Marine, america invaded iraq bc it was accused of having WMD's right? then US intelligence said "my bad" so..americas reason to invade iraq was to protect itself from WMD's, then it realized they fucked up on that. so it was a mistake!usmarine wrote:
if you ask the kurds, they would not agree with you. so, maybe the people who oppressed the kurds may agree with you. but i reckon they enjoy their shopping malls and prosperity up there.destruktion_6143 wrote:
well it WAS a mistake...so...u see my point there?
terrorists. Coalition. read the articles man, i put them there for a reason...usmarine wrote:
killed by who?destruktion_6143 wrote:
actually the current war in iraq has killed 655,000+ more people than if it didnt take place at all.
and you believe what politicians say when it suits your argument?destruktion_6143 wrote:
Marine, america invaded iraq bc it was accused of having WMD's right? then US intelligence said "my bad" so..americas reason to invade iraq was to protect itself from WMD's, then it realized they fucked up on that. so it was a mistake!
US intelligence, Russian intelligence, German intelligence, UK intelligence.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
No I see the other side of the coin. Its just a different perspective. I see the point being sacrificing one's own life in the spirit and Act of Fighting for Freedom will never be a mistake. Even if the policies and intelligence are wrong. It must be done or someone will take that freedom away. Iraq is a free country now, one that would not be it it were not for Men like this. A volunteer that is exercising his First Amendment Right. He's telling you how he is voting for.destruktion_6143 wrote:
his whole basis for the vid was that Obama called the Iraq war a mistake. well it WAS a mistake...so...u see my point there?(T)eflon(S)hadow wrote:
ummmm, were kinda talking about the video and this mans belief, regarding the US Presidential Campaign.destruktion_6143 wrote:
wasnt the war a mistake tho? America went in there on false intelligence... literally it was a mistake! thats not disrespecting the people in the service, i really dont see the connection this soldier (or the persons who wrote the speech) makes.
And no its not, in my belief, disrespecting if you do not believe in the war, directing it towards the troops. But rather the policies of the US Govt. Unless you are actually protesting the troops in any fashion.
I just like the video, so I posted it.
i dont need to read articles, i was there.destruktion_6143 wrote:
terrorists. Coalition. read the articles man, i put them there for a reason...
and the nerve you think it was just US intelligence. fucks sakes even iraqis gave bad intel. saddam was given bad intel. they told him he had wmd's ffs.
If they could just get their political reconciliation going everything would be peachy. .. well better.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
im not agreeing with anything here! FFS all im saying is that the primary reason to invade was on false info right? so them entering iraq was a mistake obviously! if the primary reason was to liberate the ppl, why didnt they go into NK where the people are much worse off? ANSWER: the primary reason to enter iraq was bc based on the "intelligence" it posed a threat to american interests. which was a MISTAKE in the intelligence reports.usmarine wrote:
and you believe what politicians say when it suits your argument?destruktion_6143 wrote:
Marine, america invaded iraq bc it was accused of having WMD's right? then US intelligence said "my bad" so..americas reason to invade iraq was to protect itself from WMD's, then it realized they fucked up on that. so it was a mistake!
jesus, u guys are accusing me here of being biased or something, just read what im typing and at least try to make an effort to b respectful. im not bashing u guys am i?
If you beleive that, hers one nice example of the sucessful outcome of the Operation Iraq Freedom. (From your source)destruktion_6143 wrote:
actually the current war in iraq has killed 655,000+ more people than if it didnt take place at all.usmarine wrote:
true. Typhoid is a bitch.destruktion_6143 wrote:
penicillin didn't cause 655,000 unnecessary civilian deaths in a span of 5 yrs.
Sources
More interesting is their claim that "Deaths are occurring in Iraq now at a rate more than three times that from before the invasion of March 2003". I.e. if the invasion had not have happened, we would have expected to see 220,000 deaths over the last 3 years under Saddam's regime, as compared to the Iraq Body Count's 50,000.
if it didnt pose a threat, why did we have a no fly zone? why was i there in 1998 on the border waiting to attack?destruktion_6143 wrote:
ANSWER: the primary reason to enter iraq was bc based on the "intelligence" it posed a threat to american interests. which was a MISTAKE in the intelligence reports.
I suppose the question is was it a mistake given the known evidence? .. That is of course assuming that you did not know the evidence was manufactured.destruktion_6143 wrote:
im not agreeing with anything here! FFS all im saying is that the primary reason to invade was on false info right? so them entering iraq was a mistake obviously! if the primary reason was to liberate the ppl, why didnt they go into NK where the people are much worse off? ANSWER: the primary reason to enter iraq was bc based on the "intelligence" it posed a threat to american interests. which was a MISTAKE in the intelligence reports.usmarine wrote:
and you believe what politicians say when it suits your argument?destruktion_6143 wrote:
Marine, america invaded iraq bc it was accused of having WMD's right? then US intelligence said "my bad" so..americas reason to invade iraq was to protect itself from WMD's, then it realized they fucked up on that. so it was a mistake!
