Saddam's Sons Confirmed Dead

[Bond]

MOSUL, Iraq — Saddam Hussein's sons Odai and Qusai were killed Tuesday when U.S. soldiers stormed a house in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul, U.S. military officials said Tuesday.

Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez of U.S. Central Command announced late Tuesday night in Baghdad that Odai and Qusai were two of the four people who died in a firefight between U.S. troops and Iraqis at the house earlier in the day.

"This will prove to the Iraqi people that at least these two members of the regime will not be coming back to power," Sanchez said from Baghdad. "We remain totally committed to the same regime never coming back to power and tormenting the Iraqi people."

Sources at the Pentagon and within the Bush administration earlier told Fox News that at least four "high-level" targets were killed inside the large villa that belonged to one of Saddam's cousins. A senior administration official said the U.S. was "90 to 95 percent certain" that Saddam's sons were among the dead.

Source: FoxNews (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,92591,00.html) (What? You think I would use CNN? Ha!)

:banana:

[GameMaster]

It isn't offcial yet, they're still investigating and identifying the bodies. They think its Saddam's sons.

Edit: Nope, you're right, I guess it is official now.

[Vampyr]

Thats good news, but it seems as though it was all in vain. We set the peoples of Iraq free, which is better than our primary goal, but the fact is, the reason Bush said we were going over there in the first place is a lie. Hes facing impeachment becuase he lied about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction.

But still, were accomplishing something better anyway.

[Happydude]

HAH! those bastards deserve it!

that'll teach them to kill inocent people...

[CrOnO_LiNk]

Thats good news, but it seems as though it was all in vain. We set the peoples of Iraq free, which is better than our primary goal, but the fact is, the reason Bush said we were going over there in the first place is a lie. Hes facing impeachment becuase he lied about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction.

But still, were accomplishing something better anyway.

Saddam is probably going nuts right now. But yeah, I don't like the fact of people dying, but this is some good news...

[Bond]

Thats good news, but it seems as though it was all in vain. We set the peoples of Iraq free, which is better than our primary goal, but the fact is, the reason Bush said we were going over there in the first place is a lie. Hes facing impeachment becuase he lied about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction.
He is not facing impeachment, that is ludicrous.

I would argue with you about the reasons why we went to war, but it's not worth it.

[DeathsHand]

He is not facing impeachment, that is ludicrous.

I would argue with you about the reasons why we went to war, but it's not worth it.

Arguing about political stuff is stupid (especially with teenagers) because there are basically 3 groups:

a. People who have their heads shoved way up the governments' ass
b. People who don't really care
c. People who try to take every government mistake and blow it out of proportion and bishidy bash it...

I, personally, enjoy bananas...

[GameMaster]

I, personally, enjoy bananas...

Is your spoon too big also?

[Dylflon]

HAH! those bastards deserve it!

that'll teach them to kill inocent people...


American soldiers have also killed innocent people. Their hands aren't any cleaner. But America did a great thing by freeing the Iraqis.

[DeathsHand]

Is your spoon too big also?

MY SPOON IS TOO BIG!

I AM A BANANA!

ugh, gag me with a spoon

...

I mean umm... go US... kill those Iraqis...

[Happydude]

MY SPOON IS TOO BIG!

I AM A BANANA!

ugh, gag me with a spoon

...

I mean umm... go US... kill those Iraqis...
damn rejects :p

[gekko]

He is not facing impeachment, that is ludicrous.

I would argue with you about the reasons why we went to war, but it's not worth it.

I would also, but again, it's not worth it.

However, if you care to educate yourself, you can always ask.

[BreakABone]

Arguing about political stuff is stupid (especially with teenagers) because there are basically 3 groups:

a. People who have their heads shoved way up the governments' ass
b. People who don't really care
c. People who try to take every government mistake and blow it out of proportion and bishidy bash it...

I, personally, enjoy bananas...


And we have a winner!

That pretty much sums up most political debates even beyond teens, but shush. :)

[Stonecutter]

If you supported the war in the first place, but now don't because of the WMD thing, you're a moron. If it's only now that you realize that some of the stuff they were telling you just might not be completly true then you can't be helped. The government lies, deal with it.

This war was, and always has been about oil (Bush,) and displaying the might of the US military (Rumdsfeld.) Yeah, we really liberated the crap out of those poor bastards. I'm sure once Haliburton (oh yeah, that's Chaney) takes most of the government's money and pockets it the Iraqi people will be much better off.

But hey! At least gas is only $1.85 a gallon!

[Vampyr]

He is not facing impeachment, that is ludicrous.

Last time I watched the news, which was like 2 nights ago, he was. Its not like they're going to impeach him tomorrow, but hes on grounds for impeachment. He said we were going over there to get rid of weapons of mass destruction. He ruined our aliance with France and most of the UN. And now the weapons are no where to be found. Tony Blair is in a bind right now because of the same thing.

If you supported the war in the first place, but now don't because of the WMD thing, you're a moron. If it's only now that you realize that some of the stuff they were telling you just might not be completly true then you can't be helped. The government lies, deal with it.

This war was, and always has been about oil (Bush,) and displaying the might of the US military (Rumdsfeld.) Yeah, we really liberated the crap out of those poor bastards. I'm sure once Haliburton (oh yeah, that's Chaney) takes most of the government's money and pockets it the Iraqi people will be much better off.

I didnt support the war in the first place. I thought that the weapons of mass destruction thing was bull since the beginning. I mean, it was ridiculus! I was watching CNN, and the Bush administration said that if the UN weapons inspecters found weapons, they would attack and dissarm Saddam. Then they said that if they DIDNT find weapons of mass desruction, they would use that as proof that he was hiding them! So either way, we were going war, and that news report was enough to convince me that Bush had no idea if Saddam had weapons or not.

I think Bush would have gotten more support if he said the reason he was going over was to finish a job started years ago and to free the people of Iraq. His reasons could be that it was the humane thing to do and that it would prevent the spread of communism/dictatorships/tyranny.

But its the American's job in this world I guess, sticking our nose into places it doesnt belong. Look at Vietnam. We're trying to be the international police force, and its not working.

Oh well. :shakehead

[gekko]

Last time I watched the news, which was like 2 nights ago, he was. Its not like they're going to impeach him tomorrow, but hes on grounds for impeachment. He said we were going over there to get rid of weapons of mass destruction. He ruined our aliance with France and most of the UN. And now the weapons are no where to be found. Tony Blair is in a bind right now because of the same thing.

He never was facing impeachment, never will be. You need to listen clearer to what it being said. Besides, you can't impeach Bush, because you can't link him to a crime. Presidents are always scape goats, but the truth is they only give the OK. Along the way his advisors will look at the intelligence, make decisions on the best course of action, and then brief the President. The President says OK, and it's done. Plus, everything the President said was written by someone else, and evaluated numerous times before the President even sees it, so it there was anything questionable that was being said, it would've been taken out. Speeches are checked much more closely in matters of national security.

Now if you believe in all that, there are no WMD, you are a moron.

I didnt support the war in the first place. I thought that the weapons of mass destruction thing was bull since the beginning.

Which is a clear sign that it is a partisan issue for you, and you wouldn't support Bush no matter what the reason.

I think Bush would have gotten more support if he said the reason he was going over was to finish a job started years ago and to free the people of Iraq. His reasons could be that it was the humane thing to do and that it would prevent the spread of communism/dictatorships/tyranny.

Iraq is not communist. And Bush did say that, people didn't care. Many who support the war find it a good enough reason, then again, many who opposed the war had, and still have no idea what Saddam was actually doing. But we live in a selfish world, ending a oppressive regime is not a reason to go to war, because it doesn't affect Americans. For the same reason that until a bomb lands on your head, you could care less about WMD.

But its the American's job in this world I guess, sticking our nose into places it doesnt belong. Look at Vietnam. We're trying to be the international police force, and its not working.Who says we don't belong? People will support and oppose anything we do, so we might as well do the right thing. And in so many ways, Vietnam was successful.

