ok great, they were EVERYWHERE else, so what, they still existed. There were not terrorists in Iraq before 911 or countless other examples of terrorism, Bali, hell, all over the world. They still existed and were still a threat. The fact that they MOVED operations into Iraq is irrelevant in the context of their existencecl4u53w1t2 wrote:
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
Plain and simple, Little Georgy is trying to finish what daddy started back in the Gulf War. What can I say, the only thing he does well is lie and make a fool out of himself by acting smart. Look at how our country is looked at by the rest of the world, we are a laughing stock because of the leadership in this country, the same leadership who change there story on the war, on politics, to suit whatever is going on. There has been no truth coming out of this office since before he was re-elected. The best thing to do now is support our troops and get them the hell out of there. And dont go calling me a liberal, blah blah blah, I dont think Kerry (mister foot in mouth) would have done a better job of picking up the pieces of this, but maybe he would have been more honest and upfront with the people of this country about it.
Last edited by Fragboy (2006-11-04 05:34:29)
The problem is lowing that it ISN'T irrelevant to what you two guys were actually arguing about.lowing wrote:
ok great, they were EVERYWHERE else, so what, they still existed. There were not terrorists in Iraq before 911 or countless other examples of terrorism, Bali, hell, all over the world. They still existed and were still a threat. The fact that they MOVED operations into Iraq is irrelevant in the context of their existencecl4u53w1t2 wrote:
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
Yes it is Cam, terrorism already existed, the fact that they filtered into a vulnerable country does not mean the US caused terrorism. People were dying by the droves in Iraq long before we went back there. It was hardly a family vacation spot.CameronPoe wrote:
The problem is lowing that it ISN'T irrelevant to what you two guys were actually arguing about.lowing wrote:
ok great, they were EVERYWHERE else, so what, they still existed. There were not terrorists in Iraq before 911 or countless other examples of terrorism, Bali, hell, all over the world. They still existed and were still a threat. The fact that they MOVED operations into Iraq is irrelevant in the context of their existencecl4u53w1t2 wrote:
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
That is off point with respect to what you were arguing about with cl4u53w1t2. His point related to pre-invasion terrorism in Iraq. It is impossible to argue with someone who shifts the goalposts of the argument or is arguing a different point from the point that you're supposed to be arguing or believe that you are arguing.lowing wrote:
Yes it is Cam, terrorism already existed, the fact that they filtered into a vulnerable country does not mean the US caused terrorism. People were dying by the droves in Iraq long before we went back there. It was hardly a family vacation spot.CameronPoe wrote:
The problem is lowing that it ISN'T irrelevant to what you two guys were actually arguing about.lowing wrote:
ok great, they were EVERYWHERE else, so what, they still existed. There were not terrorists in Iraq before 911 or countless other examples of terrorism, Bali, hell, all over the world. They still existed and were still a threat. The fact that they MOVED operations into Iraq is irrelevant in the context of their existence
Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-11-04 05:48:06)
There WAS terrorism is Iraq before......It just so happens that Saddam and his blood thirsty sons monopolized it allCameronPoe wrote:
That is off point with respect to what you were arguing about with cl4u53w1t2. His point related to pre-invasion terrorism in Iraq. It is impossible to argue with someone who shifts the goalposts of the argument or is arguing a different point from the point that you're supposed to be arguing or believe that you are arguing.lowing wrote:
Yes it is Cam, terrorism already existed, the fact that they filtered into a vulnerable country does not mean the US caused terrorism. People were dying by the droves in Iraq long before we went back there. It was hardly a family vacation spot.CameronPoe wrote:
The problem is lowing that it ISN'T irrelevant to what you two guys were actually arguing about.
