Saddam's Sons Confirmed Dead

[Stonecutter]

Originally Posted by gekko

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 Iraq

Then 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]

Originally Posted by Rndm_Perfection

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]

Originally Posted by Ranzid

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]

Originally Posted by PureEvil

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

People from Eastern Canada =

EAST COAST MOTHER****ER!!!!@111

[The Duggler]

Originally Posted by Stonecutter

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.

[PureEvil]

Originally Posted by Null

and now for the picture to go with my sig.

LOL. And that reminds me of a joke.

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

Not being retarded.

[TheSlyMoogle]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

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.

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.