless....and you know...President George Bush DID show, with his actions towards Afghanistan that he might well have been capable of doing an outstandingly moral action in the face of the worst possible set of circumstances.

Could it be possible that the same man who offered his enemies complete freedom with the surrender of a few individuals, sacrifice the image of his country in order to preserve the whole world? I so think its in his abilities. I think he doesnt mind about looking bad, or being run down, just so long as he knows what he is doing is right. It would be the epitome of being an American and would possibly make him one of the best Americans to ever have lived...I'm talking George Washington type President...and whats even worse would be that noone could ever know the truth...or at least not for years and years...he effectively sacrifices everything...putting ultimate good ahead of everything, including his own image, including the image of his country, in order to safe guard our future.

It is totally possible that Bush saved the world, quite litterally. The more I analyse it in hindsight the more I wonder. Something isnt right...I think its the speed in which they moved..if we say they knew their reason was false...that still doesnt explain why they moved so fast...the oil wasnt going anywhere...why rush...I dont understand why the rush. there had to be some deadline...if its not the weapons...I cant think of anything...except that perhaps the U.S got wind that the Iranians were going to move against Iraq and quickly...then they would have some reason to rush. They hear of an imminent threat to Iraq and realize they must physically invade, and make a physical presence there. The Irainians wouldnt dare move if Americans began to trample over Iraq.

of course that turns everything on its head doesnt it. The United Nations, the Alliance that England had with the United States...

but do you know what to me makes this argument compelling? Something that the British Government did. There was a man in the Government who fell across papers that first showed the Government to be giving false information to the people. He released the document, in part, to the press....next thing you know...he turns up dead. They claimed he felt so guilty about being a leak, that he hung himself...there was only one problem with that. Doctor David Kelly, couldnt have physically done it, so say all the medical examiners that have reviewed the case...which means he was murdered and it was made to look like a suicide. I wonder Bonnie....Is protecting the whole world...worth the death of one person who threatens to blow the story...not because he's lying...but because he doesnt know the full truth, and why the truth is being covered with a lie.

they have classified the actual medical records of Kelly for SEVENTY YEARS he has been quoted as saying to the british ambassidor "I will probably be found dead in the woods" if the Iraq invasion happens...because he knew enough to blow the cover story...he was a weapons expert...and a former UN inspector in Iraq.

TexasRN
02-12-2010, 11:25 PM
:laugh: Amy...Bombing a Nuclear plant wont always cause any nuclear explosion. Nukes can withstand a lot of heat without detonation...infact I'm not sure any level of outside heat can set one off...they work by splitting atoms. Bombing a nuclear facility...especially before the correct uranium is spun as you put earlier...wont cause a nuclear detonation.

Its not cowdly. Its being sensible. Face it...you cant fight everyone who might be able to hurt you like you've been doing. There is no need to sacrifice good men if you dont absolutley need to. I'm suprised considering your profession you wouldnt be inclined to risk as little people as possible to achieve the objective.

What I saying is...you should either follow rules, or you should skirt round the rules. What you dont do is break them :ninja:

You're wrong. Your entire argument is asinine and shows how little you know of world politics especially with regard to America. I refuse to condone becoming a nation of terrorists to fight terrorists. I'm done talking to you about this.


~Amy

Tyburn
02-13-2010, 12:37 PM
You're wrong. Your entire argument is asinine and shows how little you know of world politics especially with regard to America. I refuse to condone becoming a nation of terrorists to fight terrorists. I'm done talking to you about this.


~Amy

Really? I've studied International Law at Degree Level, with specific regards to what America did in 2003...so dont you tell me that I'm dumb.

Your country signs pacts and breaks them all the time. You are stupidly nieve if you think your country doesnt do things that are morally questionable in order to save lives.

Heck you guys dont even LIKE your Government, your always petrified they will come and steal your precious guns away in order to rule over you in Tyrany...there is such things as State Sponcered Terror also, I suppose your Government has never said things in order to make you more frightened and more tense for their own benefit

Sometimes I dont think you even know what your Government does outside of running the country. Foreign Policy is something that dictates how a country relates to other countries...are you sure you understand what the Bush Administrations foreign Policy was all about?

Do you know what the same group of people were doing during the Clinton Administration? have you read any writings of your former Vice President or the Former Secretary of Defence??

You think that bombing a nuclear plant will set off a nuclear explosion for heavens sake...and you call me Asinine :mellow:

Neezar
02-13-2010, 02:14 PM
Really? I've studied International Law at Degree Level, with specific regards to what America did in 2003...so dont you tell me that I'm dumb.



You studied psychology, too, didn't you? Does that make you anymore sane? :unsure-1: Just wondering. :laugh:

ps Studying International Law the way the British teach it/see it may be a mite different from the way it is viewed/taught here. :wink: I'm sure your class was chock full of examples from the US and what not to do. :laugh:

kborntreger
02-13-2010, 03:03 PM
I love my freedom of speech, and I think I've earned it, so here goes: those of you who want to criticize the government for the decisions it makes on behalf of a nation of many should think what you've done to make this country great. I hate to refer to such a leader who got lucky through cowardly passivism, but you shouldn't ask what your country can do for you, but what you can do for it. You want to crucify W because he sent us to Iraq, but can you really just point a finger at him? Can one man really do that job? If you say yes, you are greatly mistaken. W acted not on his instincts, but on solid intel that was delivered to him. Our mistake wasn't to invade Iraq, but rather to wait so long to do so. I've been in theater and put many miles on many pairs of desert boots and I can assure you that there's only one thing these people can respect, and that is brute force. They look at sanctions as cowardly and they spit on the UN for their arrogance. The only way to beat these people is to BEAT them, period. If that's something that hurts your feelings, then get over it. We didn't beat the British with sanctions and peace talks; we beat them with (then) conventional warfare and unrelenting heart. We had something to fight for. What America doesn't realize because of it's growing cancer called APATHY is that we truly DO have something to fight for, and that is preservation. Twenty-first century Americans haven't had to fight enemies in their own back yard, so they don't feel like they have so much to lose. The last back-yard battle was merely a nation divided, and that is truly sad. What is even more sad is the gullability of the American people. The media throws you a bone and you take it every time. Let's take the Limey Nick Meo for example: last October my team was supposed to pick him up from the airfield in southern Afghanistan, but we got tasked out on another mission, so he linked up with a team heading out to Lashkar Gah instead. Well, half of that team happened to be guys I knew well, so I got the eyewitness story on exactly what went down up until we got there shortly after the blast, and let's just say that Nick Meo likes to paint a different picture that may even have CNN cringe at its obscurity. I won't go into great detail to waste your time, but simply put, America needs to open its eyes and quit believing so many of the false preachings of the media. I realize that not everyone will step foot in combat boots or work for Langley and know all of the secrets, but realize, people, that some details are better left Classified and full public disclosure isn't always the best option. Was Bush wrong for sending us to unseat the Iraqi regime? No, but he was wrong for giving Hussein enough time to cover his tracks before we pounded him into oblivion. Was Bush wrong for leading the assault on the Taliban in Afghanistan? Absolutely not, but I truly believe we are mistaken to think that asking the Taliban to lay their weapons down and sign a peace treaty will work. Once again, these people respect one thing: Brute Force...so let's quit playing around and give to them.

Neezar
02-13-2010, 03:07 PM
I love my freedom of speech, and I think I've earned it, so here goes: those of you who want to criticize the government for the decisions it makes on behalf of a nation of many should think what you've done to make this country great. I hate to refer to such a leader who got lucky through cowardly passivism, but you shouldn't ask what your country can do for you, but what you can do for it. You want to crucify W because he sent us to Iraq, but can you really just point a finger at him? Can one man really do that job? If you say yes, you are greatly mistaken. W acted not on his instincts, but on solid intel that was delivered to him. Our mistake wasn't to invade Iraq, but rather to wait so long to do so. I've been in theater and put many miles on many pairs of desert boots and I can assure you that there's only one thing these people can respect, and that is brute force. They look at sanctions as cowardly and they spit on the UN for their arrogance. The only way to beat these people is to BEAT them, period. If that's something that hurts your feelings, then get over it. We didn't beat the British with sanctions and peace talks; we beat them with (then) conventional warfare and unrelenting heart. We had something to fight for. What America doesn't realize because of it's growing cancer called APATHY is that we truly DO have something to fight for, and that is preservation. Twenty-first century Americans haven't had to fight enemies in their own back yard, so they don't feel like they have so much to lose. The last back-yard battle was merely a nation divided, and that is truly sad. What is even more sad is the gullability of the American people. The media throws you a bone and you take it every time. Let's take the Limey Nick Meo for example: last October my team was supposed to pick him up from the airfield in southern Afghanistan, but we got tasked out on another mission, so he linked up with a team heading out to Lashkar Gah instead. Well, half of that team happened to be guys I knew well, so I got the eyewitness story on exactly what went down up until we got there shortly after the blast, and let's just say that Nick Meo likes to paint a different picture that may even have CNN cringe at its obscurity. I won't go into great detail to waste your time, but simply put, America needs to open its eyes and quit believing so many of the false preachings of the media. I realize that not everyone will step foot in combat boots or work for Langley and know all of the secrets, but realize, people, that some details are better left Classified and full public disclosure isn't always the best option. Was Bush wrong for sending us to unseat the Iraqi regime? No, but he was wrong for giving Hussein enough time to cover his tracks before we pounded him into oblivion. Was Bush wrong for leading the assault on the Taliban in Afghanistan? Absolutely not, but I truly believe we are mistaken to think that asking the Taliban to lay their weapons down and sign a peace treaty will work. Once again, these people respect one thing: Brute Force...so let's quit playing around and give to them.


:applause:

Tyburn
02-14-2010, 08:26 AM
You studied psychology, too, didn't you? Does that make you anymore sane? :unsure-1: Just wondering. :laugh:

ps Studying International Law the way the British teach it/see it may be a mite different from the way it is viewed/taught here. :wink: I'm sure your class was chock full of examples from the US and what not to do. :laugh:

I studied Bachelor Of Arts with Honnours in Interdisciplinary Human Studies, we did modules in Psychology, Sociology, Philosophy, English Lit, and the group work modules were usually a bit like Anthropology. We could also choose modules, and I chose to do TWO from the Peacestudies department. I chose to do Peace and Security in a Global Environment, at the time of 9/11 (it wasnt deliberate, I chose the option at Easter 01, and began the module October 01) and then I also chose to do Strategic Studies, I happened to do that between January and April of 2003 (the time of the Invasion) This meant I learned a lot about specifically the U.S Military, and specifically about United Nations International Law relating to the United States at that point in time.

Bassically I was studying your Country and its foreign affaires and Military between 9/11 and the Invasion of Iraq. I was REALLY lucky to be studying these subjects right at the time when your Nation was globally active in a Military way...Had I studied them earlier, or later, the subjects could have been a real drag...but we had a case study going on in both areas.