Not the brand of terrorism the US purports to be fighting nowadays. Otherwise they would invade Pakistan (never gonna happen), Saudi Arabia (never gonna happen - US buddies), Zimbabwe (never gonna happen - why should anyone care what goes on in Africa), etc. The war on 'terror' focuses on radical islam, which was practically non-existent in pre-invasion Iraq, and seeks to fight those who call for the destruction of western civilisation (something Saddam never called for).lowing wrote:
There WAS terrorism is Iraq before......It just so happens that Saddam and his blood thirsty sons monopolized it allCameronPoe wrote:
That is off point with respect to what you were arguing about with cl4u53w1t2. His point related to pre-invasion terrorism in Iraq. It is impossible to argue with someone who shifts the goalposts of the argument or is arguing a different point from the point that you're supposed to be arguing or believe that you are arguing.lowing wrote:
Yes it is Cam, terrorism already existed, the fact that they filtered into a vulnerable country does not mean the US caused terrorism. People were dying by the droves in Iraq long before we went back there. It was hardly a family vacation spot.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-11-04 06:10:33)
And to think all Saddam had t odo was up hold his end of the peace treaty and he would still have his country back, killing his people as much as he wanted to his hearts content.....Oh what could have been, sighhhhhhh.CameronPoe wrote:
Not the brand of terrorism the US purports to be fighting nowadays. Otherwise they would invade Pakistan (never gonna happen), Saudi Arabia (never gonna happen - US buddies), Zimbabwe (never gonna happen - why should anyone care what goes on in Africa), etc. The war on 'terror' focuses on radical islam, which was practically non-existent in pre-invasion Iraq, and seeks to fight those who call for the destruction of western civilisation (something Saddam never called for).lowing wrote:
There WAS terrorism is Iraq before......It just so happens that Saddam and his blood thirsty sons monopolized it allCameronPoe wrote:
That is off point with respect to what you were arguing about with cl4u53w1t2. His point related to pre-invasion terrorism in Iraq. It is impossible to argue with someone who shifts the goalposts of the argument or is arguing a different point from the point that you're supposed to be arguing or believe that you are arguing.
About Africa??!!........I don't give 2 flying fucks about Africa. The oldest civilization in the world and still a third world continent. Pretty much I have the same opinion about the ME. Fuck all of them. Kill yourselves all you want, you set foot on American soil again and your country will be turned into a glass coffee table top. I really am sick of it all
thanks cam. the biggest problem on d&st is that a lot of people do not respond exactly on someones post or not at all.
and lowing: congrats, u again succeeded in disavowing yourself!
and lowing: congrats, u again succeeded in disavowing yourself!
you a native american? if so, i feel sorry for you...lowing wrote:
...you set foot on American soil again and your country will be turned into a glass coffee table top. I really am sick of it all
Ok back to the beginning................By your briliant statement you must then believe, that Hurricane Katrina, "created" looters, rapists, and murderours. No, the hurricane just opened up the vulnerablity for those groups to operate.cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
the us created terrorism in iraq. there was no jihadists and terrorists in iraq before the us invasion
The point I am trying to make is, the US did not create terrorism in Iraq, the terrorists exploited what they percieved as a opportunity.
You blaming the US for terrorism in Iraq, is the same as blaming a looting, and rape and murder on the weather.
If you wanna start a thrad about how the native americans got fucked over, I will post in support of your position.I{endo wrote:
you a native american? if so, i feel sorry for you...lowing wrote:
...you set foot on American soil again and your country will be turned into a glass coffee table top. I really am sick of it all
I never connected 911 to Iraq,cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
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.
Afghanistan=911
Iraq=breaking the peace treaty that resumed the conflict.
So basically you are saying that the US (Katrina) gave the terrorists to freedom to operate, strengthen and consolidate a new base of operations. The US created the conditions under which these existing elements could thrive.lowing wrote:
Ok back to the beginning................By your briliant statement you must then believe, that Hurricane Katrina, "created" looters, rapists, and murderours. No, the hurricane just opened up the vulnerablity for those groups to operate.cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
the us created terrorism in iraq. there was no jihadists and terrorists in iraq before the us invasion
The point I am trying to make is, the US did not create terrorism in Iraq, the terrorists exploited what they percieved as a opportunity.
You blaming the US for terrorism in Iraq, is the same as blaming a looting, and rape and murder on the weather.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-11-04 07:40:13)
haha. i wonder where in the us u live lowing and what education u recieved
No I am saying war has weakened Iraq, which is the point of war, the terrorists have moved in to exploit that and now we are fighting them. Admittedly it was not a contingency we were prepared for. We did not go into Iraq to battle terrorists.CameronPoe wrote:
So basically you are saying that the US (Katrina) gave the terrorists to freedom to operate, strengthen and consolidate a new base of operations.lowing wrote:
Ok back to the beginning................By your briliant statement you must then believe, that Hurricane Katrina, "created" looters, rapists, and murderours. No, the hurricane just opened up the vulnerablity for those groups to operate.cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
the us created terrorism in iraq. there was no jihadists and terrorists in iraq before the us invasion
The point I am trying to make is, the US did not create terrorism in Iraq, the terrorists exploited what they percieved as a opportunity.
