PSX5Central
Non Gaming Discussions => Off-Topic => Topic started by: luckee on April 29, 2003, 02:23:32 PM
-
B-b-b-but, I thought it was to liberate an oppressed people!
Wow, I think I remember saying that before the war started. Now I wonder how many of the Republican circle jerkers who said the ideas people like me put out were moronic, when I said that the only reason we attacked Saddam was because of 9/11, and that he was no direct threat to us, etc. Funny how they never responded to the arguments that mattered.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/US/globalshow_030425.html
Officials inside government and advisers outside told ABCNEWS the administration emphasized the danger of Saddam\'s weapons to gain the legal justification for war from the United Nations and to stress the danger at home to Americans.
"We were not lying," said one official. "But it was just a matter of emphasis."
.
Officials now say they may not find hundreds of tons of mustard and nerve agents and maybe not thousands of liters of anthrax and other toxins. But U.S. forces will find some, they say. On Thursday, President Bush raised the possibility for the first time that any such Iraqi weapons were destroyed before or during the war.
.
If weapons of mass destruction were not the primary reason for war, what was? Here\'s the answer officials and advisers gave ABCNEWS.
.
The Sept. 11, 2001, attacks changed everything, including the Bush administration\'s thinking about the Middle East — and not just Saddam Hussein.
.
Senior officials decided that unless action was taken, the Middle East would continue to be a breeding ground for terrorists. Officials feared that young Arabs, angry about their lives and without hope, would always looking for someone to hate — and that someone would always be Israel and the United States.
.
Europeans thought the solution was to get a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. But American officials felt a Middle East peace agreement would only be part of the solution.
.
The Bush administration felt that a new start was needed in the Middle East and that Iraq was the place to show that it is democracy — not terrorism — that offers hope.
-
its what i said all along.... it wasn\'t about oil or WoMD, but it was about revenge and the panic in being seen to do something.
to all the war hawks... plaese give it a once over its a intresting read ... oh and there is something else oh hey......... *coff* still no WoMD found *coff*
GWB = NOT the greatest leader since Winston Churchhill.
-
Who cares... old news... I never once said it was about WoMD or to liberate the "oppressed" savages.
-
hahaha..you have in fcat made those arguements.
-
"At beggining this war was about weapons of mass destruction now its about freeing them! I\'m not 100% sure what Bush is doing but he does want the oil."
-Clowd
There are more than one reasons for this war:
1.After the 9/11 incident the government lost some trust from the Americans.They began questioning their country\'s foreign policy.They doubted the supposed safety their government is supposed to offer them.And especially the doubted their own government.With other words the government could have lost their complete control over the Americans\' awareness and concsience.
This war was a way to gain back the trust from the Americans.To show them that they care for their safety.As well as to give the impression that they care for the whole world.Which is nothing but BS.With this war they rebuild the fake American virtues the 9/11 incident had destroyied but not only that.They made them even stronger in the American people\'s minds.Now if another terrorist attack happens there is no chance they will question their government again.
2.The USA used to be the most powerfull country economically controlling 60% percent of the exports.Imagine.60% controlled only by the USA and the other 40% was shared by the rest of the world.Now they have lost that power.China, Japan etc now have grown economically and become powerfull enough to be reckognised as much as the USA.Plus Europe has all the qualities to surpass what America used to be.It can become the most powerfull continent economically.The USA sees that with the introduction of Euro.Thast why they are after the most important energy source in the present days.OIL.This has a connection with the third reason.
3.This war in Iraq is perfectly planned so it can be the starting point to chain wars.Now they say that other arabian countries are supporting Iraq with weapons etc.This is the excuse to attack and gain complete control over them(complete control over the oil).They already have plans for a new geopolitic map for Saudi Arabia.
4.The only undeniable and biggest power the USA have under their availability is military power.The only way to show that power is war.They want to be seen and feared as the country that nobody can say no to.The country that has control over all.
5.More reasons I cant remember right now
-what my friend said in a email 2-3 weeks ago
-
Luckee\'s right, Giga. You had indeed made those arguments durin\' these discussions. Now that the "war" is over with and the truth comes out (opressed people? weapons of mass destruction? Please!) you act like you don\'t care.
