why, can people not see the good out of it, if u cant u are truley brainwashed and blind!

or is it you who is brainwashed and blind

 

not as a person but within a society which envelopes you and a media which blocks all negativity? :wink3: :stunned:

Perhaps a good question to ask is why are YOU for this war, when so many are against it?

:rolleyes:

Because you can't see the problem. IRAQ WAS NEVER THREATENING US, THERE WAS NO DANGER, EVEN IF THEY HAD WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, THEY WEREN'T THREATENING US WITH ANY AND THERE FOR WE HAD NO REASON TO GO INTO IRAQ. Oh, but look...When no weapons were found the war was suddenly about, "Iraq's Freedom". Next time we should have an actual reason for going to war. At least we did in 2001.

when oil and a substancial economic gain is at stake it's a means for war

 

sad but true

 

:/

ok im for it because saddam was no better than hitler, he didnt kill as much but he killed alot, and if we have the power to stop innocent pple from dying and dont we are no better than saddam, second of all he supported terrorist by money and training them, another reason is the people wanted the war, lots of ours and iraqi, and saddam was threat to other countries around it, such as iserial they scuds capable of reaching it and pointed at them, we didnt want anohther kuwait, even if the war was for oil, it wast the main reason, and another think the media is against the war so their not brainwashing me!

hmmm, they did have wmd they used em on ther own people and in iran wars, give me 9 months to hide some containers anywhere in florida, i garuntee u no one could find, and another think just cuz they werent directly thrething us, they could sell em, gtg

i agree on the point of sadam

 

but like most of these unstable countries if it was now saddam there would be another tyrant to take his place - these kind of perverted leaders suceed in these countries where militant rule takes control - he is one of the worst and it is correct to change the state of affairs there but like so many have pointed out why choose iraq? there are many other countries with similar situations which are left to carry on simply on the grounds that there is no ECONOMIC reason for intervention :/

He still wasn't posing any threat to us. Even if he was to other countries, that's none of our business and we shouldn't get involved. We have enough problems, let them handle their own. Unless the country is say, England (Britain in general), Canada, or Australia.

and if we have the power to stop innocent pple from dying and dont we are no better than saddam

 

Pakistani dictator Generals in 1970-71 killed up to 1 million Bengalis, their own citizens. When Indian Army went to their rescue, America sent in its much-vaunted 7th Fleet to frighten India....a democracy, I might add.

 

That's just one example. I can give you the very recent example of the Hutu-Tutsi genocide in Rwanda, where America stood silent and didn't do diddly-squat as about 300,000 people were butchered in less than a week.

 

So there you go. According to you, we're not better than Saddam! Thank you very much.

i'll hide my head in the sand and hope it al goes away thank you :lol:

and if we have the power to stop innocent pple from dying and dont we are no better than saddam

 

Pakistani dictator Generals in 1970-71 killed up to 1 million Bengalis, their own citizens. When Indian Army went to their rescue, America sent in its much-vaunted 7th Fleet to frighten India....a democracy, I might add.

 

That's just one example. I can give you the very recent example of the Hutu-Tutsi genocide in Rwanda, where America stood silent and didn't do diddly-squat as about 300,000 people were butchered in less than a week.

 

So there you go. According to you, we're not better than Saddam! Thank you very much.

 

back then our army sucked, we would have been lost if we interfered and that was along time ago, our goverment was a bunch of pansies back then, atleast now we have enough guts to stand up for the innocent and people who are being massacered! ur no better than saddam IF U CAN STOP MASSACERS AND DONT , AND I BET U IN THE FUTURE SADDAM WOULD HAVE KILLED THOUSANDS OF MORE PEOPLE,

AND WE DONT INTERFER WITH MOST CIVIL WARS. AND ANOTHER THING WE CANT BE IN EVER WAR, OR STOP EVERYONE, OTHER COUNTRIES NEED TO HELP, BUSH STOOD UP FOR IRAQI PEOPLE, SAVED THEM FROM EVIL SADDAM AND THEY WANTED IT,

hmm...

i read and saw some stuff about the tutsi hutu war recently.. and i you imagine that those are only examles.. this would mean you have to intervene in a lot of countries for "bringing them freedon & peace"..

why would anyone do this, as it's veeery expensive..

it all results in economy..

so what si and music lover said..

