Thread: Iraq War

Originally Posted by wendylove

I said soon they would have nuclear weapons.

No, you said they have them.

Originally Posted by wendylove

Iran has nuclear weapons

Originally Posted by wendylove

firstly Iran has nuclear warhead

Originally Posted by wendylove

Again this is assumption, based on what evidence? Iran does not want to enter a nuclear war only a cold war like stand off. Having Iran get blown up with nuclear weapons and Iran blowing Euroupe up with their future weapons is not in their best interest, in the account of them being dead.

The evidence of what Ahmadenijad has said about what he wants to do to Israel (blow it off the face of the map). The Iranian government has been supporting and arming the suicide bombers in Iraq. The Iranian government supports international terrorist groups that are our enemies. They could easily get their nuclear weapons to one of those terrorist groups and never claim credit. Do you really not see that as a problem?

Originally Posted by wendylove

You do agree that Hamas owns half of Palistein they do control it. So I guess the fight against Hamas, Hamas are winning. Hezballah itself is doing okay. Again they don't want to attack america, that is not realistic all they want is stuff like rockets and anti aircraft missles and guns so they can keep Palistein and hurt Israel.

Winning in Palestine? Yes. And they would love to attack America. They could send in suicide bombers and not take credit. You keep ignoring the clandestine operation factor. And the fact that the Hussein regime would support such a suicide bomber organization told us volumes about what kind of government we were dealing with. Don't you think so?

Originally Posted by wendylove

Having a puppet government does the prove Iraqi is demoncratic. Again the real power in Iraq is with the Sunni's and Shia's.

The rights they now have and the form of government they have does prove that they are democratic, and our occupation is only for the transition period. Occupation is 100% necessary for such a transition period.

Originally Posted by wendylove

So what country your saying will turn New yourk city into dust. Iran would not do it, I haven't heard of terriorism having nuclear weapons.

It's not the countries that would destroy it. It's their weapons and the terrorist organizations they support. Iran and Syria are two such concerns.

Originally Posted by wendylove

IAgain it makes more sense to destroy the terrorist, not Iraq who was just funding the terrorist. Why is fighting Iraq better then fighting the terrorist?

We didn't go to Iraq to destory Iraq. We went there to destroy the Hussein regime and then help Iraq grow as a democracy. Again, the Hussein regime was a government that could suppy WMD's and other support to the terrorist groups. That was a problem, wouldn't you say?

Originally Posted by wendylove

Hamas was elected fair and square. Again you can't pick and choose democracy and Hamas won the election.

As Dodobird pointed out and knows much more about it than I do because he lives in Israel, Hamas has abused the Hell out of their position and are working on an Islamic state. If Hamas and Palestine were really about democracy, there wouldn't even be an Arab-Israeli conflict at this point. They would just live together in a democracy. But that's not enough for the Islamofascists. That is what is at the root of this whole damn mess.

Originally Posted by wendylove

I can you explain the big picture. Say if I had a bike and all the indiviual part were really poor, would that make the big picture of the bike any better?

No, you keep taking one aspect at a time and arguing as though that is the whole point. You, like other people who agree with you, say things like, "But there are other dictatorships, and the United States didn't go after them," and, "Pakistan has WMD's, but you didn't attack them," and, "There is genocide in Sudan, but you didn't invade Sudan." You have made a lot of comments to that effect, so I keep telling you that you need to add it all up to the big picture. To use a bike analogy, you are saying things like, "You can't ride just a seat," and "A car has tires, but that doesn't make it a bike."

You have to cut the funding. Funding terrorism simply encourages terrorism. Does this mean it stops terrorism? No. Did we have to use a traditional war against Iraq? No. If you push traditional war as the only option, you lose

The Iraq War was poorly planned. We did not have to go in to the country. There are many ways to fight terrorism before force even becomes an option. The problem is we are not fighting the threat properly. We are not dedicated to fixing the problem in its totality. This is why we are having so many problems with the Iraq War.

I agree. Ironically speaking the only person who saw everything would go wrong in the millitary got sacked. I can't remeber his name.

The Iraq war reminds me of the coups the CIA did so communism would not spread actross africa, look how good africa is now. Ironically speaking, China invest huge amounts of money into africa(for is resources), so africa would eventually be closer to china then any other country(well the country which have all the good stuff).

