That doesn't sound stupid at all. War is hell and it's rare that one side will lose less than three thousand in 3-4 years. They failed to act because they were profitting off of Sadaams regime. Why bite the hand that feeds.....unless the hand that feeds is America of course. The only reason they failed to act is because they know the value of oil. By the way, saying that America is an ignorant hellhole is an ignorant statement in itself. You completely missed his point.
man your talking like its some statistic...these are lives, one life lost is too much, if war is hell then why open the gates? firstly he never called america an ignorant hellhole, he merely stated that ignorant people like you make it seem that way, besides saying the U.N. was greedy for oil sounds a lot like syaing the U.S. was bieng greedy, so its ok for the U.S. to want oil but not the united nations? besides if i remember right the U.N. initialized the oil to food program for humanitarian reasons, they didnt pick a big gun and shoot....... what point? Atreyu's statement is completely correct, the war on iraq has caused more reason to hate, made more terrorists and probably is giving terrorists the confusion they need to plan more attacks, i think the U.S. has taken major steps back on the war on terror...a war which by the way cant be won by guns like bush and the american congress seems to think
#1.)I'm stating a fact. Almost all wars on this grand of scale have never had this few of casualties for one side. #2.)From my standpoint, you're the ignorant one. We never initiated this war for oil. As I recall, this is a war on Terror. Why should we follow the rules of the UN when they can't follow the rules themselves? #3.) The point was it didn't matter what he did, Bush would have been critisized either way. Start a war, and we lose lives. Don't start a war, possible WMDs are used on the US, Millions die, and Millions there after from after effects. Notice I said possible.
FACT: People died to prevent something that could have never happened (saddam using WMD's), that is called a waste of good human lives what war on terror? this was not a war on terror this was a war against saddam ruled iraq. and enlighten me, what rule has the U.N. not followed? as far as i remember the only goverment not following U.N. rule is the U.S. the reason why the U.N. refused to act was that the information was weak and sketchy, a lot of it was a decade old while the latest searches yielded no WMD's, even before the war there was infromation saying that the intelligence was faulty. Bush decided to go against the better reasoning of THE REST OF THE WORLD, because he wanted to believe the reports, and thus till now the so called intelligence has been found false. this arrogance that the U.S. is above U.N. law is one of the main reasons America is in such a bad position. for god sakes the U.N. headquarters is in the U.S. this has got to be the mother of all hypocrisies bush is bieng criticised because he made a bad decision in the eyes of the world, many of his allies said no to the war and yet he still went forward. if he had not gone forward then later it would have been found that there werent any WMD's and Bush would have been the man who had prevented war
I think you guys would have invaded anyways. The idea that iraq had something to do with 9/11 certainly helped decieve the public, but Bush and his government were already planning it during his first few months in office.
So pretty much you wanna ---- the UN and America is too good to listen to anything the rest of the world has to say? Nice thinking. Ha ha ha. It was impossible, because in early 2001, Bush and Co. said Saddam didnt have any WMD! Now how can a 3rd world country get a massive stockpile of WMD in 2-3 years? Explain that one to me.
my opinion on this is that i think iraq qouldnt have been invaded if 9/11 didnt occur. Admitidly at that time i was completely ignorant of what was happening outside of europe, too busy playing games going to school and playing more games . There is/was no justifiable reason for an invasion on iraq. So they have a "ruthless" dictator, so a few other countires are in similar situation, why not invade them too? Thanks to 9/11 the current adminstration had a reason(and yes they lied about hte wmd's) to move in on iraq, before they didnt. And yes i do believe they did it for the oil. thats what i think anyway. my uncle keeps telling me the following, i dont believe it cos it just sounds like rumour mongering tbh but hey. My uncle has a "close" friend in the oil business. HEs a supporter of the republicans and has donated money for their campaigns etc etc. Before iraq happened, a group of oil bosses were called to meet the republicans. in the metting they were told that "we are gonna make you guys rich if you back/support us". "we are gonna hit iraq hard". [well thats the main part of it, theres more which i cant remeber] Now i didnt believe my uncle and still unjsure about but hes not the kind of person who spreads rumours, talks BS etc etc, hes a very sound guy. He was also quite offended when i told him it sounds like BS. Neways just thought u might like to know that
lol Yes ... .. there has been wars over there for... hundreds of years... and if u didnt no weve been warry.. about North Korea, and Afganistan and iraq. because we always suspected womd wepons of mass destruction.. and idk.. we were already there once so yea..
