Discussion in 'Serious' started by Cthippo, 3 Nov 2006.
You think there's any room for discussion on that?
How do you think the poll would result in the US?
I know who'd I would invite to afternoon tea, and that person would certiainly not have a stupid southern accent.
Its not surprising the Israeli result was in favour of The US, they've had a sizable arab/moslem population taking pops at them for years and they like to see them taking a kicking, but I'd agree with the majority, the biggest threat to the world at the moment is definitely the US and in particular 1 person
you know it really doesnt surprise me, absolutely no one i know likes that ****
Ok, im not exaclty for the war, however, The war on Iraq maybe unjustified, but what about 9/11? However, forgetting the war in Iraq, were would we be if the war wasnt going on? That is a main question.
What about 9/11?
From what you said above, I am assuming that you believe 9/11 'justified' the war on Iraq, irrespective of what you actually wrote?
That makes no sense whatsoever.
Well, the subject is Bush, after all.
Justified my arse, correct me if im wrong, but wasnt Iraq minding its own buisness, having not had a single hand in the 911 attacks, having not single atomic weopon, when America threw missiles at them? As they accused Saddam of harbouring binladen and Taliban extremists? "smoke him out" as Bush put it. Pardon my French, but only a fecking idiot would think Bush was justified. Hundreds of innocent people, women and children included have died as a result of that ******s attack on an innocent Country, and then he forces American democracy on them. i HATE him witrh every breath in me, hes scum. [/RANT]
Yeah, I believe it.
Too much power in the hands of one person, honestly. Bush has had a House and Senate that sits around paying ******** to him, and only now have they woken up and realized that rubber-stamping this idiot's policies might be a bad idea...
"Americans think President Bush poses a greater danger than Jong-il"
The problem with Iraq is that Saddam was ignoring UN sanctions. Also, he was recently sentenced to death by hanging for the 1982 murders...
...like he didn't have it coming. Look, I don't support the reasons we're in this war, and I definitely believe we shouldn't have gone in, ESPECIALLY the way we did. I do believe that since we're there, we have a responsibility to clean the country up the best we can. If that means leaving it a democracy and hoping for the best, so be it.
I feel like this is our generation's Vietnam, but instead of helping out the French, Bush was helping his dad not look like an idiot. Like father, like son. Lemmings, unite!
I agree with you conceptually, but I think we really need to re-examine how we go about it. Put simply, a US victory is not an option. I think the best course of action is to admit we broke it, admit that we can't fix it, and let someone else try. The Arab league, backd by US and Saudi funding and working with Syria and Iran comes to mind. I think we may also have to admit that an Islamic republic ala Iran may well be the will of the Iraqi people. Actually, all told we could do a lot worse than another Iran.
I don't agree with the war either. Neither do alot of our own soldiers out there. This type of info has been published numerous times. The press is beating a dead horse when it comes to how much the rest of the world dislikes Bush and the U.S. right now. Why does the world think we should just not do anything when someone attacks our country? I'm not saying Iraq did anything. But Saddam didn't help his situation by purposely acting supsicous and kicking out UN inspectors. I wonder how many people think we should let Saddam free and send him back to Iraq. I'm sure he'd clean up real quick and fast and everyone will turn a blind eye like the "good o'le days".
Perhaps your country could stop picking fights with everybody. That might help some, too.
As for Saddam, we have been over this time and again. He was an evil dictator, but one helped into the saddle by the US and kept there for a decade. Any WMD he had, he was sold by the US as he was merrily gassing Kurds in Habalja in 1988. All his "suspicious" behaviour later only proved to anyone who had a brain that he had no WMD left.
A lot of the crap that goes on in the Middle East now is the result of Western meddling for its own economic gain, and even now the US continues to stoke the fires by choice little interventions like shipping bombs to Israel during its conflict with Lebanon and antagonising Iran. And it has totally fubared Iraq and turned it into a terrorist haven. Perhaps Iraq was indeed better off under Saddam; the US and the rest of the world were actually safer back then.
the attack on iraq, in my opinion, has left the US in a dangerous position. Islamic extremists havent taken kindly to the unjust and unprovoked attack the US took upon them. Sure, 9/11 was a totally digusting and genecidal act, but blaming someone else for it, and commiting further genecide is even lower. And in my opinion, if the US is attacked again, only the it's government can be blamed.
I totally agree that Iraq was better under saddam, and the world was a lot safer. This war has dragged England into it too! whats to stop islamic fundamentalists bombing our streets because our government jumped on the band waggon and supported a total nutjob? whose only intention is to have Iraq under his thumb, and prosper selfishly from the goldmine that he stole from its truthful owners. Iraq has suffered so much and it is totally totally unfair. I think George Bush and Tony Blair should be given a gun, and told to shoot an innocent person, because theyre willing to give the order to soldiers to do it for them, but perhaps if they were there themselves, they would see that they too, are terrorists. George bush is a genecidal, redneck *******, who will no doubt rank up there with stalin and saddam himself for what he has done, providing that history textbook actually give a NON biased, non patriotic account unlike usual. Anyone defending Bush should open their ****ing eyes. No cirumventing the swear filter. Naughty, naughty. --Nexxo
No you invading countrys instead. And were there chemical weapons mmmmmmm.......No
Still no evidence to suggest that they were nukes. Just waiting for USA to invade N Korea and discover they aint got any. Then everyone will be experiencing deja vu
Also how many nukes did the USA detonate when they were testing theres??? USA cant go round telling people what to do. The USA should disarm there own Nukes as they are the biggest threat and lead by example.
Don't give me that crap about the USA needs its nukes to prevent a nuke war as I bet if that happens it will be the USA to start it.
Like the USA went to the lengths to almost make a county and race extinct when they atom bombed Japan.
No, maybe not, but which country is the only one that actually used Nuclear Bombs during War? Think of Hiroshima and Nagasaki before you speak please... And, then again, who started the most wars lately? And has the most Nuclear Bombs in the world?
But I find it nice to see that the 9/11 excuse is still used... I am starting to think more and more that the US government had something more to do with 9/11 then they can permit... It came in handy anyways...
But I am thankfull to the US tough, They increased the price I had to pay for oil derivates times 2 since 2 years ago, really, thank you for that!
Funniest thing I read all day. Apart from that fact that USA wouldnt join the war and help. USA only joined because Japan attacked them. USA were late but didnt win it.
Anyway off topic slightly.
Wasnt talking about the whole human race. I was talking about the Japanese Race the USA Bomb to bits nearly going as far as wiping them all out.
Separate names with a comma.