[Vampyr]

He never was facing impeachment, never will be. You need to listen clearer to what it being said. Besides, you can't impeach Bush, because you can't link him to a crime. Presidents are always scape goats, but the truth is they only give the OK. Along the way his advisors will look at the intelligence, make decisions on the best course of action, and then brief the President. The President says OK, and it's done. Plus, everything the President said was written by someone else, and evaluated numerous times before the President even sees it, so it there was anything questionable that was being said, it would've been taken out. Speeches are checked much more closely in matters of national security.

I watched in on CNN, they said he was, Im not the original stater of the fact that he was on, once again, grounds of impeachment. I was just stating what I heard on the news. Tell them about the speeches and national security. And the way your putting it, the president is just the vessel of the words for the words of the people behind the scenes.

Which is a clear sign that it is a partisan issue for you, and you wouldn't support Bush no matter what the reason.

Incorrect. The reason I thought it was bull was because of his reasons for thinking they had the weapons. I didnt disagree with him just because hes a republican or whatever, I just didnt think we should go attack some country when we havent seen a scrap of evidence that they have them. On the contrary, the UN weapon inspectors couldnt find anything, and they still cant.

Who says we don't belong? People will support and oppose anything we do, so we might as well do the right thing. And in so many ways, Vietnam was successful.

Your right, anything anyone does will have mixed opinions.

Vietnam was successful!? Thats the first time Ive heard that. Go to Washington DC, and stand in front of that wall, you know, the one with the names on it. The LONG list of names. And say that again, real loud, so people can hear you.

[gekko]

I watched in on CNN, they said he was, Im not the original stater of the fact that he was on, once again, grounds of impeachment. I was just stating what I heard on the news. Tell them about the speeches and national security. And the way your putting it, the president is just the vessel of the words for the words of the people behind the scenes.

I've read the articles that were written. Bush is not facing impeachment, and no one is currently trying to get him impeached. ATD.

Incorrect. The reason I thought it was bull was because of his reasons for thinking they had the weapons. I didnt disagree with him just because hes a republican or whatever, I just didnt think we should go attack some country when we havent seen a scrap of evidence that they have them. On the contrary, the UN weapon inspectors couldnt find anything, and they still cant.

You said you thought it was bull since the beginning, which means you didn't give him a chance. And next time pay more attention, the main arguments were over whether these weapons were a threat to America, not whether they had them. You would have to be blind to the obvious to believe that there are no WMD.

Vietnam was successful!? Thats the first time Ive heard that. Go to Washington DC, and stand in front of that wall, you know, the one with the names on it. The LONG list of names. And say that again, real loud, so people can hear you.

If that's the case, why not go look at the list of WWII casualties, or Revolutionary War casualties. Oh, and I hate to kill your point, but people would generally be happier to hear someone say that the something was accomplished by the death of the soldiers than to say their death was worthless.

And yes, look at the reasons we went into Vietnam, and look at the end result. Wasn't pretty, but Vietnam did stop the spread of communism.

[Vampyr]

You said you thought it was bull since the beginning, which means you didn't give him a chance. And next time pay more attention, the main arguments were over whether these weapons were a threat to America, not whether they had them. You would have to be blind to the obvious to believe that there are no WMD.

Well, since the beginning, he hasnt had evidence. Thus there in lies why I didnt trust it since the beginning.

If that's the case, why not go look at the list of WWII casualties, or Revolutionary War casualties. Oh, and I hate to kill your point, but people would generally be happier to hear someone say that the something was accomplished by the death of the soldiers than to say their death was worthless.

Well, we won WWII and the Revolutionary War, so they didnt die in vain. Er, and hate to burst your bubble, but we lost Vietnam. We didnt stop communism from spreading. Hence the fact that the other side won, so they got what they wanted...

The soldiers deaths weren't in complete vain, fighting for your country is one of the most noble ways to go out. But, in the end, we did lose.

[Bond]

I'm not going to waste my time digging up all of the evidence for you. It's obvious you, yourself, have never researched the evidence and went through the reports. It's too bad you just listen to what CNN tells you rather than finding things out for yourself.

If you would like to read the British Dossier may learn something: www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/iraqdossier.pdf

[gekko]

Well, since the beginning, he hasnt had evidence. Thus there in lies why I didnt trust it since the beginning.

He always had evidence. Just because no one shows you, doesn't mean it's not there. Showing evidence doesn't help our cause. "Hey look guys, here they are at a chemical facility that we haven't inspected yet." Wait, I got an idea! Why not move them before inspectors return? :rolleyes:

Well, we won WWII and the Revolutionary War, so they didnt die in vain. Er, and hate to burst your bubble, but we lost Vietnam. We didnt stop communism from spreading. Hence the fact that the other side won, so they got what they wanted...

We lost Vietnam? Please, explain to me how we lost Vietnam.

We kicked their ass, bad. We won all the battles, and I don't think there's been a war where we have ever done better. So from a military standpoint, we sure as hell didn't lose.

We went in to stop the spread of communism, you know, the old domino effect. That sure worked. Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand all stayed free of communism due to Vietnam. Indonesia kicked the Soviets out in 1966 because of Vietnam. Vietnam not only stopped the spread of communism, but started the fall of communism.

South Vietnam lost the war, they never got their independence. The US accomplished what they went in there to do.

[Vampyr]

If you would like to read the British Dossier may learn something: http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cach...tart=1&ie=UTF-8[/url]

Im assuming that was for me, but the link is broken. The only thing I learned from that was suggestions for looking stuff up on google.

By the way, Gekko, Im not trying to argue with you, Im just debating. I find debates quite fun. :)

[Bond]

Yes, I couldn't get it to link to the HTML version, so you can now view the PDF version and learn something.

[gekko]

Im assuming that was for me, but the link is broken. The only thing I learned from that was suggestions for looking stuff up on google.

By the way, Gekko, Im not trying to argue with you, Im just debating. I find debates quite fun. :)

Works for me. http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/iraqdossier.pdf

And finding debates fun is not necessarily a good thing. To debate means you have formed an opinion are are prepared to defend it. At 16, I see no reason why you need to form opinions on politics. In all honesty you would be better off absorbing information, and asking questions to help understand instead of arguing. Then over the next few years you'll learn something, but get really pissed off when you have to argue a 14 year old on a gaming forum about politics. Just my advice.

[The Duggler]

Posted by gekko :
Now if you believe in all that, there are no WMD, you are a moron. So now we are morons if we don't think that there are WMDs? Well show them to me and I'll believe you, but until then, don't call me a moron.

Iraq is not communist. And Bush did say that, people didn't care. Many who support the war find it a good enough reason, then again, many who opposed the war had, and still have no idea what Saddam was actually doing. But we live in a selfish world, ending a oppressive regime is not a reason to go to war, because it doesn't affect Americans. For the same reason that until a bomb lands on your head, you could care less about WMD.Look, your 2 reasons why the US invaded Iraq was 1-the WMD and 2-To free the population. Well, we all know what happened with number 1 and I would have to say that #2 is pretty much stupid because of the fact that there is a lot of places worse than Iraq and if it was the case then Iraq should be part 1 of a world wide crusade to "free" all those who suffer. I say that you have one hell of a job to do. Also, don't you find it odd that it's still chaos out there, that the main services have not yet been restored, but there is already oil shippement coming from Iraq?

[gekko]

He's back! *hears no clapping*

Well show them to me and I'll believe you, but until then, don't call me a moron.

There's a long list of reasons to call you a moron. But you're a special case. Where's your buddy these days? Wonder if he got hit by a bomb :D http://www.gametavern.net/forums/images/icons/icon14.gif

Look, your 2 reasons why the US invaded Iraq was 1-the WMD and 2-To free the population.

My two reasons? I got more than two reasons.

Well, we all know what happened with number 1

We effectively stopped the production of WMD by the Iraqi regime, and prevented the death of many.

