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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 02-12-2010, 04:48 PM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is offline
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,923
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheConcretekid View Post
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 02-12-2010, 04:53 PM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is offline
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,923
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasRN View Post
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"
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 02-12-2010, 04:59 PM
TexasRN's Avatar
TexasRN TexasRN is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Texan living in NC
Posts: 4,707
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyburn View Post
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"
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
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 02-12-2010, 05:01 PM
TexasRN's Avatar
TexasRN TexasRN is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Texan living in NC
Posts: 4,707
Default

Something else to make you think....

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3y...americans_news

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


~Amy
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 02-12-2010, 05:33 PM
NateR's Avatar
NateR NateR is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,734
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheConcretekid View Post
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 02-12-2010, 05:39 PM
NateR's Avatar
NateR NateR is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,734
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyburn View Post
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"
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)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 02-12-2010, 05:40 PM
NateR's Avatar
NateR NateR is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,734
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasRN View Post
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 02-12-2010, 05:46 PM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is offline
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,923
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasRN View Post
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
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 02-12-2010, 05:51 PM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is offline
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,923
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NateR View Post
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 02-12-2010, 05:57 PM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is offline
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,923
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NateR View Post
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.
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 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?
__________________
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 06:28 AM.


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