Give me a break. This war was a sham and so is the American goverment at this point.
I also love how the Iraqi people are now called "savages" - instead of opressed people without hope, due to some cruel dicator. They are just "savages" now.
:rolleyes:
-
I\'m surprised Ace is so quiet, we had some good arguments during the course of the war.
Shame!!
-
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
Luckee\'s right, Giga. You had indeed made those arguments durin\' these discussions. Now that the "war" is over with and the truth comes out (opressed people? weapons of mass destruction? Please!) you act like you don\'t care.
Give me a break. This war was a sham and so is the American goverment at this point.
I also love how the Iraqi people are now called "savages" - instead of opressed people without hope, due to some cruel dicator. They are just "savages" now.
:rolleyes:
Uhhh please quote me where I said this was about WoMD. If you look at most of my posts I was arguing in favor of a regime change. I never once said they were going to find tons of weapons - though I do think eventually they will turn up and yes that was a part of the reason we went to war. The reason some you tend to focus so much on WoMD is because of the role the UN played in this - ie. the inspectors etc... Bush and the administration wanted a regime change and so what if we don\'t find as much "damning" evidence as first thought? This war sent a clear message to other terrorist sponsoring states that the US won\'t lay down and let something like 9/11 happen again... which leads me to...
Funny how links to terrorists groups keep popping up though - something you liberal pacifists haven\'t mentioned once. :rolleyes:
What would you call people who accidently shoot a tanker truck to celebrate their electricity being turned back on? Civilized? :laughing:
The war was a success and I find it laughable how some on here are still clinging to the belief that it wasn\'t. Move on and find a new cause to complain and whine about. The war in Iraq is over and quite frankly Bush and the coalition did an excellent job.
-
Here is a quote from a post I made on February 9, 2003:
"Who do we have to give this 100 percent undeniable without a shadow of a doubt proof too? France? Germany? This in the best interest of the US to have a regime change in Iraq. I would even go as far to say for the sake of National Security."
Link:
http://www.psx2central.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=27911&perpage=25&pagenumber=2
Regime change as I said all along - though I suspected and still do suspect he has WoMD hidden somewhere. Will we ever find them? Give it a while, if he hid them successfully from inspectors it might take a while to find them now.
-
Originally posted by Green Meanie
I\'m surprised Ace is so quiet, we had some good arguments during the course of the war.
Shame!!
I have been busy at work so my posting has been somewhat limited. It\'s not because I am hiding.
Now onto the article. If GWB went to war for for no reason he will pay the price. Who are these people making the claim?
As Blair said, a lot of people will be eating their words. Give it time and the truth will come out. Or are you going to tell me we would be better off with Saddam still in power?
Ace
-
In the interests of the US to go to war. It isn\'t exactly looking as easy as that to get a US friendly government in Iraq, they all want it for themselves and are starting to resent US troops being there.
Also, I\'ve said it before and I\'ll say it again, the IRA fund-raised in the US for years, a pretty f*cking big link to terrorism, helping to blow up your supposed greatest ally in the world, did we attack you or push for a regime change, no. Probably no country in the world is free from terrorist links, take a pin, a blindfold, a world map and a dizzy person and you may as well attack the first country you hit if you want to think like that.
The reasons for war, taken individually, have as much credibility as Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf (just not quite as funny).
-
I wasnt affected either way by him in power or not, so take that as your answer I suppose.
giga..please stop mentioning terrorist links that keep popping up as we have many, MANY within the US as well. DO we need a regime change too?
Another thing, unless this post starts to get longer, no way in the world Im sifting through hundreds of messages to physically prove what more than one of us on the *other side* have seen you type.
-
Originally posted by luckee
I wasnt affected either way by him in power or not, so take that as your answer I suppose.
giga..please stop mentioning terrorist links that keep popping up as we have many, MANY within the US as well. DO we need a regime change too?
Another thing, unless this post starts to get longer, no way in the world Im sifting through hundreds of messages to physically prove what more than one of us on the *other side* have seen you type.
It\'s not too hard to find quotes, I remember a few of the \'discussions\' we had.
http://www.psx2central.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29154&perpage=25&pagenumber=2
-
What are you guys going to do if GWB wins a second term? :)
-
Originally posted by luckee
I wasnt affected either way by him in power or not, so take that as your answer I suppose.
giga..please stop mentioning terrorist links that keep popping up as we have many, MANY within the US as well. DO we need a regime change too?
Another thing, unless this post starts to get longer, no way in the world Im sifting through hundreds of messages to physically prove what more than one of us on the *other side* have seen you type.
The fact is luckee you accused me of saying this war was all about WoMD. I provided a link to where I said it wasn\'t - it was posted more than a month before the actual war started. Ignore facts if you want to.
-
The fact is the war was a great success. If we initiate change then it will be an even bigger success. Once all the pieces of the puzzle are put together everything will become clear.
I think if we do not find clear evidence of WoMD (even the ones that were destroyed days before the war started) then GWB has some problems. I guarantee you that GWB will make sure heads will roll if the intelligence was incorrect.
Ace
-
personally i dont care wether the war was about oil, liberation, womd\'s, terrorists or whatever, i\'m just glad saddam is gone.
i only wish that the iraqi\'s get their heads out of their asses and work to get their country back on track (the U.S govt. must help too).
-
Originally posted by Tyrant
personally i dont care wether the war was about oil, liberation, womd\'s, terrorists or whatever, i\'m just glad saddam is gone.
i only wish that the iraqi\'s get their heads out of their asses and work to get their country back on track (the U.S govt. must help too).
I agree with everything in your post Tyrant. I don\'t care if it was about WoMD, terrorism or a regime change. Saddam was bad news period and the Iraqi people along with the region will be much better off without him in the long run. I don\'t understand why some want the US to pull out immediately.
The issue of WoMD coming to be the most evident and clear reason for the war only came about due to the lack of the UN to take a stand on something.
-
If these people are "savages" and what not - what was the point of a regime change? Don\'t say terrorist links, because they can be found everywhere, including in our own homeland , so give that a break.
And I would imagine that you would act like a "savage" , if another country came in and blew everything up, got rid of everything you was use to. Fact is, there is no goverment there now and no one to control them. Any country in the same position would act the same. It\'s human nature.
The war was a success? What the hell? One would hope so. The America military (mixed with British) fighting the Iraqi military is akin to the 16 year old bully beating up a 8 year old and saying, "look at me, I\'m oh so strong". Success? Yes. Big deal? Not really. A so-called "super-power" country beat up a third world country, gee, who would of figured?
And yes, at this point we and the Iraqi people would be better off if Saddam was still in power. We would of not lost innocent lives on both sides. The Iraqi people would still have some form of goverment, even if it was a dicator. And we American\'s wouldn\'t have to foot the bill to rebuild a country , that we should of never blew up in the first place.
As for what I\'ll do if Bush gets a second term. I\'ll grit my teeth and know that it is his last term, thank the lord. I am not a biblical person, but I sometimes think that if anyone could bring about biblical armageddon, then it would be GWB and his trigger happy Adminstration.
;)
-
Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
The war was a success? What the hell? One would hope so. The America military (mixed with British) fighting the Iraqi military is akin to the 16 year old bully beating up a 8 year old and saying, "look at me, I\'m oh so strong". Success? Yes. Big deal? Not really. A so-called "super-power" country beat up a third world country, gee, who would of figured?
[/B]
Sorry, but we heard a lot of doom and gloom for the coalition.
How many times did we hear that the causalities will be very high for the coalition? How many times did we hear about how the Republican Guard will not fold and that they are loyal? How many times did we hear quagmire? We had to stop operations for a few days because of a sand storm and the nay-sayers were out calling it the quagmire they predicted.
Only the people who wanted us to take a beating believed all that crap.
Ace
-
I agree with ace that many people predicted that the Iraqis would put up more resistance, and they were wrong...
If we can\'t set up a govermant soon this war was completley pointless, right now we just have the religous groups all wanting us out, and all wanting control.
-
While some of you might say that you never believed that this war was about WOMD but for a regime change......im not saying any names....tell that to Bush. They clearly stated that they emphacized(sp) the whole WoMD issue for this war, so basically every person in the US believes that was the reason for this war.