I would have to say that #2 is pretty much stupid because of the fact that there is a lot of places worse than Iraq

Where did you hear that, the news? I mean, by all means try to pretend you actually care, but you don't. You are against helping out Iraqis, and you make no effort to help the people of these "worse places." You could care less about all of them, so why make the effort to pretend like you care? Iraq is of strategic importance, I can't believe you still haven't figured that out.

Also, don't you find it odd that it's still chaos out there,

No. Afghanistan was the same way, or did you not pay attention?

that the main services have not yet been restored,

Not a surprise, except to people who think you can rebuild a country in a day.

but there is already oil shippement coming from Iraq?

And no. It's the largest source of income the country has, and the country needs money to be rebuilt.

[The Duggler]

Posted by gekko:He's back! *hears no clapping*

There's a long list of reasons to call you a moron. But you're a special case. Where's your buddy these days? Wonder if he got hit by a bomb :D http://www.gametavern.net/forums/images/icons/icon14.gif :wtf: huu.. Ok?

My two reasons? I got more than two reasons. And what are those?

We effectively stopped the production of WMD by the Iraqi regime, and prevented the death of many. Oh ok, so now it's the "production" of WMD that needed to be stopped :rolleyes:

Where did you hear that, the news? Why? You didn't lnow that? I mean, by all means try to pretend you actually care, but you don't. You're right! I don't give a ****. But are you telling me that you actually care for those people? Come on tell me the truth. You are against helping out Iraqis, and you make no effort to help the people of these "worse places." You could care less about all of them, so why make the effort to pretend like you care?WTF? I'm not superman, so let them die. Let them sort out their **** by themselves. It's not like we are doing much of a difference anyways. And what's that **** about me pretending to care. I'm not saying that you're doing nothing to help other miserable countries because I care for them, I'm saying that to show you that your argument about saving Iraqis is ****. Iraq is of strategic importance, I can't believe you still haven't figured that out.Strategic importance for what? Showing to other "non-behaving" countries to calm down? The only strategic importance I know about Iraq, is in the oil market.

No. Afghanistan was the same way, or did you not pay attention? Then why do it? Oh yhea, they're a threat :rolleyes:

Not a surprise, except to people who think you can rebuild a country in a day.But the oil is sure flowing easily

And no. It's the largest source of income the country has, and the country needs money to be rebuilt. Yhea, the country get IT'S part of the oil (being extracted by US companies) money and that part is given to some other US companies to rebuilt what you guys destroy. Amazing.

[gekko]

:wtf: huu.. Ok?

Almasurah, duh!

And what are those?

I'm not going to make a list.

Oh ok, so now it's the "production" of WMD that needed to be stopped :rolleyes:

It's actually the destruction that needs to be started, but stopping production is a good place to start.

Why? You didn't lnow that?

Because you don't seem to comprehend anything on your own, only regurgitate what someone else said. You can't say "We shouldn't have attacked Iraq because there are worse places" unless you actually know about those places. Unless you've actually done the research, don't bother trying to state a point. I don't want to hear what you heard some guy on CNN say.

You're right! I don't give a ****. But are you telling me that you actually care for those people? Come on tell me the truth.

Personally? No. But do I were in their shoes, I would hope someone would do the same for me. I don't know these people, but I do think the US is doing the right thing by fighting for people who can't fight for themselves. We have two choices, sit back and watch thousands of people getting killed, or do something about it. I say we should do something.

WTF? I'm not superman, so let them die. Let them sort out their **** by themselves. It's not like we are doing much of a difference anyways. And what's that **** about me pretending to care. I'm not saying that you're doing nothing to help other miserable countries because I care for them, I'm saying that to show you that your argument about saving Iraqis is ****.

You made an argument that the US shouldn't go into Iraq because there are worse places. But in all reality, you don't care. In other words, you just hate America. But don't worry, America hates you.

Strategic importance for what? Showing to other "non-behaving" countries to calm down? The only strategic importance I know about Iraq, is in the oil market.

Strategic importance to everything. By taking away the biggest threat to Middle Eastern countries, you allow room for change. Iraq is also the best place to setup a democracy, since they are the most educated out of the Middle East. They also have tons of oil, which in turn means money to allow them to develop as a country. Then you set an example, and it begins to rub off onto other Middle Eastern countries. There will likely be a revolt in Iran, the Israel/Palestine conflict is moving forward better than anyone could've imagined, and North Korea has all but shut up. If there is one place in the Middle East that has the best chance of being a successful democracy, it's Iraq.


Then why do it? Oh yhea, they're a threat :rolleyes:

Wow, you got lost. My reply had nothing to do with doing anything.

But the oil is sure flowing easily

Because it wasn't destroyed in the process. It also provides a lot of jobs.

Yhea, the country get IT'S part of the oil (being extracted by US companies) money and that part is given to some other US companies to rebuilt what you guys destroy. Amazing.

You're catching on. It does come full circle, it's supposed to. American tax payers do not want to pay for the rebuilding of Iraq, therefore, Iraq will pay to rebuild itself. US companies have always been getting oil from the Middle East, they do not have the technology to do it themselves. US construction companies are also some of the best in the world, and ones that our government have contracts with, and know what they are capable of. Any surprise they would choose them? No. The US isn't getting rich off of Iraqi oil, the only money from Iraq is going to the reconstruction of their own country, something they need, and for the oil companies to develop the oil fieds, something that oil companies have always done.

[Rndm_Perfection]

:rofl: It's Ranzid and Gekko at it again.

Ooooh the humility.... Ooooh the futility!

[gekko]

It's not completely futile. One day he might catch on.

I'm educating the less fortunate, helping out society.

[Stonecutter]

And yes, look at the reasons we went into Vietnam, and look at the end result. Wasn't pretty, but Vietnam did stop the spread of communism.

*CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP* And the world is a much better place because we got rid of that "evil" communism. I'm not going to try and suggest that communism or socialism is a better option because they're not. They don't work, but none of those countries are any better off because of capitalism, and life in the united states would not be any different if communism were still around... well maybe we'd have McCarthyites running around arresting people for thinking differently.... oh wait, we do have guys like that, they work for Johnny Ashcroft.

And communism fell because Russia ran out of money. Had we not spent so much money building up a useless military force (useless unless you consider Armageddon a legitimate function) to fight the evil "reds" communism would still be around. There was no reason to fight it in the first place. Because the wealthy felt so threatened by the thought of a revolution in the united states they made sure that everyone saw the russians as evil, godless people. We built the largest military force in the world and russia had to try and match it, but because communism doesn't work, they couldn't, and collapsed.

Yes, other countries, for fear of constant B52 flyovers raining fire on their humble villages, desided not to attempt communist revolution. I'm not sure why that's something to be proud of but, ok, I guess.

[Vampyr]

ROFL

At least its Ranzid and not me. Im just going to set by and watch.

:handball:

Oh, and by the way, I agree with Stonecutter.

[Rndm_Perfection]

It's not completely futile. One day he might catch on.

I'm educating the less fortunate, helping out society.

Hah... helping society by "educating" a foreign teen about American correct-ness?

"And then society bowed to Gekko's feet as he changed the mind of a Canadian at a Gaming Forum."

[gekko]

Stonecutter,

Heh. I almost find that funny coming from you. For someone who grew up long after Vietnam and the Cold War, you speak like you actually know what threat this "evil communism" posed. 30 years later communism is all but dead, but it wasn't back then. Communism and capitalism are two completely different societies, and we don't know what the result would be if communism continued to spread. When societies differ, there can be conflict. I don't see communism as a threat, but I wasn't alive back then, so I have no idea what it was like. In 30 years, our kids may not see some guy sitting in a cave reading the Quran as a threat either.

But at least you're not clueless, like some little Canadian in here.

[PureEvil]

It's not completely futile. One day he might catch on.

It is completely futile. He's from New Brunswick.

People from Eastern Canada = :shakehead

[gekko]

Hah... helping society by "educating" a foreign teen about American correct-ness?

"And then society bowed to Gekko's feet as he changed the mind of a Canadian at a Gaming Forum."

I don't know how foreign you want to consider Canada. Granted he is from a different country, the culture is almost identical.