In the former we actually looked at who the Bush Administration was, where they had come from, and what an attack like 9/11 would mean to someone with that history, then we looked at Censorship, and focused on what your, then, Secretary of State, Condi Rice was up to with certain TV and Radio broadcast stations in the Middle east...the types that would play the video messages supposedly from the Terrorists. In the Latter, we just watched the demonstration and looked at the organization and how the U.S managed to invade, what their strategies were, who they used to overcome geographical boundaries...and of course, the response from the United Nations

However...its localized...dont expect me to know about U.S foreign policy during the Clinton Administration...or anything before it...my knowledge is localized to American Foreign Policy and Military Strategic Studies September 2001-May 2003. :)

Tyburn
02-14-2010, 08:32 AM
Twenty-first century Americans haven't had to fight enemies in their own back yard, so they don't feel like they have so much to lose. .
The New America for The Twenty-First Century :)

its the name of a Republican Political Lobby Group during the Clinton Administration..They were increadibly Successful :ninja:

Neezar
02-15-2010, 04:08 AM
I studied Bachelor Of Arts with Honnours in Interdisciplinary Human Studies, we did modules in Psychology, Sociology, Philosophy, English Lit, and the group work modules were usually a bit like Anthropology. We could also choose modules, and I chose to do TWO from the Peacestudies department. I chose to do Peace and Security in a Global Environment, at the time of 9/11 (it wasnt deliberate, I chose the option at Easter 01, and began the module October 01) and then I also chose to do Strategic Studies, I happened to do that between January and April of 2003 (the time of the Invasion) This meant I learned a lot about specifically the U.S Military, and specifically about United Nations International Law relating to the United States at that point in time.

Bassically I was studying your Country and its foreign affaires and Military between 9/11 and the Invasion of Iraq, all from the British point of view. . I was REALLY lucky to be studying these subjects right at the time when your Nation was globally active in a Military way...Had I studied them earlier, or later, the subjects could have been a real drag...but we had a case study going on in both areas.

In the former we actually looked at who the Bush Administration was, where they had come from, and what an attack like 9/11 would mean to someone with that history, then we looked at Censorship, and focused on what your, then, Secretary of State, Condi Rice was up to with certain TV and Radio broadcast stations in the Middle east...the types that would play the video messages supposedly from the Terrorists. In the Latter, we just watched the demonstration and looked at the organization and how the U.S managed to invade, what their strategies were, who they used to overcome geographical boundaries...and of course, the response from the United Nations

However...its localized...dont expect me to know about U.S foreign policy during the Clinton Administration...or anything before it...my knowledge is localized to American Foreign Policy and Military Strategic Studies September 2001-May 2003. :)


fixed. :laugh:

Tyburn
02-15-2010, 12:17 PM
fixed. :laugh:

For at least one of them, the Tutor was an American :mellow:

TexasRN
02-15-2010, 12:20 PM
Really? I've studied International Law at Degree Level, with specific regards to what America did in 2003...so dont you tell me that I'm dumb.

Your country signs pacts and breaks them all the time. You are stupidly nieve if you think your country doesnt do things that are morally questionable in order to save lives.

Heck you guys dont even LIKE your Government, your always petrified they will come and steal your precious guns away in order to rule over you in Tyrany...there is such things as State Sponcered Terror also, I suppose your Government has never said things in order to make you more frightened and more tense for their own benefit

Sometimes I dont think you even know what your Government does outside of running the country. Foreign Policy is something that dictates how a country relates to other countries...are you sure you understand what the Bush Administrations foreign Policy was all about?

Do you know what the same group of people were doing during the Clinton Administration? have you read any writings of your former Vice President or the Former Secretary of Defence??

You think that bombing a nuclear plant will set off a nuclear explosion for heavens sake...and you call me Asinine :mellow:

I never said you were dumb, quit whining. And I DO like my govt. I don't trust them to run my personal life but that's a completely different topic that has nothing to do with our international policies. And guess what....my ex husband was a nuclear engineer on the USS Dallas submarine for 4 years so you don't get to lecture me on anything nuclear. Ever hear of nuclear power plants having accidents and civilians having radiation poisoning? It isn't as safe as you'd like to think.

Drop it Dave, we aren't going to agree and you are quickly getting on my bad list. I understand you can't stop posting because you feel you have to have the last word so you can claim victory. I just don't wanna hear you whine about me calling you dumb when I did no such thing. You don't get to be a victim with me. Played that game with you before.


~Amy

Tyburn
02-15-2010, 01:34 PM
I never said you were dumb, quit whining. And I DO like my govt. I don't trust them to run my personal life but that's a completely different topic that has nothing to do with our international policies. And guess what....my ex husband was a nuclear engineer on the USS Dallas submarine for 4 years so you don't get to lecture me on anything nuclear. Ever hear of nuclear power plants having accidents and civilians having radiation poisoning? It isn't as safe as you'd like to think.

Drop it Dave, we aren't going to agree and you are quickly getting on my bad list. I understand you can't stop posting because you feel you have to have the last word so you can claim victory. I just don't wanna hear you whine about me calling you dumb when I did no such thing. You don't get to be a victim with me. Played that game with you before.


~Amy

I thought you had stopped talking to me about this issue. :huh:

We can continue if you wish now that you've had time to cool off, or we can leave it. The choice is yours :)

TexasRN
02-15-2010, 01:53 PM
I thought you had stopped talking to me about this issue. :huh:

We can continue if you wish now that you've had time to cool off, or we can leave it. The choice is yours :)


I was done until you started with the whole victim thing saying I called you dumb. I'm finished with the actual debate because I know I'm right. I AM the American and we are discussing America. Now it's a bit more personal. I'm not cooled off, Dave. I'm quite fired up. I hold grudges and you have ticked me off with that so we can keep this up for years as far as I'm concerned.

Study American politics from the beginning of our country, know the real history behind the 9/11 attacks and see how far back it goes and what we did with the Afghans when Russia was there. Learn about their hatred of us and how far back it goes and why they'll never stop trying to kill us. THEN we can get back to the debate.


~Amy

Tyburn
02-15-2010, 02:43 PM
I was done until you started with the whole victim thing saying I called you dumb. I'm finished with the actual debate because I know I'm right. I AM the American and we are discussing America. Now it's a bit more personal. I'm not cooled off, Dave. I'm quite fired up. I hold grudges and you have ticked me off with that so we can keep this up for years as far as I'm concerned.

Study American politics from the beginning of our country, know the real history behind the 9/11 attacks and see how far back it goes and what we did with the Afghans when Russia was there. Learn about their hatred of us and how far back it goes and why they'll never stop trying to kill us. THEN we can get back to the debate.


~Amy

I didnt know what Asanine actually meant...it sounded like a poisen I heard of, so I looked it up...and it means Dumb basically.

You shouldnt hold Grudges if you dont mind me saying, I know I am a fine one to talk, as i can beat almost anyone hands down in a contest of length, but in the end if someone wrongs you and you dont forgive, then its you who ends up bitter, I only know because I have been there myself.

I know what you did with the Afghans...you arent the only country to have built up and armed a country that you are now at war with. Your forgetting Our past absolutely dwarfs yours, and we did similar things at various stages in our Empires development. Unfortunate...but at the end of the day the alternative is an inordinate loss of men and not a certain victory for the allied forces.

You have to be realistic Amy, im afraid. Politics and warfare are a messy.

again, anytime you wish to stop talking about this, just let me know :)

TexasRN
02-15-2010, 02:56 PM
I didnt know what Asanine actually meant...it sounded like a poisen I heard of, so I looked it up...and it means Dumb basically.

You shouldnt hold Grudges if you dont mind me saying, I know I am a fine one to talk, as i can beat almost anyone hands down in a contest of length, but in the end if someone wrongs you and you dont forgive, then its you who ends up bitter, I only know because I have been there myself.

I know what you did with the Afghans...you arent the only country to have built up and armed a country that you are now at war with. Your forgetting Our past absolutely dwarfs yours, and we did similar things at various stages in our Empires development. Unfortunate...but at the end of the day the alternative is an inordinate loss of men and not a certain victory for the allied forces.

You have to be realistic Amy, im afraid. Politics and warfare are a messy.

again, anytime you wish to stop talking about this, just let me know :)


Dave, I said your argument was asinine. Not you. Get that right. And my point was that your argument was foolish in my eyes. I hate when you start the personal whining with debates and I'm not going to sit by and let you act like that with me. I will call you out on it every time. I'm not bitter and trust me you do not hold any sway over my emotions when I log off this site. So I'm not going to grow into some hate filled crazy woman over this. And um, being that I'm a woman, I can almost guarantee that I will win a length contest when it comes to this kind of argument. Just ask any married man on here......


~Amy

bradwright
02-15-2010, 03:07 PM
You studied psychology, too, didn't you? Does that make you anymore sane? :unsure-1: Just wondering. :laugh:

ps Studying International Law the way the British teach it/see it may be a mite different from the way it is viewed/taught here. :wink: I'm sure your class was chock full of examples from the US and what not to do. :laugh:

thats low even for you....but it was sure funny.:laugh:...sorry Dave.:ashamed:

Tyburn
02-15-2010, 03:49 PM
Dave, I said your argument was asinine. Not you. Get that right. And my point was that your argument was foolish in my eyes. I hate when you start the personal whining with debates and I'm not going to sit by and let you act like that with me. I will call you out on it every time. I'm not bitter and trust me you do not hold any sway over my emotions when I log off this site. So I'm not going to grow into some hate filled crazy woman over this. And um, being that I'm a woman, I can almost guarantee that I will win a length contest when it comes to this kind of argument. Just ask any married man on here......


~Amy


Does a Clever person put forth dumb arguments :blink:

Amy, Dear, noone has the internet stamina that I have over any debate :laugh: and as for Grudges...we are talking YEARS with some people :ashamed: I know thats nothing to be proud of, but it is, or was, the truth in some case :sad:

TexasRN
02-15-2010, 04:03 PM
Does a Clever person put forth dumb arguments :blink:

Amy, Dear, noone has the internet stamina that I have over any debate :laugh: and as for Grudges...we are talking YEARS with some people :ashamed: I know thats nothing to be proud of, but it is, or was, the truth in some case :sad:

Sometimes clever people do put forth asinine arguments. Meaning foolish. It's not my problem if you choose to internalize that. Just do not put words into my mouth or make it seem that I'm calling you names. I will not have my reputation as a mod on here besmirched in that way.


~Amy

Tyburn
02-15-2010, 04:38 PM
Sometimes clever people do put forth asinine arguments. Meaning foolish. It's not my problem if you choose to internalize that. Just do not put words into my mouth or make it seem that I'm calling you names. I will not have my reputation as a mod on here besmirched in that way.


~Amy

This isnt about you wanting to clarify what you said to me...its about you wanting to save a reputation.

:laugh: if thats the only Tarnish you have to worry about, your doing just fine :laugh:

Andreas would be proud :)

DonnaMaria
02-15-2010, 04:40 PM
ugh DAVE! Stop! Please just stop!

Go over to the woodshed and tell me what strange thing you have in your fridge. Come on! Come on! You know you have some strange stuff. I'm waiting for your reply! :)

TexasRN
02-15-2010, 04:50 PM
This isnt about you wanting to clarify what you said to me...its about you wanting to save a reputation.

:laugh: if thats the only Tarnish you have to worry about, your doing just fine :laugh:

Andreas would be proud :)

You still have it wrong. You said I did something that I did not do. That's the point of what I'm saying. I do not need to clarify anything. I was quite clear in my posts. Quit with the whining and smilies and whatever it is you are doing and admit that I did not call you dumb, that you were wrong on that count. I take great insult to someone lying about me. I take my duties here very seriously and try very hard to behave accordingly. I will not have you saying I did something I did not do.

And why bring Andreas into this? That's random.


~Amy

CAVEMAN
02-15-2010, 05:50 PM
You have NO rights outside of your own jurisdiction...and there is GREAT doubt the man had nuclear capabilities.

