West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Train of Thought => Topic started by: King Tech Quadafi on March 26, 2003, 12:32:26 PM
-
The US is going to war with Iraq without UN approval in order to uphold a UN resolution.
-
;D
-
LOL good point
-
No they're going to liberate the Iraqi citizens! No wait, they're going to find weapons of mass destruction! No, hold on, they're there to depose an evil regime! No, now they want to control the oil supply for the benefit of Iraq.
It's no wonder the army is having so many accidents. They don't even know why exactly they're in Iraq in the first place.
-
No they're going to liberate the Iraqi citizens! No wait, they're going to find weapons of mass destruction! No, hold on, they're there to depose an evil regime! No, now they want to control the oil supply for the benefit of Iraq.
It's no wonder the army is having so many accidents. They don't even know why exactly they're in Iraq in the first place.
LOL
TRUE SHIT TECH GOOD POINT
-
No they're going to liberate the Iraqi citizens! No wait, they're going to find weapons of mass destruction! No, hold on, they're there to depose an evil regime! No, now they want to control the oil supply for the benefit of Iraq.
There you go. You got several reasons why they should go in there.
-
All I see is several contradictions and lies
-
The funniest thing about this whole war is people saying Bush is more evil than Saddam.
-
The funniest thing about this whole war is people saying Bush is more evil than Saddam.
haha yeah that is one of the dumbest things being said..
-
he's not far behinf.. thats for sure
-
he's not far behinf.. thats for sure
word, owen you got to realize bush also isnt an angel, hes one evil fuck too
-
he's not far behinf.. thats for sure
I need conformation if this is true.Saddams regime killed 100,000 of its own countrymen? I don't rely on the media so is this true?If this is true i don't know someone in the right mind that say bush is more evil than saddam.LOL
-
The US is going to war with Iraq without UN approval in order to uphold a UN resolution.
And that shows what a joke the UN is......they won't do anything to enforce their own resolutions.
-
No matter who the U.S. president is, ya'll will still hate him just because he's the president of the United States...
fuckin haters...
-
he's not far behinf.. thats for sure
I need conformation if this is true.Saddams regime killed 100,000 of its own countrymen? I don't rely on the media so is this true?If this is true i don't know someone in the right mind that say bush is more evil than saddam.LOL
Those people Sadaam killed were rising up against him. You better believe that if there was an uprising amongst minorities to overthrow Bush from power the National Gaurd would be out in full force.
This has already happened a couple times in this country. Remember when black people rioted after the Rodney King beating? They suppressed that movement real quick. And had those 64' and 93' riots loomed any larger you better believe we would have seen similar occurences to what happened in Iraq.
Before Bush's term is up, he will be responsible for over 4,000 innocents being killed in Afganistan and similar numbers in Iraq, and miscelenous killings in other regions like Yeman. And he has supplied Isreal with tanks and bombs to oppress Palestinians.
Sadaam Hussien has a much more dificulty maintaining the power over his people because he can't pacify them with money.
Sadaam is a bad man. Bush is a bad man. Sadaam has experienced far worse conditions in his lifetime which has made him resort to more obscene crimes against humanity. Bush has been priveledged his whole life and he runs the most powerful nation in history, and he still comes close to being as evil as Sadaam. So all things taken into account, I don't see much difference between the two.
-
Those people Sadaam killed were rising up against him.
Plus people they killed for the hell of it, people who didn't perform like they should have during athletic competition, or to use as human shields during combat...
Sadaam is a bad man. Bush is a bad man. Sadaam has experienced far worse conditions in his lifetime which has made him resort to more obscene crimes against humanity. Bush has been priveledged his whole life and he runs the most powerful nation in history, and he still comes close to being as evil as Sadaam. So all things taken into account, I don't see much difference between the two.
I feel sorry for you.
-
No matter who the U.S. president is, ya'll will still hate him just because he's the president of the United States...
fuckin haters...
Not true, for me anyway. I liked Clinton, I thought he was a decent guy who was in tune with the common man. Bush represents everything i hate about society, just like his father.
-
word, owen you got to realize bush also isnt an angel, hes one evil fuck too
Yes, I agree, because Bush has murdered almost 6 million people because he didn't like them, and has plans of purifying the human genepool. I agree, because he makes it his business to be a dictator who gases his own people for being a different religion. I agree, because he has over 100 presidential palaces.
That didn't sound right. I wonder why?
You really are paranoid.
-
The US is going to war with Iraq without UN approval in order to uphold a UN resolution.
::)..this shows that the un is irrelevant...certain countries sign documents and when it comes time to act they hide in a corner like a bunch of cowards...the u.s. just isnt afraid to stand up for their interests
-
No matter who the U.S. president is, ya'll will still hate him just because he's the president of the United States...
fuckin haters...
the perhaps most skilled prez you ever had was killed by yourself..
take a second and think about that lol
-
i liked clinton also...He is the total opposite of bush..As my dad said before Bush got elected.."Bush will run this country into the ground". He was right.