jesus, u guys are accusing me here of being biased or something, just read what im typing and at least try to make an effort to b respectful. im not bashing u guys am i?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
wow u were at the scene of every innocent iraqi death? you arent being very open minded here marine, if u read the article, it says that bc of the war, an estimated 655,000 more iraqi civilians have died bc of violence than if the war never took place. Saddam was a disgusting excuse for a human, but at least when he was in power, the terrorists werent bombing his people. and yes i know he killed a lot of ppl, but not equivalent to 655000 in 5 yrs.usmarine wrote:
i dont need to read articles, i was there.destruktion_6143 wrote:
terrorists. Coalition. read the articles man, i put them there for a reason...
and the nerve you think it was just US intelligence. fucks sakes even iraqis gave bad intel. saddam was given bad intel. they told him he had wmd's ffs.
so I disrespect the service of anyone who has ever died for supporting Obama? Gimme a break
nope. but the ones where i was there it was committed by other arabs and muslims. explain that to me.destruktion_6143 wrote:
wow u were at the scene of every innocent iraqi death?
ok, thats fair enough i just hate trying to have an intelligent debate...never seems to wok. i just wanted to show the other point of view. but that seems to irritate some ppl.(T)eflon(S)hadow wrote:
I just like the video, so I posted it.
No come on Man, dont dumb this down like that. You know it ain't like that.God Save the Queen wrote:
so I disrespect the service of anyone who has ever died for supporting Obama? Gimme a break
umm, those ppl were assholes? fanatics are crazy mo-fos. but your idea of "debating" my points is very childinsh. yes u are older than me, im only 20 yrs old. but at least i make an effort to see both points of view. i NEVER said that the americans were responsible for the deaths did i? no, if u decided to read instead of seeing the words u wanted to see, you would realize this.usmarine wrote:
nope. but the ones where i was there it was committed by other arabs and muslims. explain that to me.destruktion_6143 wrote:
wow u were at the scene of every innocent iraqi death?
"an estimated 655,000 more iraqi civilians have died bc of violence than if the war never took place."
thanks for the estimationdestruktion_6143 wrote:
"an estimated 655,000 more iraqi civilians have died bc of violence than if the war never took place."
Im laughing at the retard who is still using the 655000 number, two years after the survey was already shown to be full of shit.
I guess people stopped dying in 2006.
fucking retard.
I guess people stopped dying in 2006.
fucking retard.
Last edited by God Save the Queen (2008-10-30 22:38:47)
Your whole argument relies on a random google search. Watch what one word can do.destruktion_6143 wrote:
umm, those ppl were assholes? fanatics are crazy mo-fos. but your idea of "debating" my points is very childinsh. yes u are older than me, im only 20 yrs old. but at least i make an effort to see both points of view. i NEVER said that the americans were responsible for the deaths did i? no, if u decided to read instead of seeing the words u wanted to see, you would realize this.usmarine wrote:
nope. but the ones where i was there it was committed by other arabs and muslims. explain that to me.destruktion_6143 wrote:
wow u were at the scene of every innocent iraqi death?
"an estimated 655,000 more iraqi civilians have died bc of violence than if the war never took place."
Xbone Stormsurgezz
source? and nice, u called me a retard. congrats.God Save the Queen wrote:
Im laughing at the retard who is still using the 655000 number, two years after the survey was already shown to be full of shit.
I guess people stopped dying in 2006.
fucking retard.
That "debunking" is just arguing that the deaths were not caused directly from Americans.Kmarion wrote:
Your whole argument relies on a random google search. Watch what one word can do.
Last edited by TheAussieReaper (2008-10-30 22:43:09)
all its coming up with is stories about the US killing all those ppl... the report said it was all sources of violence. but yes, one word did make a difference.Kmarion wrote:
Your whole argument relies on a random google search. Watch what one word can do.destruktion_6143 wrote:
umm, those ppl were assholes? fanatics are crazy mo-fos. but your idea of "debating" my points is very childinsh. yes u are older than me, im only 20 yrs old. but at least i make an effort to see both points of view. i NEVER said that the americans were responsible for the deaths did i? no, if u decided to read instead of seeing the words u wanted to see, you would realize this.usmarine wrote:
nope. but the ones where i was there it was committed by other arabs and muslims. explain that to me.
"an estimated 655,000 more iraqi civilians have died bc of violence than if the war never took place."
ive also determined that USmarine doesnt know how to debate lol
Last edited by destruktion_6143 (2008-10-30 22:43:46)
search the forums tarddestruktion_6143 wrote:
source? and nice, u called me a retard. congrats.God Save the Queen wrote:
Im laughing at the retard who is still using the 655000 number, two years after the survey was already shown to be full of shit.
I guess people stopped dying in 2006.
fucking retard.
No it's not. Example:TheAussieReaper wrote:
That "debunking" is just arguing that the deaths were not caused directly from Americans.Kmarion wrote:
Your whole argument relies on a random google search. Watch what one word can do.
You miss my point though.The man responsible for compiling some of the Lancet study is the very same propagandist employed by Sadam Hussein to claim that U.N. was killing innocent Iraqi children when sanctions were imposed after the 1990 liberation of Kuwait.
Xbone Stormsurgezz