If 9/11 Had Never Happened........

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by CyberForce, Nov 25, 2005.

  1. SniperStud

    SniperStud Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    1,623
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2005
    i think we would have regardless....
     
  2. daemonsabre

    daemonsabre Well-Known Member

    Age:
    37
    Posts:
    512
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2005
    Location:
    Almost there...
    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? [/b][/quote]

    you make it sound like all the peole of the middle east do is shoot each other up...however the only countries where violence is occuring are iraq and palestine, where in both cases the U.S. is playing a major hand, besides in a country with the largest number of gun killings anywhere i dont think your in any position to criticise us. its far safer to live in a middle eastern country than to walk down an american street.


    actually the only way to prevent terrorist attacks is to stop giving terrorists the reason to attack...i understand why the U.S. entered afghanistan, there was hard evidence of terrorist activity there. the U.N. supported in that attack along with NATO.

    However in iraqs case there was no real evidence, the intelligence presented was weak and thus the U.N. refused to go in... there was nothing to prevent all that happened was that terrorists were fed more reason to hate america and recruits were made readily available. Its very weak to say that the U.S. entered iraq for the war on terror, iraq had nothing to do with terorist attacks, the U.N. knew this and Bush knew this, the american media simply supported bush at that time and ignored all the protests

    WWII happened because a country disregarded international policies and other countries refused to enforce it....just as whats happenning now with the U.S. ignoring the U.N.

    actually its VERY hard to attain WMD's of any kind, the materials and research require for a large scale WMD is huge and its almost imposible to obtain without it getting noticed, it takes much more than slapping uranium on a rocket or placng some germs in a plastic bottle.

    in that case why hasnt the U.S. moved against cuba or N.korea, after all cuba is a threat much closer to home... and north korea is actively making steps towards nuclear power, they are far more obvious targets than a war and sanction crippled iraq.

    what your saying is just a load of hypocritical bullsh*t there was more reason to attack those countries than iraq if so why did bush enter iraq? if he really is trying to save the people of the world, spread democracy and all that jazz then why hasnt he started with cuba? or korea?

    by making more terrorism? after afghanistan the U.S. hasnt taken one single step forward in the war on terror, it has only made giant leaps back. while it might be true that the U.S. should fight terror moving tanks into iraq doesnt help. your simply throwing beautiful goals and slogans around, but when it gets down to it that had nothng to do with iraq.

    The iraqis now have a functioning police force and the shapings of a goverment in place, the only problem now is whether or not thee U.S. troops will really be withdrawn, how long will they remain to 'keep iraq stable'? its looking like the U.S. is planning on leaving a permanent militarypresence there something iraqis and the world definetely do not want...

    those civilian lives lost were not neccesary, once the war started of course there were gonna be casualties, but the war should have never started, while you may feel that the sacrifices were worth getting saddam out your an observor, the U.S. is a third party, the people who are the iraqis may have wanted saddam out but they did not want this war, who are you to decide for them, by what right do you decide to sacrifice those lives for a war those very people did not want? it is for those people to decide what to sacrifice, when and how. that right does not belong to bush or the congress, the war goes against the very principles of freedom the U.S. was built on...you should be ashamed to support a course of action against your very principles
     
  3. j_ball430

    j_ball430 Well-Known Member

    Age:
    37
    Posts:
    676
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2004
    Location:
    Jackson, Michigan
    First off, we've had plenty of attempts to topple Cuba. Of course, Castro isn't exactly trying to take out the United States, either.

    We tried to take down Castro with the Bay of Pigs. We couldn't do too much when they had the USSR as a MAJOR ally. We didn't want a nuclear war.

    Same case for N. Korea. They have nuclear weaponry. We're not going to go and fight anything internally when they can hit some of our allies with their nuclear weapons.

    Nuclear war has been the deterrant for these invasions. Not because Bush wants war with Iraq bad enough that it makes us hypocrites.