And I'm sorry PureEvil, I'm not caught up on my eastern Canadian society. Next time I'll try to find someone from Vancouver.

[Rndm_Perfection]

I don't know how foreign you want to consider Canada. Granted he is from a different country, the culture is almost identical.

I'm not caught up on my eastern Canadian society.

You probably know little of Canadian history, and most definately don't care. Yet, you assume that Canadians are not "foreign" enough to know so little of American history and politics?

It's like looking out from a two-way mirror...

"d00d, stop picking your nose."

[gekko]

Umm... not quite. First of all, I don't know why you make the jump from what PureEvil said to Canadian history.

Second, Canadian history is not something we learn in school, and not something I have taken the time to study on my own. Canada isn't exactly one of those countries that have had a major influence on the world.

Third, you referred to him as a foreigner, and by doing that implied that he was in some way different. My point was the two countries as similar, so it's in no way different than educating someone from America. It's not like I'm talking to someone from Saudi Arabia here, trying to explain things to them would be futile. There is a chance to educate a Canadian.

And lastly, if a Canadian gets into a debate regarding American politics, they should be educated in it.

[Vampyr]

Im not Canadian, but Im going to say something here.

Canadians are educated in American politics, every day. They watch CNN too, they are using the same internet you are. When was the last time you went to a news site on the net and it wasnt about America? It happens, but not very often. And at my school, we did learn about Canada and its history. Not as in depth as our own, but you know, enough.

So if you consider Canadians stupid when it comes to American politics, then your wrong. Thats what happens when you live in a country thats not involved in almost anything and you live above a country involved in everything.

And on what Stonecutter said, hes right. The principles of communism isnt bad at all. In theory, its a utopia, a perfect society. Carl Marx wasnt a bad guy, it just doesnt work. Now back to watching...

:handball:

[Stonecutter]

Stonecutter,

Heh. I almost find that funny coming from you. For someone who grew up long after Vietnam and the Cold War, you speak like you actually know what threat this "evil communism" posed. 30 years later communism is all but dead, but it wasn't back then. Communism and capitalism are two completely different societies, and we don't know what the result would be if communism continued to spread. When societies differ, there can be conflict. I don't see communism as a threat, but I wasn't alive back then, so I have no idea what it was like. In 30 years, our kids may not see some guy sitting in a cave reading the Quran as a threat either.

But at least you're not clueless, like some little Canadian in here.

Well, if you weren't alive back then either, then don't use "the end of communism" as an excuse for that war. You don't want me to argue it because I wasn't alive but you insist on arguing even though you weren't alive, but oh well, it's not my fault you've got no argument to stand on.

FYI, There was no excuse for that war and yes, we did lose. If for no other reason than the political and, more importanly, social unrest in the united states.

What threats does communism pose then?

Actually, what threats does socialism pose? (communism - violence = socialism) Unless you've got a lot of money that you're afraid of losing, it's actually not much.

The wealthy don't want to lose money. That's the big threat. Spend a little, create some enemies for the poor and middle class to hate, have tons of tax dollars go your wealthy friends to build a nuclear arsenal that you need to fight the "evil reds" and you're all set. The rich get richer, and the lower classes don't mind, because they're "fighting evil."

[Bond]

Im not Canadian, but Im going to say something here.

Canadians are educated in American politics, every day. They watch CNN too, they are using the same internet you are. When was the last time you went to a news site on the net and it wasnt about America? It happens, but not very often. And at my school, we did learn about Canada and its history. Not as in depth as our own, but you know, enough.

So if you consider Canadians stupid when it comes to American politics, then your wrong. Thats what happens when you live in a country thats not involved in almost anything and you live above a country involved in everything.

And on what Stonecutter said, hes right. The principles of communism isnt bad at all. In theory, its a utopia, a perfect society. Carl Marx wasnt a bad guy, it just doesnt work. Now back to watching...

:handball:
Yes, communism in theory works. But it only works in real life if your leader can decide what is fair and balanced.

[GameMaster]

A member here on GT who wishes to remain anonymous has asked me to deliver this message to Bond:

"Bond, I find your signature offensive, please remove it."

That is all, please resume debate.

*teleports out*

[Null]

the truth offends someone?


so if my signiture said 'the earth is round'

would it offend this person also?

[PureEvil]

And besides that, who cares if some Iraqis die.

[gekko]

FYI, There was no excuse for that war and yes, we did lose. If for no other reason than the political and, more importanly, social unrest in the united states.

We didn't lose a damn thing. The only way you're able to say that is by changing the definition to serve your cause. There were many bad things that came as a result of the Vietnam War, but by no means did we lose the war.

Vietnam was fought to stop the spread of communism because it was felt to be a threat to the free world. Now for you to say life in the US wouldn't be any different is completly ludicris, because you have no idea what life was like when communism was still strong.

Vampyr, who's calling Canadians stupid? We're referring specifically towards Ranzid :D To say that Canadians are clueless when it comes to American politics means I would have to accept that Americans are generally educated on them, and would have a hard time saying that.

And Bond, I don't think any leader can help communism. It may work well for ants, but not humans.

Oh, and Bond, an anonymous member of GT told me they like your sig, and want you to keep it.

[Stonecutter]

We didn't lose a damn thing.

Oh, you're absoluty right. Those 53,000 lives that were lost accomplishing nothing were completly worthless.

[gekko]

Well now if that's your definition, no one has ever won any war. And BTW, they didn't accomplish nothing. It's too bad you have no respect for the very people who died for you.

[Stonecutter]

Well now if that's your definition, no one has ever won any war. And BTW, they didn't accomplish nothing. It's too bad you have no respect for the very people who died for you.
It's too bad you have sooooo much respect for the people that threw those 53,000 lives away.

[gekko]

I don't feel they were thrown away, those are your words. As for the people whose lives were being "thrown away" according to you, 91% of Vietnam veterans are glad they served.

I respect those who served, I never said a thing about anyone else. I don't care much for LBJ, don't have any respect for draft dodgers, don't have any respect for war protesters, and don't have any respect for someone who think that a soldiers life is ever thrown away.

[Stonecutter]

I don't feel they were thrown away, those are your words. As for the people whose lives were being "thrown away" according to you, 91% of Vietnam veterans are glad they served.

I respect those who served, I never said a thing about anyone else. I don't care much for LBJ, don't have any respect for draft dodgers, don't have any respect for war protesters, and don't have any respect for someone who think that a soldiers life is ever thrown away.
91% said they were glad they served. Good point, THEY CAME BACK. I bet 53,000 or so families that lost children probably weren't so happy. Not to mention the fact that the entire time they've been in the military they've been conditioned not to question orders and to believe that they are doing what's best.

I really want to know who said I didn't respect those who served. I mourn those who died. The fact is, they didn't have to die. Their lives were wasted. They changed nothing. All soldiers who served deserve respect. With a few exceptions, all any protester wants is to get those people home as fast as possible so that fewer people die.

That war was fought because the stance on communism and the huge military build up needed to be justified.

So we went and rained explosives on people in the jungle, exposed our own troops to agent orange, sent men up in airplanes to be shot down by SAM missiles. We sent 53,000 people off to die, and killed a hell of a lot more on the other side.

And the justification for this was "stemming the tide of communism" yeah, that evil red tide. Evil when you're a millionaire and you're afraid that people who are starving might just want to take a little of that away so that they can live comfortably too, that's what communism is about right? Nobody starves.

But we have to fight that. We have to make sure that people are starving so that others can eat caviar and own mansions AND we have to make sure that those who are starving hate communism, and think that it's evil. So that they don't realize how badly they're being ****ed over by the smallest of minorities.

So yeah, 53,000 americans, and probably the low to mid six figures in Vietnamese.

But at least the rich don't lose any money.

Half a million or so people DEAD so that the upper 1% of americans can live without fear of revolution.

Good deal, good deal.

[The Duggler]

Posted by gekko:

Almasurah, duh! hmmm ok...

I'm not going to make a list. And why not?

It's actually the destruction that needs to be started, but stopping production is a good place to start.And what are you waiting for to begin the destruction?