Iran is the real threat...always was...thats the place you should watch. Saddam played silly beggers a lot...but his power was in keeping everyone guessing, a big bluff....Iran wont bother with playing silly beggers...the first time you know Iran has nukes will be when Starwars shoots them out of the sky...the profiles are so completely different.

Says who?:laugh::laugh::tongue0011:

VCURamFan
02-15-2010, 05:52 PM
Says who?:laugh::laugh::tongue0011:

Yeah, I got a big wingspan: my right-straight can reach out pretty far! :laugh:

Tyburn
02-15-2010, 06:24 PM
Says who?:laugh::laugh::tongue0011:

Well because your Government only rules over your own land. Your Government only has authority within its own land in the same way you as a landowner have.

In any land where there is a different rulling body, or a different set of Laws, your Government has no authority, unless it does something like a conquest...but as soon as that is the case, your Government owns that land...it can never have jurisdiction beyond itself, because its defined by the area it governs.

Your particular country is even more confusing because of the two separate law systems you have. I speak about the Federal Government that has running themes throughout all States...but each State has to keep within its own boundaries aswell...could you imagine if say Iowa wished to control ALL of the Quad Cities, and make Moline Illinois subject to Iowan State Rule??

If in doubt think of it on that level, because the rest of the world pretty much regards you as a single state, and the federal government, as being that single states government, and all those States around you are thought of like other countries in the same way that you might view state boarders...if you ever want to know if something is done correctly take it back to that level.

Now...Iowa wants to own the whole Quad Cities, but Moline wants to remain under Illinois. What do you do? You could appeal I suppose to a higher level of law that governs things between the States...the Federal Government...but suppose they dont wish to authenticate approval for a boundary dispute...is it allright for troopers from Iowa to ammas on the shore line of Bettendorf and fight Rock Arsenal for the rights to the river Bridge...with the intention of marching across and into Moline and thereby subjecting Iowan rule over part of Illinois?

What would be the response from the Illinois state Government?? I imagine it would be not too dissimilar to Georgia when Russia decided it wanted to forceably take a small province of the North.

The Historic Block of Moline is a gem...perhaps Illinois wants it back :laugh:

Neezar
02-15-2010, 06:53 PM
Dave --> http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/ii269/theogrit/1sm074hole.gif

VCURamFan
02-15-2010, 07:00 PM
Dave --> http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/ii269/theogrit/1sm074hole.gif

Denise --> :stirthepot:

:laugh:

Tyburn
02-15-2010, 08:46 PM
Dave --> http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/ii269/theogrit/1sm074hole.gif

Denise - -> http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/5607/dfx4ko.jpg (http://img96.imageshack.us/i/dfx4ko.jpg/)

VCURamFan
02-15-2010, 08:57 PM
Denise - -> http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/5607/dfx4ko.jpg (http://img96.imageshack.us/i/dfx4ko.jpg/)

Denise, you've got some sexy legs!

How come you don't post pics in your Avatar like Dawn???

bradwright
02-15-2010, 09:00 PM
Denise, you've got some sexy legs!

How come you don't post pics in your Avatar like Dawn???

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

VCURamFan
02-15-2010, 09:34 PM
:laugh::laugh::laugh:

I'm serious! Those are some hot gams!!

Black Mamba
02-16-2010, 12:24 AM
Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnddddddd the winner of the nth battle of the words on the Matt Hughes Forum is............by the way of...the lethal ignore button....and may I add the ignore button was a nice twist, definitely did not see that one coming...is..

Amy "The Nut Cracker"

http://www.picktnproducts.org/images/medal_gold.jpg


Nice match Amy and Dave. :laugh: Gave me some nice entertainment. Better luck next time Dave, you can't win them all.

Until next folks, Lil D out.

Tyburn
02-16-2010, 12:27 AM
Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnddddddd the winner of the nth battle of the words on the Matt Hughes Forum is............by the way of...the lethal ignore button....and may I add the ignore button was a nice twist, definitely did not see that one coming...is..

Amy "The Nut Cracker"

http://www.picktnproducts.org/images/medal_gold.jpg


Nice match Amy and Dave. :laugh: Gave me some nice entertainment. Better luck next time Dave, you can't win them all.

Until next folks, Lil D out.
:angry: what...that was a No Contest...c'mon!

:laugh:

appologies to all my fans, I didnt stick to my gameplan, I...hesitated to much and couldnt pull the trigger...but I sware I can beat the champ in a rematch!:mellow:

:laugh:

Black Mamba
02-16-2010, 12:32 AM
I was thinking of it as a Draw at first, but the sheer fearness deliever from Amy was the deciding factor. When you argue with an Amazonian you gotta bring it.

And Dave you won't be left empty handed. There's a nice prize for you too....

http://www.enasco.com/prod/images/products/9B/AC058589l.jpg

You tried and a gave a valiant effort. Sometimes it's better to pick your battles, especially when arguing with a chick.

VCURamFan
02-16-2010, 12:43 AM
Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnddddddd the winner of the nth battle of the words on the Matt Hughes Forum is............by the way of...the lethal ignore button....and may I add the ignore button was a nice twist, definitely did not see that one coming...is..

Amy "The Nut Cracker"

http://www.picktnproducts.org/images/medal_gold.jpg


Nice match Amy and Dave. :laugh: Gave me some nice entertainment. Better luck next time Dave, you can't win them all.

Until next folks, Lil D out.

I was thinking of it as a Draw at first, but the sheer fearness deliever from Amy was the deciding factor. When you argue with an Amazonian you gotta bring it.

And Dave you won't be left empty handed. There's a nice prize for you too....

http://www.enasco.com/prod/images/products/9B/AC058589l.jpg

You tried and a gave a valiant effort. Sometimes it's better to pick your battles, especially when arguing with a chick.

Hahaha, clearly Posts of the Night bonuses go to Lil' D! :laugh:

Black Mamba
02-16-2010, 12:51 AM
Thank you, thank you. :laugh:

I'd like to thank God first and foremost, my Momma for teaching me, and my Dad and brother for allowing me to practice my teachings as I grew older. I'd also like to thank my fans, yall gave me my inspiration for what I do: and that's to give in ya face commentating.

*bows*

VCURamFan
02-16-2010, 12:59 AM
Thank you, thank you. :laugh:

I'd like to thank God first and foremost, my Momma for teaching me, and my Dad and brother for allowing me to practice my teachings as I grew older. I'd also like to thank my fans, yall gave me my inspiration for what I do: and that's to give in ya face commentating.

*bows*

Someone was in desperate need of a study break! :laugh:

TexasRN
02-16-2010, 01:02 AM
Someone was in desperate need of a study break! :laugh:


:laugh: You having flashbacks to your college days?


~Amy

Tyburn
02-16-2010, 01:05 AM
:laugh::laugh::laugh:

at least I get a runner up prize

:happydancing:

Black Mamba
02-16-2010, 01:16 AM
Someone was in desperate need of a study break! :laugh:

Yes, I was. :laugh: I’m liking my classes this semester, but organic chemistry is making my head hurt. I’ve enjoyed some slacking off today, but now I gotta get back to studying. :)

Spiritwalker
02-16-2010, 03:12 AM
I am so glad I stayed out of this one... otherwise I might have been "infarcted".

It was nice to see.... well...

as I watched this "war of words".. I could only think "Don't Tread On Men"... looks like someone got snake bit....

VCURamFan
02-16-2010, 04:00 AM
:laugh: You having flashbacks to your college days?


~AmyAll the time!!! :laugh:

Yes, I was. :laugh: I’m liking my classes this semester, but organic chemistry is making my head hurt. I’ve enjoyed some slacking off today, but now I gotta get back to studying. :)
I hear ya. I loved my Philosophy of Law class, but I couldn't read those Supreme Court opinions for more than about 20-30min without going cross-eyed!

Tyburn
02-16-2010, 12:27 PM
I am so glad I stayed out of this one... otherwise I might have been "infarcted".

It was nice to see.... well...

as I watched this "war of words".. I could only think "Don't Tread On Men"... looks like someone got snake bit....

There is no shame in being beaten by Amy...whereas if I was EVER beaten by you :unsure:

:laugh:

VCURamFan
02-16-2010, 05:37 PM
There is no shame in being beaten by Amy...whereas if I was EVER beaten by you :unsure:

:laugh:

Let's not get this started again. Dave & Dave, let's both just step away & leave this be.

eric84
02-16-2010, 08:05 PM
You have NO rights outside of your own jurisdiction...and there is GREAT doubt the man had nuclear capabilities.

Iran is the real threat...always was...thats the place you should watch. Saddam played silly beggers a lot...but his power was in keeping everyone guessing, a big bluff....Iran wont bother with playing silly beggers...the first time you know Iran has nukes will be when Starwars shoots them out of the sky...the profiles are so completely different.

As someone else asked, Says who? When it all comes down to it, regardless of treaties or international law, people/nations can do WHATEVER they feel like that is within their power to do. It's good we set laws or there would be a lot more chaos, but the point of the laws is to instill peace and some sort of civilized society. But if someone is going to threaten that peace, then we have to do what it takes to keep it. The law is a tool, we can't forget the reason for having the tool. Just think back to the British Empire, they conquered many areas, and you could say what they did was unlawful. Other parts of the world should be happy the United States were not as power hungry in that sense.

Tyburn
02-16-2010, 11:02 PM
Just think back to the British Empire, they conquered many areas, and you could say what they did was unlawful. Other parts of the world should be happy the United States were not as power hungry in that sense.

The days of a Literal Empire are over. The British Empire was the last Great Empire because of the Death of an Heir.

His name was Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand. He was heir apparent to a Throne of what was left of the Ottoman Empire. Upon visiting the Balkans, he was assassinated. His death bought a few minor countries to war against each other, unfortunately, those minor countries each had very major friends, and those Friends were world powers, and in a battle of Loyalties one of the largest battles this planet has ever seen took place. We call this The Great War, when it was over, one of the major powers, Germany was serverely smushed, and the whole world descended into a depression. One man arose from that depression promising and inspiring a patriotic dream in his fallen nation. He was an eloquent and passionate speaker, and he promised the people that the Nation would rise to glory once more. This man believed that he had the authority to do whatever he wanted to do. His population grew and he became part of a coiltion Government when he was ellected to power as a minority. He campaigned for change, for a return of pride in what was once a glorious nation. The People believed in him. Eventually he became the sole ruller and his fame spread beyond the boarders and into neighbouring countries...countries who loved him more then they loved their own leaders, countries whose peoples were arguably the same nationality. So he extended his boarders to include them and they welcomed him with open arms. His Popularity reached a height.

...and then he decided that a near by country with a majority of people who supported him, should also come under his jurisdiction, so he pushed out the boundary again...and then, what the hell, he finished off the rest of the country awell...and then he wanted the country next to that, which had no people who supported him, and no people who were Germanic in it at all...but he took them anyway, and then the next, and then the next...because he could, because noone told him he could not. On and on he went, until he had control of nearly half of Europe.

Those who objected to his rule, dissapeared, those who were of certain religious belief, they dissapeared also. Still the rest of the world did nothing, thinking that Empires have come and gone before, why not now. So we did what any nation would do, we attempted to make treaties, and alliances, and peace. But this Nation broke its treaties, didnt care for our opinion, and just kept on invading country after country.

We decided enough was enough, so we told them so, and they killed our entire generation of young men and pushed us off Continental Europe and into the Sea. We came very close to being taken ourselves...but finally, a sleeping dragon on the otherside of the world, awoke to our call, after finding itself unduly attacked, and we returned across the sea, and we finished the war.

