We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Locked Topic
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
Community Debate #1
Topic Started: Jul 4 2004, 11:29 AM (458 Views)
©Θ®Ï§†ÓPΘÊ®
Mr. Skinzone™
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
limester816
Jul 4 2004, 07:25 PM
We should have not invaded

1. Bush ignored all UN pleas to negotiate with Iraq.

2. Bush claimed there were WMD in Iraq, yet none were found.

3. Bush has already begun buildin an oil pipeline to extract oil from Iraq.

So its perfectly ok to let saddam torture women and children in iraw until they die?
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Glitch
Blasphemer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
©H®Ï§
Jul 5 2004, 03:20 PM
limester816
Jul 4 2004, 07:25 PM
We should have not invaded

1.  Bush ignored all UN pleas to negotiate with Iraq.

2.  Bush claimed there were WMD in Iraq, yet none were found.

3.  Bush has already begun buildin an oil pipeline to extract oil from Iraq.

So its perfectly ok to let saddam torture women and children in iraw until they die?

Is it perfectly ok to have our own bombs ripping apart Iraqi women and children? Probably less than 5% of Iraq was affected by Saddam and his sons, yet 95% is now effected by the war.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
©Θ®Ï§†ÓPΘÊ®
Mr. Skinzone™
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Thats not how it is. America dont simply bomb them unless they're sure it is 100% going to get terrorists. And even if they do get some innocent people, whats better, 1000 poeple dying today, or stopping it with a nuke and saving millions in the long term.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Glitch
Blasphemer
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
100% sure it's gonna get terrorists? America didn't get any terrorists in Iraq, except the ones that came after we went in to fight us. There weren't daily bombings in Iraq before, now there are.

And we're not saving millions in the long run. There's bombings every day now in Iraq. Each terrorist bomb kills around 10-20 civilians and 1-2 US military personnel. This isn't saving people in the long run.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
¤l337h4x0r_666¤
Member
[ * ]
ok, about the whole sarin gas thing
Quote:
 
This article was from May 19th, 2004, way after Saddam was toppled and captured. The explosive was likely planted by some extremist terrorist group that had never recieved weapons or funding from Saddam's regime.
yea if some radical mitlitia in the US decided to launch any type of WMD at another country, they wouldnt take time to distinguish between the US and a radical faction of the US. So Just bcuz the terrorist group wasnt recieving funding from Sadam, doesnt mean that he didnt know about it. In essicence it was a perfect way to be able to attack any number of countries <probably the US> and then Sadam could have simply said "I did not support this group in any way." Its just a smoke screen
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Jguy101
Member
[ *  * ]
I don't think it was right, but then again, if Bush Sr. had decided to go further with the Gulf War and invade Iraq, this probably wouldn't happened...
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
pennythedude
I swear I did not make this many posts.
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Glitch
Jul 4 2004, 03:38 PM
No. Invading Iraq was clearly an imperialistic and unnecessary move by the Bush Administration.

First, let me give Bush's 3 reasons for going into Iraq.

1. Saddam had WMD
No WMD were found

2. Saddam had direct links with Al'qaeda.
No links were found. In a recent recording, Al-Zarqawi, now the "godfather" of terrorist operations, clearly disrespected Saddam's old regime

3. Saddam was a "horrible dictator" and needed to be taken out of power
True. However, there are plenty of dictators out there that are worse than Saddam. Why don't we take them all out of power?
Also, you have to ask yourself- is Iraq really safer with Saddam out of power? Back when Saddam was still in power, the citizens of Iraq could walk the streets without the fear of getting shot in the back of the head by terrorists. Saddam and his sons were only 3 people. Overall, they probably effected less than 5% of the Iraqi population. However, now 95% of the Iraqi population is effected by daily terrorist bombings. Why are the terrorists there? Because the US invaded.

