BPsite Forums
November 10, 2024, 08:43:19 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: BPSITE FOREVER!
 
   Home   Help Search Members Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 17
  Print  
Author Topic: for the USA peoples  (Read 115322 times)
RipperRoo
Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4397


View Profile
« Reply #120 on: September 21, 2004, 09:10:24 PM »

Quote
no, but we do invade the ones that sponsor terrorists, use weapons of mass destruction against their own people, have ruthless dictators and are openly hostil towards us.

Used weapons of mass destruction against their own people???
Have you been smoking something?


Quote
If Iraq never had anything to hide, why in the world would they not have cooperated.

Because they didnt want idiotic American's walking all over their land pestering everyone seeing the corruption stricken government and dying?

Maybe they were trying to protect what was left of their Country's dignity? (If anything).

Chances are they had no WMD's and just didnt want America to pester them, they were fine as they were before hand, maybe they even knew that America would invade if they ever saw what was going on, so they tried to keep them out.

There are many reasons why they wouldnt have wanted you there, but you managed to force your way in there anyway, then you did exactly what they hoped you wouldnt, invaded.

Seems a bit selfish actually, them giving you the rights to search their land for WMD's and anything that could harm neighbouring Countries, then you just go and invade anyway.

Infact, what was the point in the inspectors?
You knew you were going to invade, so why waste a few mens time?
« Last Edit: September 21, 2004, 09:17:36 PM by RipperRoo » Logged

"How could you be intimidated by a woman who had told you in dead seriousness that there were one hundred and seven different kisses, and ninety-three ways to touch a man's face with your hand?" --Min--
"Ohh my feet are getting hotter than a flame grilled otte
whiteknight
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 626



View Profile WWW
« Reply #121 on: September 22, 2004, 01:44:40 AM »

Quote
Used weapons of mass destruction against their own people???
Have you been smoking something?
no, my friend it is you who are smoking something
http://www.phrusa.org/research/chemical_we...emiraqgas2.html
http://www.phrusa.org/research/chemical_weapons/
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jan2003/n0..._200301234.html
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/sile...ed/chemical.htm

i suggest next time you do a little investigation prior to accusing me of "smoking something"

Quote
Because they didnt want idiotic American's walking all over their land pestering everyone seeing the corruption stricken government and dying?
true cooperation would have markedly reduced the number of "idiotic americans" walking over their soil.  Besides, the inspection team was multi-national, not just american.  So far i've refrained from name calling for countries out of respect, and i would ask that you do the same.

Quote
Seems a bit selfish actually, them giving you the rights to search their land for WMD's and anything that could harm neighbouring Countries, then you just go and invade anyway.

Infact, what was the point in the inspectors?
You knew you were going to invade, so why waste a few mens time?
i'm sorry, this is purely speculation.  The idea was to make the world a safer place.  Now we can argue about whether or not it is(which will divide on exactly the same lines as who thinks the war was justified) but that right now is not the point.  The point is that we would have liked to have Iraq cooperate.  It would have saved us American(and allied as well as Iraqi) lives and billions of dollars.  If you could see past your hatred for all things american for just a moment, you'd see this sort of thing.  But they didn't.  We did what we thought right.  And a tyrannical dictator is no longer in power.


Quote
they were fine as they were before hand,
60,000 dead Iraqi Kurds killed at Saddam's order disagree.
 
Logged

When you plan for the worst, all suprises are pleasant
-Gaul

Cavalry General Retired.
But remember, once a Knight of the Order, always a Knight of the Order
Lord Lanair
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6326



View Profile WWW
« Reply #122 on: September 22, 2004, 02:22:43 AM »

I would point out that if Saddam really didn't have weapons (I can't honestly say he did, but I believe so... or at least all the components to make them), he would have said so in no mistakable terms when Bush started playing hardball.  Why knowingly sacrifice your regime and power (yes, I'm pretty sure Saddam knew America would invade when he kept stalling) when you could prove yourself innocent?  :miffed:

The only "infrastructure" America destroyed that really matters was Saddam's regime: once he fell, security in Iraq dropped to nil, and violence has erupted as a result.
Logged

- I'm scissors.  Nerf rock.  Paper's fine.