Then it was decided that so horrible was this tale that no longer could we afford to let nations do whatever they wanted. That was Your Countries idea, to stop Nations living in fear and in tyrany by having other nations laud over them. As was Consitutional to the United States of America, so those who had the power to act, were called upon by duty and responsibility of that fact, to put into action some method by which another Adolf Hitler could never arise...

...and for about 60 years no large scale warfare occured without consensus that it was the right thing to do....that was until One Nation decided it could and would do whatever it wanted. That Nation was The United States of America, the very Nation that 60 years previous had installed a set of laws to stop such a Nation from doing exactly that.

Try to understand that, what ive put above is exactly, and comes in the light of, what a Eurocentric view of the world would be. That Nations have no rights to do whatever they want. Germany had no right to invade Poland...the United States had no right to invade Iraq.

flo
02-17-2010, 03:53 AM
http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/4039/politicsj.png

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

VCURamFan
02-17-2010, 03:55 AM
http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/4039/politicsj.png

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

:huh:

Why the pic?

flo
02-17-2010, 05:21 AM
:huh:

Why the pic?


When I saw that he was trolling for conservatives, my evil side came out!
that's why I didn't post it on his thread

Sorry. :ashamed:

*slinking away to do penance*

VCURamFan
02-17-2010, 05:33 AM
When I saw that he was trolling for conservatives, my evil side came out!
that's why I didn't post it on his thread

Sorry. :ashamed:

*slinking away to do penance*

No, no, don't slink, it's totally cool.

TBH, that's what I had assumed & why started laughing as soon as I saw it, but I just wanted to be sure!
:happydancing: :happydancing:

flo
02-17-2010, 06:08 AM
No, no, don't slink, it's totally cool.



:unsure-1:

:happydancing:

Tyburn
02-17-2010, 12:29 PM
http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/4039/politicsj.png

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

:laugh::laugh:

eric84
02-17-2010, 03:32 PM
The days of a Literal Empire are over. The British Empire was the last Great Empire because of the Death of an Heir.

His name was Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand. He was heir apparent to a Throne of what was left of the Ottoman Empire. Upon visiting the Balkans, he was assassinated. His death bought a few minor countries to war against each other, unfortunately, those minor countries each had very major friends, and those Friends were world powers, and in a battle of Loyalties one of the largest battles this planet has ever seen took place. We call this The Great War, when it was over, one of the major powers, Germany was serverely smushed, and the whole world descended into a depression. One man arose from that depression promising and inspiring a patriotic dream in his fallen nation. He was an eloquent and passionate speaker, and he promised the people that the Nation would rise to glory once more. This man believed that he had the authority to do whatever he wanted to do. His population grew and he became part of a coiltion Government when he was ellected to power as a minority. He campaigned for change, for a return of pride in what was once a glorious nation. The People believed in him. Eventually he became the sole ruller and his fame spread beyond the boarders and into neighbouring countries...countries who loved him more then they loved their own leaders, countries whose peoples were arguably the same nationality. So he extended his boarders to include them and they welcomed him with open arms. His Popularity reached a height.

...and then he decided that a near by country with a majority of people who supported him, should also come under his jurisdiction, so he pushed out the boundary again...and then, what the hell, he finished off the rest of the country awell...and then he wanted the country next to that, which had no people who supported him, and no people who were Germanic in it at all...but he took them anyway, and then the next, and then the next...because he could, because noone told him he could not. On and on he went, until he had control of nearly half of Europe.

Those who objected to his rule, dissapeared, those who were of certain religious belief, they dissapeared also. Still the rest of the world did nothing, thinking that Empires have come and gone before, why not now. So we did what any nation would do, we attempted to make treaties, and alliances, and peace. But this Nation broke its treaties, didnt care for our opinion, and just kept on invading country after country.

We decided enough was enough, so we told them so, and they killed our entire generation of young men and pushed us off Continental Europe and into the Sea. We came very close to being taken ourselves...but finally, a sleeping dragon on the otherside of the world, awoke to our call, after finding itself unduly attacked, and we returned across the sea, and we finished the war.

Then it was decided that so horrible was this tale that no longer could we afford to let nations do whatever they wanted. That was Your Countries idea, to stop Nations living in fear and in tyrany by having other nations laud over them. As was Consitutional to the United States of America, so those who had the power to act, were called upon by duty and responsibility of that fact, to put into action some method by which another Adolf Hitler could never arise...

...and for about 60 years no large scale warfare occured without consensus that it was the right thing to do....that was until One Nation decided it could and would do whatever it wanted. That Nation was The United States of America, the very Nation that 60 years previous had installed a set of laws to stop such a Nation from doing exactly that.

Try to understand that, what ive put above is exactly, and comes in the light of, what a Eurocentric view of the world would be. That Nations have no rights to do whatever they want. Germany had no right to invade Poland...the United States had no right to invade Iraq.


and for about 60 years no large scale warfare occured without consensus that it was the right thing to do....that was until One Nation decided it could and would do whatever it wanted.

You fail to realize that just because a majority of people(or nations) think one way, that it doesn't necessarily mean that is the "right thing to do". The US tried going through the UN because they knew the best circumstance would be a United UN(United United Nations...ha), but you should get what I mean. But I'm glad the US doesn't base all their world decisions off the UN, it's a joke most the time and the US leaders needs to look after the US's best interests. The fact we had the power gave us the RIGHT to go into Iraq, we can argue all day long whether it was the correct thing to do(Which I feel it was), but we had every right to do it.

Tyburn
02-17-2010, 05:50 PM
1) You fail to realize that just because a majority of people(or nations) think one way, that it doesn't necessarily mean that is the "right thing to do". The US tried going through the UN because they knew the best circumstance would be a United UN(United United Nations...ha), but you should get what I mean. But I'm glad the US doesn't base all their world decisions off the UN, it's a joke most the time and the US leaders needs to look after the US's best interests. The fact we had the power gave us the RIGHT to go into Iraq, we can argue all day long whether it was the correct thing to do(Which I feel it was), but we had every right to do it.

1) that is very true, but it does give a wide consensus of what other nations feel is acceptable.

2) The United States begrudgingly went before the United Nations at the British behest I believe. They didnt ask the United Nations, they pretty much said what they were going to do whether the United Nations liked it or not.

3) So if you have the power, you have the right? so what happens when Iran finally creates its first Nuclear Bomb...does it have the right to launch an attack?

The real issue has nothing to do with Iraq. The real issue is that the United States made a mockery out of International Law, showing they do not value it as a set of constructs backed by many nations on a theme they partly founded. Now what happens when another super power decides it wants to do something like that? Supposing China wants to invade somewhere...what will the United States say "you cant do that because its against International Law!" ??? Because China is liable to say "well you just did it...so why cant we?"

The United States has moral integrity...but not all countries do...you are an example to others...you need to be careful that you dont give a bad example that others might want to follow. I mean...Adolf Hitler had the power to invade half of Europe...that doesnt mean he had the Right to do it...and even though the United States is a Friendly and GOD fearing Country, doesnt mean that every other Country who now decides to break the International Law....

...Look what happened AFTER what you did and you will see, various Countries copied you. Israel decided that Terror was an excuse that could be used to justify a land invasion of the Lebanon (the terrorist State apparently Kidnapped a couple of soldiers or something...it was hardly about to Launch Weapons of mass distruction) Russia decided that it could just march into Georgia...after all, what would the Americans do...they were just as bad.

The REAL irony is BEFORE the weapons of mass Distruction argument...the United States USED the fact that Saddam was breaking International Law to say he should be removed from power. Then in less then a year...did more then mess afew United Nations Weapons Inspectors about.

You might see how some nations now think that when The United States does something like call for extra Sanctions to be placed on Iran, they are being hypercritical...like its alright for the Law to apply to others, but not to them...and since they have so little regard for it when it doesnt suit them...why do they even try to use it when it suits them...does the US Administration really consider the rest of us foolish enough to believe that it gives a damn about International Law as an absolute, or a Standard, or a Construct??

Like I said...lets hope that no other country decides to mount a campaign like that..GOD help us if the Russians or Chinese decide to do that in the next ten years or so, because they will try and use the United States example to legitamise their own...thats my fear...the United Nations is becoming a pharse :unsure:

Bonnie
02-17-2010, 08:18 PM
So, basically what you're saying, Dave, is given our decision to take Saddam out with the reasoning we used to the world, we can't rely on, "Do as I say, not as I do," if another nation decides to invade pointing to us, "You did it, so why can't we."

With everything that was going on and had happened, 9/11 and Saddam thwarting the U.N. inspectors, some would say that Saddam was playing "chicken" using WMD and we made the decision to call his bluff and he lost. Others look at it as a diversion from where we should have had ALL of our focus which was Bin Laden.

I think as a superpower we do have a responsibility to be the "standard bearer" so to speak. Some will call us "leader" for what we did and are doing, others will look at us as a bully for it. How we got there, for some, will always be a debateable ? that will be argued, but at this point (for me) is moot. Terrorism is here to stay. It's not going away.

We may not always be the most popular kid on the block, but I don't think anyone can accuse us of not having the courage to fight for what we believe to be right. "No guts, no glory"! :)

eric84
02-17-2010, 09:35 PM
1) that is very true, but it does give a wide consensus of what other nations feel is acceptable.

I am glad the United States does not make decisions based off what the other nations feel are acceptable. We only have 250 million people, compare that to the world, we are definitely in the minority.

2) The United States begrudgingly went before the United Nations at the British behest I believe. They didnt ask the United Nations, they pretty much said what they were going to do whether the United Nations liked it or not.

As far as I know, Saddam violated the 1991 Gulf War Truce, including 2 UN resolutions and the following 15 they put out to try to enforce them. Even after 17 broken resolutions, the UN wasn't doing ANYTHING. Add the fact that we knew he had Nuclear Capabilities, and he was a tyrant that had shown he would use WMD's(since he already had), it speaks for itself. So in reality Saddam broke international law, and the UN did NOTHING.

3) So if you have the power, you have the right? so what happens when Iran finally creates its first Nuclear Bomb...does it have the right to launch an attack?

You were saying we didn't have the right, and I said who says who has the right. According to Iran, they most definately have the right to bomb someone. Regardless if they have the "right", doesn't mean it isn't wrong to do, just as the United States went to war with Iraq, it's still debatable. My point was when it all comes down to it, laws can't force you to do anything.

The real issue has nothing to do with Iraq. The real issue is that the United States made a mockery out of International Law, showing they do not value it as a set of constructs backed by many nations on a theme they partly founded. Now what happens when another super power decides it wants to do something like that? Supposing China wants to invade somewhere...what will the United States say "you cant do that because its against International Law!" ??? Because China is liable to say "well you just did it...so why cant we?"

Saddam made a mockery out of international law, and then most the rest of the UN made it worse by not having the guts to do anything about it. The UN showed what they were made of, and that is a bunch of sissies that have more bark than bite. If China had been in the same circumstance as we I would not have a problem with it. In fact, it would of been nice for another country like that to go out and rid the world of someone as horrible as Saddam instead of us always shouldering the responsibility. And before you says its not our "right" to do that, once again who says? I think its the obligation of anyone in power to help those that can't help themselves.