Knowing Bush he going to probably change what Victory means to him now. Before it was "removing saddam hussain and eliminating the threat of weapons of mass destruction"......nw its probably "Removing Saddam Hussain even though his weapons were probably sold or destroyed before our people could find them......Syria has them...........we will destroy........we will win.........."
Funny how it went from "pretty damn sure" to "maybe i was wrong".
-
I agree with Mystiq a hundred percent. When we went to war Bush was so sure of finding those WOMD and yet we came up with nothing. Now, he seems to be focusing his attention on Syria. And personally, that seems to be the Bush way about things. This Adminstration has constantly shifted its attention to one thing after another, without truly following through on any of it.
Did we ever get Osama Bin Laden, like promised? No.
Did we find WoMD? No.
Have we found Saddam? No.
So what does the Adminstration do? Shift attention over to Syria.
-
The war is less than two months old. Give it some time. You guys wanted to give the inspectors an insane amount of time and absolutely no time to the coalition forces. Funny how that works.
-
Thats a very hypocritical thing to say, we went to war BECAUSE you and others didn\'t want to extend weapons inspections...
-
Originally posted by Tyrant
personally i dont care wether the war was about oil, liberation, womd\'s, terrorists or whatever, i\'m just glad saddam is gone.
i only wish that the iraqi\'s get their heads out of their asses and work to get their country back on track (the U.S govt. must help too).
But what do you know? You only live over there. I\'d rather listen to our other posters here who live in places like FL, TX, CA, etc.. :)
I was all for the war originally because of WOMD and Terrorist training and support.
Personally I don\'t care if they find an ounce of anthrax, etc. I am happy for the regime change and without a doubt terrorist camps removed.
I love the list of all the countries we have bombed. Can you name any we shouldn\'t have dealt with?
-
We have been extending them for over 12 years.
-
OK.....12 years huh. So instead of giving peace a chance. The US went to war and found nothing yet........the same exact results would of come up if the Inspectors have finished their job. Instead there wouln\'t be any deaths or people going nuts.
But I forgot it\'s about the regime change now.
HOW DANGEROUS WAS SADDAM HUSSAIN IF IT TURNS OUT HE DOESN\'T HAVE NUKES??
Wasn\'t that what Bush said made him dangerous?
HOW DANGEROUS CAN SADDAM HUSSAIN BE IF IT TURNS OUT THAT HE DOESN\'T HAVE ANY WOMD TO GIVE TO TERRORIST?
Wasn\'t that another bright point brought up by our beloved GWB?
There could be a million terrorist ties, yet not one of them could mean problems. Hussain was just being friends with the terrorist. How can he sell them WOMD he doesn\'t have? But im pretty sure he destroyed them or sold it to them right before the war broke out....
-
Originally posted by SirMystiq
OK.....12 years huh. So instead of giving peace a chance. The US went to war and found nothing yet........the same exact results would of come up if the Inspectors have finished their job. Instead there wouln\'t be any deaths or people going nuts.
But I forgot it\'s about the regime change now.
HOW DANGEROUS WAS SADDAM HUSSAIN IF IT TURNS OUT HE DOESN\'T HAVE NUKES??
Wasn\'t that what Bush said made him dangerous?
HOW DANGEROUS CAN SADDAM HUSSAIN BE IF IT TURNS OUT THAT HE DOESN\'T HAVE ANY WOMD TO GIVE TO TERRORIST?
Wasn\'t that another bright point brought up by our beloved GWB?
There could be a million terrorist ties, yet not one of them could mean problems. Hussain was just being friends with the terrorist. How can he sell them WOMD he doesn\'t have? But im pretty sure he destroyed them or sold it to them right before the war broke out....
Chill my man. Stop being so angry. :)
Anyway, I still believe weapons will be found and you and many others will have to move that little red line of justification once again.
In any any case the world is a better place now without Saddam and his henchmen. When they are captured or brought back in a box we can be even happier.
-
Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of his own people. That makes him pretty dangerous.
Saddam jailed anyone for anything he didn\'t like and torchered them for years. That makes him pretty dangerous.
Saddam had Al Queida terrorist camps in his country that were manufacturing Risen. That makes him pretty dangerous.
Saddam was paying terrorists to act as suicide bombers against the US. That makes him pretty dangerous.