You blaming the US for terrorism in Iraq, is the same as blaming a looting, and rape and murder on the weather.
We didn't go to Korea to battle China either, it just turned out that way.
Actually... no. America's invasion of Iraq has inadvertently skyrocketed the amount of terror in Iraq, but terror cells existed in Iraq before the invasion. Almost every Islamic country has terror cells in them, but then again, many Western countries do as well.cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
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
I would agree that invading Iraq was a very stupid idea, and I would go even further to say that we should evaluate the risks and worth of an invasion by determining the level of significance of terror cells in a country. Relatively speaking, Iraq didn't have many terrorists in it while Saddam was in power. Iran did and still does. Saudi Arabia had more terrorists in it than Iraq before the invasion. So did Yemen. Now, we have reason to believe that Sudan may have a significant amount of terrorists, along with Somalia. Pakistan and Afghanistan have a shitload of terrorists as well.
The point I'm trying to make here is that the invasion of Iraq had little, if anything, to do with terror. It was more about removing Saddam and searching for WMD's. The people that try to justify it through connections to terror are just full of shit.
Last edited by Turquoise (2006-11-04 07:46:41)
lowing wrote:
I never connected 911 to Iraq,cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
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.
Afghanistan=911
Iraq=breaking the peace treaty that resumed the conflict. because of imminent threat of attack from WMD (that didn't exist and was sexed up to insure that the war happened)
what exactly does my biograghy have to do with this discussion are you writing a book on me?.cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
haha. i wonder where in the us u live lowing and what education u recieved
moral of the story there is this:.........If you don't have anything to hide, don't pretend to be doing so. all the while pretending to be doing so, illegallyIG-Calibre wrote:
lowing wrote:
I never connected 911 to Iraq,cl4u53w1t2 wrote:
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.
Afghanistan=911
Iraq=breaking the peace treaty that resumed the conflict. because of imminent threat of attack from WMD (that didn't exist and was sexed up to insure that the war happened)
He did, it's just that you can't handle the truth of the matter that we were legally and morally justified in invading Iraq. Report on Iraqi WMD'scl4u53w1t2 wrote:
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.
United Nations resolution 1441
adopted at security council meeting 4644, 8 November 2002 seems to have been forgotten.
And there is the fact that Bush is not hiding anything in regards to his reasons or intentions.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/ … sect5.html
Bush may be a moron and buffoon, but this whole Iraq war thing is getting a bad rap. Four years of combat, two governments disposed of and we've only got 3000 war dead? Sounds like somebody knows what the fuck they are doing.
The liberals cry about the war, fair enough, but the dissention only prolongs the current war and invites new ones as we look weak. It's like the Democrats in office or running for office would really just ( snaps fingers ) pull out of Iraq and leave it to a blood bath? Not likey, as the reality is the oil fields would be anbandoned to our enemies who would turn oil into guns and bombs and rockets. America will not let that happen.
The overall lesson of 9-11 to other governments was;
" If you tollerate, or finance terrorist cells and activities that lead to attacks on American interests, be prepared to endure regime change. "
I say it's a lesson that needed to be learned.
The only way to end this war is extermination of the people or their religion. It would be morally incorrect at the time but there will be benefits later on.
More accurately:ATG wrote:
" If you tollerate, or finance terrorist cells and activities that lead to attacks on American interests, be prepared to endure regime change. "
I say it's a lesson that needed to be learned.
" If you tollerate, or finance terrorist cells and activities that lead to attacks on American interests, be prepared to endure more radical islamists than you can shake a stick at setting up shop in your homes, streets, towns and cities. "
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^genius^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialRepor … 1004a.html
give me a break, how was he going to deliver them by elastic band catapult? a few oul rusty headshells is certainly not what the government led us to believe was the capabilities of Saddam you're just clutching at straws..
give me a break, how was he going to deliver them by elastic band catapult? a few oul rusty headshells is certainly not what the government led us to believe was the capabilities of Saddam you're just clutching at straws..