|
|
Dingo
Responsible
Legendary Hero
God of Dark SPAM
|
posted September 16, 2003 02:11 AM |
|
|
Quote:
It's USA's own fault that the World Trade enmter was destroyed and by all the gods, I don't feel the slightest sorry for them.
Hey look its Osama!
I should Slap you.
*Slap*
____________
The Above Post/Thread/Idea Is CopyRighted by, The Dingo Corp.
|
|
Romana
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Thx :D
|
posted September 23, 2003 06:45 PM |
|
|
|
Aquaman333
Famous Hero
of the seven seas
|
|
posted September 23, 2003 06:48 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Bombing the poor countries doesn't prevent terror, it feeds it. Ít's USA's own fault that the World Trade enmter was destroyed and by all the gods, I don't feel the slightest sorry for them. USA and Israel are into heavy competition about being the greediest, cruelest terror country of the world. I feel sorry for the Palis and the Iraqi (not the regime doh). If somebody take a sniper and put a bullet in Bushs hwad, I won't be sorry...
Do you have any proof to back up your radical claim? I doubt it. "Cruelest terror country"?
____________
"Brian, look! There's a message in my Alphabits! It says,
"OOOOOOO!"."
"Peter, those are Cheerios."-Family Guy
|
|
LordTitan
Famous Hero
Hit Dice: 76d12+608 HP
|
|
posted September 24, 2003 12:31 AM |
|
|
WHOA! Hold on! That's quite an aqusation to call a hole country "War Mungers" (Okay you didn't say it, but you did spell it out pretty well). I'm shure that there are nice people in the U.S, but the problem is the leaders (No offense). The people belive what they're told, and so they go along with anything the President says, not just the U.S. but almost everywhere. George Bush seems to have forgotten that the U.S. sold Irac and all those places the world-destroying tech. He should realy try to look back on history.
____________
Spaek the Titan
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted October 28, 2003 01:19 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Bush: U.S. Progress Spurring Iraq Attacks
By SCOTT LINDLAW, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Despite two days of audacious, deadly attacks, President Bush (news - web sites) insisted Monday that the United States is making progress in Iraq (news - web sites) and said American successes are actually spurring the violence by making insurgents more desperate.
But defense officials said the synchronized suicide bombings also suggested a new level of coordination by attackers, and Democrats scoffed at the president's argument, leveling some of their sharpest criticism yet.
"Does the president really believe that suicide bombers are willing to strap explosives to their bodies because we're restoring electricity and creating jobs for Iraqis?" said Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites ), D-Mass., a White House candidate. "Is the president arguing that the better things get in Iraq, the more dangerous it will become for American soldiers?"
The quadruple attacks in Baghdad on Monday, killing nearly 40 people and injuring more than 200, complicated the White House effort to paint Iraq as a country where life is returning to normal. The bombings plunged parts of the capital into chaos, leaving scenes of broken, bloody bodies and twisted, burning automobiles.
Since Bush declared an end to major combat in Iraq six months ago, 113 U.S. soldiers have been killed by hostile fire, and about 1,675 have been injured in hostilities. American forces sustain an average of 26 attacks a day.
The president, meeting with U.S. Iraqi administrator L. Paul Bremer in the Oval Office to discuss the security situation, pledged to hunt down the "cold-blooded killers, terrorists" who are conducting the attacks. He expressed particular dismay that the suicide bombing attacks targeted Red Cross aid workers and police officers.
"They don't care who they kill. They just want to kill," Bush told reporters.
Also attending the White House meeting were the military commander in Iraq, Gen. John Abizaid; Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld; Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Richard Myers; and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites).
"The more progress we make on the ground, the more free the Iraqis become, the more electricity is available, the more jobs are available, the more kids that are going to school, the more desperate these killers become," Bush said.
"They can't stand the thought of a free society. They hate freedom. They love terror. They love to try to create fear and chaos," Bush said.
Bremer added that "a lot of wonderful things have happened" in Iraq: The country has a functioning Cabinet, all schools and hospitals are open and electricity has returned to prewar levels.
"We'll have rough days, such as we've had the last couple of days," Bremer said. "But the overall thrust is in the right direction."
But Democratic presidential candidates said the surge in violence only bolstered their contention that postwar Iraq is a mess.