Back when? Man, you're really crazy! Half-knowledge is worse than having no knowledge at all! lmao

 

Back in 1971? Then, U.S. had the most number of nuclear warheads. U.S. had a much larger Navy (and it didn't mind using it to try and protect its client dictator...ruler of Pakistan, whose skin got saved or else India would have hung him just like we will do with Saddam now).

 

Not to mention one grave example from the 1990s, when U.S. was the sole superpower in the world.

 

Glad to see you calling yourself no better than Saddam.

 

I sure am not gonna say that. :rolleyes:

AND THEY WANTED IT

 

That's why Saddam supporters are attacking American troops in Iraq.

wow :o

Thank you musiclover, I was just about to point that out.

SO WE HAD NUKES, WE CANT USE THEY WOULD DO TOO MUCH DAMAGE, AND WE HAD A DIFF PRESIDENT BACK THEN, I HATED HOW OUR GOVERMENT DIDNT GET INVOLVED IN THOSE CONFLICTS BUT ATLEAST BUSH DID GET INVOLVED WITH STUFF LIKE THAT THATS HAPPENING NOW DAYS, HE HAD THE GUTS TO STAND UP FOR 2 COUNTRIES AND FREE THEM, IT MIGHT NOT BE THE BEST FREEDOM BUT IT WILL TAKE TIME~

yep, we don't interefere in most wars, only the ones where we can directly or indirectly profit! :cool:

 

Rwanda had NOTHING to give us. At about the same time, Serbia and Kosovo DID have something to give us (a strategic post abutting Russia, as well as a secure land route for the oil/gas pipelines fromo Central Asia to the Mediterranian Sea).

So what do we do? We decide we've had enough of Slobo and we're gonna crush him.

 

All the time, back in Africa, we're looking over things, hands in our pockets, lookling like complete sissies....even sissies would get insulted with that comparison! Clinton presided over one of the worse genocides of the entire 20th century.

:rolleyes: :angry:

I'm sick of fucking looking bad because Bush made us look bad by starting wars for no reason at all. I'd gladly apply for seccesion. Although we would only end up somewhere up North 3 days later surrendering to Union troops so there'd be no point.

AND THEY WANTED IT

 

That's why Saddam supporters are attacking American troops in Iraq.

 

 

I NEVER SIAD ALL OF IRAQ WANTED IT, MOST THE PPLE ATTACKING ARE TEORRORIST OR POEPLE SADDAM PAYED LOTS OF MONEY TO TO DO HIS DIRTY WORK, IF U PAY A PERSON GOOD TO DO WHAT THEY LIKE TO DO AND SOME COMES AND TAKE THAT AWAY YOUR GONNE GET MAD, BUT MOST OF ITS POEPLE FROM OTHER COUNTRIES COMING IN, ITS AMERCIAN HUNTING SEASON IN IRAQ AND THE TERRORIST WORLD IS HUNTING.

I'm pretty sure you would think different if one of your father/son/husband/friend/ was killed in this STUPID war...

I'm sick of fucking looking bad because Bush made us look bad by starting wars for no reason at all. I'd gladly apply for seccesion. Although we would only end up somewhere up North 3 days later surrendering to Union troops so there'd be no point.

 

AH SO NO REASON IS GETTING RID OF TERRORIST, STOPING THEM FROM TRIANING AND GETTING MONEY, FREEING PEOPLE. STOPING SADDAM FROM ANTOHER HUGE MASSACER, SECURING US AN ALLY IN THE FURTURE, SO IF THAT S IS NO REASON THEN UR MESED UP

Silly America.

 

:rolleyes: