Why *I* think we invaded Iraq

Kamikaze

Respected Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2002
Messages
2,089
Reaction score
1
Location
Canada
You should respect your teacher or your parents for what they are. That doesnt mean you have to like them or agree with everything they say. Same goes for the president's title. That position means a certain amount of respect, which I give.

so by your own admission you think that even if the president is a pedophile you should respect him because he's the president...

Right. Any other attempts?

attempt to what? belittle your comprehension of basic english... i'd say i accomplished that quite well

Of course it is, you are opinionated to a point where you cannot accept anything he says, does, or suggests. Dont you love political close-mindedness?

i gave him more than enough time to prove himself. what the hell does this moron have to do before you realize he's the worst president in your countries history, get his head stuck in a horses ass, sell half your country to the Saudi's, start WWIII? because i'm sure if you give him enough time he'll do all 3:D


Erm..no? Ever heard of technical difficulties? So if we suddenly lose contact with a ship out on the ocean, we give 5 minutes and then send a missile out to it? What about if a school's phones go out? Do we wait for a few seconds and if we cant get an answer we blow it to Hell?
Not the greatest idea there, Chief.

ever hear of the plane has gone 200 miles of course for no reason and won't answer any calls. sounds like more than technical difficulties, especially when 1 plane has already crashed into the WTC


Once again, no.

what do you call hearing the nations under attck and the one thing you do is read a childrens book to elemetary school kids... i'd call it not doing your ****ing job



Do.. what? Jump into his time machine and go back before the planes hit?
The errors in the system were already there since Clinton's era. Remember this attack happened rather quickly after Bush took office, not really enough time after to be "his fault." Believe it or not, the fault actually lies with Al-Qaeda!

how about he leaves the elementary school to do anything other than reading to children, that would have been a great idea. the errors were in the system true, but excuses are like assholes, everyones got one. suck it up and take responsibility for what happened. i do blame al queda, but i also blame Bush especially because of August 6, 2001.. if you don't know this date you should hang your head in shame and never speak about politics again

Hmm.. again I ask of the public what this mysterious "decision" is.
He was at a school in Florida, reading to little kids, when the news was told to him. At this point the other planes are already in the air flying to their destination (remember that we dont know which planes are hijacked except the ones already hit), which is totally unknown. I've already explained to you why shooting down the planes wasnt an option, so what should he have done?

leaving the elemetary school would have been a good start


And so we have the 'decision' again, great.
Im guessing you would suggest that we blow up the school just to make sure, yes?

no, i would suggest we stop reading to elemetary school kids and do something
 

Lights

Member!
Joined
Nov 12, 2003
Messages
898
Reaction score
1
Location
Beyond Religion and Science
Website
Visit site
Kamikaze said:
so by your own admission you think that even if the president is a pedophile you should respect him because he's the president...
If that person somehow earned that position, yes. Of course, respect is lost just as soon as gained, so that respect would probably be gone quickly. I am supposing that you have lost respect for the current president, and I havent.


attempt to what? belittle your comprehension of basic english... i'd say i accomplished that quite well
And how exactly have you done this? By claiming that I didnt understand an article? Super.


i gave him more than enough time to prove himself. what the hell does this moron have to do before you realize he's the worst president in your countries history, get his head stuck in a horses ass, sell half your country to the Saudi's, start WWIII? because i'm sure if you give him enough time he'll do all 3:D
Hardly the worst, thought not necessarily the best. What does he have to do to earn you respect? Keep America safe (have you seen any other attackd on America lately?)? Bring the economy back from a devastating state? Help make the world a safer place?

He hasn't exactly had the easiest term. No one could have made it out of this without great opposition from someone.



ever hear of the plane has gone 200 miles of course for no reason and won't answer any calls. sounds like more than technical difficulties, especially when 1 plane has already crashed into the WTC
Ever heard of a plane crashing into a skyscraper before 9/11?
You have to look at this from a pre-9/11 prespective. People weren't as paranoid back then. If a plane went off course, they tried to find out what was happening, but they didnt call in the Airforce to blow it up. Remember the second plane hit just minutes after the first, not much time to do anything. It was a bad place to be in for us.


what do you call hearing the nations under attck and the one thing you do is i'd call it not doing your ****ing job
Ignoring the people of America isnt doing his job either.
You make it sound as though he started reading after the planes hit, which isnt the case.



