Paintball Guns and Gear forums banner

1 - 20 of 36 Posts

·
That's Hot
Joined
·
3,914 Posts
Oh that's right...the fact that Saddam Hussein has gassed his own people and threatened an entire region of the world had nothing to do with this war :rolleyes:

If that was truly the case, then why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia, Kuwait or Venezuela instead? After all, it's ALL about the money :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,299 Posts
Discussion Starter #6 (Edited)
he gassed the kurds, not his own people. thats like calling palestinians israelis, just for being in the same country. Just read it. Saddam is evil, that is true, but it isn't the reason for the invasion on iraq. read this man, you wont regret it!

Also, look into america's history. When have we ever helped another country just to save their people without a major incentive? really, give me one example. Honestly, Bush isn't going to go into another country, blowing the money he has to save an oppressed people while our economy is in the shape it is. No, not without the inscentive of being the #1 worldwide petrolium power.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
794 Posts
o he threatend an entire region of the world.... well hmmmm that sounds familiar..... umm maybe because we do that everyday! I like how you people think america is perfect and we do absolutly nothing wrong when we do more wrong then everyone else.
 

·
That's Hot
Joined
·
3,914 Posts
Spyder, there is no comparison you can make that would make Iraq and America level on the international playing field.

Saddam very literally had weapons poised to launch at other countries in the Middle East? Don't tell me it's not true- he DID fire Scud missles into Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Israel during Desert Storm in 1991 and he most certainly had that ability when we invaded them last March (he did launch a few Surface to Surface missles into Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, as a matter of fact).

America, although it does have that same capability in terms of weaponry (and exceeds it), we don't point our nukes to, say, Mexico, Canada or South America. Why is that? Oh wait, that's right...we don't bully people into complying with our economic goals using our military.

When you think about it, you can't really say that's the "truth" of the matter when it comes to the war on Iraq. The only unbaised media source you can get it YOURSELF, by witnessing something firsthand. Relying on this website--and what this guy has to say-- is really no different than watching CNN or flipping through a newspaper. In the end you're still relying on your news/information feed coming from someone else and that's where the fault will always lie. Just because it's a website on the internet that goes against everything you see on the daily news doesn't make it 100% right...getting suckered into believing everything you read on there is no different than forming all your opinions on the matter based off of Headline News.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,299 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
might i remind you that the scud missiles that Saddam fired were supplied by us, the United States. we armed him, and we built the enemy. and duo, please just take my word for it, and read even just one section.

and secondly, who are you to say that i got suckered into believing nonlegit information? every "fact" you've said has been fed to you and everyone else from the news aka the government's cheerleaders. why do you think Bill mahyer got fired? he spoke out about how Bush got publicly faulty once. needless to say that never happened again.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
794 Posts
o yea the nukes america claimed they had right... ill agree they had some during desert storm but after the war he hasnt had nukes. America claimed they had nukes, we didnt find them did we? No, because there arent any. O I cant put iraq and america on the same level? America dropped a fricken ATOMIC BOMB on hiroshyma and nagasaki which killed thousands of innocent people 2 TIMES.

HAHAHAHA, your saying we dont bully people around to comply with us? What the hell do you think were doing in iraq. If people dont agree with us, we kill them. You call that not bullying around. You are another person who was brainwashed by the media
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
So what if we gave him the weapons, it's bad that we did that but if your dad went and gave you a gun and you went out and killed someone is it your dads fault? No. Also how do you know they don't have nuclear arms? Iraq is a big country, they arn't going to hide it in playing view...Did he just get rid of his weapons? Your giving Hussein way more credit then he desearves.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,591 Posts
bob005 said:
when did you hear that? are you just pulling ideas out of nowhere? they never found ANY wmd. no chemical bomb, no nukes, no nothing. there goes your nonlegit argument.
Do you watch the news? I mean, its free to anyone with a TV. Even if you don't have a TV, and maybe your using the internet at the library. Well, the library has news magazines. Read one.

We HAVE found chemical and bio WMDs. This is a point of fact. We just confirmed some more last week.
We HAVE found centrifuges used SOLELY to make weapons grade uranium BURIED under a iraqi nuke scientists house. He was TOLD to bury it so they could restart the program when the UN left.
We DID find WMD labs also BURIED in the south.
This is all point of fact.