Winning in Palestine? Yes. And they would love to attack America. They could send in suicide bombers and not take credit. You keep ignoring the clandestine operation factor. And the fact that the Hussein regime would support such a suicide bomber organization told us volumes about what kind of government we were dealing with. Don't you think so?

The point is this why attack Iraq when you can attack the terrorist? See sending troops to Palestine would be a better option then going to war in Iraq?

We didn't go to Iraq to destory Iraq. We went there to destroy the Hussein regime and then help Iraq grow as a democracy. Again, the Hussein regime was a government that could suppy WMD's and other support to the terrorist groups. That was a problem, wouldn't you say?

They didn't have WMD's so how could they supply the terrorist with something they haven't got?

Seriously Iraq was not a threat? it had no WMD's it supported terrorism, however by destroying(rebuilding) does that destroy the terrorist?

So let me get this where are the terrorist? You know where did they live before Iraq? Because Hamas is in Palistine, which is not Iraq, Al qaeda had nothing to with Iraq and their mostly in Afganstan and pakistan. So if Iraq was about Hamas and Hezballah then why not attack them?

No, you said they have them.

Well, the point is it not that hard to build a nuclear warhead, North Korea did it.

So let me get this Iraq could possibly supply the terrorist with weapons they didn't have. The weapons inspector in charge said it was highly unlikely they had weapons. So instead of destroying the terrorist, lets go invade Iraq. Seriously it would make more sense to go after the terrorist.

Originally Posted by wendylove

The Iraq war reminds me of the coups the CIA did so communism would not spread actross africa, look how good africa is now.

Africa is communist? We did win the Cold War, and you are damn lucky.

So far this has been an excellent war. Everyone supporting it is a true patriot and a true hero! Thank you GWB, for the great progress in the middle east, and our new allies that have been created! Thank you soldiers for dieing for this cause so unselfishly. The world is by far a safer place now, the dead kids are a setback, but someone has to die for progress. Keep on fucking killing them sandniggers that get in the way!


These motherfucking colors don't run!

Africa is communist? We did win the Cold War, and you are damn lucky.

Yeah, but in the big picture. China is the fastest growing country ever, by 2020 we would proberly be the next super power. In about five years we would proberly be the leaders in maths and finally in ten years the leaders in science.

And in america most people believe in creationism.

Originally Posted by wendylove

Yeah, but in the big picture. China is the fastest growing country ever, by 2020 we would proberly be the next super power. In about five years we would proberly be the leaders in maths and finally in ten years the leaders in science.

And in america most people believe in creationism.

You live in China? Is that why you hate us so much? I am not afraid of China becoming as wealthy and successful as we are because I know it is going to take major increases in your level of freedom for you to get there. I am all for the capitalist success of other nations. I wish the whole world would try it. And I am not afraid of free countries. Civilized countries know how to act.

By the way, I left you a long post a little while ago, and you left your next one three minutes later and apparently missed mine. Make sure you read it.

Shark, thank you for paying such close attention to this discussion.

And in america most people believe in creationism.

yah, and why are these people allowed to vote? I mean...personally I wouldn't just let anything vote. Imagine a monkey was like, Hey I wanna vote too! umm No sorry monkey you can't vote.

UM, dont you agree with me?

doesn't it just bring a tear of pride to your eyes knowing all those young men, who many couldn't get into college or find a good job, are out there right now being gallantly lead by the President, fighting towelheads, keeping america safe and making new friends in iraq!

Originally Posted by shark!

UM, dont you agree with me?

doesn't it just bring a tear of pride to your eyes knowing all those young men, who many couldn't get into college or find a good job, are out there right now being gallantly lead by the President, fighting towelheads, keeping america safe and making new friends in iraq!

Of course! Those are the ONLY reasons any American is fighting in Iraq right now. Do you believe in creationism?

You live in China? Is that why you hate us so much

I wouldn't say hate, I would say your extremely ignorant. Also I don't live in china, however I plan to move back when older see you get better jobs in china for a foreign education. Even though a foreign education is inferior.

By the way, I left you a long post a little while ago, and you left your next one three minutes later and apparently missed mine. Make sure you read it.

If you look back, I posted so it your turn.

