LOL too bad the Irish aren't invading the middle east.Bunn-Gee wrote:
When they come to cut off your head don't come crying to us.....deal?
LOL. What an intelligent chap. You'd better hurry - Bush FM is broadcasting your favourite radio program. It clashes with the Bushfomercial that's on Bush TV right now though.Bunn-Gee wrote:
When they come to cut off your head don't come crying to us.....deal?
Enjoyed that huh? Did you ever serve in the military?Ikarti wrote:
I saw this one cartoon once I really enjoyed. It said "75% of troops believe they're in Iraq because Saddam did 9/11. This leads me to believe that 75% of troops are complete idiots/"
LOL. It's a shame for Americans. I have come across a lot of American backpackers that have had to pretend to be Canadian to avoid getting hassled or lambasted abroad. WHose fault is that? The Bush administration. And idiots like Bunn-Gee.Ikarti wrote:
LOL too bad the Irish aren't invading the middle east.Bunn-Gee wrote:
When they come to cut off your head don't come crying to us.....deal?
And it matters to Ireland why?CameronPoe wrote:
LOL. What an intelligent chap. You'd better hurry - Bush FM is broadcasting your favourite radio program. It clashes with the Bushfomercial that's on Bush TV right now though.Bunn-Gee wrote:
When they come to cut off your head don't come crying to us.....deal?
yeah it was never said that he was connected to al-Quaeda,Phantom2828 wrote:
Cameron I pitty you bush even came out and said that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 please cut the shit, we went for other reasons the main one was that we got inteligence from all these diffent countrys including russia britan and the U.N that saddam had wmds, we also went to liberate the people, now I know you are going to say "thats not a valid exuse for military action!" well I find this funny because liberals like yourself justified millitary action soley on humanitarian grounds.CameronPoe wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5328592.stm
"Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qaeda to provide material or operational support" - US Senate Report
Whaddaya know? The blatantly obvious to any reasonable logical thinker has been officially stated by the US Senate! Please do not use this lame excuse for war in Iraq AGAIN. /transmission over
Are you ok cameron? You seem a bit testy today
Hence the word "suggest." And for god's sake... remove that Irish ballsack from your chin.Ikarti wrote:
He can post what he wants and it's there unless a moderator doesn't like it, and you don't look like a moderator to me.
Why does it matter to you what I think? Why does anything matter to anyone? Why does your mother matter to you? Why do you express pity (I don't know maybe you don't) when a US serviceman you never met dies? Your question is relatively pointless. I protest what I see as injustice and what I believe to be imperialism. That's all. USA is not the only country I criticise. I am critical of France, the UK, Israel, my own government, Russia, various nations. We live in a GLOBAL COMMUNITY now usmarine - learn to deal with it.usmarine2005 wrote:
And it matters to Ireland why?CameronPoe wrote:
LOL. What an intelligent chap. You'd better hurry - Bush FM is broadcasting your favourite radio program. It clashes with the Bushfomercial that's on Bush TV right now though.Bunn-Gee wrote:
When they come to cut off your head don't come crying to us.....deal?
You seem to be missing my point. It is not your tax money, it is not your sons, husbands, or daughters fighting in these wars. I just want to know why you would care so much to argue about it?CameronPoe wrote:
Why does it matter to you what I think? Why does anything matter to anyone? Why does your mother matter to you? Why do you express pity (I don't know maybe you don't) when a US serviceman you never met dies? Your question is relatively pointless. I protest what I see as injustice and what I believe to be imperialism. That's all. USA is not the only country I criticise. I am critical of France, the UK, Israel, my own government, Russia, various nations. We live in a GLOBAL COMMUNITY now usmarine - learn to deal with it.usmarine2005 wrote:
And it matters to Ireland why?CameronPoe wrote:
LOL. What an intelligent chap. You'd better hurry - Bush FM is broadcasting your favourite radio program. It clashes with the Bushfomercial that's on Bush TV right now though.
