2008 Presidential Candidates

[Rabid Headbanger]

Three reasons:

He was invading other countries. Besides, you fagnuts didn't join until your harbour got pwned.

They had nukes. The cold war was about power, not civilian treatment. Besides, the iron curtain was shut so tight we didn't know what his people were going through.

Again. NUKES. It was a power struggle.

 

[genocide roach]

Why should we care about what some foreign dictator does to his people?

2 reasons

1) we live in a global economy, where instability in one country affects the rest of the world. havnt you been watching the news? the housing problems in our country have affected many businesses overseas
2) when the technology exists for one country to build a missile and send it to our country, it is very much our business what is happening in that country.

Why aren't we invading Africa then GR?

i never said we shouldnt be involved with africa. areas like sudan need alot of help.
~gR~

 

[Rabid Headbanger]

i never said we shouldnt be involved with africa. areas like sudan need alot of help.
~gR~

But why aren't we?

Hmm?

 

[The Ozzman]

You aren't even a United States citizen, so why are you using 'we' like you are one?

 

[Ender Rises]

Because Bush is a dumbass?

 

[ThisIsACoolName]

1) saddam was well on his way to murdering millions of his own people (to include the use of chemical weapons. which is a WMD)

So how does causing more death solve the problem...?

2) he refused to comply with UN resolutions requiring inspects of his facilities looking for WMD production. the penalty for that included military action. everything else simply wasnt working. too bad most of the UN are spineless pussies who go back on their word. and many thanks to countries like the UK, australia, norway, canada, singapore, japan, korea, etc. who actually stepped up

So you think that, if a country defies the UN, that country should be invaded? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the US defied the UN by going into Iraq.

3) 1+2= a good chance saddam atleast had an active WMD program

That is a retarded reason to go to war.

oil is a pretty lame attack on the war, and one that is completly untrue. there is ongoing work being done to split oil revenue between the different groups in iraq. the focus is getting the money back to the iraqi people.

So the possibility that the United States wants to install a friendly government in an oil-rich area so that we may feed our own need for oil hasn't even crossed your mind?

 

[Rabid Headbanger]

Because whatever you do is going to fuck us over somehow?

 

[cookiecutter]

1) saddam was well on his way to murdering millions of his own people (to include the use of chemical weapons. which is a WMD)
2) he refused to comply with UN resolutions requiring inspects of his facilities looking for WMD production. the penalty for that included military action. everything else simply wasnt working. too bad most of the UN are spineless pussies who go back on their word. and many thanks to countries like the UK, australia, norway, canada, singapore, japan, korea, etc. who actually stepped up
3) 1+2= a good chance saddam atleast had a WMD active program

1) So I assume you support the invasion and occupation of Sudan and North Korea then. The United States has no right to be the World's Policeman.

2) You are completely wrong. The UN inspectors were in Iraq beginning in November 2002 (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/17/iraq/main544280.shtml). Bush failed to allow them to do their job, hence the UN's refusal to allow the use of force. The UN has since said that the war was not justified (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/03/21/iraq.weapons/). They aren't "spineless pussies" because they care about actually being right about their justifications for invading a sovereign nation. Also I got these from a quick google search. Maybe you should actually do some research before you spew falsehoods.

3) Failocaust. He didn't. He said he didn't. The UN inspectors didn't find any. And (big surprise!) HE DIDN'T ACTUALLY HAVE ANY!

 

[genocide roach]

He was invading other countries. Besides, you fagnuts didn't join until your harbour got pwned.

saddam invaded kuwait.

also, we WERE involved in WW2 before pearl harbor. we refused to sell ANYTHING to "axis" countries and supplied weapons to allies like the UK.
~gR~

 

[ThisIsACoolName]

He was invading other countries. Besides, you fagnuts didn't join until your harbour got pwned.



They had nukes. The cold war was about power, not civilian treatment. Besides, the iron curtain was shut so tight we didn't know what his people were going through.



Again. NUKES. It was a power struggle.

You're a fucking dumbass, by the way.