Quote:
You have to cut the funding. Funding terrorism simply encourages terrorism. Does this mean it stops terrorism? No. Did we have to use a traditional war against Iraq? No. If you push traditional war as the only option, you lose

The Iraq War was poorly planned. We did not have to go in to the country. There are many ways to fight terrorism before force even becomes an option. The problem is we are not fighting the threat properly. We are not dedicated to fixing the problem in its totality. This is why we are having so many problems with the Iraq War.
I agree. Ironically speaking the only person who saw everything would go wrong in the millitary got sacked. I can't remeber his name.

The Iraq war reminds me of the coups the CIA did so communism would not spread actross africa, look how good africa is now. Ironically speaking, China invest huge amounts of money into africa(for is resources), so africa would eventually be closer to china then any other country(well the country which have all the good stuff).

Quote:
Winning in Palestine? Yes. And they would love to attack America. They could send in suicide bombers and not take credit. You keep ignoring the clandestine operation factor. And the fact that the Hussein regime would support such a suicide bomber organization told us volumes about what kind of government we were dealing with. Don't you think so?
The point is this why attack Iraq when you can attack the terrorist? See sending troops to Palestine would be a better option then going to war in Iraq?

Quote:
We didn't go to Iraq to destory Iraq. We went there to destroy the Hussein regime and then help Iraq grow as a democracy. Again, the Hussein regime was a government that could suppy WMD's and other support to the terrorist groups. That was a problem, wouldn't you say?
They didn't have WMD's so how could they supply the terrorist with something they haven't got?

Seriously Iraq was not a threat? it had no WMD's it supported terrorism, however by destroying(rebuilding) does that destroy the terrorist?

So let me get this where are the terrorist? You know where did they live before Iraq? Because Hamas is in Palistine, which is not Iraq, Al qaeda had nothing to with Iraq and their mostly in Afganstan and pakistan. So if Iraq was about Hamas and Hezballah then why not attack them?

Quote:
No, you said they have them.
Well, the point is it not that hard to build a nuclear warhead, North Korea did it.

So let me get this Iraq could possibly supply the terrorist with weapons they didn't have. The weapons inspector in charge said it was highly unlikely they had weapons. So instead of destroying the terrorist, lets go invade Iraq. Seriously it would make more sense to go after the terrorist.

Since your america, I will make things easier.

yes UM I think me and you are on the same page, extreme-left leftist radicals hate bush now, but I think in the future, The history books will say "there was a great man! He knew how to kill terrorist sandniggers, and let the Iraqis enjoy golf and baseball and mcdonalds like everyone in the world deserves. its been totally worth the dead brown kids.I support liberators.

Originally Posted by shark!

yah, and why are these people allowed to vote? I mean...personally I wouldn't just let anything vote. Imagine a monkey was like, Hey I wanna vote too! umm No sorry monkey you can't vote.

UM, dont you agree with me?

doesn't it just bring a tear of pride to your eyes knowing all those young men, who many couldn't get into college or find a good job, are out there right now being gallantly lead by the President, fighting towelheads, keeping america safe and making new friends in iraq!

Nobody is forced to join the military. They join knowing full well that they could die. This is something I am having a lot of trouble dealing with right now. But the President is not the puppet master, and he really does'nt have any say in what happens in Iraq. That is left to the Generals.

We have said countless times that Iraq is not about keeping America safe. If anything, it can be about drawing fanatics into the country so we can kill them all. I have no problem with that, except for the fact that civilians are dying, but whatever. Saddam broke the rules set upon him by the UN. Since the UN is too pussy to enforce its own rules, we will.

Somebody has to back up their talk with action. For the last 50 years that has been up to the US. What good is talk without action?

Originally Posted by shark!

yes UM I think me and you are on the same page, extreme-left leftist radicals hate bush now, but I think in the future, The history books will say "there was a great man! He knew how to kill terrorist sandniggers, and let the Iraqis enjoy golf and baseball and mcdonalds like everyone in the world deserves. I support liberators. its been totally worth the dead brown kids.

Piss off. Racism is not a factor here, and it appears by your language you are the only racist here.

We have said countless times that Iraq is not about keeping America safe. If anything, it can be about drawing fanatics into the country so we can kill them all. I have no problem with that, except for the fact that civilians are dying, but whatever. Saddam broke the rules set upon him by the UN. Since the UN is too pussy to enforce its own rules, we will.