. the errors were in the system true, but excuses are like assholes, everyones got one. suck it up and take responsibility for what happened. i do blame al queda, but i also blame Bush especially because of August 6, 2001.. if you don't know this date you should hang your head in shame and never speak about politics again
The blame isn't on Bush. Unless we had specific information saying exactly, or even just close, what Osama was planning to do, then it would be his fault and I would acknowledge it. However, some vague reports are not enough to act upon with any certainty. The blame could only be put on Bush from what he did afterwards. As you know, we swiftly moved into their backyard and raised serious hell.


read a childrens book to elemetary school kids...

how about he leaves the elementary school to do anything other than reading to children, that would have been a great idea

leaving the elemetary school would have been a good start



no, i would suggest we stop reading to elemetary school kids and do something
Do what? You do realize that Bush isnt still at the school.. right? Actions have been made. But at that present time, the terrorists had outmoved us and were a step ahead. They accomplshied their goals to due the errors and problems from before Bush's time. Now that we have went and taken out 3/4 of their group, this shouldn't happen again.
 

ORC-r0x0r-ROC

Like my cute wabbit?
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
1,152
Reaction score
0
Location
Take a guess...
Website
Visit site
Quote me where I said, "OGM YOU TEH STOOPID!1!!"
You said I obviously didn't know what a embassy, saying I do not know the meaning of a simple thing is calling me stupid.
All I'm saying is that terrorist attacks didn't just start happening after Bush took office. 9/11 had been in the planning stages for years before Bush got into office.
All I'm saying is that he handled a lot of them quite well and he recovered a lot of hostages.
ORC-r0x0r-ROC, your just like any other Bush Basher, saying anything to not get him re-elected, bush gave weapons of mass destruction and chemical weapons to Iraq then claimed saddam made them? wow, quite and imagination you have there.
America sold them biological weapons. I never said Bush did, and it is true that America sold Iraq a lot of thier weapons.
yeah, clinton did sit back, he was always afraid to go to war, bush finally got shit done and is cleaning up after clinton. your just assuming bush is another terrorists, giving iraq weapons then using that as a reason to attack them, please.
1) At least clinton got a lot of the hostages taken out alive, he didn't have to start a war. 2) I neverf said Bush sold them then. 3) I never said the last bit aswell. So that argument is useless. Waste of time writing lies.
Please, share with me this quote that you have from the CIA.
1) The airplanes could've been shot down. 2) He was warned and ****ing ignored it. http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,716529,00.html
3)
Shoot down planes? PLEASE! Could you imagine the uproar if Bush had ordered the Airforce to shoot down our own civilian planes? He would be sitting on his ranch right now, impeached.
Look at the recent scare in the UK they used military planes to excort the jet down. No one even bothered to attempt this. Hundreds or thousands dead?
You should respect your teacher or your parents for what they are. That doesnt mean you have to like them or agree with everything they say. Same goes for the president's title. That position means a certain amount of respect, which I give.
No, a title does not grant instant respect, if a person is not worthy of respect no matter what title then why should he recieve it.
Hardly the worst, thought not necessarily the best. What does he have to do to earn you respect? Keep America safe (have you seen any other attackd on America lately?)? Bring the economy back from a devastating state? Help make the world a safer place?
Oh don't worry, while the hate for Bush and the west helps terrorists recruit places like spain won't get attacked, they don't just attack America but they attack her allies. Yeah, his job creation really good.... I have posted a million times about his shitty economic plan.
Ignoring the people of America isnt doing his job either.
Yeah, he WAS IGNORING THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA but he wasn't ignoring the papers he posed for. I don't call having more holidays and spending too much time taking tours and shit running the country.
The blame isn't on Bush. Unless we had specific information saying exactly, or even just close, what Osama was planning to do, then it would be his fault and I would acknowledge it. However, some vague reports are not enough to act upon with any certainty. The blame could only be put on Bush from what he did afterwards. As you know, we swiftly moved into their backyard and raised serious hell.
He should've listened and stepped up security.
You make it sound as though he started reading after the planes hit, which isnt the case.
No, he makes it seem like he wasn't doing his job when it happened.
You have to look at this from a pre-9/11 prespective.
Hey, someone tried to eagerly to prove his point that terrorist attacks didn't just start when Bush got into office.
 