    All the rest of the stuff, I'm not going to get into anymore. It's fu©king pointless to argue. We're never going to agree, and to continue would be a waste of our time.
     
  4. daemonsabre

    daemonsabre Well-Known Member

    Age:
    37
    Posts:
    512
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2005
    Location:
    Almost there...
    man cuba doesnt have any allies anymore and cuba has a nuclear PROGRAM, they havent achieved the weapons yet they still got quite a bit to go

    and if castro wasnt trying to take out the united states, and saddam couldnt even try to, wheres the diffrence? why iraq and not cuba? thats the question...

    man in the end you cant back up any of the points for the war...it was a pointless waste of lives with only a few beuracrats really benefiting. supporting it is an insult to the world and even to your own american values....
     
  5. Λtreyu

    Λtreyu Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    1,505
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Well ok, but I have to go to bed in like 10 mins so make it snappy

    lol
     
  6. Leirsgrios

    Leirsgrios Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    624
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2005
    Daemonsabre, you should stop speaking for the whole of the middle east. I know many iraqi's that are soo happy about the war and happy to see saddam gone.

    You also can't say that Saddam wasn't a threat to the US. He has always been and a threat and always would have been a threat. If he ever got a chance, he would strike at the US without mercy to cripple it at the heart. Don't forget about ALL THE MONEY HE WAS STEALING!!!! All he used it on was his castles and funding terrorist groups. Now that he is gone...guess where some of that money can go? To rebuilding the government! To rebuilding homes! To maintaining the government! So many good things can come out of Saddam being gone its not even funny. They are gonna get alot of money from oil that can be spent on bringing Iraq out of poverty in the future.

    Another thing, you can't say that the US is the cause of all this terrorism. Yeah, I'm sure it doesn't help but whether or not we went to war wouldn't of made a difference. We are still considered infidels in the radicals eyes and they are out to kill all infidels. No matter if we sit back and be nice to them or confront them on their doorstep. They will try to come after us. Simple as that.

    I actually think we have been backing up all our points fairly well...its just that you aren't trying to see the other side. The good side, you are focused on the negative side of life.

    The intelligence at the time, wasn't really that weak my friend. The UN was weak at the time, and was taking its sweet precious time getting people in to do the job before Iraq had time to try and hide anything. Guess what...if people were so readily avaliable for terrorist acts...guess what must have been taking place in large scale in that country? TERRORISM!! Iraq funded terrorists...right there. That is how they are connected to terrorism as well. The american media was never...ever supporting the war in iraq. Very few people in the media aren't liberals...this means almost every single news channel in the US was hardcore against the war. Critisizing everything, at some points even giving away secret information that could have helped some of the operations go alot smoother. The US Media was/is part of the problem for the the soldiers fighting in Iraq. The terrorists in Iraq and probably sitting there wasn't american tv to find out exactly where and what they are planning on doing. Finding what hurts the most and what they can do to cause further dissagreement in the US and chaos in Iraq.

    The US can't really leave the country right now because the Iraq polic force isn't strong enough, there aren't enough. Many still need to be trained, things take time. All that they have done would be in vain if they left...all the lost lives would be wasted if they just up and left right now. The terrorists would have won, Iraq could possible turn into a sespool of chaos. They need to get the police and a government to establish themselves before they leave.
     
  7. Ethereal.07

    Ethereal.07 Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    734
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    yeah have to agree with that soits yes

    and have to agree with everything what
    Leirsgrios had said
     
  8. daemonsabre

    daemonsabre Well-Known Member

    Age:
    37
    Posts:
    512
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2005
    Location:
    Almost there...
    man i dont claim that im talking for the ENTIRE middle east, however what ive been saying till now is the general sentiment felt in the region, my point is that when the U.S. entered iraq it did not take into consideration what the iraqis wanted, and from where im sitting, which by the way is much closer than you, most iraqis did not want this war, so who is the U.S. to decide for the iraqis?

    and yes the intelligence was weak, there were several reports on several newsstations before the war which indicated this, and if you look at the U.N. security council meetings before the war the reason it was refuted was because the evidence was too weak. if the rest of the world has decided the evidence is weak, and the U.S. charges in, and in fact the intelligence turns out to be false...id say that there is a very strong chance that the intelligence was weak, just as the U.N. said it was.