So let me get this the plan is to draw everyone in to Iraq and slaughter them, and try not to kill as much children as possible. Very democratic and fair. So now Iraq has nothing to do with keeping america safe?
Seriously, nice plan as the terrorist like Hamas and Hezballah are running scared. Their days of control of palistein look very bleak and terrorism today is nearly gone.

Piss off. Racism is not a factor here, and it appears by your language you are the only racist here.

Seriously if it was white children dying I think you would proberly not be saying

but whatever

Again the plan seems not to be work as Hamas has not left Palistein to go to Iraq and terrorist are still in pakistein and Afganstan. Not only that the 7/7 bombers and the recent attack on a airport shows how the plan is not working. I think the terrorist understand you need to actually hit your enermy not the people who support them.

worst thread starter ever.

Originally Posted by wendylove

Yeah, but in the big picture. China is the fastest growing country ever, by 2020 we would proberly be the next super power. In about five years we would proberly be the leaders in maths and finally in ten years the leaders in science.

And in america most people believe in creationism.

I understand your distaste for creationism; however, to state that most people in America believe in creationism is simply false. Now if you were to say more people believe in God here that would be likely true.

To be honest, many of your arguments sound like an extreme left wing blogger.

I agree with you, Universal Mind. China is going to be end up transforming into a socialistic democracy in the long run, and I'm all for it.

To be honest, many of your arguments sound like an extreme left wing blogger.

Seriously speaking, I back up my claims with fact. So stating their is no WMD's may sound left wing, however it is fact.

I understand your distaste for creationism; however, to state that most people in America believe in creationism is simply false.

The polls suggest that 50-60% support creationism.

I agree with you, Universal Mind. China is going to be end up transforming into a socialistic democracy in the long run, and I'm all for it.

Trust me china won't. We won't become the next france.

Originally Posted by shark!

yes UM I think me and you are on the same page, extreme-left leftist radicals hate bush now, but I think in the future, The history books will say "there was a great man! He knew how to kill terrorist sandniggers, and let the Iraqis enjoy golf and baseball and mcdonalds like everyone in the world deserves. its been totally worth the dead brown kids.I support liberators.

Yes, it's all about getting drunk and shooting sandniggers and going, "Yeeeeeeeeehhhhhaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwww!!!" It's fun to blare some Charlie Daniels from my monster truck when I'm out whipping ass in Iraq on a Friday niiite. The war has nothing to do with the factors discussed in this thread, so don't bother actually reading it or responding to any of the specific points.

So universal Mind when would everything in Iraq be find. In the next five year, ten years, twenty years. When will america pull it troops out? When that happen we should continue this debate, however we have to wait about ten years.

Originally Posted by wendylove

Seriously speaking, I back up my claims with fact. So stating their is no WMD's may sound left wing, however it is fact.

There were no WMD's there. It was probably the poorest reason to go in to Iraq in the first place.

When it comes to simply withdrawing, that is not even close to an option. As an American, I think we need to clean this mess and give the Iraqi people some kind of stability. Is that not what the rest of the world would like as well?

Originally Posted by wendylove

The polls suggest that 50-60% support creationism.

I generally distrust polls. Those polls especially breed the "I want to be part of the big group" mentality.

Originally Posted by wendylove

Trust me china won't. We won't become the next france.

So.. I take it we do not like democracy?

Originally Posted by wendylove

The point is this why attack Iraq when you can attack the terrorist? See sending troops to Palestine would be a better option then going to war in Iraq?

Are you reading my answers? Again, we attack governments because have lots and lots of money and resources and can provide funding and big time weapons to the terrorists. Palestine doesn't meet all of the big picture details the Hussein regime met. We go after the individual terrorists too. We have captured and killed tons of them, and part of our mission in Iraq is to bring Islamofascist terrorists out of the woodwork and kill them. Is that really news for you?

Originally Posted by wendylove

They didn't have WMD's so how could they supply the terrorist with something they haven't got?