Couldn't have said it better myself.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Marxist
Member Avatar
The Comedian
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
omg I cant beleive how many democrats there are at this forum, can u imagine kerry in this position USA would probably be taken over by Peru, but seriously we killed less people then saddam did okay, we found WMDs okay, Bush is a good president.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
lil_loco365
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  * ]
pennythedude
Jul 7 2004, 12:33 PM
Glitch
Jul 4 2004, 03:38 PM
No. Invading Iraq was clearly an imperialistic and unnecessary move by the Bush Administration.

First, let me give Bush's 3 reasons for going into Iraq.

1. Saddam had WMD
No WMD were found

2. Saddam had direct links with Al'qaeda.
No links were found. In a recent recording, Al-Zarqawi, now the "godfather" of terrorist operations, clearly disrespected Saddam's old regime

3. Saddam was a "horrible dictator" and needed to be taken out of power
True. However, there are plenty of dictators out there that are worse than Saddam. Why don't we take them all out of power?
Also, you have to ask yourself- is Iraq really safer with Saddam out of power? Back when Saddam was still in power, the citizens of Iraq could walk the streets without the fear of getting shot in the back of the head by terrorists. Saddam and his sons were only 3 people. Overall, they probably effected less than 5% of the Iraqi population. However, now 95% of the Iraqi population is effected by daily terrorist bombings. Why are the terrorists there? Because the US invaded.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

1. There were weapons found. Missles heads, sarin gas, and poison facilities

2. There were links between Saddam and Al Quaida...And he openly supported wut they did to us.

3. Saddam had an army at his command that blanketed and opressed the nation...He tortured, maimed, and killed his own people...And raped their wives on top of it all...But I guess those arent any good reasons for you...
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Wiedle
Member
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
FusionX
Jul 7 2004, 05:14 PM
omg I cant beleive how many democrats there are at this forum, can u imagine kerry in this position USA would probably be taken over by Peru, but seriously we killed less people then saddam did okay, we found WMDs okay, Bush is a good president.

I agree. I mean, Bush has kept the nation from going crazy. And, could anyone have done a better job? Since he took office, the nation has pretty much been at war. He has not had a moment of peace.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Metabolic
Member Avatar
Shrinking Universe
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Well i think its a good thing that they took sadam but not a good thing that invaded and killed many ppl..
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
lil_loco365
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  * ]
Well think about it...How many ways are there to remove a psychotic dictator from power??...I mean were we just gonna ask him real nice if he would please step down from power??...I dunno for sure but I dont think that works too often...
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Echoes
Member Avatar
Member
[ * ]
I agreed with the move, most of the people that have posted in this topic are fully loyal democrats. Just think if Al Gore or John Kerry had been in office instead of Bush! It's just like FusionX said, we would've been taken over by Peru or something.

Also, I can't see how some people think we sent in our troops to just get them killed. We captured a world-renowned dictator and killed his sons! How can you not call that progress?!
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
lil_loco365
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  * ]
thank you...
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
limester816
rel1sh
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Echoes
Jul 8 2004, 11:02 AM
I agreed with the move, most of the people that have posted in this topic are fully loyal democrats. Just think if Al Gore or John Kerry had been in office instead of Bush! It's just like FusionX said, we would've been taken over by Peru or something.

Also, I can't see how some people think we sent in our troops to just get them killed. We captured a world-renowned dictator and killed his sons! How can you not call that progress?!

My God People... Bush is as bad a president as we'll ever get...

Saddam isnt even half as bad as other dictators like in North Korea...

Why didnt we go after every other dictator if we went after Saddam.

And Bush shouldnt even be in office, his family bribed the Supreme Court into ruling that Bush won...

And why has Bush already begun building a pipeline through Afghanistan and Iraq only go get oil?

And why has there constantly been terrorist attacks and killings in Iraq if we got rid of such a terrible dictator? The answer is: The Iraqi's hate us more than Saddam!
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Community Chat · Next Topic »
Locked Topic
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2