Because you don't seem to comprehend anything on your own, only regurgitate what someone else said. You can't say "We shouldn't have attacked Iraq because there are worse places" unless you actually know about those places. Unless you've actually done the research, don't bother trying to state a point. I don't want to hear what you heard some guy on CNN say. Oh come on! Do I really need to posts links to show you that a lot of other countries are way worse than Iraq? You are just being lazy here and avoiding the argument.

Personally? No. But do I were in their shoes, I would hope someone would do the same for me. I don't know these people, but I do think the US is doing the right thing by fighting for people who can't fight for themselves. We have two choices, sit back and watch thousands of people getting killed, or do something about it. I say we should do something.Do what? Remove the leader to put another one? What will that change? The country is devided, there will always be a group of people that won't agree. So trying to make 1 peaceful country with them is almost impossible, at least right now.

You made an argument that the US shouldn't go into Iraq because there are worse places. But in all reality, you don't care. In other words, you just hate America. But don't worry, America hates you.Look, I don't "hate" america, it's not because I'm don't agree with some of the stuff it does that I hate them. I use the "other places" argument to argue with your "we went to save the Iraqis" argument, wich I believe is ****. Look, you said it yourself, you don't personnally care about them.

Strategic importance to everything. By taking away the biggest threat to Middle Eastern countries, you allow room for change. Iraq is also the best place to setup a democracy, since they are the most educated out of the Middle East. They also have tons of oil, which in turn means money to allow them to develop as a country. Then you set an example, and it begins to rub off onto other Middle Eastern countries. There will likely be a revolt in Iran, the Israel/Palestine conflict is moving forward better than anyone could've imagined, and North Korea has all but shut up. If there is one place in the Middle East that has the best chance of being a successful democracy, it's Iraq.Wow, you really think that the Arabs will get along with the Jews and/or US (or anybody else for that matter) in a near future? Well at least you're optimistic.

Wow, you got lost. My reply had nothing to do with doing anything. I said: "Don't you find it odd that it's still chaos over there..." you took that part of the phrase and replied: "No. Afghanistan was the same way, or did you not pay attention?" So I assumed that you meant that it wasn't a suprise if it was still chaos, because Afghanistan was still in chaos and it's been years. Now if it's not what you meant correct me, but if it is, read my reply again.

Because it wasn't destroyed in the process. It also provides a lot of jobs.I'll agree with you, it's probably good for their economy, but it's certainly good to yours, isn't?

You're catching on. What's with the belittling? Can't you argue in a mature way?
It does come full circle, it's supposed to. American tax payers do not want to pay for the rebuilding of IraqThen don't destroy it.
therefore, Iraq will pay to rebuild itself. US companies have always been getting oil from the Middle East, they do not have the technology to do it themselves.Yhea, but there is no need to **** them in the process.
US construction companies are also some of the best in the world, and ones that our government have contracts with, and know what they are capable of. Any surprise they would choose them? No. The US isn't getting rich off of Iraqi oil, the only money from Iraq is going to the reconstruction of their own country, something they need, and for the oil companies to develop the oil fieds, something that oil companies have always done.The US government would be proud of you!!

[The Duggler]

:rofl: It's Ranzid and Gekko at it again.

Ooooh the humility.... Ooooh the futility!Could you please explain to me how I humiliated myself?

[Stonecutter]

hmmm ok...

And why not?

And what are you waiting for to begin the destruction?

Oh come on! Do I really need to posts links to show you that a lot of other countries are way worse than Iraq? You are just being lazy here and avoiding the argument.

Do what? Remove the leader to put another one? What will that change? The country is devided, there will always be a group of people that won't agree. So trying to make 1 peaceful country with them is almost impossible, at least right now.

Look, I don't "hate" america, it's not because I'm don't agree with some of the stuff it does that I hate them. I use the "other places" argument to argue with your "we went to save the Iraqis" argument, wich I believe is ****. Look, you said it yourself, you don't personnally care about them.

Wow, you really think that the Arabs will get along with the Jews and/or US (or anybody else for that matter) in a near future? Well at least you're optimistic.

I said: "Don't you find it odd that it's still chaos over there..." you took that part of the phrase and replied: "No. Afghanistan was the same way, or did you not pay attention?" So I assumed that you meant that it wasn't a suprise if it was still chaos, because Afghanistan was still in chaos and it's been years. Now if it's not what you meant correct me, but if it is, read my reply again.

I'll agree with you, it's probably good for their economy, but it's certainly good to yours, isn't?

What's with the belittling? Can't you argue in a mature way?
Then don't destroy it.
Yhea, but there is no need to **** them in the process.
The US government would be proud of you!!

Seriously dude, just stop, you're a moron. I think gekko is wrong with all my heart but at least he has a thought. You do not know what you are talking about.

[The Duggler]

It is completely futile. He's from New Brunswick.

People from Eastern Canada = :shakeheadEAST COAST MOTHER****ER!!!!@111 :rolleyes:

[The Duggler]

Seriously dude, just stop, you're a moron. I think gekko is wrong with all my heart but at least he has a thought. You do not know what you are talking about.Well please inform me. If I can learn on these boards it's even better. Don't just say "your a moron"

[One Winged Angel]

Well, thats all you are going to get from him. He can neverr give a better answer than that.

[Null]

and now for the picture to go with my sig. ;)



http://carcino.gen.nz/images/image.php/463c5922/arguing.jpg

[PureEvil]

and now for the picture to go with my sig. ;)



http://carcino.gen.nz/images/image.php/463c5922/arguing.jpg

LOL. And that reminds me of a joke.

What's better than winning a gold medal in the Special Olympics?

Not being retarded.

[TheSlyMoogle]

But its the American's job in this world I guess, sticking our nose into places it doesnt belong. Look at Vietnam. We're trying to be the international police force, and its not working.

Oh well. :shakehead

Hmm well let's look at some other real facts. I don't know if this has been brought up yet? But had America Joined The League of Nations after WWI we might have been able to stop WWII from happening, if we had had the chance to interfere with other countries, and if we hadn't went into depression we might have been able to stop Hitler. But thanks in part to a Senate in disagreement with Wilson, we didn't. Ahh Politics strike again!

[Xantar]

*pops out of his trash can*

Well, in all the debates about whether or not Iraq has any weapons of mass destruction, nobody has ever answered me this:

If Saddam Hussein didn't have any WMDs, why didn't he just comply with the weapons inspectors? Everybody agreed back then that Iraq was holding up investigations, being slow to comply with requests and generally acting like it had something to hide.

Why?

Saddam Hussein knew that he couldn't possibly win a war with the U.S. and knew that if he dragged his feet, he'd have that very war on his hands. Saddam is a little crazy, but he's not stupid. If he wanted to stay in power and he didn't in fact have any WMD program, all he had to do was say, "Come on in! The door's wide open. I'll answer all your questions regarding WMDs. You can enter any lab you want. You'll see. We don't have anything."

And that would have been that. You don't really think the U.S. would have gone to war with Iraq just to free some people who are having their human rights violated, do you? It's very sad, but the U.S. doesn't tend to stick out its neck like that.

Oh, and it's well known if you do a little research that the vast majority of oil Americans consume comes from either within the States or from Venezuela. That's right. We don't get much from the Middle East. Iraqi oil can affect worldwide prices, but not enough to make an unpopular war worthwhile. Bush had to know he'd be getting criticism every day that the war is going on. There are better ways to jump start the economy if that's what you really want to do.

P.S. Hello from Vietnam, everyone! Communism isn't working too well here, but then again, the country isn't really communist any more.

[The Duggler]

Posted by One Winged Angel:

Well, thats all you are going to get from him. He can neverr give a better answer than that. Well that sucks. I just want to have a good debates and LEARN. If I say such stupid things then I want to know what they are and why it's stupid. Also I liked his post about communism and I agree with what he said. This is a good debate, but calling people morons without any explication won't help it.