Again, five ally governments, the United Nations, and our own intelligence plus other factors said they did have WMD's, so that consideration in our decision was legitimate. Also, not finding the WMD's is not proof that they never existed. And we knew they had WMD's at one time and even used them in a terrorist attack on the Kurds, so the burden was on them to demonstrate the destruction of their WMD's. And they were developing nuclear weapons for sure until Israel destroyed their factory. And they had WMD programs.

Originally Posted by wendylove

So let me get this where are the terrorist? You know where did they live before Iraq? Because Hamas is in Palistine, which is not Iraq, Al qaeda had nothing to with Iraq and their mostly in Afganstan and pakistan. So if Iraq was about Hamas and Hezballah then why not attack them?

The terrorists are all over the world, and we are going after them all over the world, along with the governments that fund them. And AGAIN, Iraq is not simply about Hamas and Hezballah. It is about MANY things.

Originally Posted by wendylove

Well, the point is it not that hard to build a nuclear warhead, North Korea did it.

North Korea is a government. See how it works?

Originally Posted by wendylove

I wouldn't say hate, I would say your extremely ignorant.

Then why are your comments so hateful? And what in the world did your, "Well, China is going to be better than you some day," comment have to do with anything? The United States leads the entire history of the world in technology and business, and it takes intelligence and education to accomplish that. I know we have a trash element that screws up our averages, but it is not our trash element that is responsible for our accomplishments. How much time do you spend in the internet complaining about your government's policy of forcing women to have abortions and killing newborn babies?

By the way, there is a question I have always wanted to ask somebody who is actually from China. What do dogs and cats taste like?

How much time do you spend in the internet complaining about your government's policy of forcing women to have abortions and killing newborn babies?

Have you seen are population crisis, and yes aborting babies without consent is wrong, however it the only statergy to prevent over population. So abortion are a solution. And we don't hold the christian rubbish about foetus having souls and that god said no abortion. I haven't heard of them killing newborn babies they just terminate if they have more then one child.

Again would you have a few thousands dead babies or eveything getting screwed up because of over population. Although killing foetus is not a easy thing, the hard solution is the best solution.

What do dogs and cats taste like?

You see dogs as pets, the china's don't(well they do but not as strongly as west). And I'm a vegatarians so I wouldn't know. And what so bad about eating dogs? you eat pigs.

Originally Posted by wendylove

Have you seen are population crisis, and yes aborting babies without consent is wrong, however it the only statergy to prevent over population. So abortion are a solution. And we don't hold the christian rubbish about foetus having souls and that god said no abortion. I haven't heard of them killing newborn babies they just terminate if they have more then one child.

Again would you have a few thousands dead babies or eveything getting screwed up because of over population. Although killing foetus is not a easy thing, the hard solution is the best solution.

Forcing women to have abortions is highly immoral. There should be major financial incentives for having no more than one child, or better yet no children, but forcing abortions is out of the question. It should be a woman's choice. There are better ways to handle the situation. And newborns are killed in many cases. That might not be a government policy, but it is a result of government policy and is being neglected majorly by the government.

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache...nk&cd=10&gl=us

Originally Posted by wendylove

Have you seen are population crisis, and yes aborting babies without consent is wrong, however it the only statergy to prevent over population. So abortion are a solution. And we don't hold the christian rubbish about foetus having souls and that god said no abortion. I haven't heard of them killing newborn babies they just terminate if they have more then one child.

It's the only strategy? I thought condoms and sexual education worked pretty well. Besides the strategy is not working. China has successfully created an imbalance between the male and female populations. Here's a link for that info: click here.

Originally Posted by wendylove

So universal Mind when would everything in Iraq be find. In the next five year, ten years, twenty years. When will america pull it troops out? When that happen we should continue this debate, however we have to wait about ten years.

We still have troops in Germany. If keeping troops there for 100 years is what it takes, then we will do it. I hope we never fully withdraw, and everything will be peaceful and prosperous like in Germany

It's the only strategy? I thought condoms and sexual education worked pretty well. Besides the strategy is not working. China has successfully created an imbalance between the male and female populations. Here's a link for that info:

No people want to get pregent or want a male. I know their is a imbalance, however the abortions are used to get rid off the population so it doesn't cause major problems in the future. Their is no way to address people wanting to have boys instead of girl. See you think the population crisis is caused by stupidity, its caused by people wanting boys or large families so they can get more income or work on farms e.t.c.