 

[The Ozzman]

History is doomed to repeat itself, which is why we need to monitor other countries and how they treat their people. Then again, when does the scope of our involvement end and some other country's begin? Should it be a joint effort to do this? What about countries that are our allies and are accused of human rights abuses?

I'm rambling, but these are questions that come up when you talk about it.

 

[Rabid Headbanger]

saddam invaded kuwait.

also, we WERE involved in WW2 before pearl harbor. we refused to sell ANYTHING to "axis" countries and supplied weapons to allies like the UK.
~gR~

Kuwait? Who cares about fucking kuwait? It wasn't like he tried to conquer half of europe. Theres a difference between regional conflict and a threat to world security.

And a trade embargo is nice, but gunfire is better.

 

[ThisIsACoolName]

Run along, Rabid.

 

[Ender Rises]

saddam invaded kuwait.

~gR~

Years ago, and that was dealt with.

 

[genocide roach]

1) So I assume you support the invasion and occupation of Sudan and North Korea then. The United States has no right to be the World's Policeman.

2) You are completely wrong. The UN inspectors were in Iraq beginning in November 2002 (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/17/iraq/main544280.shtml). Bush failed to allow them to do their job, hence the UN's refusal to allow the use of force. The UN has since said that the war was not justified (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/03/21/iraq.weapons/). They aren't "spineless pussies" because they care about actually being right about their justifications for invading a sovereign nation. Also I got these from a quick google search. Maybe you should actually do some research before you spew falsehoods.

3) Failocaust. He didn't. He said he didn't. The UN inspectors didn't find any. And (big surprise!) HE DIDN'T ACTUALLY HAVE ANY!

sudan and north korea need to be handled.

no, you are completly wrong. saddam refused to let inspectors in to high interest areas starting from after desert storm. gee i wonder why. and you can also have a program without building weapons. it is very likely he was designing new weapons to replace the old ones that he used on the kurds (and yes, we do have proof he used these weapons on them)

and like i said before. we DO have the right to be involved in the business of other countries. security and economy are 2 great reasons to keep countries from acting like total douchebags. isolation does not work, nor will it ever. and if you want proof, look at north korea.
~gR~

 

[cookiecutter]

Iraq invaded Kuwait in the first Gulf War and it was dealt with appropriately with a multi-national coalition to protect the rights of a sovereign nation. I'm sure in that war oil was a motive and had it been a different country or region no one would've cared, but that was still a lot more reasonable than invading a country unprovoked on false premises

 

[cookiecutter]

sudan and north korea need to be handled.

no, you are completly wrong. saddam refused to let inspectors in to high interest areas starting from after desert storm. gee i wonder why. and you can also have a program without building weapons. it is very likely he was designing new weapons to replace the old ones that he used on the kurds (and yes, we do have proof he used these weapons on them)

and like i said before. we DO have the right to be involved in the business of other countries. security and economy are 2 great reasons to keep countries from acting like total douchebags. isolation does not work, nor will it ever. and if you want proof, look at north korea.
~gR~

Ok my bad, I thought CBS was a better source than you. I guess I was wrong. We do not have the right to conquer other countries. That is not isolationist, that is humanitarian.

 

[genocide roach]

Years ago, and that was dealt with.

just like we dealt with hitler. that was years ago too. so how can you say its ok to oust one dictator, but not another for doing the exact same thing?

Kuwait? Who cares about fucking kuwait?

and your comment about kuwait makes you look pretty fucking stupid. and based on that, i'm not replying to any of your posts on this subject. its obvious that you dont have the intelligence to deal with a serious subject like war.
~gR~

 

[ThisIsACoolName]

just like we dealt with hitler. that was years ago too. so how can you say its ok to oust one dictator, but not another for doing the exact same thing?

How the fuck is it the "exact same thing"?

 

[CAIRATH]

its obvious that you dont have the intelligence to deal with a serious subject like war.
~gR~

And you do? All you do is make uninformed statement after uninformed statement clearly based on some deep seated political bias that you seem to have.

Anyone who at this point still thinks that the war in Iraq was both justified and a good idea (two very different things) is a total idiot.