    And what money was saddam stealing? where from? saddam owned an entire country where could he steal from? he wasnt geting any money from the outside, the U.N. made sure of that, he wasnt even making money for his oil...saddam's regime was crippled long before the war, as shown by how easily the U.S. enteered Baghdad. saddam couldnt suppport himself, how could he support terrorists? there was no evidence to say saddam constituted any real threat, nor was there evidence that he had supported terrorists, therefore no legitamite reason to start a war

    the money pouring into iraq now is mostly foreign investments and donations, that money is going into rebuilding homes that U.S. troops destroyed...

    in radicals eyes most of europe are also infidels, however for some reason mainly the U.S. and britain are targeted...tell me why is that? just cause terrorism exists anyway doesnt mean that the U.S. needs to help increase it. entering iraq did nothing to hinder terrorists, only given them motivation.

    The truth is that the U.S. is giving terrorists plenty of reason to hate, you cant say that people will hate the U.S. for no reason, you cant tell me someone will kill himself flying a plane into a the twin towers if there was not some driving reason to hate what they stand for.

    In the next few decades when the next tbig terrorist attack happens, you cant simply say that these were psychopathic animals who did it for the enjoyment, these will be people who lived through pain and misery that just may have been caused by the iraq war,

    how many more 9/11's will it take to convince you that war will only beget more war? haven't we learned anything scince the last two world wars?

    before coming to post here what daddy republican had to say you might wanna check ou the facts, the U.N. is not the bumbling cowardly imbeciles you think they are, otherwise they wouldnt have reached the top of what should be the worlds most powerful international organisation, although it now looks more like a bystander to american policy
     
  9. Blade7

    Blade7 Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    197
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2005
    I'd say George Bush is lucky to have a reason to attack Iraq, now that he can take their oil....
     
  10. Toph4er

    Toph4er Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    142
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2005
    the mass off WMDs needed to wipe out a full crowd at say the super bowl would be less than a small tub of butter for an overkill effect...keep a few dozen tubs of butter scattered around and no one will ever find em...and how fast can you ship a tub of butter out of a country? very fast (and yes im speaking of chemical agents themselves not missles) there or not they could have been and it has been clear that there will be a sweep of all middle-eastern countries some may have WMDs some may not...also is shooting hundreds of people at a time for no reason not crime enough to take somone out. If Blair orded mass executions of people ud bet hed be taken out i have more too say but this is it for now
     
  11. Disturbed2k

    Disturbed2k Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    80
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2005
    I say yes bush is a greedy man and just wants his oil 9/11 or not there would still be a Iraqi invasion, this really couldnt have been stopped, only if Bush wasnt elected as president again. anyways have you guys read the 9/11 conspiracies and the pentagon attak ones very strange. :/
     
  12. Mafia_lDR

    Mafia_lDR Well-Known Member

    Age:
    34
    Posts:
    4,061
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2005
    Location:
    Canada
    I still would of happend because 9/11 was just an excuse for attacking them, so yea that what i think :P
     
  13. Jamesio

    Jamesio Well-Known Member

    Age:
    117
    Posts:
    528
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    May 21, 2005
    Location:
    Canada
    ---- yes we still would. The troops need target practice on something.
     
  14. F-a-duck

    F-a-duck Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    572
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Talk about resurecting an old topic.
     
  15. ThA-ViLLAin

    ThA-ViLLAin Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    841
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2006
    Lmao true, anyways the iraqis arent terrorists because they are fighting for their freedom in iraq. Imagine this, if the us army came into new york and tried to take over, wouldnt u new yorkers fight back or let them take over ur home?
     

Share This Page