Yeah, we could be like the rest of the world and bury our heads in the sand and succumb to terrorism, and secretly hope the US will do something about it because these other countries don't have the balls to stand up to it.BN wrote:
Could you look any worse at the moment?d3v1ldr1v3r13 wrote:
The war is on, the only thing (Smart) we can do is finish what we started. Thats my opinion, we pull now, we look bad to the world.
Cut and run i reckon
the us created terrorism in iraq. there was no jihadists and terrorists in iraq before the us invasion
of course it was a good thing to remove saddam but now there is way more civilians and soldiers dying in iraq than under the reign of saddam
If only that were true.cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
the us created terrorism in iraq. there was no jihadists and terrorists in iraq before the us invasion
Gore thinks he invented the internet, too. I wouldn't want that knob running our nation. Clinton over him any day. Gore would attack Iraq because they produce oil which contributes to *whispers* global warming. And we all know *whispers* global warming is the foremost evil on this earth. The UN wouldn't attack because they are weak. They'd pass 15,000 resolutions and wait for the US to do something about it, then condemn us when we take care of business.Turquoise wrote:
Gore would not have attacked Iraq. He was always a proponent of UN support.
i have to clean coke off of my laptop now, thankscl4u53w1t2 wrote:
the us created terrorism in iraq. there was no jihadists and terrorists in iraq before the us invasion
and the colour of the day is blood red
Everyone who has risked or given their life over there.Masques wrote:
Who isn't?deeznutz1245 wrote:
He is also a proponent of self gain.Turquoise wrote:
Gore would not have attacked Iraq. He was always a proponent of UN support.
Malloy must go
Let me help you out buddylowing wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html
It would appear Clinton, and the UN, felt Saddam was a threat lonnnnnnnnnnggggggggg before Bush.
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=45873
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Well, as the rest of the world kept their heads in the sand, there were not much terrorism to speak of. Terrorism has a reason and it needs something or someone that it is done against. It doesn't just excists without a reason.lowing wrote:
Yeah, we could be like the rest of the world and bury our heads in the sand and succumb to terrorism, and secretly hope the US will do something about it because these other countries don't have the balls to stand up to it.BN wrote:
Could you look any worse at the moment?d3v1ldr1v3r13 wrote:
The war is on, the only thing (Smart) we can do is finish what we started. Thats my opinion, we pull now, we look bad to the world.
Cut and run i reckon
And of course after terrorism has risen to the scale it now is at, there are a lot of terrorist attacks done for no apparent reason also.
Edit: spelling...
Last edited by Gawwad (2006-11-03 08:05:15)
no they were everywhere else.cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
the us created terrorism in iraq. there was no jihadists and terrorists in iraq before the us invasion
Really?? no terrorism before the US "created" a reason for it huh??...........Better go back to history class bud.Gawwad wrote:
Well, as the rest of the world kept their heads in the sand, there were not much terrorism to speak of. Terrorism has a reason and it needs something or someone that it is done against. It doesn't just excists without a reason.lowing wrote:
Yeah, we could be like the rest of the world and bury our heads in the sand and succumb to terrorism, and secretly hope the US will do something about it because these other countries don't have the balls to stand up to it.BN wrote:
Could you look any worse at the moment?
Cut and run i reckon
And of course after terrorism has risen to the scale it now is at, there are a lot of terrorist attacks done for no apparent reason also.
Edit: spelling...
True perhaps, but irrelevent in the context of this thread.deeznutz1245 wrote:
Everyone who has risked or given their life over there.Masques wrote:
Who isn't?deeznutz1245 wrote:
He is also a proponent of self gain.
Good job with missing the point...lowing wrote:
Really?? no terrorism before the US "created" a reason for it huh??...........Better go back to history class bud.Gawwad wrote:
Well, as the rest of the world kept their heads in the sand, there were not much terrorism to speak of. Terrorism has a reason and it needs something or someone that it is done against. It doesn't just excists without a reason.lowing wrote:
Yeah, we could be like the rest of the world and bury our heads in the sand and succumb to terrorism, and secretly hope the US will do something about it because these other countries don't have the balls to stand up to it.
And of course after terrorism has risen to the scale it now is at, there are a lot of terrorist attacks done for no apparent reason also.
Edit: spelling...