Okay, we all agree on one thing: War is bad. The thing that separates our opinions on this war is how and why we are there, and if it's worth it. I believe it's worth it. True, one life lost is too many, but 9/11 happened, and if we weren't going to take any precautions (fighting terrorism), another (and possibly larger and more devistating) attack could have happened. Hell, it still COULD happen even now. The fact is, the only way to prevent it is to go after those who are capable of such atrocities. This just so happens to include the Afghani Taliban and Saddam's regime. Whether or not Saddam was funding terrorist against America (which I believe he was), there is undoubtable evidence that he was terrorising HIS OWN PEOPLE. If he can get away with terrorising his own people, what makes him think that he can't get away with terrorising other nations? History repeats itself. 1930's, the Versailles Treaty stated in Part 5, Section 1, Chapter 3, Article 178, "All measures of mobilisation or appertaining to mobilisation are forbidden. In no case must formations, administrative services or General Staffs include supplementary cadres." Germany was not allowed to mobilize their military. However, they did to test England and France. They got away with it. England and France refused to do anything to stop him from doing this. What was the result? Oh, a little thing called World War 2. Of course, there was nothing in writing to STOP Saddam from terrorising his own people, but the above example is more than enough to prove my point. Once again, the Iraq War is NOT for oil. I haven't seen one benefit of this. Why is my gas still above $2/gallon? Don't you think by capturing massive oil fields in Iraq, our prices would have DROPPED since the war? We're not deploying that many tank divisions to require all that oil and more just to opperate. Why is this? Could it possibly be from the fact that the war isn't for oil? Makes sense to me... It's not that hard for countries to attain WMDs. They're not that hard to make. All you have to do is find some Uranium and build the weaponry (which is not a hard task to do today), and there you go, you have a WMD. A nation could always get their hands on some nerve gasses and other chemical weapons. Hell, they could even produce it. Not all dictators fall. Ever hear of Fidel Castro? I hear he's still in Cuba controlling the nation. What's even funnier is that there have been plenty of attempts by the U.S. intelligence trying to topple his reign. This shows to be a pretty strong regime, does it not? I don't see him being out of power until he dies. Hitler was only toppled because he started a war and lost; Stalin died while controlling Russia/USSR. Also, what about North Korea? It's been a dictatorship for a while now, and it looks as if it will still continue to be. Plenty of dictators get away with it, and without force, many dictators stay in office. You can't exactly start a revolution when your government controls your every move. War is not pretty, and nor will it ever be. The loss of life is very saddening, but you can't stop a war just because you lose a few lives. I'd rather see my servicemen lose their lives fighting for our nation's well being and help take out the dangerous and twisted opposition that we face rather than see thousands more civilians die within our borders because we failed to stop terrorism at the root. Yes, the U.S. created terrorism, but now it's our job to stop it. Also, you can't just stop a war in the middle of it. It has to be finished. Look at Vietnam. We pulled out without a decisive victory, and what happened? Everything we did was in vain because North Vietnam overran South Vietnam. If we were to back out of Iraq, chaos would insue because they have no solid government yet. The least we could do is to help piece back together what we can. It won't replace the lives lost, but it will help get the nation to normal life as much and as quickly as we can. Whether or not you agree with the war, we are in the middle of it. To show lack of support for our troops only hurts our troops' morale, and it prevents our elected politicians for voting for more protection for our troops. Less protection for our troops, the more they die. You want to see less of our troops dying? Let our troops have the equipment that they need. The lives of foreign civilians are just as important of our own, but the ones lost are not cause enough for us to back out of the war. We don't purposely kill civilians for the fun of it. I very much so believe in the sanctity of life, but sacrifices are needed. War is not pretty; lives are lost. Innocent and guilty alike. Do I want to see more people dead (troops and civilians alike)? No. Do I want to see a nation freed and justice being served to those who terrorised that nation? Yes. Do I feel that more loss of life is going to happen? Yes. Do I feel that these people are dying in vain? Only if the liberals have their way with the war.
Whats awesome is that we've got Kofi Annan speaking that Iraq is on the verge of civil war. This is the middle east. Its a whole different world from America. The second we leave, no matter when, they'll go right back to the old ways of killing/shooting/bombing each other to hell. Iraq is a tribal nation, much like America was with the Indians. The Indians were several tribes and they fought alot, until the Euros invaded, and then the Americans were pushing them out, so the Indians united together and fought the Americans. Aint it odd how history tends to repeat itself?
basically bush had the plan for war ages ago bascially finish off wat his farther created.. but meh things happen for a reason i suppose
There's also talk of America having a second civil war. Someone can "warn" or speak of something, but until it happens, it's only a prediction. Just like the numerous "the world is going to end in 1989/1993/2000/2004/etc..." predictions have gone to sh!t. Yes, they'll go right back to bombing/shooting/killing, in fact, they have yet to stop. However, they'll have a government to help break apart the organizations supporting these actions instead of supporting it. We have gang wars in America. Plenty of people die from shootings and other drug related incidents. They had a government supporting it. There'd be a lot more gang wars if the American government decided to take part and actually fund gangs to war with eachother.
