BF2S Forums Serious question (the logic of why America invades a country)

namsdrawkcaB wrote:

Yes, but my question is what about the African millitary and dictators. They are bad, But nothing is being done about them..
But want to know how it is so complicated, im asking a question here!!

Do you know history before 2003?

Since I lost a family member in Africa, I will fill you in.

300,000 plus people in Somalia were dying.  The warlord was stealing all the food.  We sent in over 20,000 Marines.  When we pulled out, it went to shit again.  Clinton sent in a smaller invasion force.  They responded by dragging dead soldiers through the streets.

There you go.  Just one example.

I have been there also.  I was in Liberia.

So before you open your mouth again, maybe you should spend more time learning history before opening your mouth kid.

Cerpin_Taxt wrote:

Fen321 wrote:

Cerpin_Taxt wrote:

Well, North Korea did not demonstrate that they had WMD's until after we were bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan. It seems that you forgot that.

Didn't demonstrate could you clarify this for me I'm having a hard time understanding what this would mean.

North Korea did not detonate a nuclear weapon until 2006.



Do you actually have an argument?

So lets get this straight demonstrating for you is detonating nuclear weapons, at which point you can't do shit about it, but for some reason we found enough justification in shaky evidence to invade Iraq a country that hasn't had a nuclear detonation and was being monitored to the best of our ability by UN inspectors. You see i'm starting to see a bit of a divergence in approach, no? So if we are truly adamant about removing those whom threaten our allies with WMDs why not attack N. Korea? Someone else already alluded to the sleeping giant that is China -- this is mainly why I would say we didn't go into N. Korea (again).

The reason I'm even bothering to point this out is mostly due to our usage of Nuclear weapons as a blank check for invading any and all countries whom we can designate an enemy. Situations like Iraq could be avoided -- and what N. Korea shows is that we will invade those whom have no protection. While Iran on the other hand doesn't even posses nuclear weapons, but only the capacity to do so -- just like any other country with nuclear tech -- so hey why didn't we care about India/Pakistan developing them then?

At what point can those that posses nuclear weapons continue to use them as threats against those whom wish to be at an equal playing level?

Mekstizzle wrote:

Parker:

Think of the house as the city and the garden as the desert than, and the illegal thing i wanted was a nail, and he threw it out the window into the garden. Sure, i can say "he had it, i saw it, it's in that garden somewhere how the hell am i supposed to find it" - but i'll still look like an idiot.

i see where you are coming from, but i dont think you understand the vastness of deserts.

the whole WMD thing is a moot point now anyways.......iraq has acted as a buffer for the ME for a very long time....even though we installed leaders, a power vacuum still exists.
all i have to say is watch out for Iran and Turkey.

Fen321 wrote:

So lets get this straight demonstrating for you is detonating nuclear weapons, at which point you can't do shit about it, but for some reason we found enough justification in shaky evidence to invade Iraq a country that hasn't had a nuclear detonation and was being monitored to the best of our ability by UN inspectors. You see i'm starting to see a bit of a divergence in approach, no? So if we are truly adamant about removing those whom threaten our allies with WMDs why not attack N. Korea? Someone else already alluded to the sleeping giant that is China -- this is mainly why I would say we didn't go into N. Korea (again).

The reason I'm even bothering to point this out is mostly due to our usage of Nuclear weapons as a blank check for invading any and all countries whom we can designate an enemy. Situations like Iraq could be avoided -- and what N. Korea shows is that we will invade those whom have no protection. While Iran on the other hand doesn't even posses nuclear weapons, but only the capacity to do so -- just like any other country with nuclear tech -- so hey why didn't we care about India/Pakistan developing them then?

At what point can those that posses nuclear weapons continue to use them as threats against those whom wish to be at an equal playing level?

So, what you're saying is, since we don't stop Korea, we should allow all nations to have nuclear weapons? Also, its about level of threat.

I have said it countless times now.  Saddam was probably the most dangerous candidate for someone to have WMDs.  I doubt Inda or Pakistan or N Korea have any intentions of selling WMDs to terrorists. Saddam howerver, in his hatred for america, what owuld stop him?

Mekstizzle wrote:

I can understand Iran, but Turkey? All i've heard is that they want to exterminate Kurdish militia up north who seem to be doing attacks against them. Wouldn't that be doing everyone a favour?

turkey was massed on the border a couple weeks ago. the claim was that they were "chasing" some group, but they had a bunch of troops lined up ready for something.....i think it was around june 6th.