Terrorism doesn't exicst if it isn't provoked. If you run around the world screaming your warcries it ought to make some people blow you up.
Last edited by Gawwad (2006-11-03 15:45:57)
Are those guys laughing or crying about that dead general there?
First of all, the "I invented the internet" comment was a deliberate misinterpretation of what Gore actually said during his 2000 campaign. He mentioned that he was a significant funder of the projects that would eventually lead to the development of the internet, but he never said he invented it.Stingray24 wrote:
Gore thinks he invented the internet, too. I wouldn't want that knob running our nation. Clinton over him any day. Gore would attack Iraq because they produce oil which contributes to *whispers* global warming. And we all know *whispers* global warming is the foremost evil on this earth. The UN wouldn't attack because they are weak. They'd pass 15,000 resolutions and wait for the US to do something about it, then condemn us when we take care of business.Turquoise wrote:
Gore would not have attacked Iraq. He was always a proponent of UN support.
Second, while Gore is heavily focused on the global warming thing, he wouldn't attack oil producing countries over it. He'd likely raise standards for environmental regulation, but he was far from being a hawk. Clinton was much more of an interventionist than Gore. I think Gore would have to face the fact that Afghanistan was a threat to us, but no one really wanted to attack Iraq in 2003 other than the Bush administration and his backers (like the Project for the New American Century).
Yes, the UN bullshit would still be going on today, and Saddam would probably still be killing a lot of his own people, but honestly, I put our own lives above that of the Iraqis. It was not in America's best interest to enter Iraq, and Gore would have agreed with that. Even most Republicans before 2003 would have agreed with that.
Last edited by Turquoise (2006-11-03 15:55:35)
Sighhhhhhhhh for the 1000th time.................We were not ar war prior to 911....We were not at war all through the 90's when we were being attacked. We were not at war in 88 when pan am 103 blew up either.Gawwad wrote:
Good job with missing the point...lowing wrote:
Really?? no terrorism before the US "created" a reason for it huh??...........Better go back to history class bud.Gawwad wrote:
Well, as the rest of the world kept their heads in the sand, there were not much terrorism to speak of. Terrorism has a reason and it needs something or someone that it is done against. It doesn't just excists without a reason.
And of course after terrorism has risen to the scale it now is at, there are a lot of terrorist attacks done for no apparent reason also.
Edit: spelling...
Terrorism doesn't exicst if it isn't provoked. If you run around the world screaming your warcries it ought to make some people blow you up.
One thing I am sick to death of, is liberals GIVING rationalization and justification for killing women, children, civilians.
More women, children and civilians die when an army is bombing a country.lowing wrote:
Sighhhhhhhhh for the 1000th time.................We were not ar war prior to 911....We were not at war all through the 90's when we were being attacked. We were not at war in 88 when pan am 103 blew up either.Gawwad wrote:
Good job with missing the point...lowing wrote:
Really?? no terrorism before the US "created" a reason for it huh??...........Better go back to history class bud.
Terrorism doesn't exicst if it isn't provoked. If you run around the world screaming your warcries it ought to make some people blow you up.
One thing I am sick to death of, is liberals GIVING rationalization and justification for killing women, children, civilians.
terrorists, jihadists and terror camps in iraq before the us invasion=0ATG wrote:
If only that were true.cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
the us created terrorism in iraq. there was no jihadists and terrorists in iraq before the us invasion
afterwards there is thousands of them. u can't deny that.
saddam is an atheist. he definitely DID NOT support any islamistic terrorist organisations. he even feared them because they were a threat to his ansolute power. i also hate saddam but the american government is responsible for houndreds of thousands people (mainly civilians) killed in iraq (american and iraqi medics published a study, where they say that more than 650.000 people have been killed in iraq during and after the us (led) invasion)
the us created terrorism in the middle east. even a lot of neocons like Richard Perle, Kenneth Adelman, David Frum etc. now say that us policy in iraq is wrong and that saddam could have been removed without invading the country
They are dying because they are being purposely targeted by terrorists. THey are being killed by far greater numbers ON PURPOSE, than they are by the coalition on accident.Gawwad wrote:
More women, children and civilians die when an army is bombing a country.lowing wrote:
Sighhhhhhhhh for the 1000th time.................We were not ar war prior to 911....We were not at war all through the 90's when we were being attacked. We were not at war in 88 when pan am 103 blew up either.Gawwad wrote:
Good job with missing the point...