Sogeking

Shithead
Joined
Jan 23, 2003
Messages
4,352
Reaction score
3
woah! wait a second, just because terrorists plan on hijacking a plane doesent mean they plan on flying into a building! and what are you supposed to do at the airports? check every single arab that walks through the terminal, pulling them aside and looking at their record? remember that they used something like plastic box cutters, and at the time those(i believe so) were aloud on airplanes. did we(bush included) know wether they were going to do something that has never been done before durring peace time?(excluding japan, but then again they stuck to suicide bombing ships) In previous hijackings, the plane was merely forced to land elsewhere and the hostages are given whatever they want. in fact, the rule of thumb on hijackers in airplanes was to sit and do whatever the hijackers said. And its not like they said, OH PILOT, FLY HERE! they took over the controls becaue the hijackers were trained off of flight sims.

So, what do you think bush should have done with the information that planes were going to possibly be hijacked in the future? ill put my spin on what you say
 

dreamcrusader

Member!
Joined
Oct 22, 2003
Messages
268
Reaction score
0
Location
City 17
Website
Visit site
1) The airplanes could've been shot down. 2) He was warned and ****ing ignored it.



LOL, yeah, we are just going to shoot down civilion aircraft around new york. Theres a senible idea! And if he did you whiny ass liberal would have cry'd about that to, forming the new excuse "Maybe it could have been settled on the plane" You dont know how bad it sounds to "shoot" down these planes.
 

Lights

Member!
Joined
Nov 12, 2003
Messages
898
Reaction score
1
Location
Beyond Religion and Science
Website
Visit site
dreamcrusader said:
1) The airplanes could've been shot down. 2) He was warned and ****ing ignored it.



LOL, yeah, we are just going to shoot down civilion aircraft around new york. Theres a senible idea! And if he did you whiny ass liberal would have cry'd about that to, forming the new excuse "Maybe it could have been settled on the plane" You dont know how bad it sounds to "shoot" down these planes.
Exactly, there wasnt anything he could do to appease the American people. It was a lose-lose situation. Even in the wake of it all, not everyone would be happy. If we invaded Afghanistan, people would, and did, cry about it. Had we done nothing, others would have cried for war. :/


ORC, I dont know about the UK thing, but I am supposing it was later than '01?
And are you suggesting the terrorists would have worked with the authorities and let themselves be escorted down?

The attacks on Spain were out of desperation, to try and get us to stop. They want us out of the Middle East more than the pacifist free people of the world. Us being there puts a cramp in the terrorist operations. Remember, giving into demands only leads to more demands.
 

cxoli

BattleForums Addict
Joined
Mar 19, 2004
Messages
644
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas lol
Website
cxoli.net
ok so your not willing to fight for your country who gives you your freedom of choice, speech ,etc (all that fall under the bill of rights), and also gives your protection from other invading countries.....
I am willing to be thankful for these things but I am not willing to fight a war I don't believe in. I don't see why people have such a hard time understanding this. I don't agree with wars. I do not want to fight in them. I refuse to take the life of another person.

we have made things better by taking sadam out..... and where in the hell are you getting innocent people from? they are dressed in their normal clothing shooting at us....duh thats a no brainer shoot first ask questions later.
When wars are going on, innocent people always die. It may not be intentional, but I still don't agree with it.

Innocent people die every day.... i wounder how many innocent people die in the us alone better yet.... a state or even a major city...
Nearly 30,000 innocent people die every day from starvation or hunger-related diseases. Just because it happens doesn't mean it's not horrible.

have we searched everywhere.... No! hell they could have transported them somwhere we dont know of so you cant really say they are not there....
But you can't really say they are there. Whenever you have something that can't be proven, you have to accept all possiblities. At the moment, taking into account how much area we've searched and how much time we've spent doing so, it seems more likely to me that there are no weapons of mass destruction.

We should just leave them to die.
Or maybe we should just stop killing them off.

You weren't really sure what you were saying were you...
I already said that I was basing my opinions off of what I've heard and that what I said may have been incorrect.

ORC-r0x0r-ROC, your just like any other Bush Basher, saying anything to not get him re-elected, bush gave weapons of mass destruction and chemical weapons to Iraq then claimed saddam made them? wow, quite and imagination you have there.
I believe he was referring to the Iran-Iraq War, during which we supplied Iraq with weapons even though we weren't supposed to. This would have taken place while the senior George Bush was in office.

However, some vague reports are not enough to act upon with any certainty.
Eh? Didn't we attack Iraq because of some vague reports?
 

Lights

Member!
Joined
Nov 12, 2003
Messages
898
Reaction score
1
Location
Beyond Religion and Science
Website
Visit site
cxoli said:
Eh? Didn't we attack Iraq because of some vague reports?
Ah, touche. There was a difference though. With Saddam, we at least thought we knew exactly what was going on and how to stop it; we knew where Saddam was. With this terror, we had no clue at all from where or when it would come.. much more difficult to make beneficial actions.
 