-
The US is going to war with Iraq without UN approval in order to uphold a UN resolution.
::)..this shows that the un is irrelevant...certain countries sign documents and when it comes time to act they hide in a corner like a bunch of cowards...the u.s. just isnt afraid to stand up for their interests
if the UN was irrelevant, why is your nation going to war to uphold its resolution?
-
The US is going to war with Iraq without UN approval in order to uphold a UN resolution.
::)..this shows that the un is irrelevant...certain countries sign documents and when it comes time to act they hide in a corner like a bunch of cowards...the u.s. just isnt afraid to stand up for their interests
if the UN was irrelevant, why is your nation going to war to uphold its resolution?
Because the consequences of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction getting into the wrong hands would be disastrous.
-
dream on dreamer.
-
The US is going to war with Iraq without UN approval in order to uphold a UN resolution.
::)..this shows that the un is irrelevant...certain countries sign documents and when it comes time to act they hide in a corner like a bunch of cowards...the u.s. just isnt afraid to stand up for their interests
if the UN was irrelevant, why is your nation going to war to uphold its resolution?
because other members are spinless cowards and cant stand up for themselves!!!!
(http://forum.bodybuilding.com/attachment.php?s=&postid=1207811)
-
that is pretty funny tech i agree. but it's not the only reason for going to war......but it's like the radio said the other day , without the US and UK how much power does the UN have.....95% of your power is going against you
-
Do you know why the UN is "irrelevent"? Because the US has constantly undermined it by ignoring its resolutions and vetoing any condemnation of Israel. You cant simply undermine an organization consistently then complain when the organization is no longer as effective as you'd hope.
-
The US is going to war with Iraq without UN approval in order to uphold a UN resolution.
::)..this shows that the un is irrelevant...certain countries sign documents and when it comes time to act they hide in a corner like a bunch of cowards...the u.s. just isnt afraid to stand up for their interests
if the UN was irrelevant, why is your nation going to war to uphold its resolution?
Because the consequences of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction getting into the wrong hands would be disastrous.
1. First of all, it is very easy to use a very simple term to describe a complex thing. Weapons of Mass Destruction? If you talkin about nukes, Iraq doesnt have it.
2. Do you know that invading Iraq and replacing its govt will create the scenerio where weapons fall in the wrong hands? Saddam was the leader of Iraq for almost 30 years. He brings stability. He has kept Iraqs infrastructure intact. Saddam goes, and there will be a political vacuum in Baghdad. Kurdish militias, Islamic fundementalists, Shiite groups, Sunni academics will ALL be vying for power. You guys are shooting yourselves in the foot here.
-
2. Do you know that invading Iraq and replacing its govt will create the scenerio where weapons fall in the wrong hands? Saddam was the leader of Iraq for almost 30 years. He brings stability. He has kept Iraqs infrastructure intact. Saddam goes, and there will be a political vacuum in Baghdad. Kurdish militias, Islamic fundementalists, Shiite groups, Sunni academics will ALL be vying for power. You guys are shooting yourselves in the foot here.
You have to expect that to happen and figure out how to solve that problem but I would like to think that once this is taken care of it would be a hell of a lot better than having Saddam in charge or even worse Uday.
-
But I still dont understand why your govt is pursuing a scenerio where their fears have the most odds of becoming reality? Nah mean. Unless of course there are some hidden agendas and interests here, but of course, history has shown American doesnt do that. ::)
-
without the US and UK how much power does the UN have.....95% of your power is going against you
that 95% being the US and UK
-
vetoing any condemnation of Israel.
Keep this in mind:
There has been a genocide in Rwanda, an ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia, periodic and horrifying communal "strife" in Indonesia's East Timor, the "disappearance" of a few hundred thousand refugees in the Congo, a decades-long and culturally devastating occupation of Tibet by the People's Republic of China . . . but none of those U.N. member states has ever been subjected to the rebuke of a General Assembly "emergency special session." Israel has, though, repeatedly.
-
I fully understand that in recent years the UN has failed miserable in Rwanda, Yugoslavia etc. However, UN inaction doesnt in any way change the fact that the US has undermined it for decades. Yes, Israel has been chastised when Rwanda goes free, but that doesnt change the fact that Israel was criticized.
-
I think some rational thinking should be brought to this thread.
I believe bush is a relatively evil (and slightly stupid man). However I dont think you can compare him to saddam in terms of evil, because saddam is pure evil. Bush I feel however is more of a threat to world stability, and that is what worries people. Look at his record post clinton : He's started two wars. He has undermined the UN and left it in tatters, he has split the EU down the middle, he has created the biggest global political controvery in most of our memories, and now he is bombing baghdad live on television. Now that is a threat to world stability.