The United States has moral integrity...but not all countries do...you are an example to others...you need to be careful that you dont give a bad example that others might want to follow. I mean...Adolf Hitler had the power to invade half of Europe...that doesnt mean he had the Right to do it...and even though the United States is a Friendly and GOD fearing Country, doesnt mean that every other Country who now decides to break the International Law....

I agree with most of this paragraph. The US is not perfect, but we do much more good than bad. People should learn from the past like Hitler, we can't allow evil powers to have their way in the world, regardless if its out jurisdiction or not. Of course we have to choose our battles since so much of the world is wicked and we can't remove every evil dictator, but there are certain times when one becomes too dangerous(aka Saddam).

...Look what happened AFTER what you did and you will see, various Countries copied you. Israel decided that Terror was an excuse that could be used to justify a land invasion of the Lebanon (the terrorist State apparently Kidnapped a couple of soldiers or something...it was hardly about to Launch Weapons of mass distruction) Russia decided that it could just march into Georgia...after all, what would the Americans do...they were just as bad.

So any type of fighting is the exact same thing? Basically your saying if I use a gun to kill someone just because, its the same thing as using a gun to defend my life.... They were totally different circumstances. Did Georgia ignore 17 un resolutions? As far as Israel, issues between them and other nations surrounding them have been going on for a long time, I doubt the US invasion of Iraq had much to do with it.

The REAL irony is BEFORE the weapons of mass Distruction argument...the United States USED the fact that Saddam was breaking International Law to say he should be removed from power. Then in less then a year...did more then mess afew United Nations Weapons Inspectors about.

I don't understand the last sentence.

You might see how some nations now think that when The United States does something like call for extra Sanctions to be placed on Iran, they are being hypercritical...like its alright for the Law to apply to others, but not to them...and since they have so little regard for it when it doesnt suit them...why do they even try to use it when it suits them...does the US Administration really consider the rest of us foolish enough to believe that it gives a damn about International Law as an absolute, or a Standard, or a Construct??

International Law shouldnt' be an absolute, there is always exceptions to the rule. And if you believe the US is hypocritical because they actually back up their words, then I guess that just shows the difference between me and you. The fact that we are trying to get sanctions instead of just bombing them should show we have tried diplomacy first and foremost, just like what we did with Iraq. But at the end of the day, when people don't want to agree with international law, and that threatens the safety of the American people(or its allies), then we will act. We aren't going to sit idly by while other nations mock international law, until they get the means where with to harm us.

Like I said...lets hope that no other country decides to mount a campaign like that..GOD help us if the Russians or Chinese decide to do that in the next ten years or so, because they will try and use the United States example to legitamise their own...thats my fear...the United Nations is becoming a pharse :unsure:

The UN has been a pharse for a long time.

Tyburn
02-18-2010, 12:25 PM
So, basically what you're saying, Dave, is given our decision to take Saddam out with the reasoning we used to the world, we can't rely on, "Do as I say, not as I do," if another nation decides to invade pointing to us, "You did it, so why can't we."

With everything that was going on and had happened, 9/11 and Saddam thwarting the U.N. inspectors, some would say that Saddam was playing "chicken" using WMD and we made the decision to call his bluff and he lost. Others look at it as a diversion from where we should have had ALL of our focus which was Bin Laden.

I think as a superpower we do have a responsibility to be the "standard bearer" so to speak. Some will call us "leader" for what we did and are doing, others will look at us as a bully for it. How we got there, for some, will always be a debateable ? that will be argued, but at this point (for me) is moot. Terrorism is here to stay. It's not going away.

We may not always be the most popular kid on the block, but I don't think anyone can accuse us of not having the courage to fight for what we believe to be right. "No guts, no glory"! :)

:) No noone would ever do that :laugh:

Also its important to say that the U.S still has moral integrity, because Saddam was Evil...BUT we cant always expect a country who decides to invade another, in the future, will do that.

There was nothing Evil about Poland in 1945...but Hitler still invaded...its not the U.S or its actions that frightens me...its what happens if a country like Russia or China decides to act the same way...that WOULD frighten me :unsure-1:

Tyburn
02-18-2010, 12:41 PM
1) I am glad the United States does not make decisions based off what the other nations feel are acceptable. We only have 250 million people, compare that to the world, we are definitely in the minority.



2) As far as I know, Saddam violated the 1991 Gulf War Truce, including 2 UN resolutions and the following 15 they put out to try to enforce them. Even after 17 broken resolutions, the UN wasn't doing ANYTHING. Add the fact that we knew he had Nuclear Capabilities, and he was a tyrant that had shown he would use WMD's(since he already had), it speaks for itself. So in reality Saddam broke international law, and the UN did NOTHING.



3) You were saying we didn't have the right, and I said who says who has the right. According to Iran, they most definately have the right to bomb someone. Regardless if they have the "right", doesn't mean it isn't wrong to do, just as the United States went to war with Iraq, it's still debatable. My point was when it all comes down to it, laws can't force you to do anything.



4) Saddam made a mockery out of international law, and then most the rest of the UN made it worse by not having the guts to do anything about it. The UN showed what they were made of, and that is a bunch of sissies that have more bark than bite. If China had been in the same circumstance as we I would not have a problem with it. In fact, it would of been nice for another country like that to go out and rid the world of someone as horrible as Saddam instead of us always shouldering the responsibility. And before you says its not our "right" to do that, once again who says? I think its the obligation of anyone in power to help those that can't help themselves.



5) I agree with most of this paragraph. The US is not perfect, but we do much more good than bad. People should learn from the past like Hitler, we can't allow evil powers to have their way in the world, regardless if its out jurisdiction or not. Of course we have to choose our battles since so much of the world is wicked and we can't remove every evil dictator, but there are certain times when one becomes too dangerous(aka Saddam).



So any type of fighting is the exact same thing? Basically your saying if I use a gun to kill someone just because, its the same thing as using a gun to defend my life.... They were totally different circumstances. Did Georgia ignore 17 un resolutions? As far as Israel, issues between them and other nations surrounding them have been going on for a long time, I doubt the US invasion of Iraq had much to do with it.



I don't understand the last sentence.



6) International Law shouldnt' be an absolute, there is always exceptions to the rule. And if you believe the US is hypocritical because they actually back up their words, then I guess that just shows the difference between me and you. The fact that we are trying to get sanctions instead of just bombing them should show we have tried diplomacy first and foremost, just like what we did with Iraq. But at the end of the day, when people don't want to agree with international law, and that threatens the safety of the American people(or its allies), then we will act. We aren't going to sit idly by while other nations mock international law, until they get the means where with to harm us.



The UN has been a pharse for a long time.

1) it depends what the decisions are, but if they involve another country, then it really shouldnt just be your opinion should it.

2) When the United States broke International Law in a FAR worse way, the United Nations did nothing either. The point is the United Nations is not there to enforce, its not a Government, its only troops are those of participating countries. And we have no evidence that Saddam had anything Nuclear, his real speciality was biological weapons in fact.

3) Laws shouldnt need to force you. If you have Moral integrity you should respect the Law. Just because Iran doesnt, (and your right, it most certainly does not) doesnt mean that you should drop to their level.

4) Saddam was unimportant, his country was unimportant, he broke a few laws, but he didnt actually cause any harm to anyone outside of his own soverignty, because of that the United Nations didnt need to really do anything. Contrast that to The United States, an important country, a member of the permanent security council...and they acted like a rogue nation...thats what we call countries like Iraq that break the law..but Iraq didnt try to invade anyone...and a member of the Security Council...did. The pharse really was your countries making, because it was the first major time a security council member decided not to play ball. Personally, I would have given the United States the boot from the security council...I'd have made their voice akin to one of those nations who plays the same game. THEN you would have had reason to complain, because then your voice would mean nothing effectively.

but the United Nations is too frightened to do that. They even had a revote AFTER the Invasion and sanctioned it, just to sweep the BAD BEHAVIOUR of America under the carpet....the only Sanction they did, was to refuse to try Saddam in a proper court, and to tell the United States to keep out of the Israel/Lebanon crisis that blew up afterwards.

So...the United States has gotten away with acting like that once, whats to stop it doing that again, there is no enforcement, and no punishment...so its just a hyped up waste of time. Your actions, not Saddam, made that apparent.

5) Is it not breaking laws that partly defines which Countries are rouges? thats the problem. Whose going to decide what nation is evil and what is not? thats why the UN was set up in the first place.

6) no, you make a mockery of the law first by pre-emptively invading them...where is your evidence that Saddam was a real threat. The only threat Saddam had was to his own people. Last time I looked, you werent an Iraqi...therefore, that argument doesnt hold water...because you cant find these weapons can you. If you had found them...then fair enough...but the truth is he wasnt a threat to you, or to your allies.

eric84
02-18-2010, 03:48 PM
1) it depends what the decisions are, but if they involve another country, then it really shouldnt just be your opinion should it.

2) When the United States broke International Law in a FAR worse way, the United Nations did nothing either. The point is the United Nations is not there to enforce, its not a Government, its only troops are those of participating countries. And we have no evidence that Saddam had anything Nuclear, his real speciality was biological weapons in fact.

3) Laws shouldnt need to force you. If you have Moral integrity you should respect the Law. Just because Iran doesnt, (and your right, it most certainly does not) doesnt mean that you should drop to their level.

4) Saddam was unimportant, his country was unimportant, he broke a few laws, but he didnt actually cause any harm to anyone outside of his own soverignty, because of that the United Nations didnt need to really do anything. Contrast that to The United States, an important country, a member of the permanent security council...and they acted like a rogue nation...thats what we call countries like Iraq that break the law..but Iraq didnt try to invade anyone...and a member of the Security Council...did. The pharse really was your countries making, because it was the first major time a security council member decided not to play ball. Personally, I would have given the United States the boot from the security council...I'd have made their voice akin to one of those nations who plays the same game. THEN you would have had reason to complain, because then your voice would mean nothing effectively.

but the United Nations is too frightened to do that. They even had a revote AFTER the Invasion and sanctioned it, just to sweep the BAD BEHAVIOUR of America under the carpet....the only Sanction they did, was to refuse to try Saddam in a proper court, and to tell the United States to keep out of the Israel/Lebanon crisis that blew up afterwards.

So...the United States has gotten away with acting like that once, whats to stop it doing that again, there is no enforcement, and no punishment...so its just a hyped up waste of time. Your actions, not Saddam, made that apparent.

5) Is it not breaking laws that partly defines which Countries are rouges? thats the problem. Whose going to decide what nation is evil and what is not? thats why the UN was set up in the first place.

6) no, you make a mockery of the law first by pre-emptively invading them...where is your evidence that Saddam was a real threat. The only threat Saddam had was to his own people. Last time I looked, you werent an Iraqi...therefore, that argument doesnt hold water...because you cant find these weapons can you. If you had found them...then fair enough...but the truth is he wasnt a threat to you, or to your allies.

1 - When it comes down to it, the US needs to look after their own best interests(just like any other country)

2 - Saddam's blatant regard of the laws, and the UN not doing anything about it made those laws meaningless.

3 - I agree to a certain extent, but when there is a law setup to keep everyone in check, and someone breaks it, then you have to take action.

4 - Do you feel the 17 resolutions from the UN were just for having a good time? It appears most the world felt Saddam was a threat of some sort also. As far as booting the US from the security council, that's a joke right? The US would be much better off not being a part of the UN after seeing how much of a failure it is by countries to actually back up their talk. Also it amazes me how it's not a big deal that Saddam gassed his own people. Anyone willing to do that is a threat to the world, regardless if it was within their own country or not. We can't be naive in thinking if a person hasn't attacked outside his country that he never will.