This is a completely pointless topic that leads to NO conclusion and leads to flame wars.
If you have an opinion on the war in Iraq, fine. You want to post it? Fine. Just don't start crying and bitching when someone disagrees.

Fen321 wrote:

RoosterCantrell wrote:

Fen321 wrote:

A threat to Europe -- in all honesty -- you actually think Saddam was plotting to launch an offensive attack on Europe. Why? Why? Why? There is no motivation hence no intentions. The problem with that my friend is that immediately the jig is up no intentions = no threat .

Please, please read what people have to say, rather than pick through thier posts and fixate on one aspect of what they said.   Saddam MAY HAVE had ties to Al Qaida.   Iraq + WMDs + Terrorist ties + Terrorist inentions (9/11?) = A big fucking problem.    NO of course Saddam wouldn't launch a strike against Europe. NO ONE SAID THAT.   

I cannot stand people like this.

Saddam had NO TIES TO AL QAIDA.

The patriarchal style of rule through out the Middle East, which has been practiced for centuries now, leaves no room for opposition in the form of power outside of the hands of the dictator. So why would Saddam allow Al Qaida to function anywhere in its territory? Or for what reason would he fund them?

WMDS none... terrorist ties.....*ha* 9/11 bigger fucking *ha*.

And the bit about not launching weapons into Europe...i was responding to a comment where someone stated that they possed missiles capable of hitting Europe while N. Korea only has the tech to walk theirs around apparently...never mind the testing of missiles.

Ummm Fen, Saddam let a lot happen in his country.  Did you know There is a large population of Satanists in Iraq? Not the im gonna wear upside down crosses and dress in all black and wear black eyeliner and act like im dead type.  No these are some seriously evil fuckers that used to sacrifice humans and dump them in rivers.  Saddam was scared of them, because they were everywhere and no one would admit to who was who.  Al Qaida had a presence in Iraq for a long time, but again who's going to admit to that?  Those crazy fuckers are EVERYWHERE.  AQ has been pulling the strings of damn near every looney in the ME for several years.  AQ is not isolated to Afgan. I seriously wouldn't doubt for a minute Saddam was paying them money to help keep him in power all these years.  (Fear is the best way to motivate someone to act like a fucking sheep)

I think you need to do more research before you start acting like a jackass in forums you are out classed

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

Becuase we already pumped all the Oil out of Germany, France, Belgium, the Balkans, Italy, Sicily, North Africa, the Philippines, New Guinea, Japan, Korea, Vietnam and Grenada. Is that what you wanted to hear ? Have you read a newspaper or turned on a TV at all since 1993 ?

Whaaa? OMGz HAX!!

namsdrawkcaB wrote:

Alright..so the only reason to why bush kill many and tore a country apart was becuase of money?
If this is the only reason, then most of you see why i dislike Amercia much.

See that is the problem with many of you that do not live here. Because of the actions of our president you automatically say america sucks, i dislike america, blah blah blah. Well you people need to realize that it was Bush that made the decision to go to Iraq, the American people had virtually no say in whether we went or not. Congress says that, congress said no but bush being commander in chief said screw you congress we are going anyways! yes we voted him in, but do you really think that we knew he was going to start a war with iraq for almost not a legit reason? Yeh, we had no fucking clue. The only reason we voted him back in was because of kerry, he is messed up kerry is. The reason I think bush went back to iraq was because his daddy never finished it like he should have.

Fen321 wrote:

How was he the most dangerous candidate while PAKISTAN whom has nuclear weapons and openly funds terrorist organization doesn't even get a bit of a mention in our axis of evil? Should we not then stop Pakistan now for it seems for that to stand true we should at least follow through with those guiding principles and finish the job no?

Saddam's hatred for America would be stopped by the simply fact that we already occupied the country.

Pakistan (from what I understand, if I am wrong, I retract my comment) does not openly fund terrorists, they do however, harbor terrorists. and by harbor I mean the allow them in thier country on the simple fact that hey do not have the means to oust them from thier country.  Also, really who says we WONT invade pakistan if it ends up being necissary?

I agree with you the U.S. government is getting out of hand, but what I am trying to say is that we don't invade countries because it's a fucking hobby.

Fen321 wrote:

Saddam had NO TIES TO AL QAIDA.