Saddam extorted billions of dollars of oil from the people or Iraq, while they suffered from a lack of medicine and food. That makes him pretty dangerous.
-
The US have guns, bombs, planes, tanks and a distinct lack of IQ. That makes them pretty dangerous.
-
Originally posted by Green Meanie
The US have guns, bombs, planes, tanks and a distinct lack of IQ. That makes them pretty dangerous.
I can except your American hating since you do not live here. No offense, I really don\'t care how you view us and our ways. I get far more upset with people who have reaped much from this land and do nothing but complain.
Ace
-
I don\'t really want to hate America, I don\'t actually hate the America, I\'m just getting pissed off with the bullshit, the attitude surrounding terrorism and the world, the crap foreign policy, the fact that if a country doesn\'t like you it runs a severe risk of getting trashed while all the time managing to stay sooo self righteous and perfect.
To back up the IQ statement.
One UK soldier can do the work of three from the US. A guy I know that used to do radio work as well as the usual fighting had to work with the US marines for a few months, they\'re each trained to do one job out of three and work as a team to make sure it comes together, when one is taken out of the loop for some reason the others couldn\'t do his job, they had to get the UK soldiers to replace. When the Marines weren\'t there it took just one UK soldier to do all jobs just as efficiently. If the training is that awful in this example the how far does it spread? Obviously the Air Force need some common sense too so it\'s looking bad.
That and the fact that when they went out into the desert and found a huge US military base they discovered the biggest fight in the Gulf was getting them to understand that they were from England (UK) not New England (US)!!
-
I need to get one of these magical brits to dig me a pool. :)
-
I think Green Meanie needs a reminder from the not so distant past...
The Falkland Island Conflict - those Exocet missles are a bitch huh?
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
I think Green Meanie needs a reminder from the not so distant past...
The Falkland Island Conflict - those Exocet missles are a bitch huh?
Giga For **** sake
the Falkland issue (even though we won) is still a sore issue.
what you did there was on the level of say if i said
Hahahah RPG\'s are a Real Hazard for Black Hawks in the "Mog".
:mad: :evil: :mad:
please TAKE THAT BACK !
:rpissed:
-
I agree, **** you giga, **** you vid and **** you ace.
although I\'d like to state that they were Argentinian missiles, not friendly.
:mad: :mad:
-
the starred word was f*ck in case you were curious
-
Originally posted by Green Meanie
the starred word was f*ck in case you were curious
used the same here
I mean come on whats next our American firends starting to Joke about IRA Killings...
ok how would they feal about some 9/11 jokes then.. sorry but i don\'t think they would stand for that...*coff*double standards and the fact that one American life is worth more and 10\'s or 100\'s of non American lifes*coff*
please lets get this back on Topic...
oh and Giga I still want an apology for the families of all the dead marines and sailors who died in that war.
-
You guys are just mean. Using curse words and all. And here I thought the bleeped out words were the word love.
Now stop it before you hurt me, I\'m fragile.
Ace
-
Originally posted by Ace
You guys are just mean. Using curse words and all. And here I thought the bleeped out words were the word love.
Now stop it before you hurt me, I\'m fragile.
Ace
No thats that plot from Dr Strangelove ;)
"you never see a kommie drink tap water" :laughing:
Great film. and very topical for the present International climate.
-
I am not taking that back... it was directed at Greens comments ooseven. If certain UKers want to start bringing up the historical blunders we could start with the whole situation in the Middle East since it was part of colonial Britain before some "wise" Brits started drawing lines in the sand to make countries disregarding tribal, ethnic and religious differences... and you talk about the IQ of the US!?!?!?!
As for the Falkland issue, one could make the argument that it was "imperialistic" for the UK to even want to keep that obsolete rock in the first place. Sure it was strategically important 100 years ago when ships ran on coal, but I am sure the sheep and goat farmers are a significant reason to go to war.
Lets not forget Montgomery and his "superiority complex" when he chose to launch Operation Market Garden - another example of great British IQ.
The reason I bring these up is not to belittle Britain, but I am sick of people like Green thinking the UK is superior to the US just because of a few friendly fire incidents. Britian is the closest US ally and probably always will be so I find Greens comments absurd as both countries fought a successful war and complimented each others abilities nicely. Why point out the rare mishaps Green? To try and start an argument?