Posted by Xantar:
Well, in all the debates about whether or not Iraq has any weapons of mass destruction, nobody has ever answered me this:

If Saddam Hussein didn't have any WMDs, why didn't he just comply with the weapons inspectors? Everybody agreed back then that Iraq was holding up investigations, being slow to comply with requests and generally acting like it had something to hide.

Why?You have a good point Xantar, I would say that maybe Hussein like the majority of people on this planet, doesn't like to be told what to do and have other people getting their noses into his business. Now, I'm not saying that to defend Hussein or to say that he should have the right to WMDs, but it's not because the man wasn't very cooperative that it meant he was hiding something.
Saddam Hussein knew that he couldn't possibly win a war with the U.S. and knew that if he dragged his feet, he'd have that very war on his hands. Saddam is a little crazy, but he's not stupid. If he wanted to stay in power and he didn't in fact have any WMD program, all he had to do was say, "Come on in! The door's wide open. I'll answer all your questions regarding WMDs. You can enter any lab you want. You'll see. We don't have anything."I think that it's fair enough to say that Iraq was cooperating in the latest inspections.
And that would have been that. You don't really think the U.S. would have gone to war with Iraq just to free some people who are having their human rights violated, do you? It's very sad, but the U.S. doesn't tend to stick out its neck like that.Well, a lot of pro americans use that as an argument. Do they believe it? I don't know.

Oh, and it's well known if you do a little research that the vast majority of oil Americans consume comes from either within the States or from Venezuela. That's right. We don't get much from the Middle East. Iraqi oil can affect worldwide prices, but not enough to make an unpopular war worthwhile. Bush had to know he'd be getting criticism every day that the war is going on. There are better ways to jump start the economy if that's what you really want to do.Yes you're probably right, but it has to be a motive, even if not has important as the supposed threat of WMD.

[Bond]

I find myself agreeing with Xantar?!
*pops out of his trash can*

Well, in all the debates about whether or not Iraq has any weapons of mass destruction, nobody has ever answered me this:

If Saddam Hussein didn't have any WMDs, why didn't he just comply with the weapons inspectors? Everybody agreed back then that Iraq was holding up investigations, being slow to comply with requests and generally acting like it had something to hide.

Why?

Well, it could be for any number of reasons. Saddam is a very smart person, but he is also insane, which makes it very hard to know what he was trying to do. He must have anticipated that we would invade his country if he held up the investigations and did not produce the anthrax, chemical agents, etc. He also most likely knows that we would have lost a war with our alliance, and he did. But he's still insane, so who knows. He probably wanted to buy time to transport his chemical agents and/or non/conventional weapons to other countries and terrorist groups. What may have also happened is that during the time between the U.N. inspectors leaving and the US coming in he may have destroyed all of his weapons to look innocent.

Right now it appears he is trying to wage guerilla warfare on us, something he knows that will be moderately successful. But only until we capture or kill him...

It's very sad, but the U.S. doesn't tend to stick out its neck like that.

What other country does more than the US in that regard? None.

Oh, and it's well known if you do a little research that the vast majority of oil Americans consume comes from either within the States or from Venezuela. That's right. We don't get much from the Middle East. Iraqi oil can affect worldwide prices, but not enough to make an unpopular war worthwhile. Bush had to know he'd be getting criticism every day that the war is going on. There are better ways to jump-start the economy if that's what you really want to do.

That is very true. I viewed a graph recently showing an extremely small fraction of our oil comes from the Middle East, I may try to find it sometime. Also, if you think we invaded Iraq only for oil (you're very misinformed) but it was to stabilize the oil prices. That was only part of the reason.

[gekko]

91% said they were glad they served. Good point, THEY CAME BACK.

Well in that case, 74% say they would serve again not knowing the outcome. You may think what they did was pointless, but they knew what they were fighting for.

I really want to know who said I didn't respect those who served.

You've said it, many times.

all any protester wants is to get those people home as fast as possible so that fewer people die.

That's a load of bull****. Anyone who protests a war does not support the troops in any way.

Evil when you're a millionaire and you're afraid that people who are starving might just want to take a little of that away so that they can live comfortably too, that's what communism is about right? Nobody starves.

Actually, communism goes against the very principles this country was founded on. The very things people have fought and died to protect for the last 227 years.

Half a million or so people DEAD so that the upper 1% of americans can live without fear of revolution.

You'll upset a lot more than the top 1% by changing this country. I'll be dead before that ever happens. Oh, and Vietnam is 30 years old, say what you want, get the last word, but I'm getting back to the topic here with Iraq.

Moving on to Ranzid

Do I really need to posts links to show you that a lot of other countries are way worse than Iraq?

Actually, it would be better if you could do it without links. The reality is you're more or less unaware of the situation in other countries, in the same way you're unaware of the situation in the middle east. I'm just pointing out the fact that you can't hide the obvious here, and if you want to bring up a point, at least know something on it.

I'll agree with you, it's probably good for their economy, but it's certainly good to yours, isn't

Actually, not really. Our economy would've been better off not spending all that money in the first place.

I just want to have a good debates and LEARN

Actions speak louder than words. Last time I checked, you haven't learned a thing in months.

I would say that maybe Hussein like the majority of people on this planet, doesn't like to be told what to do and have other people getting their noses into his business.

Except this isn't normal business. And he should be looking out for the interest of his people, and when you're on the brink of war, you should start telling the truth. Thing is, he had them, and he is a master at hiding them. Then we pull out inspectors for months of arguing, giving him a chance to permanently hide this stuff, if not move it. I don't think realistically he could've destroyed everything in that amount of time, but he can hide it, and make it almost impossible to find without human intelligence. Of course, the CIA is having its own problems and we have had horrible human intelligence in Iraq for some time. Now if you think Bush exagerated the threat of WMD, you can make a case for it, but there is no evidence of it at this time. If you think WMD don't exist, you're blind.

Well, a lot of pro americans use that as an argument. Do they believe it? I don't know.

A lot of people, like myself, think it's a good enough reason to take out Saddam. While all the Democrats and anti-Bush people are trying to say that the WMD don't exist, a lot of people don't really care if we've found them now, or if we find them later. The world is a better place with Saddam gone, and hopefully Iraq can be used as an example for the rest of these countries. Iraq is nearing a revolt, the house of Saud is on its last days, and hopefully the region doesn't turn to ****, not like it isn't now.

[Stonecutter]

That's a load of bull****. Anyone who protests a war does not support the troops in any way.





And you've proved you know nothing.

That is so wrong, I don't even know where to begin.

[gekko]

Well I'll help you begin. First off, you're an arrogant little asshole who has no respect for the very people who provide you with your freedom. Second, you don't know **** about what it means to serve your country. You're just a selfish little bitch who sit back and let's everyone else fight for you because you're too much of a coward to do it yourself, and to top it all off, you don't even give them a ****ing thank you. You think you know about war protests? You don't know jack ****. You've never spent a day in the shoes of those troops. You think you're supporting them? Bull****. Why don't you take your conceited self over to the nearest military base and ask them how much they enjoy your support. Better yet, why don't you go tell them how their lives are being wasted? Or don't you have the balls?

[Bond]

If you would like to engage in an intelligent discussion that does not involve insults you may continue to post in this thread. If you would like to flame people, you may leave.

[Bond]

By the way, here is proof our Government just released that Uday and Qusay are dead: (They aren't that bad, I'm sure you've seen worse in the movies)

Uday Before
http://www.foxnews.com/images/97025/13_22_200_oday_alive.jpg

Uday After
http://www.foxnews.com/images/97025/13_23_200_uday.jpg

Qusay Before
http://www.foxnews.com/images/97025/13_24_200_qusay_alive.jpg

Qusay After
http://www.foxnews.com/images/97025/13_25_300_qusay.jpg

[Stonecutter]

By the way, here is proof our Government just released that Uday and Qusay are dead: (They aren't that bad, I'm sure you've seen worse in the movies)

Uday
http://www.foxnews.com/images/97025/13_23_200_uday.jpg

Qusay
http://www.foxnews.com/images/97025/13_25_300_qusay.jpg
DEAR GOD WE KILLED FRANKO HARRIS!