-It's not the mind control that kills people; it's the fall damage.

-Que sera, sera.
Rug
Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9126


View Profile
« Reply #123 on: September 22, 2004, 08:58:46 AM »

Quote
granted, not the best example. but the fact remains that just because they have not been found DOES NOT MEAN they do not exist. I wasn't trying to insult your intelligence before rug, but i am now. If you can't understand that just because something has not been found it doesn't mean they don't exist then you deserve to be insulted.

Code:
Your teacher fully strip and body cavity searches you and all your friends. They still find nothing. Can they still legitimately argue you had drugs? 

Quote
i personally don't agree with first strike on our behalf. That said, you've completely ignored the issue at hand, the fact that right now, first strike against us is not viable and if we reduced our numbers to what you're suggesting it would be

Yes, it is viable... someone could nuke Washington D.C, and they'd get nuked back. It doesn't matter if you have 10,000 nukes (current estimate) or 50... anyone who nukes you is going to get it in the shorts.

You do not need more than 5 or 10 nukes to cripple a country, unless its utterly huge. Even America could be laid low by that many weapons; One from D.C, New York, Chicago, Los Angeles... etc.

Quote
no, but we do invade the ones that sponsor terrorists, use weapons of mass destruction against their own people, have ruthless dictators and are openly hostil towards us.

Saddam didn't consider the Kurds his own people, due to them rising against him. Would you condemn Israel if they dropped Tabun on a Palestinian village?

Quote
Used weapons of mass destruction against their own people???
Have you been smoking something?

Saddam gassed a few towns in northern Iraq; Kurds who didn't like him.

Quote
with all due respect, how the hell would you know how to conduct a war. An army deprived of things like water and power will not function as well as an army with it. And we have been working to fix this "infrastructure" (which i still maintain is a buzzword activists like to throw around). If you'd like to argue Iraq was better off with their infrastructure intact(and in 3rd world condition) in Saddam's control than with its infrastructure destroyed(and being rebuilt to better standards) and Saddam removed, I'd like to hear how you'd do that.

Because I can read. If you can read, you can research. If you can research, you can become learned.

Yes, you have been working to fix the infrastructure. Over a year has passed and much of Iraq is still without power. Many Iraqi's have complained that conditions were better with Saddam in power - though this should be taken with a pinch of salt, due to underlying Anti-American sentiment (caused by what?) it does show something.

The CIA have aided with numerous coups and assassinations in the past. They are master conspirators, the professionals when it comes to under-the-table removal of power. Why not in Iraq? Possibly because of the stranglehold Saddam had on public opinion?

Yes, Saddam needed to go. No, you did not need to destroy the country while you're at it.

Quote
i can't speak with any authority on this subject, though i'd like to hear where you obtained your information that we have not aided afghanistan with funds to rebuild "infrastructure"

news.bbc.co.uk; februray 13th 2003; 'Afghanistan Omitted from U.S Aid Budget'

Quote
The United States Congress has stepped in to find nearly $300m in humanitarian and reconstruction funds for Afghanistan after the Bush administration failed to request any money in its latest budget.

One mantra from the Bush administration since it launched its military campaign in Afghanistan 16 months ago has been that the US will not walk away from the Afghan people.

President Bush has even suggested a Marshall plan for the country, and the Afghan leader, Hamid Karzai, will visit Washington later this month.

 
Washington has pledged not to forget Afghanistan but in its budget proposals for 2003, the White House did not explicitly ask for any money to aid humanitarian and reconstruction costs in the impoverished country.

The chairman of the committee that distributes foreign aid, Jim Kolbe, says that when he asked administration officials why they had not requested any funds, he was given no satisfactory explanation, but did get a pledge that it would not happen again.

'Too early'

A spokesman for the US Agency for International Development, which distributes the money, says the reason they did not make a request was that when budgetary discussions began in 2002, it was too early to say how much money they would need.

Jim Kolbe has expressed surprise at the administration's oversight.

The US will spend over $16bn in foreign aid this year.

The main beneficiaries will be Israel, Jordan and a number of anti-Aids programmes.

However, Mr Kolbe says that should there be a military conflict in Iraq, he believes the US will have to find billions more, not only to help Iraq, but also Turkey, Jordan and Israel.