5- Exactly, who is evil and who is not, regardless of the laws you put out there, it still comes down to what countries have the power and what don't. You can bet if Iran had the power that the US had, they wouldn't think twice about whiping Israel off the face of the world and any other nation they felt like also. It's amazing how people nitpick on the US and yet in the history of the world, I can't think of a superpower that has been as morally straight. Not saying the US is perfect, we all know they aren't. The US decided Iraq was a threat, and acted accordingly within their power.

6 - Did you read the article posted earlier on the thread? So if my neighbor is getting attacked on his property it's not my 'right' to do anything about it? The evidence given to Bush and congress was enough that they felt he was indeed a threat to us. There are evil people in this world that you can trust to be nice and only hurt their own people.

Perhaps there was alternative motives in going into iraq, but I'm glad the world no longer has a Saddam Hussein in it.

Spiritwalker
02-18-2010, 05:08 PM
Well said....:)

1 - When it comes down to it, the US needs to look after their own best interests(just like any other country)

2 - Saddam's blatant regard of the laws, and the UN not doing anything about it made those laws meaningless.

3 - I agree to a certain extent, but when there is a law setup to keep everyone in check, and someone breaks it, then you have to take action.

4 - Do you feel the 17 resolutions from the UN were just for having a good time? It appears most the world felt Saddam was a threat of some sort also. As far as booting the US from the security council, that's a joke right? The US would be much better off not being a part of the UN after seeing how much of a failure it is by countries to actually back up their talk. Also it amazes me how it's not a big deal that Saddam gassed his own people. Anyone willing to do that is a threat to the world, regardless if it was within their own country or not. We can't be naive in thinking if a person hasn't attacked outside his country that he never will.

5- Exactly, who is evil and who is not, regardless of the laws you put out there, it still comes down to what countries have the power and what don't. You can bet if Iran had the power that the US had, they wouldn't think twice about whiping Israel off the face of the world and any other nation they felt like also. It's amazing how people nitpick on the US and yet in the history of the world, I can't think of a superpower that has been as morally straight. Not saying the US is perfect, we all know they aren't. The US decided Iraq was a threat, and acted accordingly within their power.

6 - Did you read the article posted earlier on the thread? So if my neighbor is getting attacked on his property it's not my 'right' to do anything about it? The evidence given to Bush and congress was enough that they felt he was indeed a threat to us. There are evil people in this world that you can trust to be nice and only hurt their own people.

Perhaps there was alternative motives in going into iraq, but I'm glad the world no longer has a Saddam Hussein in it.

Tyburn
02-18-2010, 05:58 PM
1 - When it comes down to it, the US needs to look after their own best interests(just like any other country)

2 - Saddam's blatant regard of the laws, and the UN not doing anything about it made those laws meaningless.

3 - I agree to a certain extent, but when there is a law setup to keep everyone in check, and someone breaks it, then you have to take action.

4 - Do you feel the 17 resolutions from the UN were just for having a good time? It appears most the world felt Saddam was a threat of some sort also.

4b) As far as booting the US from the security council, that's a joke right? The US would be much better off not being a part of the UN after seeing how much of a failure it is by countries to actually back up their talk.

4C) Also it amazes me how it's not a big deal that Saddam gassed his own people. Anyone willing to do that is a threat to the world, regardless if it was within their own country or not. We can't be naive in thinking if a person hasn't attacked outside his country that he never will.

5- Exactly, who is evil and who is not, regardless of the laws you put out there, it still comes down to what countries have the power and what don't. You can bet if Iran had the power that the US had, they wouldn't think twice about whiping Israel off the face of the world and any other nation they felt like also. It's amazing how people nitpick on the US and yet in the history of the world, I can't think of a superpower that has been as morally straight. Not saying the US is perfect, we all know they aren't. The US decided Iraq was a threat, and acted accordingly within their power.

6 - Did you read the article posted earlier on the thread? So if my neighbor is getting attacked on his property it's not my 'right' to do anything about it? The evidence given to Bush and congress was enough that they felt he was indeed a threat to us. There are evil people in this world that you can trust to be nice and only hurt their own people.

7) Perhaps there was alternative motives in going into iraq, but I'm glad the world no longer has a Saddam Hussein in it.

1) you look after your interests by negotiating...because some of your countries interests are at the detriment of others, and being that they lie outside your boarders there is no good reason for you to attain, any more then they. Particularly oil, for example.

2) I already explained to you, Saddam never set foot outside his own Jurisdiction. You cant act on a country BEFORE they do something wrong. Breaking a Sanction is what almost everyone in the world does at times. More sanctions equal more liklihood of compliance...but until Saddam showed proof he had nuclear weapons...proof you never found...the United Nations cant act. Incidently, it never acts on a military footing, thats for its members to do, because there is no United Nations Army...its made up of member countries armed forces

3) again, Sanctions WERE action. That was the limit of what was reasonable to do on a hunch he had weapons which it turns out he didnt.

4) Most of the world considered him a vile dictator who committed evil genocide against his own country. I very much doubt that Iran or any of the other neighbouring Arab countries felt threatened by him. Israel felt threatened, but Israel ALWAYS feels threatened :laugh: A lot of the support you had dissapeared after that, so quite the contrary, only a few countries felt like you...and largely that was their governments, not always their people.

4b) what talk? We never even threatened to invade. We were working on finding out if he actually had the damn weapons in the first place...which it turns out he did not. Trust me, The United Nations Security Council is a big deal in terms of how the major powers work together...you get the boot from that, and you kiss Europe goodbye, because the United Kingdom is about the only thing that stood between you and Europe. Plus...you could expect countries like China and Russia to have a bigger say then yourself. You wouldnt want that, I'm sure.

4C) ever watched Minority Report??? You cant convict someone of a crime BEFORE they committ the crime. Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction that could get you. Who knows if he ever would have...perhaps you should invade Mexico....I mean...who knows...maybe they will attack you in the future. You cant be so paranoid. People dont realize how well protected the US is.

Lets pretend that the U.S never invaded, and that Saddam had Weapons...now lets say he launched those weapons...what do you think would happen?? I'll tell you. The rockets would launch and head towards space, they would then have to begin circumnavigation, at that point they will come into contact with a set of Satalites which extend all the way from the middle of the pacific, right round to the middle east and Eastern Bloc of Europe. These Satalites would send messages to what are known as Listening Posts dotted about the earth, in your Allies countries. Those Listening Posts would signal to America that their were Missiles in the air and on course. At which point the Americans would launch, probably just normal rockets, to intercept and distroy those missiles...they would then launch a strike of their own.

Iraq has not satalites warning of missiles, so by the time they realize whats happened, its too late.

The result would be the distruction of Baghdad, the death of Sadam, and the casualties of a city full of Iraqi Civilians. there would be ZERO losses for the Americans.

The Americans can do that. Its called "Star Wars" except..you might like to know that the Republicans wanted to extend it to cover Russia also....and Barack Obama said that he'd changed his mind :unsure-1:

5) but Iraq turned out not to be a threat didnt it. You went to pre-empt something that was well beyond Saddam in the first place....and meanwhile hundreds of your troops are being killed in action. :unsure-1: I always support plans that limit the amount of casualties incured by the Military, I do not feel its right to get your military in a decade long war on the incorrect hunch that a country might attack you, especially not, when we now know that hunch was sorely mistaken.

6) It depends on the laws of your land, what is permissable and what isnt.

6b) ahh yes...the dodgey dossier...we got that intelligence also. We have intelligence of our own...like, how your Administration needed no convincing, it had decided it wanted regieme change in Iraq more then a year before the invasion...we know this, because we aggreed to help you regardless at that time. I dont suppose THAT was put to congress anymore then it was put to Parliament. Its called Politics

7) I personally think that there was. I think that in time the United States will be exhonerated because it will show that she knew what she was doing, and lied to cover up a far larger issue. I think that issue is called Iran.

I believe that Iraq holds lots of oil, and that it was also an extremely unstable Government. I believe that the United States and England both wanted to get rid of Saddam, I believe they got wind of a plan by the Iranians to invade Iraq. They used Saddams issues with the United Nations as a cover to be able to move quickly, to physically take the land before Iran. The reason I think this is because there was a United Nations Weapons Inspector, who said that Iraq had no weapons, and he leaked information to the British Press. A week later he was found dead. Apparent Suicide although the medical authorities have rulled he was unable to physically kill himself in the manner in which he was found. The records surrounding his death have been classified for SEVENTY YEARS.

Now if that is the case, then one can understand and see why it was needed to invade Iraq, why it was needed to do that without any delay, and to understand why David Kelly had to be silenced.

But that is circumstantial and speculation...at present all the data shows the war to be unjust and probably a mistake. If the above paragraph were ever shown to be true, it would show the war to have been not only Just, and deliberate...but also that those leaders were close to Saints, for knowing they would be hated, and yet doing the biggest service to the modern world for centuries.

Bonnie
02-18-2010, 06:16 PM
You know if you look at a map of the middle east, I think you can see how important geographically Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan are in relation to Iran.

Think of it like chess, it's all about positioning your pieces. :)

Tyburn
02-18-2010, 06:22 PM
You know if you look at a map of the middle east, I think you can see how important geographically Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan are in relation to Iran.

Think of it like chess, it's all about positioning your pieces. :)

At this moment, there is nothing to be feared more then Iran.

Notice, she is the only one who doesnt play silly beggers...thats why I take her seriously...Korea wants to look flash by launching missiles, Russia wants to turn off and on gass supplies...China...well China is just china..

but Iran...Iran wont play silly beggers...she dont bluff IMHO..that means she is FAR more of a threat. The first time she has Nukes we will know...because she will be launching them...We all need to pay attention to what goes on there...because she is absolute poisen in this world. :ninja:

If anyone dares...she does :unsure-1:

Bonnie
02-18-2010, 06:45 PM
At this moment, there is nothing to be feared more then Iran.

Notice, she is the only one who doesnt play silly beggers...thats why I take her seriously...Korea wants to look flash by launching missiles, Russia wants to turn off and on gass supplies...China...well China is just china..

but Iran...Iran wont play silly beggers...she dont bluff IMHO..that means she is FAR more of a threat. The first time she has Nukes we will know...because she will be launching them...We all need to pay attention to what goes on there...because she is absolute poisen in this world. :ninja:

If anyone dares...she does :unsure-1:

I agree about Iran. That's why "positioning" ourselves in strategic locations in that part of the world is especially crucial, I think, right now. Iraq is to the left of Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan to the right. Iraq sits between Iran and Syria. You see what I mean now. :unsure-1:

I don't trust Syria and Pakistan hasn't exactly shown itself to be trustworthy (they've just been taking our money and not doing anything to help us). :angry:

Spiritwalker
02-18-2010, 07:52 PM
1) you look after your interests by negotiating...because some of your countries interests are at the detriment of others, and being that they lie outside your boarders there is no good reason for you to attain, any more then they. Particularly oil, for example.

And when negoting fails on issues such as checmial weapons....


2) I already explained to you, Saddam never set foot outside his own Jurisdiction.

ermmmm... Kuwait? The plot to kill Bush Sr? Saudi Arabia?.. While the Kurds were in his jurisdiction.. do you stand by and watch a parent abuse thier kids???