The patriarchal style of rule through out the Middle East, which has been practiced for centuries now, leaves no room for opposition in the form of power outside of the hands of the dictator. So why would Saddam allow Al Qaida to function anywhere in its territory? Or for what reason would he fund them?

WMDS none... terrorist ties.....*ha* 9/11 bigger fucking *ha*.

And the bit about not launching weapons into Europe...i was responding to a comment where someone stated that they possed missiles capable of hitting Europe while N. Korea only has the tech to walk theirs around apparently...never mind the testing of missiles.

Saddam had no ties to Al Qaida? I have no proof that he did, but there is evidence saying that he did. Where is your proof he DIDNT?  I am going off our reasons to invade not the concrete proof of what he in fact did or did not have.   I fully acknowledge the fact that invading Iraq under those terms was foolish and a complete blunder.  But it wasn't JUST for us to claim some oil.

Also, when faced with a superior forgien power, why WOULDN'T he aid al qaida to strike at the U.S?

(EDIT:  Not saying that I believe the US Gov. about the terrorist ties fully, but isn't it plausible?)

And ok, I didn't see the post about Saddam having those missiles.  I disregarded it probably because No way would Saddam even have considered attacking Europe. You are right about that.

Last edited by RoosterCantrell (2007-06-17 11:23:00)

CannonFodder11b wrote:

Fen321 wrote:

RoosterCantrell wrote:

Please, please read what people have to say, rather than pick through thier posts and fixate on one aspect of what they said.   Saddam MAY HAVE had ties to Al Qaida.   Iraq + WMDs + Terrorist ties + Terrorist inentions (9/11?) = A big fucking problem.    NO of course Saddam wouldn't launch a strike against Europe. NO ONE SAID THAT.   

I cannot stand people like this.

Saddam had NO TIES TO AL QAIDA.

The patriarchal style of rule through out the Middle East, which has been practiced for centuries now, leaves no room for opposition in the form of power outside of the hands of the dictator. So why would Saddam allow Al Qaida to function anywhere in its territory? Or for what reason would he fund them?

WMDS none... terrorist ties.....*ha* 9/11 bigger fucking *ha*.

And the bit about not launching weapons into Europe...i was responding to a comment where someone stated that they possed missiles capable of hitting Europe while N. Korea only has the tech to walk theirs around apparently...never mind the testing of missiles.

Ummm Fen, Saddam let a lot happen in his country.  Did you know There is a large population of Satanists in Iraq? Not the im gonna wear upside down crosses and dress in all black and wear black eyeliner and act like im dead type.  No these are some seriously evil fuckers that used to sacrifice humans and dump them in rivers.  Saddam was scared of them, because they were everywhere and no one would admit to who was who.  Al Qaida had a presence in Iraq for a long time, but again who's going to admit to that?  Those crazy fuckers are EVERYWHERE.  AQ has been pulling the strings of damn near every looney in the ME for several years.  AQ is not isolated to Afgan. I seriously wouldn't doubt for a minute Saddam was paying them money to help keep him in power all these years.  (Fear is the best way to motivate someone to act like a fucking sheep)

I think you need to do more research before you start acting like a jackass in forums you are out classed

How about you start responding with evidence instead of calling me a jack ass.

Lets make a quick run through once more for you.

Satanist -- threat to America = zero

AQ ties to Iraq prior to 2003 = zero

Saddam paying AQ TO KEEP HIM IN power = the most bullshit allegation to date. If i could give you an award for this one honestly I would fly out to where you live and hand it to you personally because god damn you've taken the cake with that one. Now in all seriousness where do you get this information from?


I'll stop being a jackass when you can get something other than pure speculation and nonsense allegations that AQ was capable of running things behind the scenes in Iraq prior to 2003. More research doesn't hurt, i'll never deny that.


For those asking for proof of the none existence of something i seriously suggest to you look closer at what you are asking me to do.

Last edited by Fen321 (2007-06-17 13:14:33)

How about there was not one but TWO UN resolutions that gave the "Allied" forces the AUTHORITY to invade ?

@Turquoise: Still that doesn't change the fact that the US doesn't go around invading just ANY country at will. I seriously doubt that the US would have invaded WITHOUT the support/backing of the UN. Otherwise, what's to keep them from invading mexico to stop theflow of illegals, or invade columbia to win the war on drugs, or china to stop the "unfair competetive advantage of quasi subsidised workmanship", or france for opposing the majority of the US proposals in the UN security council. Or ANY other country that just happneed to get in the way.