I read the article. Poorly written. Full of lies, half-truths, and hyperbole. Its obvious the author is NOT series about what he is writing, but instead is just plagurising from wacko-liberal source (this is obvious since most of those issues have been debunked in the normal media. Only repeated in the fringe)

To say the war was just about the supply of oil shows a complete lack of knowledge.
We were buying oil from Saddam BEFORE and AFTER the war. We would buy it from him regardless, as with the other middle-east countries.

By invading Iraq, how did this change the supple of oil? When ignorant people make these claims, they CAN NOT ANSWER THIS QUESION because it is a logical flaq in the argument. Point of fact is it made no change. Why would it?

Oil DOES play a part though. We KNOW that Saddam was actively funding many terrorist groups, AND had extensive ties to Al-Qaida. We know that he was actively BURYING his WMD program, and plans on STARTING it when we left.
So, about the oil?
The oil makes Saddam THE RICHEST RULER ON EARTH. This combined with all his links to terrorist, and the fact that he is evil, MAKES HIM A TERRIBLE THREAT! In the scope of the "war on terror", it clearly highlights the problem, and the reason why he needed to be removed.

This is the main difference between Saddam and the guy in charge of North Korea. The korean guy is even worse, but fortunetly, doesnt have a single penny.
He can't simply BUY HIMSELF the 4th largest army in the world like Saddam did.

People can read that article if they want, but understand its not very accurate. It makes alot of assumptions and hyperbole as fact. Its your typical wacko liberal fluff piece.

Nick
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,299 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
thank you for the update hp. i pretty much cut out a lot of the news a few weeks ago, it's so full of one sided nonsense i just quit. also, you may think this guy is a wacko, but the facts stated are true. there's no getting around that bush is hiding more from us than he should. i still support him over kerry though, kerry's even more of a wack job.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,351 Posts
HP_lovecraft said:
Do you watch the news? I mean, its free to anyone with a TV. Even if you don't have a TV, and maybe your using the internet at the library. Well, the library has news magazines. Read one.

We HAVE found chemical and bio WMDs. This is a point of fact. We just confirmed some more last week.
We HAVE found centrifuges used SOLELY to make weapons grade uranium BURIED under a iraqi nuke scientists house. He was TOLD to bury it so they could restart the program when the UN left.
We DID find WMD labs also BURIED in the south.
This is all point of fact.

I read the article. Poorly written. Full of lies, half-truths, and hyperbole. Its obvious the author is NOT series about what he is writing, but instead is just plagurising from wacko-liberal source (this is obvious since most of those issues have been debunked in the normal media. Only repeated in the fringe)

To say the war was just about the supply of oil shows a complete lack of knowledge.
We were buying oil from Saddam BEFORE and AFTER the war. We would buy it from him regardless, as with the other middle-east countries.

By invading Iraq, how did this change the supple of oil? When ignorant people make these claims, they CAN NOT ANSWER THIS QUESION because it is a logical flaq in the argument. Point of fact is it made no change. Why would it?

Oil DOES play a part though. We KNOW that Saddam was actively funding many terrorist groups, AND had extensive ties to Al-Qaida. We know that he was actively BURYING his WMD program, and plans on STARTING it when we left.
So, about the oil?
The oil makes Saddam THE RICHEST RULER ON EARTH. This combined with all his links to terrorist, and the fact that he is evil, MAKES HIM A TERRIBLE THREAT! In the scope of the "war on terror", it clearly highlights the problem, and the reason why he needed to be removed.

This is the main difference between Saddam and the guy in charge of North Korea. The korean guy is even worse, but fortunetly, doesnt have a single penny.
He can't simply BUY HIMSELF the 4th largest army in the world like Saddam did.

People can read that article if they want, but understand its not very accurate. It makes alot of assumptions and hyperbole as fact. Its your typical wacko liberal fluff piece.

Nick
Yep they also found a fleet (small one like 8 or 9) of the latest Russian migs buried under a random spot in the desert. I forgot how they found it. Mayby they saw some of it poking out? I dunno but I got a chain letter with pics and a link.

Anyway like I said before. No one cares about the people that die just the number and they dont care about the number nearly as much as they do the event. Which just goes to prove libreal or conservitive, that you don't care about anyone other then yourself. Conservitives are ther only ones that admit it.