"I just don't understand the president's logic ? that because there is more violence and more deaths, things are going well. In my book, that means things are worse," said Democratic presidential contender Howard Dean (news - web sites).
Said Kerry, a Vietnam War veteran: "This sounds frighteningly like the 'light at the end of the tunnel' rhetoric of Vietnam. Every day, the White House's excuses become more insulting to our troops on the ground."
Sen. Joe Lieberman (news - web sites ), D-Conn., said in New Hampshire that he was "startled" by Bush's words. "With all respect, it makes no sense: This is a tragedy that occurred today, and it's amid growing signs of dangerous disorder in Iraq."
The bombings came hours after clashes around Baghdad killed three U.S. soldiers overnight, and a day after insurgents hit a hotel full of U.S. occupation officials with rockets, killing a U.S. lieutenant colonel and wounding 18 other people. The Pentagon (news - web sites) identified the officer as Army Lt. Col. Charles H. Buehring, 40, of Fayetteville, N.C.
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz also was in the hotel, but was not hurt.
Bush sidestepped questions about who is behind the attacks.
Pentagon officials said they believed loyalists of ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites ) were responsible for the bombings. Top Iraqi and U.S. officers blamed "foreign fighters" for the day's mayhem. White House spokesman Scott McClellan pointed to a third class of possible culprits: the criminals Saddam released from Iraqi prisons as he was losing his grip on power.
Love it. "The fact that our soldiers are being killed is proof that we're winning."
____________
Drive by posting.
|
|
The_Power_Bu...
![The_Power_Bumper]()
Disgraceful
|
|
posted November 06, 2003 12:34 PM |
|
|
BOMB THE BASTARDS!
____________
|
|
The_Power_Bu...
![The_Power_Bumper]()
Disgraceful
|
|
posted November 08, 2003 01:19 AM |
|
|
Regardless, the actual war is over... but still...
BOMB THE BASTARDS!
____________
|
|
morgan_le_fey
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 09, 2003 09:35 PM |
|
|
Ok lets talk about the real reason you Europeans are whining about the removal of your hero Saddam Hussein. Saddam had debts of 120 billion dollars, owed mostly to Germany, Russia, and the wonderfully enlightened French. Of that sum almost half was loaned by the Russian government. Iraq under Saddam had yearly oil revenues of about 20 billion...a considerable portion, i would assume, of its total GNP(total yearly output of wealth). That means it takes 6 years of Iraq giving all oil revenue to its lenders...without a single penny going to help the Iraqi people..and for what? So Saddam could attack and bully his neighbors and his lenders(you know who) could get rich off the interest.
No reasonable lender would offer such a loan to a warlord whose only means of paying back that debt was to build up a war machine and attack his neighbors. Because how else can you make a profit with guns and bullets? Thus, the Germans, the French, and the Russians became partners in Saddams evil.
Saddams great vision for the islamic world was Arab unity..to unite the moslem world under on strong leader. And it doesnt take too much imagination to guess who he had in mind for the job...does it? What do you think would have been the result of that? It would have put his regime in control of oil prices. He could have charge 40 dollars a barrel for oil, $100, $200......Saddam Hussien would have been setting the prices...and what happens to the world economy...that depends upon a fair price for its energy when he raises them to the sky?
Its very simple...the world economy goes down...even the people in the arab world would likely suffer. Because saddam was ruthless. When he found out he was going to lose the Gulf War, he destroyed the oil that rightly(in my view) was never HIS property but belonged to the people of Iraq.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 10, 2003 12:13 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Ok lets talk about the real reason you Europeans are whining about the removal of your hero Saddam Hussein
Firstly you make the mistake of assuming the opinions of the French/Germans/Russians represents that of the European continent as a whole. It does not, it represents the opinions and policies of those nations governments.
Secondly Britain and Spain (which if you forgot is in Europe) both allied themselves quite firmly to the USA. This makes you "europeans" statement quite wrong and out of touch with reality. It makes your statement a generalisation that just isn't true frankly.
Thirdly your tone almost indicates that you believe that Europeans as a whole are either responsible for, or agree with the policies laid out, neither you nor I can say if even the people of France, Germany and Russia do or do not agree. The difference is you seem to think you can say these things. I would venture to suggest that since you do not personally know every European, or even every person in those nations, it would be beyond the limits of your knowledge to make such a statement.