ORC-r0x0r-ROC

Like my cute wabbit?
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
1,152
Reaction score
0
Location
Take a guess...
Website
Visit site
woah! wait a second, just because terrorists plan on hijacking a plane doesent mean they plan on flying into a building!
I never said that, he should've taken measured so one couldn't be hijacked in the first place.
did we(bush included) know wether they were going to do something that has never been done before durring peace time
As you said people have hijacked them before, what the hell do you think it's doing heading towards the pentagon? Land outside and say hi?
in fact, the rule of thumb on hijackers in airplanes was to sit and do whatever the hijackers said. And its not like they said, OH PILOT, FLY HERE! they took over the controls becaue the hijackers were trained off of flight sims.
Why does this matter?
LOL, yeah, we are just going to shoot down civilion aircraft around new york. Theres a senible idea!
Hey, it wasn't just new york you know. ****ing hell at least send planes up there to escort, then if the terrorists realised they wouldn't succeed whey might land or something. If it was shot down maybe less people would've died.
You dont know how bad it sounds to "shoot" down these planes.
And you don't realise how bad it sounds to let planes just crash into citys, if a plane was hijacked again you would shoot it down.
Exactly, there wasnt anything he could do to appease the American people. It was a lose-lose situation. Even in the wake of it all, not everyone would be happy
Then go for the one that saves lives.
And are you suggesting the terrorists would have worked with the authorities and let themselves be escorted down?
Well you didn't know at the time if they would or not. They might've realised that it wouldn't work and not sacrafice there own lives.
Us being there puts a cramp in the terrorist operations.
If you took over all of the midle east it wouldn't stop. It just means they don't have to go as far to take hostages and kill Americans.
we have made things better by taking sadam out..... and where in the hell are you getting innocent people from? they are dressed in their normal clothing shooting at us....duh thats a no brainer shoot first ask questions later.
I have seen a tape of a helicopter gunship seeing a person having no weapon, wounded but they gunned him down.
 

Kamikaze

Respected Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2002
Messages
2,089
Reaction score
1
Location
Canada
Lights said:
Ah, touche. There was a difference though. With Saddam, we at least thought we knew exactly what was going on and how to stop it; we knew where Saddam was. With this terror, we had no clue at all from where or when it would come.. much more difficult to make beneficial actions.
so starting a war on a hunch is a good thing?
everyone and their dog knows iraq had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks on the us.
if all a country has do do is have conections to known terrorists to be a threat to the us then you'd better start attacking the entire world. whether a countries leaders know it or will admit to it if they are, every country in the world is harboring terrorists and all have the potential to be a base of operations in the next wave of attacks...
 

Lights

Member!
Joined
Nov 12, 2003
Messages
898
Reaction score
1
Location
Beyond Religion and Science
Website
Visit site
There was more than a hunch. Much more. WMD's were just the start.
Starting a war on preemptive measures can be a good thing, yes.
Connections and openly supporting differ from one another.


Yes, every country, even including the US, is harboring terrorists openly or unknowingly. However, one of our goals, as Bush has said, is to make terrorists more unwelcome in countries around the world. If we can get it to a point where they have no base of operations, things can start to happen for the good. We cannot win this war on terror in the conventional sense, but we can severly dampen the terrorists cause.


Of course, this has nothing to do with Irag. Yet, somehow, every Iraq thread turns into a terrorists thread or vice versa. Interesting. >:O
 

cxoli

BattleForums Addict
Joined
Mar 19, 2004
Messages
644
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas lol
Website
cxoli.net
Ah, touche. There was a difference though. With Saddam, we at least thought we knew exactly what was going on and how to stop it; we knew where Saddam was. With this terror, we had no clue at all from where or when it would come.. much more difficult to make beneficial actions.
I don't know....It seems like we've made too many assumptions. Also, I never said Bush did the wrong thing on 9/11. I doubt anyone else could have done any better, and I don't blame him for what happened (I'm not that stupid). I'm also not saying that it's bad we're trying to stop terrorism, I'm just saying I don't agree with the way we're going about it :/

Of course, this has nothing to do with Irag. Yet, somehow, every Iraq thread turns into a terrorists thread or vice versa. Interesting. >:O
Very interesting indeed.
 

NewPosts

New threads

Top