If you dont belive me, how often do you remember 9/11 and how many people died? Same with pearl harbor? Off the top of your head what was the date and name a few people that died. How many died?

My point exatly, if librealisim existed then as it does now then our country would be screwed. Notice how the decline in media quality equals a decline in ethics? Hippies and protesters only came out it in the 60's because of some stupid crap like save the whales. It's gay that it happened. But there were no violent protesters in the 40's, or in the 50's during korea. Only in vietnam did women spit on our soldiers face and kick them to the ground in the name of peace? 2 faced basterds. Not to mention as people began getting so opinionated there was a moral decline in the name of librealism,peace and some other crap that no one cares about. Like the enviroment or something. Pshhh its overated anyway.

Compare society now and 50 years ago.

Then go back in time to like 1350 and compare 50 years before that.
The same besides a out break of the plauge (1/3rd of Europe died but no one cares about them)

As you can see when some people form together to overthrow the government because it's to violent or against there policy, rather then compete they sue the hell out of everything and screw the country over. When WW3 comes up we should send the hippies to war to give hugs to the reds. They'l understand.
 

·
That's Hot
Joined
·
3,914 Posts
Saying that we supplied Saddam's government with Scud missles makes a lot of sense. Especially considering the fact that Scud missles are a Soviet, NOT American, design. Check your facts first before just assuming everything in there is true...

I think you've got the situation mixed up with Afghanistan. There, we DID supply Stinger missles and a variety of other weapons to help the rebel forces fighting the Soviet's in the 80's. Sure, we did supply arms to Iraq so they could continue their fight against Iran (Iran-Iraq War), but we didn't supply Scuds for Saddam to use.


Also, saying that America's use of nuclear weapons to finish WWII is completely invalid. Let's see...Japan struck at Pearl Harbor so therefore they took the initiative to wipe us off the strategic map of the Pacific. You saying that we did that as a way to, as the main reason, progress our own economic gain is basically you telling us that we would've been better off if the war would've dragged on months, even YEARS longer since we would need to invade Japan. Even to this day the Armed Forces are using body bags that were intended to be used for dead servicemen as a result of the invasion of the Japanese main islands...they expected over a million casualties. Less people died using those atomic bombs than would have died if we would've invaded Japan...the sooner a war ends (and with less casualties at that), the better.

And I understand your point about Iraq too- we kill terrorists because they don't comply with us, plain and simple. Then again, in war aren't you SUPPOSED to kill the guy who wants to kill you first? :rolleyes:

Don't call me brainwashed by the media either, I don't take everything I see on the nightly news as fact. Then again, you take everything on websites such as those as fact, which is obvious by your attitude.

It all comes down to this- no news agency, website or any one of us can be completely right when it comes to knowing what's going on. Don't expect all the straight facts to be accumulated neatly in one place for you to absorb it all like a sponge.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
986 Posts
Duo I agree with your thoughts on the media, i'm not taking sides one this... (mainly cause i'll have spud and HP against me and that wont be pretty) but what i think there should be is a sub part of the forum for politics have a panel of people (mods, supers,admins normal people) then let anyone that wants into the sub forum initally in then if they flame or just make no political sense the panel "locks" them out of the sub forum... i love having political debates with people its a good ay to learn things but there is a difference between a debate and a flame which is sadly what alot of political posts turn into...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
898 Posts
That website is about as pro-Kerry as any I have seen. It's so...."Moore-ish", it's sickening. The fact that you believe everything he writes and claim that it is all fact is exactly what the author wants: Kerry to gain more supporters.

John Kerry is an idiot of insane proportions. The man has said he wouldn't mind if Hillary Clinton ran for his VP. WHO IN THE HELL WOULD WANT THAT WOMAN CONTROLLING ANYTHING?!?!? Dean should have been the Democratic candidate...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,299 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
douDSG said:
Saying that we supplied Saddam's government with Scud missles makes a lot of sense. Especially considering the fact that Scud missles are a Soviet, NOT American, design
my bad, he didn't say it, i was thinking about something else. we supplied them with other types of SAMs from what I know, and other weapons along with that, not possitive of the otehr weapons though

also, dante, he isn't pro kerry. if you read half of it he starts bashing liberals too. it's not only a bush slam
 
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
Top