Quote:
Thus, the Germans, the French, and the Russians became partners in Saddams evil.
That's very interesting, and in many ways no doubt true, but then again if you are trying to say that this makes the US or UK angels or even better than those nations you quite clearly don't pay a whole great deal of attention to who the allied nations support do you? (Syria, Israel, Pakistan and others)
Quote:
Saddams great vision for the islamic world was Arab unity..to unite the moslem world under on strong leader. And it doesnt take too much imagination to guess who he had in mind for the job...does it? What do you think would have been the result of that? It would have put his regime in control of oil prices. He could have charge 40 dollars a barrel for oil, $100, $200......Saddam Hussien would have been setting the prices...and what happens to the world economy...that depends upon a fair price for its energy when he raises them to the sky?
I would imagine Europe would be up **** creek without a paddle. Unlike the states an awful lot of Europe does not have it's own oil supplies, or does not have sufficient oil supplies for it's needs. I find the notion that France and Germany would willingly support someone garunteed to bring a rise in Oil prices a little far fetched. I would imagine their support would fall off should this look likely. Beyond that though part of the reason why Hussain and Iraq grew to such power before recent times also owes much to American and Israeli support during the Iran/Iraq war, hardly I would suggest the fault of "europeans" right?
Your argument might be useful in demeaning the actions of some of the european nations you mentioned, but it hardly sets them aside from the UK or USA. Your woeful lack of ability to tell apart a continent from 3 countries makes your initial arguments pathetic.
Let me let you into a little secret, the opposition countries being nasty and corrupt doesn't prevent your country from being the same, nor does it bring any kind of justification to your actions. By the same token it neither justifies or otherwise their actions. Nations and governments do what they feel is in their best national interest and I don't think anyone can seriously claim that this more than rarely matches a moral foreign policy.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted November 10, 2003 03:45 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Ok lets talk about the real reason you Europeans are whining about the removal of your hero Saddam Hussein. Saddam had debts of 120 billion dollars, owed mostly to Germany, Russia, and the wonderfully enlightened French.
To be fair, that money was used to buy some weapons from the US.
Quote:
Because how else can you make a profit with guns and bullets?
You can sell them. It works quite well, really. Put it this way, Remington executives aren't exactly paupers.
Quote:
Saddams great vision for the islamic world was Arab unity..to unite the moslem world under on strong leader.
Actually, Saddam's great vision for the ARAB world was ARAB unity under a nationalist, not islamist agenda. Not a good thing, but we have successfully united the arab nationalists and the islamic fundamentalists, groups that traditionally do not get along by going to war.
All told, though, your quick calculation of "Saddam = bad" + "Specific European actions = bad" = "anything that goes against either must be good" should get you a position in the intelligence agency of your choice.
____________
Drive by posting.
|
|
hamsi128
Promising
Supreme Hero
tosser tavern owner
|
|
posted November 10, 2003 04:07 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Saddams great vision for the islamic world was Arab unity..to unite the moslem world under on strong leader.
Muslim world isnt arabian countries only... and saddam has no desire to unite arabian reunion... most of arabian countries have an eye on israel ...
|
|
morgan_le_fey
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 10, 2003 06:31 PM |
|
|
haha hamsi...you finally say something worth responding to...even if its wrong. Dont judge Saddam by his rhetoric, by what he says because hes a liar. And his lies are completely ridiculous.
You say that he wanted to get Israel because the islamic world is united agaainst israel or something...i think thats what you said. But what did saddam actually DO???? EH? He attacked his good moslem brothers the Iranians, he attacked the peaceful Kurds in the north using poison gas on children in small villages that were no match for his armies, he fought border skirmishes with Syria and Turkey and finally his aggressive lunge into Kuwait which appears to have been precipitated after the Kuwaitis ask Saddam for repayment of a half a billion dollars they loaned him, thus making him both a thief and a deadbeat. When the war in kuwait did finally escalate Saddam fired a few al-husseins into israel but more of them hit the Palestinian parts of the country in question than hit any Israeli targets.