You cant act on a country BEFORE they do something wrong. Breaking a Sanction is what almost everyone in the world does at times. More sanctions equal more liklihood of compliance...but until Saddam showed proof he had nuclear weapons...proof you never found...the United Nations cant act. Incidently, it never acts on a military footing, thats for its members to do, because there is no United Nations Army...its made up of member countries armed forces

Again.. that wasn't about nuclear weapons.. it was chemicial.. and there was proof.. the proof was in his delaying taticts in allowing UN inspectors...


3) again, Sanctions WERE action. That was the limit of what was reasonable to do on a hunch he had weapons which it turns out he didnt.

The hunch was based off lots of evidence...Think about Al Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Center.. opened in 77.. leveled by Israeli in the early 80's.... think they never tried again...


[QUOTE]4) Most of the world considered him a vile dictator who committed evil genocide against his own country. I very much doubt that Iran or any of the other neighbouring Arab countries felt threatened by him. Israel felt threatened, but Israel ALWAYS feels threatened :laugh: A lot of the support you had dissapeared after that, so quite the contrary, only a few countries felt like you...and largely that was their governments, not always their people.[QUOTE]

If other countries don't want to support the US.. ah well... and what other countries weren't threatened??? Oh yeah.. Kuwait.. and when Iraqi army was driven out.. what did they do??? scorched earth...


Sorry I don't have time to really educate you on your errors below this.. but being at work I can only laugh som much before I get in trouble.

Tyburn
02-18-2010, 09:48 PM
I agree about Iran. That's why "positioning" ourselves in strategic locations in that part of the world is especially crucial, I think, right now. Iraq is to the left of Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan to the right. Iraq sits between Iran and Syria. You see what I mean now. :unsure-1:

I don't trust Syria and Pakistan hasn't exactly shown itself to be trustworthy (they've just been taking our money and not doing anything to help us). :angry:

Indeed. Syria is not to be trusted...Pakistan...their country is too broken with civil dispute to be united as a threat...except by accident :laugh:

The biggest battle in any war with the U.S is always Geography, she lies so far away...sometimes thats beneficial...but when your trying to fight a country on the opposite side of the globe...it presents a number of serious issues :ninja:

eric84
02-18-2010, 10:16 PM
1) you look after your interests by negotiating...because some of your countries interests are at the detriment of others, and being that they lie outside your boarders there is no good reason for you to attain, any more then they. Particularly oil, for example.Negotiating like the 17 UN resolutions that were ignored by Saddam?

2) I already explained to you, Saddam never set foot outside his own Jurisdiction. You cant act on a country BEFORE they do something wrong. Breaking a Sanction is what almost everyone in the world does at times. More sanctions equal more liklihood of compliance...but until Saddam showed proof he had nuclear weapons...proof you never found...the United Nations cant act. Incidently, it never acts on a military footing, thats for its members to do, because there is no United Nations Army...its made up of member countries armed forces

Spiritwalker laid it out great
"rmmmm... Kuwait? The plot to kill Bush Sr? Saudi Arabia?.. While the Kurds were in his jurisdiction.. do you stand by and watch a parent abuse thier kids???


3) again, Sanctions WERE action. That was the limit of what was reasonable to do on a hunch he had weapons which it turns out he didnt.
He didn't have weapons? Like he didn't gas thousands of kurds? And it mattered not if he had weapons at the time, the point was to prevent him from striking at us in the future. No one said Saddam was striking at us that very day.

4) Most of the world considered him a vile dictator who committed evil genocide against his own country. I very much doubt that Iran or any of the other neighbouring Arab countries felt threatened by him. Israel felt threatened, but Israel ALWAYS feels threatened :laugh: A lot of the support you had dissapeared after that, so quite the contrary, only a few countries felt like you...and largely that was their governments, not always their people.

I felt threatened, just like I feel threatened by Iran. I'm not sure how easy it is for a terrorist organization to get any type of weapon from those governments but I'm sure its alot higher chance than people in New York would like....

4b) what talk? We never even threatened to invade. We were working on finding out if he actually had the damn weapons in the first place...which it turns out he did not. Trust me, The United Nations Security Council is a big deal in terms of how the major powers work together...you get the boot from that, and you kiss Europe goodbye, because the United Kingdom is about the only thing that stood between you and Europe. Plus...you could expect countries like China and Russia to have a bigger say then yourself. You wouldnt want that, I'm sure.

Trust you... I'll pass.

4C) ever watched Minority Report??? You cant convict someone of a crime BEFORE they committ the crime. Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction that could get you. Who knows if he ever would have...perhaps you should invade Mexico....I mean...who knows...maybe they will attack you in the future. You cant be so paranoid. People dont realize how well protected the US is.

So Saddam didn't gas the Kurds? It's the Presidents job to be just a little bit paranoid about another 9-11, but you wouldn't know anything about that because it didn't happen in your country.

Lets pretend that the U.S never invaded, and that Saddam had Weapons...now lets say he launched those weapons...what do you think would happen?? I'll tell you. The rockets would launch and head towards space, they would then have to begin circumnavigation, at that point they will come into contact with a set of Satalites which extend all the way from the middle of the pacific, right round to the middle east and Eastern Bloc of Europe. These Satalites would send messages to what are known as Listening Posts dotted about the earth, in your Allies countries. Those Listening Posts would signal to America that their were Missiles in the air and on course. At which point the Americans would launch, probably just normal rockets, to intercept and distroy those missiles...they would then launch a strike of their own.

If you said this before 9-11 i could cut you a little slack, but now your showing how ignorant you are. As someone mentioned earlier, launching missiles isn't the only form of attack. What happens when a nuke gets in the hands of a terrorist organization that smuggle it into the US and it blows up in the middle of New York, or DC, or any other city, big or small. Regardless of where the nuke exploded, regardless of how many people were killed, a nuke getting on US soil would be disastrous.

Iraq has not satalites warning of missiles, so by the time they realize whats happened, its too late.

Yep it worked out great when we invaded :)

The result would be the distruction of Baghdad, the death of Sadam, and the casualties of a city full of Iraqi Civilians. there would be ZERO losses for the Americans.

Why didn't the horrible, crime committing USA not do that in the first place, that plan is brilliant! Maybe because we aren't as bad as people make us out to be.


5) but Iraq turned out not to be a threat didnt it. You went to pre-empt something that was well beyond Saddam in the first place....and meanwhile hundreds of your troops are being killed in action. :unsure-1: I always support plans that limit the amount of casualties incured by the Military, I do not feel its right to get your military in a decade long war on the incorrect hunch that a country might attack you, especially not, when we now know that hunch was sorely mistaken.

Very easy for you to sit behind a computer 8 years or so later, with Saddam dead, saying what he was capable of. A look at reality was a President who was given strong evidence that he was a threat that needed to be removed, which congress also voted to support. If we had taken the "just bomb the heck out of them" approach we would of lost no troops like you said(or so very few), but we didn't because we value human lives.

6) It depends on the laws of your land, what is permissable and what isnt.

So I make my own country and make into law it is ok to murder people for any reason you want. I guess its ok, right?

6b) ahh yes...the dodgey dossier...we got that intelligence also. We have intelligence of our own...like, how your Administration needed no convincing, it had decided it wanted regieme change in Iraq more then a year before the invasion...we know this, because we aggreed to help you regardless at that time. I dont suppose THAT was put to congress anymore then it was put to Parliament. Its called Politics

So congress didn't vote to support the war based off intelligence they were shown? Amazing how you rewrite history :)

7) I personally think that there was. I think that in time the United States will be exhonerated because it will show that she knew what she was doing, and lied to cover up a far larger issue. I think that issue is called Iran.

Politics are corrupt all over the place and it isn't right, and I would be very naive to claim there wasn't a possibility of alterior motives. But it is also naive to think that they somehow passed an agenda to invade iraq when congress in fact supported it also. Did the rest of congress have that same agenda? If so, we need to get that bipartisan unity back.

I believe that Iraq holds lots of oil, and that it was also an extremely unstable Government. I believe that the United States and England both wanted to get rid of Saddam, I believe they got wind of a plan by the Iranians to invade Iraq. They used Saddams issues with the United Nations as a cover to be able to move quickly, to physically take the land before Iran. The reason I think this is because there was a United Nations Weapons Inspector, who said that Iraq had no weapons, and he leaked information to the British Press. A week later he was found dead. Apparent Suicide although the medical authorities have rulled he was unable to physically kill himself in the manner in which he was found. The records surrounding his death have been classified for SEVENTY YEARS. Now if that is the case, then one can understand and see why it was needed to invade Iraq, why it was needed to do that without any delay, and to understand why David Kelly had to be silenced.

If he was in deed murdered by either government then that is absolutely wrong, but I can't say for sure what happened. Perhaps he was bought out by iraq and the government wanted to cover it up because they didn't want people to know he was bought off....we really have no idea, and probably never will.

But that is circumstantial and speculation...at present all the data shows the war to be unjust and probably a mistake. If the above paragraph were ever shown to be true, it would show the war to have been not only Just, and deliberate...but also that those leaders were close to Saints, for knowing they would be hated, and yet doing the biggest service to the modern world for centuries.

I've always felt it would be 20-30 years before people would come to see the Iraq war as being the right move. Only time will tell.

Bonnie
02-18-2010, 10:19 PM
Indeed. Syria is not to be trusted...Pakistan...their country is too broken with civil dispute to be united as a threat...except by accident :laugh:

The biggest battle in any war with the U.S is always Geography, she lies so far away...sometimes thats beneficial...but when your trying to fight a country on the opposite side of the globe...it presents a number of serious issues :ninja:

Dave, what I mean is maybe going into Iraq wasn't just about Saddam. Maybe we just used him as an excuse to get our boots on the ground over there. And, it seems like it would be very important to have Afghanistan and Pakistan as at least friendlies if not allies given their borders with Iran.

We've paid Pakistan billions to aide us in our counterterrorism efforts and they have done a piss-poor job in aiding us. :angry:

Tyburn
02-18-2010, 10:53 PM
Dave, what I mean is maybe going into Iraq wasn't just about Saddam. Maybe we just used him as an excuse to get our boots on the ground over there. And, it seems like it would be very important to have Afghanistan and Pakistan as at least friendlies if not allies given their borders with Iran.

We've paid Pakistan billions to aide us in our counterterrorism efforts and they have done a piss-poor job in aiding us. :angry:

yes...and I aggree with that. :) You and I should be snapped up by Secret Service ...we would make a great team :w00t:

Tyburn
02-18-2010, 11:09 PM
Negotiating like the 17 UN resolutions that were ignored by Saddam?

Yes, until he does something CURRENT, not ten years ago, not five years into the future...until he steps out of line in the present, Sanctions are all that can be done...what do you think the UN is...a world Government or something??

Spiritwalker laid it out great

I dont listen to anything he says, because he just likes to stir things up

He didn't have weapons? Like he didn't gas thousands of kurds? And it mattered not if he had weapons at the time, the point was to prevent him from striking at us in the future. No one said Saddam was striking at us that very day.

YES THEY DID!!!!!! The reason the US invaded was because they claimed that Saddam had weapons of mass distruction which could be launched within forty five moments of the decision being made.

...and when, during the time of 2003, did Saddam gas any Kurds...wasnt that years previously??


Trust you... I'll pass.

dont be rude. I abhore uncalled for rudeness

So Saddam didn't gas the Kurds? It's the Presidents job to be just a little bit paranoid about another 9-11, but you wouldn't know anything about that because it didn't happen in your country.