Gotta tough day of Gaelic Football ahead of me tomorrow (7s competition) and in preparation I'm staying in tonight, a Friday night, when I could be getting buckled and chasing young fillies around. Just feel like venting a little.kr@cker wrote:
yeah it was never said that he was connected to al-Quaeda,Phantom2828 wrote:
Cameron I pitty you bush even came out and said that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 please cut the shit, we went for other reasons the main one was that we got inteligence from all these diffent countrys including russia britan and the U.N that saddam had wmds, we also went to liberate the people, now I know you are going to say "thats not a valid exuse for military action!" well I find this funny because liberals like yourself justified millitary action soley on humanitarian grounds.CameronPoe wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5328592.stm
"Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qaeda to provide material or operational support" - US Senate Report
Whaddaya know? The blatantly obvious to any reasonable logical thinker has been officially stated by the US Senate! Please do not use this lame excuse for war in Iraq AGAIN. /transmission over
Are you ok cameron? You seem a bit testy today
Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-09-08 14:10:09)
No shit.. and it's obvious why...Ikarti wrote:
LOL too bad the Irish aren't invading the middle east.
masturbation is your friend, well, so long as you're not catholic, every sperm is sacred after allCameronPoe wrote:
Gotta tough day of Gaelic Football ahead of me tomorrow (7s competition) and in preparation I'm staying in tonight, a Friday night, when I could be getting buckled and chasing young fillies around. Just feel like venting a little.kr@cker wrote:
yeah it was never said that he was connected to al-Quaeda,Phantom2828 wrote:
Cameron I pitty you bush even came out and said that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 please cut the shit, we went for other reasons the main one was that we got inteligence from all these diffent countrys including russia britan and the U.N that saddam had wmds, we also went to liberate the people, now I know you are going to say "thats not a valid exuse for military action!" well I find this funny because liberals like yourself justified millitary action soley on humanitarian grounds.
Are you ok cameron? You seem a bit testy today
People who have a history of being oppressed empathise with those that are suffering oppression. You wouldn't understand as you were born into a country that has naturally been in pole position, usually doing the oppressing/exploiting (that's not to say that the US hasn't also done a lot of good things). I've seen the US exert its political and military influence from Latin America to the Middle East and I just don't like it. It smells to me of imperialism which I am deeply opposed to, given that my country, culture and language suffered at the hands of imperialists for 800 years (and counting if we are to speak of the occupied six counties). Basically me and you are chalk and cheese. That's just the way it is. Something that influenced me greatly also was seeing the plight of the Palestinians first hand at the hands of the terrorist state of Israel. It opened my eyes. I wasn't under any illusions that TV is all propaganda but this really hammered the fact home to me and it annoyed me.usmarine2005 wrote:
You seem to be missing my point. It is not your tax money, it is not your sons, husbands, or daughters fighting in these wars. I just want to know why you would care so much to argue about it?
And Saddam didn't oppress people? Which kind of oppression are you for?
Dude, do you EVER read or watch the news? Maybe the 2003 state of the union address? It's printed on the whitehouse.gov site if you want to see where Bush is directly citing Saddam and Al Quaeda. Cheney was still using that completely made-up BS as recently as last month..probably still will.DBBrinson1 wrote:
I don't think Bush ever used an Al Qaeda - Saddam link as a reason for war. After the war, Al Qaeda and the Taliban went to Iraq.
And as for the "insurgents" in Iraq, you'd be hard up to find proof that Al Quaeda and Taliban have moved to fight in Iraq. Taliban are sticking with Afghanistan, and they're starting to hand our asses to us (American soldiers winning the fights but losing the battle as usual), and the majority of non-iraqi fighters in Iraq fighting Americans are very, very few according to the Pentagon and some in field generals who are actually there. Most of the warfare in Iraq against Americans are from Iraqis defending themselves. If I were there, I'd be blowing up Americans too. We have no business there whatsoever, and we definately don't have business kidnapping people from their homes, incarcerating and abusing them....if you were driving down your street in your town and some foreign soldiers in a jeep drove by and lit up your car with .50 cal gunfire and killed your wife and drove on without looking back at your car to count the dead, tell me you would not hunt and kill those soldiers. Exactly. This is why i don't call the people our soldiers fight "insurgents" or "terrorists." Our soldiers are on sovereign territory without an invitation. They are the terrorists and insurgents. I don't blame our soldiers since it is not their choice, for that, I place the accountability of EVERY single life all on Bush's shoulders. He is the butcher of baghdad. He is taking his place along side terrorists like Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Saddam, and many African tribal warlords slaughtering thousands of people. Bush has killed tens of thousands of more people in 3 years than Saddam has done in his entire career.
jesus your not like the footballers up here then other wise you'd be out taking a feed of drink and e's baaaayCameronPoe wrote:
Gotta tough day of Gaelic Football ahead of me tomorrow (7s competition) and in preparation I'm staying in tonight, a Friday night, when I could be getting buckled and chasing young fillies around. Just feel like venting a little.kr@cker wrote:
yeah it was never said that he was connected to al-Quaeda,Phantom2828 wrote:
Cameron I pitty you bush even came out and said that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 please cut the shit, we went for other reasons the main one was that we got inteligence from all these diffent countrys including russia britan and the U.N that saddam had wmds, we also went to liberate the people, now I know you are going to say "thats not a valid exuse for military action!" well I find this funny because liberals like yourself justified millitary action soley on humanitarian grounds.