I have been saying what tech's leading statement was from day one. It's hypocrisy. Fortunately Tony Blair is bringing some stabilty to this alliance by effectively setting israel as one of the conditions for going to war hand in hand with america. If that can be achieved, then maybe we will see a more peaceful world.
Now someone said that we only hate bush coz he is american. That is as wide of the mark as possible. Pre-Bush, Ireland had no anti-american sentiment to speak of, in factg we loved america, because of historical ties, and the good work of clinton in our own peace process. How the tables have turned however. In a matter of months we have people ridiculing the us president in workplaces and in school canteens, where politics rarely enters. This is anti-bush administration, not anti-american, but unfortunately we are getting the impression that americans agree with his stance and this is causing people to find difficulty differentiating between bush and america. In Bush's term so far he has turned america from being the savior to the villian of the western world, and he's only half way through.
-
I think some rational thinking should be brought to this thread.
I believe bush is a relatively evil (and slightly stupid man). However I dont think you can compare him to saddam in terms of evil, because saddam is pure evil. Bush I feel however is more of a threat to world stability, and that is what worries people. Look at his record post clinton : He's started two wars. He has undermined the UN and left it in tatters, he has split the EU down the middle, he has created the biggest global political controvery in most of our memories, and now he is bombing baghdad live on television. Now that is a threat to world stability.
I have been saying what tech's leading statement was from day one. It's hypocrisy. Fortunately Tony Blair is bringing some stabilty to this alliance by effectively setting israel as one of the conditions for going to war hand in hand with america. If that can be achieved, then maybe we will see a more peaceful world.
Now someone said that we only hate bush coz he is american. That is as wide of the mark as possible. Pre-Bush, Ireland had no anti-american sentiment to speak of, in factg we loved america, because of historical ties, and the good work of clinton in our own peace process. How the tables have turned however. In a matter of months we have people ridiculing the us president in workplaces and in school canteens, where politics rarely enters. This is anti-bush administration, not anti-american, but unfortunately we are getting the impression that americans agree with his stance and this is causing people to find difficulty differentiating between bush and america. In Bush's term so far he has turned america from being the savior to the villian of the western world, and he's only half way through.
So, you think Bush is out to kill people who get in his plan to take over the world? Have you ever seen Pinky and the Brain?
-
Well I doubt he sets out to do it, but it hasnt bothered him so far. 8 Iraqis including 5 children were shot dead by US troops for not stopping at a checkpoint when there were no signs in arabic and apparently these soldiers acted "right". Now if a president was good at heart he would come out and condemn such aimless killings not condone them, because at the root of it he sent the troops there and what blood they spill is on his hands.
And yeah i used to watch pinky and the brain. Quality tv lol
-
the reason why they did this was becuase of undercover soldier dressing as civilians killing soldiers when they say they're going to surrender
-
He's started two wars.
Iraq and...
???
I really hope you aren't going to say afghanistan.
-
Well, despite the moral justifications and excuse for war, technically Bush DID start a war in Afghanistan. This is an undeniable fact.
-
Well, despite the moral justifications and excuse for war, technically Bush DID start a war in Afghanistan. This is an undeniable fact.
Excuse?
Sorry, 3000 peoples lives weren't an "excuse" to start a war...
-
what about the illuminati
-
Iraq and afghanistan.
Afghanistan was more justified though I still didnt agree with it, after all they didnt get bin laden.
But the point is he started 2 wars, justified or not.
-
Well, despite the moral justifications and excuse for war, technically Bush DID start a war in Afghanistan. This is an undeniable fact.
Excuse?
Sorry, 3000 peoples lives weren't an "excuse" to start a war...
Yes it was. 3000 peoples lives was an excuse to take another 4000 peoples lives. But this is besides the point. The fact is, Bush started 2 wars already,
-
If an american terrorist had fucked the WTC, they would have bombed their own country?
-
Well, despite the moral justifications and excuse for war, technically Bush DID start a war in Afghanistan. This is an undeniable fact.
Excuse?
Sorry, 3000 peoples lives weren't an "excuse" to start a war...
Yes it was. 3000 peoples lives was an excuse to take another 4000 peoples lives. But this is besides the point. The fact is, Bush started 2 wars already,
yeah that is waaay beside the point...its BULLSHIT. What you are implying is that we used the terrorist attack purely to murder Afghanistanis...lmao paranaoid faghan
-
If an american terrorist had fucked the WTC, they would have bombed their own country?
No...they woulda put him on aAmericans Most wanted and when they found him, woulda given him the death sentence...refer to the Oklahoma City Unibomber for an example smart one.
-
Anyone who says Bush is more evil than Saddam deserves to get raped in the ear with a 16 1/2 inch penis...