What is there not to understand about the US over throwing Sadam
 

I posted all of these in multiple threads and decided to put them all together. To me it is easy to understand why we are going to overthrow Sadam and of course is no more than my considered :2 cents:


:2 cents:

Some people are just idealists or they don't like Bush. Those are the only valid reasons in this case...

People just have a very hard time accepting the immense wealth, worldwide power, and miltary might that the United States possesses and wields.

Its understandable. When you're the guy on top everyone below you wants to knock you down.

I mean heck all we want to do is control the whole planet. Is that asking too much? :1orglaugh

Someone tonight called the US an empire and of course many countries call us imperialists. Could someone inform me what the last country was that we added to our empire?

why waste talking about this, noone here can change anything if the president wants war there will be war regardless of GFY posts and talkshow bullshit

Edit

Pathfinder has a theory that if he starts enough threads about the exact same thing then maybe someone will care about his brainwashed Rush Limbaugh posts.

Brainwashing by repetition may work on you, but it doesn't work on everyone.

Keep trying, though. :)

http://eru.cx/gfy/shutupbitch.gif

Feel free to point out any mistatements. I do not listen to Rush, I am not now, nor have I ever been a fan of Rush. By the way Pathfinder no longer has any theories about anything and :321GFY you for your shitty remark.

Carries a high risk. I read this report in full but I think it understates the risks:

http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.u...fings-Iraq.htm

Theking is democratic so he sure as hell would not be listening to Rush Republican Limbaugh.


:Graucho

Of course there are risks. Some will balance the scale of "risks" one way and others will balance the scale the other way.

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

these people kill me,, i quote from their site


WTF,, i thought the anti-war people don't believe the Iraqi's have WMD???

"Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot", was an amusing book.

I still don't believe you're not Pathfinder, but I agree with you here. I can't wait for the day they start the invasion, the sooner the better.

Ask Bush, all I see on the news is "time is running out" and "enough is enough" yet Bush does nothing....

When Iraq actually attacks the United States, only then will war be justified, mmmmkay?

#1. Iraq was defeated on the field of battle and signed certain terms. Iraq has been in violation of those terms since they signed the terms in '91. The USA has demanded that those terms be complied with and that Iraq remain a defeated country.

I think the surrender terms were to the United Nations not the United States.

#2. Iraq attempted to assasinate a former American President.

Prove it and show the proof

#3. Iraq has fired upon, almost daily, for almost 11 years, USA military forces.

They were flying over Iraqi air space and had the effect of a flea on an elephant.

#4. Iraq is believed to have, or are acquiring, or are attempting to acquire WMD's. The USA will not allow that.

Believed in not enough. Prove it and show the proof

#5. Iraq has, on multiple occassions called for Americans, to be killed where ever they are found. Thus they are a sworn enemy of the USA.

No freedom of speech from you then.

The US is saying lets go kill Iraqi's.

#6. Iraq is a strategic piece of real estate for future military operations against our enemies in the region, which number in the 100's of millions.

Plus it has lot's of oil, getting close to the truth here.

#7. Iraq is a strategic piece of real estate for its oil fields and for the surrounding oil fields, for as the worlds oil supplies dwindle the USA will be in a position to control the dwindling oil supplies for its use and the use of its European allies.

Getting very close to the truth here.

#8. A take over of Iraq sends a very powerful signal to the other countries in that area of the world that if they don't get their act together they will be next.

A simple answer from some one who has been watching to many Bruce Willis movies.

Iraq is a soveriegn state and like it or not you cannot just invade a country and kill people because you do not like them. You need to prove they are a threat beyond reasonable doubt before you start to execute people.

This will not be a war that will be won in a few weeks of carpet bombing and a quick military land assault. Afghanistan has proved that. If Bushes record on there is anything to go on he should stay out of interrnational politics.

This is not something that will be won in a few weeks, after the defeat of Iraq, which the extremist want, the terrorist will use it as propoganda to recruit kids to do their dirty work. You do not win this kind of war by killing people.

Don't believe me? Look on a map and see where Islam is the major religion and then go to the local "Catholic Irish" bar and ask their opinions on Protestants. That war only went on for a few hundred years. And the Protestants did everything they could to put the Catholics down.

Bush thinks he can open Pandoras box and close it again in 6 months. The man is a fool. That is more frightening than Sadaam.

If the United States is so wrong, why aren't France and Germany sending troops to help defend Iraq?

Why isn't anyone sending troops to help defend Iraq?

Surely the rest of the humanitarian countries who hate to see small, little, helpless countries, trampled mercilessly by tyrannical war machines bent on world domination like the US would never stand by and let an aggressor with no reason invade someone.

because unlike the usa most other nations have a diffrent policy then "either you are with us or against us".

