Go Back   Matt-Hughes.com Official Forums > General Discussions > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 01-03-2010, 07:52 PM
Jonlion's Avatar
Jonlion Jonlion is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: London
Posts: 1,306
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by atomdanger View Post
That is an interesting point.
I can't back this up completely but I know that I have heard and read a lot a bit about this.

If you look into ethnicities etc etc they dont get on.

Like Saddam and the Talliban hate eachother and so forth.

I'll tread on some dangerous ground here but iraq is a nutty place, they need ruling under tough control and the country was a lot more stable under Saddam keeping it in line. Perhaps we shoulda just beat him down and not completly knocked him out.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 01-03-2010, 09:27 PM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is offline
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,946
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by donaldbreland View Post
Bush was a better president than that thing we have in office now. Saddam killed more people than Bin Laden did. You better believe that Saddam had something to do with 9-11 as well.
Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 Saddam only really killed his own people (unless he was using conventional warfare, in which case I suppose you can credit him with killing a few Irainians...and those citizens of Kuwait...and maybe a few Americans during the Gulf War I guess.)

He wasnt interested in anything but himself...and FYI the Americans never put Saddam on Trial...

He was a Tyrant, noone mourns his passing...BUT dont be fooled into thinking it had anything to do with Afghanistan at all.

There are several other theories, The first is that Junior was finishing Seniors work, by tying off looose ends under the guise of Terrorism. Using International Law to proove Saddam was in violation and then breaking that same system of Laws to bring him to Justice

The Second is that Iraq had oil, and the future of your economy is based on that commodity, Conqure Iraq, and rebuild it with a Pro-American Regieme and you guarentee your countries future.

The most likely reason is neither. The most likely reason is that America judged Iraq to be on the verge of being toppled by Iran. The race for the Oil was not to secure a future for America, but to stop Iran from becoming THE powerhouse of the Middle East. They might mess with Saddam, but they wouldnt mess with America. They could use Seniors History to be efficient, they could liberate a Nation of a Tyrant, they could appease International law, and use Terrorism as an excuse. It was perfect. Until France and the UK ****ed it up...but even then, it didnt go to bad.

Now the world is rid of a Tyrant, a Nation is Liberated, and Iran will never see the oil which is safeguarded by the Americans.

But dont kid yourself into believeing that 1) Iraq had nukes capable of Bombarding the west or 2) Saddam was in league with Osama. Neither are True, give it a decade or two, and not even your Government will deny it.

Here is another thought for you. Perhaps if the US had only fought one war at a time, Osama would have been caught, and Afghanistan would be over. Instead of fighting one war properly, and then the next with a chance of winning both...you went and fought both at the same time, and have only partial success with both...and no Osama.

Mindue...at least Iran dont have the oil I suppose. Of course...all that might change when you leave Iraq Supposing this hypothesis is true, it would be unwise for the US to ever leave Iraq whilst Iran is a powerful Nation.

Iraq isnt so much the enemy, as the battle ground.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 01-03-2010, 11:32 PM
rearnakedchoke
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

[QUOTE=donaldbreland;90852]
Quote:
i think he is dead ... of natural causes/QUOTE]

Yeah because our Military couldn't have the intelligence to kill that crooked Muslim S.O.B. I have a question for you rearnaked. Do you practice the Muslim faith.
you think i am a muslim because i think bin laden died of natural causes??? i think we could have killed him, but i think he knew we were coming and gtfo...
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 01-04-2010, 01:02 AM
AMJ
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Donald Breland posts the most outlandish comments on this forum, it simply amazes me that someone with such a limited scope of understanding can be so confident in his ignorance.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 01-04-2010, 02:12 AM
bradwright
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AMJ View Post
Donald Breland posts the most outlandish comments on this forum, it simply amazes me that someone with such a limited scope of understanding can be so confident in his ignorance.


Donald is going to be gunning for you now....try not to be to hard on him when he does....i think he is just misunderstood sometimes.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 01-04-2010, 03:37 PM
Miss Foxy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by atomdanger View Post
Bin Laden doesn't matter,
didn't Bush tell you? We got Sadaam instead.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 01-04-2010, 03:39 PM
Miss Foxy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

[QUOTE=donaldbreland;90852]
Quote:
i think he is dead ... of natural causes/QUOTE]

Yeah because our Military couldn't have the intelligence to kill that crooked Muslim S.O.B. I have a question for you rearnaked. Do you practice the Muslim faith.
WTF? Are you seriously that ignorant to ask him such a question? What are you basing your ridiculous inquiries on?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.