Terrorism doesn't exicst if it isn't provoked. If you run around the world screaming your warcries it ought to make some people blow you up.
One thing I am sick to death of, is liberals GIVING rationalization and justification for killing women, children, civilians.
By the way, since you did not refute the MAJORITY of my post I will assume you can't.
Terror camps in Iraq is irrelevant. If you have 1000 terror camps and 0 are in Iraq and 500 are in Afghanistan and 500 are in Syria before the war, then after the removal of saddam 50 from Syria and 50 from Afghanistan move to Iraq. There are still 1000 terror camps.cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
terrorists, jihadists and terror camps in iraq before the us invasion=0ATG wrote:
If only that were true.cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
the us created terrorism in iraq. there was no jihadists and terrorists in iraq before the us invasion
afterwards there is thousands of them. u can't deny that.
saddam is an atheist. he definitely DID NOT support any islamistic terrorist organisations. he even feared them because they were a threat to his ansolute power. i also hate saddam but the american government is responsible for houndreds of thousands people (mainly civilians) killed in iraq (american and iraqi medics published a study, where they say that more than 650.000 people have been killed in iraq during and after the us (led) invasion)
the us created terrorism in the middle east. even a lot of neocons like Richard Perle, Kenneth Adelman, David Frum etc. now say that us policy in iraq is wrong and that saddam could have been removed without invading the country
You are trying desperately to argue that the US is the reason for terrorism and it will not wash. The US is in the spot light because we are willing to fight it. Unlike the rest of you who will settle for alittle terrorism and hope that it just isn't YOU that is bombed, rather than stand toe to toe with these maniacs and defend yourselves and each other.
Also, it is the terrorists that arte responsible for 100's of 1000's of deaths in Iraq. NOt to even mention the 100's and 1000's of deaths that occured there, before the war resumed. YOU can't deny that.
I didn't bother since you stil don't see the point in my original post...lowing wrote:
They are dying because they are being purposely targeted by terrorists. THey are being killed by far greater numbers ON PURPOSE, than they are by the coalition on accident.Gawwad wrote:
More women, children and civilians die when an army is bombing a country.lowing wrote:
Sighhhhhhhhh for the 1000th time.................We were not ar war prior to 911....We were not at war all through the 90's when we were being attacked. We were not at war in 88 when pan am 103 blew up either.
One thing I am sick to death of, is liberals GIVING rationalization and justification for killing women, children, civilians.
By the way, since you did not refute the MAJORITY of my post I will assume you can't.
It aplies to all nations. Finland has not taken part in wars after WW2 (except peace keeping), have you heard of a terrorist attack here? If you make poor, religious, simple people as angry as they now are, they respond with terrorism.
Finland fought in WW2 to basically save their own skins, they didn't do much, if anything for the cause in general. Which would lead me to believe that if attacked Finland would defend its self, just like WW2. Which then leads me to beleive, if 911 occured in Finland it would fight back. Please allow us the same concideration. By all means though, sit back and do nothing to help anyone else. History dictates that is what Finland is best at. I won't hold my breathe for the next big contribution Finland will offer to better the world.Gawwad wrote:
I didn't bother since you stil don't see the point in my original post...lowing wrote:
They are dying because they are being purposely targeted by terrorists. THey are being killed by far greater numbers ON PURPOSE, than they are by the coalition on accident.Gawwad wrote:
More women, children and civilians die when an army is bombing a country.
By the way, since you did not refute the MAJORITY of my post I will assume you can't.
It aplies to all nations. Finland has not taken part in wars after WW2 (except peace keeping), have you heard of a terrorist attack here? If you make poor, religious, simple people as angry as they now are, they respond with terrorism.
Also, I didn't "miss your point", I dispute the fact that you had one.
Last edited by lowing (2006-11-04 05:15:50)
i just said that the us are the reason for terrorism in IRAQ
and again: there have NEVER EVER been terrorists in iraq BEFORE the us invasion
and again: there have NEVER EVER been terrorists in iraq BEFORE the us invasion
and lowing: why are u americans always connecting 9/11 with the war in iraq? iraq and saddam had NOTHING to do with 9/11. not at all.