So you like to claim the US is invading people for no good reason, but refuse to help the "innocent" country defend themselves from unwarranted aggression?

Geez. That's not nice.

Listen people you guys need to study history

it's pre WWII all over again

same shit people say now is what they said back then,

the whole time the world believed hitler didn't have no weapons

everyone wanted to "appease" the germans,,

even damn France could of prevented WWII it if they took action



and bout afghanistan,, charly i believe it only took a few hours to kick the taliban out,

we go in now it'll be just like gulf war all over again

Its Iraqs job to prove they have destroyed those weapons, I dont know about you but I for one dont want a mass murderer dictator having enough bio/chem weapons to kill millions. And BTW what country do you think pays the burden of funding the UN?

Rush is correct about the majority of people who live in Rio Linda.. :1orglaugh

If Europe had their way Kuait would still be under Iraqi control, and we'd be waiting for the Sanctions to REALLY kick in. :1orglaugh

Like I said yesterday, if the Inspectors were kidnapped today they wouldn't beleive it. :thumbsup

U.N. inspection girls are being toyed around like little bitches in IRAQ: http://msnbc.com/news/867105.asp?0cl=c1

Ridiculous how most of Europe is being sucked in by IRAQ's propaganda war.

Originally posted by charly
#1. Iraq was defeated on the field of battle and signed certain terms. Iraq has been in violation of those terms since they signed the terms in '91. The USA has demanded that those terms be complied with and that Iraq remain a defeated country.

I think the surrender terms were to the United Nations not the United States.

The United States was, is and has been the enforcer of those terms.

#2. Iraq attempted to assasinate a former American President.

Prove it and show the proof

It was world wide news during the Clinton years. If you are really interested do your own search.

#3. Iraq has fired upon, almost daily, for almost 11 years, USA military forces.

They were flying over Iraqi air space and had the effect of a flea on an elephant.

The conquerer was imposing its will upon the conquered (to prevent the conquered from killing its own people). The USA and Britain should have removed Sadamn when they were first fired upon.

#4. Iraq is believed to have, or are acquiring, or are attempting to acquire WMD's. The USA will not allow that.

Believed in not enough. Prove it and show the proof

Read my initial posts. 1441 requires Iraq to prove (it is not the inspectors role to prove, not the UN's role to prove, not the USA's role to prove that they haven't destroyed them) that they destroyed the remaining WMD's that they had previously admitted to having and were left undestroyed when the first round of inspectors left in 1998. They have failed to do this.

#5. Iraq has, on multiple occassions called for Americans, to be killed where ever they are found. Thus they are a sworn enemy of the USA.

No freedom of speech from you then.

The US is saying lets go kill Iraqi's.

Pathetic and ridiculous analogy and not worthy of lengthy rebuttal.

#6. Iraq is a strategic piece of real estate for future military operations against our enemies in the region, which number in the 100's of millions.

Plus it has lot's of oil, getting close to the truth here.

#7. Iraq is a strategic piece of real estate for its oil fields and for the surrounding oil fields, for as the worlds oil supplies dwindle the USA will be in a position to control the dwindling oil supplies for its use and the use of its European allies.

Getting very close to the truth here.

#8. A take over of Iraq sends a very powerful signal to the other countries in that area of the world that if they don't get their act together they will be next.

A simple answer from some one who has been watching to many Bruce Willis movies.

All of the above are reaons for war. You may not like the reasons but they are all reasons for war. All of these reasons were outlined in response to a post made by someone that stated there are not any reasons for a war.


The invasion of Iraq will be over with quicker than the last Gulf War and the USA will have in hand the surrender of Iraq's military and control of the government. That of course is when the real battle begins (the winning of the hearts, minds and developement of a democratic republic) and will be long term.

http://www.ehowa.com/pic/bushposse.jpg

:winkwink:

DH

Sounds like the evidence is there and will be presented.

There is a serious chance Saddam burns more oil this time. Infact if the US is hellbent on taking out Saddam, why wouldn't he burn it?

I suspect that he will attempt to initiate whatever is at his disposal regardless of its military necessity or viability. That is of course if he has the balls to stand his ground and does not flee the country. There are reports that he had a retrograde plan in place during the first gulf war just in case we decided to invade Iraq.

HELLBENT................

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

:thumbsup

Unfortunately not to the satisfaction of the haters of the USA.

For some odd reason Mr.Fiction is under the impression that 90% plus of the USA listens 2 Rush.:uhoh

He probably has this impression because he listens to it.

rush=background noise

13 million people died during WW2.
No fucking wonder why some people here in Europe don't like war in ANY form.

I don't like war either but I'm wise enough not to talk about the situation cause all I know about this upcoming war comes from TV. That means I can't have an objective idea about what to mean or say. But you seems to know a lot about it mister senator or are you just referring to what the Tv stations are telling you?

Mike
User.nix