But Israel hamsi? What has the great Islamic strongman ever dont to them? Answer: nothing, nothing and nothing. Saddamns words against the Jews are very tough. But his actions suggest he loves Jews and hates moslems and other people native to the region.
We have a saying here in America....actions speak louder than words. end.
____________
|
|
hamsi128
Promising
Supreme Hero
tosser tavern owner
|
|
posted November 10, 2003 06:53 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You say that he wanted to get Israel because the islamic world is united agaainst israel or something...i think thats what you said
this my second warning please dont tell your ideas with wrong used words... ''islamic world is united against israel''... whats this??? ARABES were united against israel not turks ,chechens ,bosnia etc... islam is a religion , if i say christians are attacked iraq rather then usa and england; it will be same... people here must be careful on some ''words'' they are using...
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted November 10, 2003 07:02 PM |
|
|
I'd like to second hamsi's comments. Arab does not mean muslim and muslim does not mean arab. The most populated Islamic nation isn't even in the middle east.
____________
Drive by posting.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 10, 2003 07:54 PM |
|
|
Oh dear, please, if you wish to spout your rhetoric can you for god's sake at least do your homework and secondly adhere to some form of common sense please Morgan?
Firstly to my knowledge he has repeatedly offered rewards of cash to the families of suicide bombers in Israel, now I don't know about you, but I don't consider someone who pays people to blow a country up a huge friend of said country.
Secondly your comment about the missiles is so misleading it's laughable. You seem to indicate that they can be aimed properly, when it's clear they never could be. We're not talking US smart weapons here, we're talking basic with a capital "B".
Thirdly it's to be noted that throughout most of those the major western nations had little or no problems whatsoever with his actions, it's even arguable that the US diplomat in Iraq just prior to the Gulf war indicated that the USA would not intervene in the "disagreement" between Kuwait and Iraq. If hussain hates those around him, it's pretty clear that until recently the Majority of the western governments were quite happy to either hate them or simply not care about them. Some such as the USA and others even harnassed this hatred for their own means
On common sense, well where to begin. A news flash for you, dictators rarely love anything but power and money and mostly hate anyone or anything that stands in their way of such things. Why did he pick on such nations? Well the answer is simple really, Israel would have kicked the **** out of Iraq in a war, so picking on them won't have been to sensible. Hussain picked targets based on their compartive weakness and allied this to how much support he would get from the west and how little opposition he would get from them. In Iran he was backed in many ways by the USA in his actions, in Kuwait he believed the USA would not interfere.
Furthermore, in relation to the missiles, part of his aim in striking at Israel was to draw the angered Israelis into a conflict, thus weakening the alliance the USA lead. This may or may not have suceeded depending on whether the likes of Egypt of Saudi Arabia enjoyed having Israel as allies. He would gain nothing whatsoever out of bombing the Palestinians on purpose.
Whilst it's very nice to assume what you do, the facts speak more of a man who hates everyone around him, but picked enemies he felt he could defeat and/or get support to fight.
Finally I add to Bort and Hamsi. If you cannot manage to seperate yourself from pointless generalisations you simply reveal yourself to be more and more ignorant with every post.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
morgan_le_fey
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 10, 2003 11:07 PM |
|
|
well hudson you are actually right about one thing...the fact that saddam was funding palestinian terrorism...not an entirely proven fact...but there is substantial evidence to support this..still it was a paltry sum....probably more of a PR ploy than anything else.
as for the rest of it???......well......
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 10, 2003 11:19 PM |
|
|
Well what? Not going to debate it then are we? I thought better of someone who quite clearly has strident opinions 
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
UndeadLord
Known Hero
|
|
posted November 12, 2003 05:14 PM |
|
|
I think that USAs forces could have attacked when they have shown a clear proof that there are some nuclear weapons.
It could be too that USA have take nuclear weapons there to proof that "Iraq" has nuclear weapons. So it could be that there were never nuclear weapons by Iraq. But who knows...
____________
|
|
morgan_le_fey
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 12, 2003 06:46 PM |
|
|
direct quote from saddam hussein: "my only regret in attacking kuwait is that i did not have nuclear weapons first".
____________
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted November 12, 2003 10:52 PM |
|
|
A direct quote, eh? How do you know?
____________
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