[The Duggler]

And you all got your panties in a bunch when that Iraqis news network published pictures of dead US soldiers. Talk about double standards...

[Stonecutter]

Well I'll help you begin. First off, you're an arrogant little asshole who has no respect for the very people who provide you with your freedom.

That's your opinion, and it's incorrect. You're making an assumption, a rather offensive assumption.

Second, you don't know **** about what it means to serve your country. You're just a selfish little bitch who sit back and let's everyone else fight for you because you're too much of a coward to do it yourself, and to top it all off,

Thanks, I'll be the coward with two legs who didn't get tricked into blindly flowing the patriotic bull****.

you don't even give them a ****ing thank you.

The flag flying in front of my house, the time spent with my the veteran on my block like the time I actually said "thanks" to him. The time I spend with my dads best friend with a marine. Talk about not knowing ****, you're talking out of your ass

You think you know about war protests? You don't know jack ****.

How many war protests have you been too. Talk about knowing jack ****.

You've never spent a day in the shoes of those troops.

Holy ****ing ****! An accurate statement

You think you're supporting them? Bull****.

Well, I'd rather they not fight, and thus LIVE, you want them to die, that's you're decision

Why don't you take your conceited self over to the nearest military base and ask them how much they enjoy your support. Better yet, why don't you go tell them how their lives are being wasted? Or don't you have the balls?

Tell them how much they mean to me, how much I wish their leaders weren't throwing them into a conflict that they have no direct interest in. The lives of the 53,000 who died in vietnam were wasted because they were sent to die, when they could have lived


You think you support the troops, you don't have a clue. You support the war.

I support the troops.

You're just another warmonger. I hope you can find true lasting happyness in the glee you take from death and distruction.

[The Duggler]

Moving on to Ranzid

Actually, it would be better if you could do it without links. The reality is you're more or less unaware of the situation in other countries, in the same way you're unaware of the situation in the middle east. I'm just pointing out the fact that you can't hide the obvious here, and if you want to bring up a point, at least know something on it.

Actually, not really. Our economy would've been better off not spending all that money in the first place.

Actions speak louder than words. Last time I checked, you haven't learned a thing in months.

Except this isn't normal business. And he should be looking out for the interest of his people, and when you're on the brink of war, you should start telling the truth. Thing is, he had them, and he is a master at hiding them. Then we pull out inspectors for months of arguing, giving him a chance to permanently hide this stuff, if not move it. I don't think realistically he could've destroyed everything in that amount of time, but he can hide it, and make it almost impossible to find without human intelligence. Of course, the CIA is having its own problems and we have had horrible human intelligence in Iraq for some time. Now if you think Bush exagerated the threat of WMD, you can make a case for it, but there is no evidence of it at this time. If you think WMD don't exist, you're blind.

A lot of people, like myself, think it's a good enough reason to take out Saddam. While all the Democrats and anti-Bush people are trying to say that the WMD don't exist, a lot of people don't really care if we've found them now, or if we find them later. The world is a better place with Saddam gone, and hopefully Iraq can be used as an example for the rest of these countries. Iraq is nearing a revolt, the house of Saud is on its last days, and hopefully the region doesn't turn to ****, not like it isn't now.So you only replied to what you wanted to? Where's the rest? Stop avoiding arguments.


And Stonecutter, are you ignoring me or what?

[Rndm_Perfection]

And you all got your panties in a bunch when that Iraqis news network published pictures of dead US soldiers. Talk about double standards...

'The Hell up, man. Totally different situation. Had we demanded the picture, it would have been fair... but airing it without permission... and they were just common soldiers with families? You're pathetic. -rep.

[The Duggler]

'The Hell up, man. Totally different situation. Had we demanded the picture, it would have been fair... but airing it without permission... and they were just common soldiers with families? You're pathetic. -rep.Of course it's totally different situation :rolleyes: and you certainly have their permission eh?

Anyways, you still haven't answered me about how I humiliated myself.

[gekko]

It is a different situation. By releasing the pictures it shows to the Iraqis that they are dead, and there is no need to worry about the regime coming back. It's necessary to show the Iraqis, who would be skeptical of anything the US says. It's not like showing random dead Iraqis.

However, this is against US policy. It's not consistant with what the US has done in the past, and I sure hope Washington is aware of the potential danger.

[Rndm_Perfection]

Of course it's totally different situation and you certainly have their permission eh?
That's funny... I can't sense a hint of sarcasm. There are different circumstances, but I'd never put you up to the task of attempting to realize the importance of circumstance. You're just one of many no-lifes that has heavy debates on politics that he has no intelligence of. As well, I dislike the way you attempt to make debates personal by continually adding in "you". Learn to generalize, or even better... get accurate information.


Anyways, you still haven't answered me about how I humiliated myself.
You like assuming, don't you? Y'know, can't spell assume without ass. You think because I said humility once in the same paragraph as your name, that I was directing the humility entirely toward you, and that absolutely none of the futility fell under your responsibility (haven't heard to make a comment about it)?

Out of disrespect for you, I'll choose to not point out the humility in this thread, and rather let you writhe in confusion and anxiety.



Well, that's my last post in this thread. The immaturity and ignorance thrown around shall desist.

[The Duggler]

Posted by Rndm_Perfection:

That's funny... I can't sense a hint of sarcasm. There are different circumstances, but I'd never put you up to the task of attempting to realize the importance of circumstance. You're just one of many no-lifes that has heavy debates on politics that he has no intelligence of.Resorting to personal insults, yhea, and you say I'm immature.
As well, I dislike the way you attempt to make debates personal by continually adding in "you". Learn to generalize, or even better... get accurate information. :lol: look at what you said: Had we demanded the picture, it would have been fair...

You like assuming, don't you? Y'know, can't spell assume without ass. You think because I said humility once in the same paragraph as your name, that I was directing the humility entirely toward you, and that absolutely none of the futility fell under your responsibility (haven't heard to make a comment about it)?I got that phrase as "humility" was directed toward me and "futility" was directed towards gekko trying to "inform" me of US politics. Wasn't that it?

Out of disrespect for you, I'll choose to not point out the humility in this thread, and rather let you writhe in confusion and anxiety.Why do you disrespect me? What have I done?

Well, that's my last post in this thread. The immaturity and ignorance thrown around shall desist. :rolleyes:

[Bond]

And you all got your panties in a bunch when that Iraqis news network published pictures of dead US soldiers. Talk about double standards...
That is a totally different situation.

And could we please have one conversation where people aren't flaming eachother?

[The Duggler]

And could we please have one conversation where people aren't flaming eachother? :wtf: Look closely the the last pages of this thread, and tell me who's flaming who.

[Bond]

It wasn't directed towards you. Just in general.

[gekko]

But he still shouldn't act innocent. :p

[The Duggler]

It wasn't directed towards you. Just in general.

Oh right. My bad.

[The Duggler]

But he still shouldn't act innocent. :pWhy not? I'm no flamer.

[GiMpY-wAnNaBe]

Well I'll help you begin. First off, you're an arrogant little asshole who has no respect for the very people who provide you with your freedom. Second, you don't know **** about what it means to serve your country. You're just a selfish little bitch who sit back and let's everyone else fight for you because you're too much of a coward to do it yourself, and to top it all off, you don't even give them a ****ing thank you. You think you know about war protests? You don't know jack ****. You've never spent a day in the shoes of those troops. You think you're supporting them? Bull****. Why don't you take your conceited self over to the nearest military base and ask them how much they enjoy your support. Better yet, why don't you go tell them how their lives are being wasted? Or don't you have the balls?
hmm....as much as you believe that war and fighting will solve everything, much bloodshed and horror could easily be avoided by simply refusing to fight. Ranzid doesn't have anything against the troops and neither does Stonecutter, in fact tell me Gekko, would you prefer to send the troops out on a 50% probable chance of return and duke it out with the enemy or find a peaceful solution to the problem????? You might counter this statement with the fact that George Bush made a point ot look for weapons, that is not true, Bush merely did that as a show for the world to persuade him that he really wanted good for the iraqi ppl. An intelligent leader would have given Hans Blix all the time he needed to look for the weapons, but no, he conviniently cut it short and sent in the soldiers, it is not people like Ranzid or Stonecutter that disrespect the soldiers of your country, it is the corrupt politicians like George Bush who feel that their lives are a worthy sacrafice for his personal goals and the advancement of his country.