I was in London the day WE got Bombed for HELPPING YOU out If I hadnt have changed my rota at work, I may well have been killed in the Tavistock Bus Bomb, since I would have been travelling back from Bloomsbury during that rush hour after my daily swim at the University of London Union

If he was in deed murdered by either government then that is absolutely wrong, but I can't say for sure what happened. Perhaps he was bought out by iraq and the government wanted to cover it up because they didn't want people to know he was bought off....we really have no idea, and probably never will.

dont put words in my mouth



Tell me, were you in New York the day of 9/11, because I was in London the day of 7/7 so we might want to end this now if your going to claim I know nothing about successful terrorist plots

Spiritwalker
02-19-2010, 03:39 AM
I dont listen to anything he says, because he just likes to stir things up

No.. I like to needle you and your unfounded arrogance.. and you should pay attention.. very often... with a little thought.. someone of your intelligence should be able to see what I am saying...


But you are certainly in error...

"We" never implied that there were nuclear weapons that we were looking for.. it was chemical....

now.. where were we..


4C) ever watched Minority Report??? You cant convict someone of a crime BEFORE they committ the crime. Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction that could get you. Who knows if he ever would have...

Remember in the late 70s.. the Al Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Center it was leveled by Israel in the early 80s.. to ensure that Iraq didn't become a nuclear power....If you have nuclear power.. your most of the way to having nuclear weapons...So if it was leveled in the early 80s... you think that they just "stopped".... are you that gullible?


perhaps you should invade Mexico....I mean...who knows...maybe they will attack you in the future. You cant be so paranoid. People dont realize how well protected the US is.

So you mean the geographical protection??? Or the fact that our military is the best freaking military on the face of the planet..better people... better equipped, and more personally KICK ARSE...



Lets pretend that the U.S never invaded, and that Saddam had Weapons...now lets say he launched those weapons...what do you think would happen?? I'll tell you. The rockets would launch and head towards space, they would then have to begin circumnavigation, at that point they will come into contact with a set of Satalites which extend all the way from the middle of the pacific, right round to the middle east and Eastern Bloc of Europe. These Satalites would send messages to what are known as Listening Posts dotted about the earth, in your Allies countries. Those Listening Posts would signal to America that their were Missiles in the air and on course. At which point the Americans would launch, probably just normal rockets, to intercept and distroy those missiles...they would then launch a strike of their own.

You are ASSuming... that they would launch from Iraq.. not one of their friendly nations... and not snuck onto a freighter..... that is docked in a harbor... and you ASSume.... that they would create a missile...not just a bomb...


Iraq has not satalites warning of missiles, so by the time they realize whats happened, its too late.

And you think that Iraq doesn't have access to other countries data.. at the least to pay for information.

The result would be the distruction of Baghdad, the death of Sadam, and the casualties of a city full of Iraqi Civilians. there would be ZERO losses for the Americans.

And you think that is what America wants?? Most civilians don't freaking care about world politics..

The Americans can do that. Its called "Star Wars" except..you might like to know that the Republicans wanted to extend it to cover Russia also....and Barack Obama said that he'd changed his mind

And WHEN did the Republicans want to do this??? You do know Ronnie was almost the PERFECT Republican. SDI will never be seen in our lifetimes.. not in real practical means.. How has Obama wanted to be involved with SDI.. Please tell me.,.. I need another reason to laugh at him...



5) but Iraq turned out not to be a threat didnt it. You went to pre-empt something that was well beyond Saddam in the first place....

What ...Chemical weapons??? Not beyond him.. ask the Kurds... oh wait.. you can't.. try asking their children... hard to do that also... There are some around.. let me know when you can find them...Nuclear.. possibly beyond him.. but I kinda doubt it....


and meanwhile hundreds of your troops are being killed in action. I always support plans that limit the amount of casualties incured by the Military, I do not feel its right to get your military in a decade long war on the incorrect hunch that a country might attack you, especially not, when we now know that hunch was sorely mistaken.

So you go to war... but if....say.. 10,000 troops get killed on your side.. you surrender... very cool....please let me know when you are in charge of the British military...

So when the "going gets tough.." you quit... I told you before I thought that you would be the "first against the wall".... your statement above proves me correct...

And the "hunch" as you call it.. wasn't proved wrong..


6) It depends on the laws of your land, what is permissable and what isnt.

6b) ahh yes...the dodgey dossier...we got that intelligence also. We have intelligence of our own...like, how your Administration needed no convincing, it had decided it wanted regieme change in Iraq more then a year before the invasion...

Well.. at the VERY least... you had the SON of a man... that Saddam tried to have killed... become the most powerful man in the world... Saddam had to have known that his days were numbered.....

Saddam... and his government were becoming more and more powerful... they were hostile to their neighbors... and others... time to go...


we know this, because we aggreed to help you regardless at that time. I dont suppose THAT was put to congress anymore then it was put to Parliament. Its called Politics

you guys just want to follow... that's pretty much it.. when was the last time your country took the lead ANYWHERE.......


7) I personally think that there was. I think that in time the United States will be exhonerated because it will show that she knew what she was doing, and lied to cover up a far larger issue. I think that issue is called Iran.

First you bash on the US.. cause we are "arrogant".. and now we are stupid.... make up your mind as to how you want to insult us...


I believe that Iraq holds lots of oil, and that it was also an extremely unstable Government.

I am REALLY glad you believe the obvious so easily...

I believe that the United States and England both wanted to get rid of Saddam, I believe they got wind of a plan by the Iranians to invade Iraq. They used Saddams issues with the United Nations as a cover to be able to move quickly, to physically take the land before Iran.

What has the US taken??? nothing... we took control of the country.. cause after we handed Saddam his head.. it would be horrible to "just leave".. I personally wish we would... but I understand why we are still there...

The reason I think this is because there was a United Nations Weapons Inspector, who said that Iraq had no weapons,

After the fact.. yes....

and he leaked information to the British Press. A week later he was found dead. Apparent Suicide although the medical authorities have rulled he was unable to physically kill himself in the manner in which he was found. The records surrounding his death have been classified for SEVENTY YEARS.

Now if that is the case, then one can understand and see why it was needed to invade Iraq, why it was needed to do that without any delay, and to understand why David Kelly had to be silenced.


LOL..... Can they leap that far in the Summer Games???

But that is circumstantial and speculation...at present all the data shows the war to be unjust and probably a mistake.

Your data...not mine. At the very least.. Saddam tried to kill Bush sr... that was a crime...look up the assassination of world leaders... and the UN...

If the above paragraph were ever shown to be true, it would show the war to have been not only Just, and deliberate...but also that those leaders were close to Saints, for knowing they would be hated, and yet doing the biggest service to the modern world for centuries.

wow.. your giving me whiplash....

eric84
02-19-2010, 08:05 PM
Tell me, were you in New York the day of 9/11, because I was in London the day of 7/7 so we might want to end this now if your going to claim I know nothing about successful terrorist plots

1 - So as long as you kill a person before the cops arrive, its ok? To completely throw out past wrongs because he wasn't doing it right at that time is laughable.

2 - Since you missed what he said, I'll sum it up. You claimed something, and he provided facts proving you wrong.

3 - I don't recall Bush specifically saying that, but even if he did, it makes no difference in the long run.

4 - I wasn't rude, I was honest. It's you prerogative to be offended.

5 - Didn't mean to put words in your mouth, I thought that was the point you were trying to make. If he was killed for knowing there was no WMD's in Iraq(as I understand your saying), then who else would kill him?

I was not in NY at 9-11, but you completely missed the point. 9-11 was a much larger scale, as is something such as an atomic bomb. I would have no clue on the statistics, but imagine Al Qaida getting an atomic bomb, who do you think they would bomb first, the US or England? Add to the fact that Saddam already had a history aimed at the US(Bush Sr) and there you go.

Tyburn
02-19-2010, 09:43 PM
1 - So as long as you kill a person before the cops arrive, its ok? To completely throw out past wrongs because he wasn't doing it right at that time is laughable.

2 - Since you missed what he said, I'll sum it up. You claimed something, and he provided facts proving you wrong.

3 - I don't recall Bush specifically saying that, but even if he did, it makes no difference in the long run.

4 - I wasn't rude, I was honest. It's you prerogative to be offended.

5 - Didn't mean to put words in your mouth, I thought that was the point you were trying to make. If he was killed for knowing there was no WMD's in Iraq(as I understand your saying), then who else would kill him?

I was not in NY at 9-11, but you completely missed the point. 9-11 was a much larger scale, as is something such as an atomic bomb. I would have no clue on the statistics, but imagine Al Qaida getting an atomic bomb, who do you think they would bomb first, the US or England? Add to the fact that Saddam already had a history aimed at the US(Bush Sr) and there you go.

1) ?? Not sure what your talking about here.

2) Thankyou, but I can read. I just choose not to flatter him by response, he likes to butt in when im having a good conversation with someone (like yourself) and sour it with rude stage whispers and the likes.

3) Well thats certainly what was used to gain our support.

4) You were rude. Dont be moreso.

5) :ninja: No Comment :ninja:

6) So because you get hit first that makes yours a calamity and ours unimportant. In our History...we have suffered more Terrorist attacks then you...and im not even talking about the centuries of age difference...what about all the times the IRA bombed London?? No the real reason 9/11 was important, was because it was the first real large scale successful attack on your soil, terrorist or otherwise, since the Japanese Bombed Pearl.

You may not even be aware of this, but less then three years on, and we stopped having any real memorial certainly outside of London for 7/7 (which happened in 2005) whereas you still read the names out of the deceased (from 2001) that shows you how...desensitized we've become to it. Its happened so often, that we dont seem to really care anymore...its truely sad...and I still make a big point about it each time it comes round. (there was also a second spate of bombings on the 21st, but none of the Terrorists managed to detonate because of faulty equipment...there was also the accident that happened when the Police executed an innocent man called Charles De Menzies :unsure-1:

If you dont know exactly what happened, I' leave you with a few news reports and videos, all quite short...have a look...The real saddness was, the day before the bombers struck there was a HUGE celebration in Trafalgar Square when London was announced the winner of the 2012 Olympic Bid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=097373NYBV4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuhBdHc8Nqs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=te4K7DcKL2A

:sad:

Spiritwalker
02-21-2010, 03:12 AM
2) Thankyou, but I can read. I just choose not to flatter him by response, he likes to butt in when im having a good conversation with someone (like yourself) and sour it with rude stage whispers and the likes.



If you know anything about me.. I DON'T whisper....

I "butted" into the conversation because your facts are WRONG...


IRAQ was never a threat to anyone.... wrong...

The UN was searching for nuclear weapons... Wrong..

and so many other issues...

Sorry your history is off.... so very off....

Max
02-25-2010, 12:16 AM
I would use old fashioned methods....I might do what Israel does...not declaire war...but simply take out the nuclear institutions as they are developing. Dropping a bomb on one low manned facility probably wont lead to direct warfare on a huge scale.


This is kinda what we did. Except we did not know exactly where the nuclear institutions were so we just dropped bombs on anything we thought might have been a nuclear institution and then we sent troops in to get rid of anyone we thought might have had anything to do with a nuclear institution. :)

Tyburn
02-25-2010, 12:23 AM
This is kinda what we did. Except we did not know exactly where the nuclear institutions were so we just dropped bombs on anything we thought might have been a nuclear institution and then we sent troops in to get rid of anyone we thought might have had anything to do with a nuclear institution. :)

:laugh::laugh:

CAMPO
02-25-2010, 01:21 AM
yep, sure do