Quote
yes, there are. and they're even more long and drawn out. and i'm sure you know more about toppling governments than all the military leaders. once again, with all due respect, i'd trust many people about how to effectively bring down a government than someone like you or me who has absolutely no military, diplomatic or any other relevant experience.

Either that or you wanted to thoroughly break the back of the country, so you could move in and secure all the resources you want, which wouldn't be doable with an under the table toppling of government.

Quote
I would point out that if Saddam really didn't have weapons (I can't honestly say he did, but I believe so... or at least all the components to make them), he would have said so in no mistakable terms when Bush started playing hardball. Why knowingly sacrifice your regime and power (yes, I'm pretty sure Saddam knew America would invade when he kept stalling) when you could prove yourself innocent? 

If Saddam had NBC weapons, why didn't he use them when we invaded? As whiteknight noted, he had no issues about gassing his own people, so why not invading Americans, who he hates so much? Possibly because he had none when we invaded?
« Last Edit: September 22, 2004, 08:59:26 AM by Rug » Logged
RipperRoo
Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4397


View Profile
« Reply #124 on: September 22, 2004, 11:04:00 AM »

Quote
So far i've refrained from name calling

Quote
I wasn't trying to insult your intelligence before rug, but i am now. If you can't understand that just because something has not been found it doesn't mean they don't exist then you deserve to be insulted.

Was just following suit....

Quote

If gassing those who oppose him counts as using WMDs against his own people to you, then I believe we both have different ideas of exactly what was meant by the sentance,  I appologise as I assumed you meant something more Nazi-like or infact bombing towns. Case of miss-understanding there.

Quote
60,000 dead Iraqi Kurds killed at Saddam's order disagree

14,800 dead innocent civilians and over 1,100 Coalition Soldiers killed during the American invasion think otherwise...
May I remind you that nearly all of Britains friendly fire casualties were killed by American soldiers with itchy trigger fingers.

I couldnt find the exact numbers, but I vaguelly remember the total FF count being 20+ with hardly any dead Iraqi's.

I couldnt actually find any pages telling FF kills so I cant back this one up.
Logged

"How could you be intimidated by a woman who had told you in dead seriousness that there were one hundred and seven different kisses, and ninety-three ways to touch a man's face with your hand?" --Min--
"Ohh my feet are getting hotter than a flame grilled otte
Lord Lanair
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6326



View Profile WWW
« Reply #125 on: September 22, 2004, 11:20:03 PM »

Quote
If Saddam had NBC weapons, why didn't he use them when we invaded? As whiteknight noted, he had no issues about gassing his own people, so why not invading Americans, who he hates so much? Possibly because he had none when we invaded?
Possible answers:
We invaded and consolidated our position too quickly for him (and his army for the most part deserted him).
He realized that would be futile, since we were prepared for it (with gas masks, immunizations, etc).
He realized that would piss us off even more, even his Middle Eastern neighbors, and thus he would have no hope of fleeing to another country to escape the US.
He had disassembled/destroyed in advance the weapons so as not to leave proof of their existance.

I'd like to point out that using WMD/NBC's against ANY person is a human rights violation and the offender deserves to be imprisoned for it.

I'll leave everything else to whiteknight- he does such a good job and I'm tired of talking to another unmoveable wall.  LOL  
Logged

- I'm scissors.  Nerf rock.  Paper's fine.

-It's not the mind control that kills people; it's the fall damage.

-Que sera, sera.
Guest
Guest
« Reply #126 on: September 23, 2004, 03:28:34 AM »

ripper, i aplogize for the comments i made referring to rug.  I could split hairs and say that i still did not do any name calling, but you're right, that was made in a mean spirit and is unexcusable.


Quote
If gassing those who oppose him counts as using WMDs against his own people to you, then I believe we both have different ideas of exactly what was meant by the sentance, I appologise as I assumed you meant something more Nazi-like or infact bombing towns. Case of miss-understanding there.

more nazi like?  gassing citizens of your country doesn't seem nazi enough for you?  wow, i guess you have more of an iron stomach than i do.  bombing towns is more monstrous than gassing?  cripes man, and you call us callous.