Are you ok cameron? You seem a bit testy today
Saddam, an Iraqi, was murdering and abusing on his own turf. Each nation must take it upon themselves to liberate themselves, not wait about for some supposedly benevolent FOREIGN overseer. The debacle we see in Iraq today is the result of attempting to 'bring peace and freedom' to an Iraq that was not ready for such responsibilities. I'm for self-determination and winning your freedom and making a country of your own choosing. That is obviously at right angles to your viewpoint.usmarine2005 wrote:
And Saddam didn't oppress people? Which kind of oppression are you for?
Dude, we're "Spreading Freedom" not "bringing peace and freedom."
hang on i'll just go and stick me head out the window and see if we're being oppressed tonightCameronPoe wrote:
People who have a history of being oppressed empathise with those that are suffering oppression. You wouldn't understand as you were born into a country that has naturally been in pole position, usually doing the oppressing/exploiting (that's not to say that the US hasn't also done a lot of good things). I've seen the US exert its political and military influence from Latin America to the Middle East and I just don't like it. It smells to me of imperialism which I am deeply opposed to, given that my country, culture and language suffered at the hands of imperialists for 800 years (and counting if we are to speak of the occupied six counties). Basically me and you are chalk and cheese. That's just the way it is. Something that influenced me greatly also was seeing the plight of the Palestinians first hand at the hands of the terrorist state of Israel. It opened my eyes. I wasn't under any illusions that TV is all propaganda but this really hammered the fact home to me and it annoyed me.usmarine2005 wrote:
You seem to be missing my point. It is not your tax money, it is not your sons, husbands, or daughters fighting in these wars. I just want to know why you would care so much to argue about it?
You have to understand that Bush is one of the worst oraters we've had as president. Whatever he has said to the media since the war was ever brought up is not the reasons for war in Iraq.
The reasons or war are outlined in HJ Res 114
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;
Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;
Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;
Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);
Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';
Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';
Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;
Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and
Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it
The reasons or war are outlined in HJ Res 114
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;
Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;
Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;
Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);
Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';
Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';
Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;
Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and
Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it
At this point in time, our government has addressed and denied all previously stated reasons for entering Iraq.
Yet, now that we are there, we must "stay the course" and "liberate the Iraqis".
Yet, now that we are there, we must "stay the course" and "liberate the Iraqis".
Last edited by jonsimon (2006-09-08 14:26:40)
So if your Wife / Mom were in Iraq a few years ago, and got caught outside without covering their face. Then they got thrown in jail and rape rooms without a trial, you would just say "Hey, it is thier country, do what you want."CameronPoe wrote:
Saddam, an Iraqi, was murdering and abusing on his own turf. Each nation must take it upon themselves to liberate themselves, not wait about for some supposedly benevolent FOREIGN overseer. The debacle we see in Iraq today is the result of attempting to 'bring peace and freedom' to an Iraq that was not ready for such responsibilities. I'm for self-determination and winning your freedom and making a country of your own choosing. That is obviously at right angles to your viewpoint.usmarine2005 wrote:
And Saddam didn't oppress people? Which kind of oppression are you for?
Ireland couldnt have had it's freedom without American influence or American money. So why is that a bad thing for Iraq? Ireland is doing fantastically well now with American companies leading the way and spending many dollars on the infrastructure there. Cant they employ that in Iraq?
Hey, US soldiers are doing a pretty good job at rape as it is.usmarine2005 wrote:
So if your Wife / Mom were in Iraq a few years ago, and got caught outside without covering their face. Then they got thrown in jail and rape rooms without a trial, you would just say "Hey, it is thier country, do what you want."CameronPoe wrote:
Saddam, an Iraqi, was murdering and abusing on his own turf. Each nation must take it upon themselves to liberate themselves, not wait about for some supposedly benevolent FOREIGN overseer. The debacle we see in Iraq today is the result of attempting to 'bring peace and freedom' to an Iraq that was not ready for such responsibilities. I'm for self-determination and winning your freedom and making a country of your own choosing. That is obviously at right angles to your viewpoint.usmarine2005 wrote:
And Saddam didn't oppress people? Which kind of oppression are you for?