[gekko]

Stonecutter disrespects the troops, and I never said a thing about Ranzid. He hates Bush and America, but to my knowledge he has never mentioned anything about the military.

You might counter this statement with the fact that George Bush made a point ot look for weapons, that is not true, Bush merely did that as a show for the world to persuade him that he really wanted good for the iraqi ppl.

You speak like you actually know something. Let me clue you in, you don't. Your opinion is not fact, and you have no evidence to back your claim. Putting accusations on the most powerful man in the world with evidence does not make you look good.

An intelligent leader would have given Hans Blix all the time he needed to look for the weapons, but no, he conviniently cut it short and sent in the soldiers

Bush is a Yale graduate, you're not one to comment on his intelligence. Blix had more than enough time, and Bush should've never sent inspectors back into the country in the first place, but some bitchy liberals wanted it, so he gave it to them.

t is the corrupt politicians like George Bush who feel that their lives are a worthy sacrafice for his personal goals and the advancement of his country.

Actually, there is overwhelming support for Bush among the military, unlike this Bill Clinton guy.

[The Duggler]

Gekko, do you read other posts than yours? I don't "hate" America. It seems that to you, anybody that don't agree with what the US does, are anti-americans. Why don't you get your head out of your ass, and try to look at things from both sides. Like Stonecutter said, your just another warmonger. BTW aren't you gonna answer his last post? Oh that's right, you only reply to what you want to and ignore the rest right?

[gekko]

Oh no, I'm not a flamer! :rolleyes:

You do hate America. You have criticized everything America does, from Afghanistan to Iraq to enviormental problems. You have never said one positive thing about the country, and all you do is complain how America is the cause of America's problems. You hate America, I hate you. Just accept it already.

[Stonecutter]

Oh no, I'm not a flamer! :rolleyes:

You do hate America. You have criticized everything America does, from Afghanistan to Iraq to enviormental problems. You have never said one positive thing about the country, and all you do is complain how America is the cause of America's problems. You hate America, I hate you. Just accept it already.
Stop being so ignorant. Just because you criticize something doesn't mean you hate it.

[DeathsHand]

Stop being so ignorant. Just because you criticize something doesn't mean you hate it.

What the hell have you been smoking? This is America! Agree with everything we do or you're a traitor.

[Stonecutter]

What the hell have you been smoking? This is America! Agree with everything we do or you're a traitor.
Oh yeah, that's right.

Either that or Ann Coultier can indite me for treason.


And before someone else points this out, yes, I'd still hit that.

[Professor S]

Oh yeah, that's right.

Either that or Ann Coultier can indite me for treason.


And before someone else points this out, yes, I'd still hit that.

Hey, its all opinion. If you have the freedom to criticize just about everything American, others have the right to call you un-American if they so choose.

Its like the whole Dixie Chicks debacle. Everyone is screaming about how their first amendment rights are being trampled because of boycotts. Ummm... NO. The first amendment only refers to government censorship. If groups of like-minded people or privately owned radio stations wish to boycott a group for their political views, they are excercising THEIR first amendments rights just as the Dixie Chicks did when criticizing the president. It is just as valid a political statement. To hail the Dixie Chicks for excercising their rights and then say they are being censored by those ezxcercising theirs is silly.

Besides, the Dixie Chicks are a COUNTRY GROUP. They must be either inbred or retarded to criticize a texan president... What, they DIDN'T think people would react that way? Their fan base have gun racks and chew terbackee!

[Stonecutter]

Hey, its all opinion. If you have the freedom to criticize just about everything American, others have the right to call you un-American if they so choose.



No one was talking about calling someone unamerican, nor did they say that you couldn't call someone unamerican. My point was that just because you find fault in something, doesn't mean you hate it. I don't hate any country or any group of people, I hate individuals :)

[TheSlyMoogle]

So has anyone seen what they did to Saddam's sons? They put putty and junk all over their faces to make them look more like they should. As if this isn't just screaming "We just killed 2 innocent men and tried to fool you into thinking it was your leaders!" (That's a lot to scream)

I'm beginning to think that the entire governmental body of the US is mentally retarted. Hmm...

[Bond]

I believe they used wax, not putty.

[TheSlyMoogle]

I believe they used wax, not putty.

Hmm well they said putty on the Radio? And then later that night I saw the pictures on CNN, they looked super fake.

[nWoCHRISnWo]

I read that Saddam's sons tortured people and raped would-be brides the day of their marriage. Sounds like a couple of nice, innocent people there.

[DeathsHand]

Hmm well they said putty on the Radio? And then later that night I saw the pictures on CNN, they looked super fake.

There were still visible wounds on the top of one of their heads... and such... and have you seen the images from before they touched them up with a bunch of stuff? They didn't look super fake...

When I saw what they did to the bodies (well, the faces) I knew people would start conspiracy theories about how it's not really them :p

That'd be funny if the government really did fake that it was them though... I bet Gekko and Bond would find any way they could to justify it... :sneaky:

[Stonecutter]

So has anyone seen what they did to Saddam's sons? They put putty and junk all over their faces to make them look more like they should. As if this isn't just screaming "We just killed 2 innocent men and tried to fool you into thinking it was your leaders!" (That's a lot to scream)

I'm beginning to think that the entire governmental body of the US is mentally retarted. Hmm...
Oh please.

Be liberal, not ignorant.

They're dead, this is like the "the us faked 9/11" or the "if gore would have won, 9/11 wouldn't have happened" arguements. It's stupid.

[Xantar]

I find myself agreeing with Xantar?!

Well, at least you're not Justin.

What other country does more than the US in that regard? None.

Agreed, but you have to admit that we don't stick our noses into every single human rights abuse that's committed the world over. Case in point: China.

The U.S. is one of history's most benign superpowers if not the most benign, but it's still not philanthropic. There's always a certain amount of self-interest when we interfere. It might be to help our economy or it might be for some political gain. The fact is sending troops around is expensive. The government had better believe it's going to be worthwhile.

The rampant human rights abuses going on in Iraq might have been a good enough reason for you to send troops (or in same cases send yourself) over, but it's not a good enough reason for the public in general. When the public hears the word "war" nowadays, they think about all the sons and daughters who are going to die rather than the good it might do. And the American people will always choose their own kids over Iraqi kids.

[PureEvil]

So has anyone seen what they did to Saddam's sons? They put putty and junk all over their faces to make them look more like they should. As if this isn't just screaming "We just killed 2 innocent men and tried to fool you into thinking it was your leaders!" (That's a lot to scream)

I'm beginning to think that the entire governmental body of the US is mentally retarted. Hmm...

You're an idiot. They're dead.

[TheSlyMoogle]

Whoa, you guys got me all wrong. I didn't mean that they aren't dead. They probably are. What I was saying was that by putting wax or putty or whatever it was all over their faces it made it look like we went out and killed two innocent Iraqi people and tried to make it look like Saddam's sons. By doing that they made it easy for a bunch of Iraqi people to just say that we were lying all along. Before it was like "Well maybe they could be lying, who knows?" Now it just looks like we were lying and stuff and we were really trying to cover it up.

[Bond]

At first we showed the bodies as we found them, then we waxed them up to make them look more lifelike. Either way there will always be conspiracy theories in Iraq. That's how things operate.

[Bond]

I would just like to add that Saddam recently released another of his high-tech audiotapes in which he acknowledged the death of his sons, saying they were "martyred for Iraq" and also said America will be defeated.

[GiMpY-wAnNaBe]

I would just like to add that Saddam recently released another of his high-tech audiotapes in which he acknowledged the death of his sons, saying they were "martyred for Iraq" and also said America will be defeated.
hmm, well i guess that proves that he's still alive