Quote
14,800 dead innocent civilians and over 1,100 Coalition Soldiers killed during the American invasion think otherwise...
May I remind you that nearly all of Britains friendly fire casualties were killed by American soldiers with itchy trigger fingers.

I couldnt find the exact numbers, but I vaguelly remember the total FF count being 20+ with hardly any dead Iraqi's.

I couldnt actually find any pages telling FF kills so I cant back this one up.
for this i am deeply sorry. no words can express an adequate amount of sorrow for this loss.  but people die in war.  I believe this was a just war, and the casualties were less than would have been lost had saddam been left in power.  i truly believe that.  

Quote
Yes, it is viable... someone could nuke Washington D.C, and they'd get nuked back. It doesn't matter if you have 10,000 nukes (current estimate) or 50... anyone who nukes you is going to get it in the shorts.

You do not need more than 5 or 10 nukes to cripple a country, unless its utterly huge. Even America could be laid low by that many weapons; One from D.C, New York, Chicago, Los Angeles... etc.
 maybe i'm not making myself clear.  if the number of weapons are reduced, it becomes conceiveable for an enemy to destroy all those weapons and preclude a response.  so yes, it does matter if we have 10,000 or 50.

Quote
Saddam didn't consider the Kurds his own people, due to them rising against him. Would you condemn Israel if they dropped Tabun on a Palestinian village?
once again, the callousness astounds me.  you are claiming the american removal of a dictator was unjust and defending saddam's right to kill his "enemies?"!

as for funding afghanistan, i don't agree with bush on everything.....i'm arguing america's case, not bush's.  your own source says our congress stepped in to fund them

Quote
Because I can read. If you can read, you can research. If you can research, you can become learned.
yeah, because book learning does a lot of good in things like combat situations.  i'm sorry, i just don't believe you're smarter than the people in charge of figuring out how to topple saddam.  thats not meant to be insulting, its a simple statement of my opinion.

Quote
If Saddam had NBC weapons, why didn't he use them when we invaded? As whiteknight noted, he had no issues about gassing his own people, so why not invading Americans, who he hates so much? Possibly because he had none when we invaded?
one word, retaliation.  if saddam had used chemical or biological agents against us, the public outcry to do something like nuke them(which, by the way i would not agree with) would possibly win out.  saddam knew that.

 
Logged
Guest:whiteknight
Guest
« Reply #127 on: September 23, 2004, 03:40:21 AM »

oops, forgot to sign in....on a friend's computer....that last post was me as you prolly assumed
Logged
Guest:SS
Guest
« Reply #128 on: September 23, 2004, 09:02:56 AM »

Shocked That was you? I thought it was George!


[really wanting to join in here, but don't have the time to type long replies. Sad]
Logged
Rug
Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9126


View Profile
« Reply #129 on: September 23, 2004, 04:20:48 PM »

Quote
We invaded and consolidated our position too quickly for him (and his army for the most part deserted him).
He realized that would be futile, since we were prepared for it (with gas masks, immunizations, etc).
He realized that would piss us off even more, even his Middle Eastern neighbors, and thus he would have no hope of fleeing to another country to escape the US.
He had disassembled/destroyed in advance the weapons so as not to leave proof of their existance.
one word, retaliation. if saddam had used chemical or biological agents against us, the public outcry to do something like nuke them(which, by the way i would not agree with) would possibly win out. saddam knew that.

[li] Our government claimed Saddam could launch a chemical weapon in 45 minutes. Highly likely to be bullshit, but it was claimed.
[li] Possible.
[li] Since when did that stop him? Besides, he *didnt* flee to another country.
[li] So why did you invade?
[li] Possible, but I'm not certain thats entirely valid. If he knew his regime was going to fall, why not go all out? He's going down anyway.

Quote
for this i am deeply sorry. no words can express an adequate amount of sorrow for this loss. but people die in war. I believe this was a just war, and the casualties were less than would have been lost had saddam been left in power. i truly believe that.

If you don't like casualties, why fight wars.

Quote
maybe i'm not making myself clear. if the number of weapons are reduced, it becomes conceiveable for an enemy to destroy all those weapons and preclude a response. so yes, it does matter if we have 10,000 or 50.

Using that logic, Russia could strike you right now and take out every nuke in your country. Could they really? No.