-
Originally posted by Green Meanie
I agree, **** you giga, **** you vid and **** you ace.
although I\'d like to state that they were Argentinian missiles, not friendly.
:mad: :mad:
Actually they were French missles. Seems the French love aiding everyone who fights the US and the UK. :rolleyes:
-
Christ Giga…. I real hope you don\'t think like that ... i mean come one if there is one nation on the face of the planet that has been seen by the vast majority of the worlds population as imperialistic .. than the answer would be the United States of America.
the simple fact of the matter is that British imperialism was long on its way out (even before the Second world war in fact WWII was the death nail for the empire where the sun never sets) and as for the case of funding and supporting countries only to be bombing them a few years later... well that’s a fine craft practised by the US for years hence the global disgust in your "foreign" policy
Imperialism the American way
[list=1]
- Find a small country with massive resources
- Find Tin pot homicidal maniac to put in charge
- Commit to support said Tin pot homicidal maniac.. after all you are “saving” the countries people from communism. :rolleyes:
- Celebrate as the Tin pot homicidal maniac is now a Tin pot homicidal dictator and has pledged to give you more resources in exchange for bigger and better weapons.
- Support said Tin pot homicidal dictator with weapons and training which you will charge for at a premium rate….in fact you even provide him with intelligence to aid his military campaigns
- Ignore atrocity after atrocity.. I mean heck he’s your CASH cow after all
- Do nothing….[the sit on fat @rse and count blood money stage)
- (Step 7 not in your hands but … this one happens sooner or later) Tin pot homicidal dictator now bites the hand that feeds them
- Time to act….Drop bombs and blow them all back to the stone age, oh but don’t bomb any oil admin buildings in fact move resources to protect them .. you oppps sorry they will need it after the war :rolleyes:
- Award rebuilding contracts to American companies
- go back to step 1 in 12 to 18 months
p.s.
oh and REMEMBER THIS ? ! ? ! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
-
British Imperialism on its way out long before WW2!?!?!?! The only reason Britian ceased to be imperialistic is because of the loss of stature as a "world superpower" after WW2. Don\'t try and tell me and everyone else here that Britain is innocent. The Jews had to bomb British barracks to get you all to pull out of Palastine. Ghandi had to organize massive protests and strikes to get the British out of India... I won\'t even go to what happened to the British African colonies...
As for your other "colonies". The UK simply didn\'t have the manpower to oversee the "empire" after WW2. About the only thing that the UK does have the manpower to hold onto is a small island in the South Atlantic off of the coast of Argentina :rolleyes: - oh and a little rock at the entrance to the Mediteranian.
Go ahead and try to deny that it was the British government that created countries like: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Jordan... etc. They even turned a blind eye to apartheid in South Africa. I love how you ignore the big picture and focus on events no farther back than 20 years ago. Britain would still be imperialistic if she could, but she no longer rules the waves. :rolleyes:
Oh and as for your point #10 - BRITISH COMPANIES ARE ALSO REBUILDING IRAQ or didn\'t you get the memo on that one? :rolleyes:
-
lol, i think the record for use of most roll eyes smiley in a single thread has just been broken.
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Go ahead and try to deny that it was the British government that created countries like: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Jordan... etc.
that is not true, coz upto my knowladge of history these countries were present long before the british went on their colonisation rampage, only thing is that with the exception of SA all the other countries were british colonies/protectrates.
-
My point being is that did the British or did they not take ethnic and tribal differences into consideration when they created those countries?
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
My point being is that did the British or did they not take ethnic and tribal differences into consideration when they created those countries?
Has Any nation ?
-
If it\'s going to get like this then I\'ll have to say it.
At least there are blacks and Arabs still left in their countries after we were finished, unlike the Native Americans!
Sorry, petty crap but I couldn\'t help myself.
-
Originally posted by Green Meanie
If it\'s going to get like this then I\'ll have to say it.
At least there are blacks and Arabs still left in their countries after we were finished, unlike the Native Americans!
Sorry, petty crap but I couldn\'t help myself.
Tell that to the Cherokee and Mohican indian tribes that were on the east coast when the British colonized America.