Quote
as for funding afghanistan, i don't agree with bush on everything.....i'm arguing america's case, not bush's. your own source says our congress stepped in to fund them

This thread is about people wanting to vote Bush out of power. I have been giving reasons to do so in 90% of my posts, with some tangents.

Quote
once again, the callousness astounds me. you are claiming the american removal of a dictator was unjust and defending saddam's right to kill his "enemies?"!

I was making use of a trick called 'irony'. You're allowed to go to a country and bomb it to hell form halfway across the world, because of some ghost fear about them attacking you with an NBC weapon, and Saddam isn't allowed to quash a rebellion within his own country, fight a war with his neighbours, or use NBC weapons, even when your government has stated they're perfectly willing to utterly level a country with a first strike nuclear attack if they deem it necessary? No double standards there, right?

Quote
yeah, because book learning does a lot of good in things like combat situations. i'm sorry, i just don't believe you're smarter than the people in charge of figuring out how to topple saddam. thats not meant to be insulting, its a simple statement of my opinion.

Which you are, of course, entitled to.

 
Logged
mole
Mods
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10763



View Profile WWW
« Reply #130 on: September 23, 2004, 04:36:26 PM »

Quote
Well as they say an englishmans house is his castle. Though of course we havent got around to the american way of thinking by arming our castles with firearms, no?
« Last Edit: September 23, 2004, 04:45:19 PM by mole » Logged

Quote
Yiff Hunter says:
and the last question do u get a sudden eye twicth and shudder wen i say :

CLEAN?
RipperRoo says:
yes
Yiff Hunter says:
rite ive declared u imorally peasant like
mole
Mods
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10763



View Profile WWW
« Reply #131 on: September 23, 2004, 10:55:22 PM »

Quote
Our government claimed Saddam could launch a chemical weapon in 45 minutes. Highly likely to be bullshit, but it was claimed.

i was thinking about this just now, ariginally the CIA made a statement saying "oops we made a messy" then 3 days latter it became "it was the brits"
Logged

Quote
Yiff Hunter says:
and the last question do u get a sudden eye twicth and shudder wen i say :

CLEAN?
RipperRoo says:
yes
Yiff Hunter says:
rite ive declared u imorally peasant like
Lord Lanair
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6326



View Profile WWW
« Reply #132 on: September 24, 2004, 04:05:30 AM »

... Seeing as how I haven't heard a word about what you're talking about, mole, I don't know who's telling the truth.

What's wrong with us having nukes, since we are responsible with them?  Whether we have 50 or 50,000, it's still enough to foul up the entire world, so you can't argue that by reducing them, we make the world a safer place (you could argue that having so many of them around is inviting a theft/accident, but there have been neither of those in our history- to the best of my knowledge).

Since when did we act to stop wars, unless they involved major human rights abuses, threatened our national secutiry (or admittedly interfered with American interests, which usually take precedence)?  We let Saddam kick the shit out of Khomeini, and only attacked him when he presented a clear threat to us.
Logged

- I'm scissors.  Nerf rock.  Paper's fine.

-It's not the mind control that kills people; it's the fall damage.

-Que sera, sera.
mole
Mods
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10763



View Profile WWW
« Reply #133 on: September 24, 2004, 04:27:28 PM »

i agree to your second paragraph, going for a change.

if you have a car that will do 210mph on a 70mph road then aslong as you have the wisdom as to when you should and shouldnt there should be no problem
Logged

Quote
Yiff Hunter says:
and the last question do u get a sudden eye twicth and shudder wen i say :

CLEAN?
RipperRoo says:
yes
Yiff Hunter says:
rite ive declared u imorally peasant like
RipperRoo
Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4397


View Profile
« Reply #134 on: September 24, 2004, 06:15:00 PM »

Quote
The Government has made claims that Saddam could launch a chemical weapon in 45 minutes. This is assuming it takes 20mins for America or Britain to sell it one.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2004, 06:15:45 PM by RipperRoo » Logged

"How could you be intimidated by a woman who had told you in dead seriousness that there were one hundred and seven different kisses, and ninety-three ways to touch a man's face with your hand?" --Min--
"Ohh my feet are getting hotter than a flame grilled otte
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 17
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!