Jump to content

DUBYA DEFENDING HIS INVASION OF IRAQ


Guest ONYX

Recommended Posts

[quote]That site researched an e-mail from an American soldier.
It wasn`t slanted either way. You made it out to be a joke.
THAT makes you a moron.[/quote]

wrong again... i never made it out to be a joke nor did i claim that it was slanted, all i did was explain how the article comes from a shakey source and proves nothing, all it says, in a nutshell, is that we have helped to rebuild iraq back to where they were pre-invasion, now what part about that should i be proud of? we helped fucked up their shit, then we fixed it, the least we could do is fix part of their infrastructure that we helped damage, you quoting that article was the joke, not the article itself, the article in itself was just "shakey"

[quote]Yeah...We bombed schools hospitals and their infrastucture.
More moron shit. :roll:[/quote]

who said we did? find it and quote your source, where did i say we bombed hospitals and schools? all i ever said was that "we destroyed mass buildings and killed their infrastructure," which we did genius, i never said anything about bombing schools or hospitals, although im sure we did albeit unintetional or whatever it doesnt really matter, the point i was trying to make was that the deterioration of the schools, hospitals, stores, museums, gov't offices and all of the other buildings would have never happened if we had not invaded iraq, therefore the work we have done to repair and renovate these buildings was only needed as a direct result of our invasion

[quote]Actually we bombed places that Saddam`s hench men
and supporters were hiding in.
And before BJ posts some pic of a kid being blown apart.
I know that not every bomb hit their target.
But it is also a fact that more people have been killed
by the insurgents than by America soldiers or bombs.
That is complete horseshit. How the fuck do you know ?
Because you see so on TV ? Because that`s what is reported ?
Just so you know...every time they report a strike by the
insurgents/terrorist..they are basically reported the GOOD that
happened for them. How about reporting that x amount
of terrorist were captured or killed ? How about asking Iraqis
what they think ?
I`d say that since 72% of Iraqis voted ...that the majority
are happy that we are there.
Here is a site that talks about some good in Iraq.
Oddly enough it actually talks about  good that
is going on there and not the bad. 
[url="http://www.untoldiraq.org/"]http://www.untoldiraq.org/[/url][/quote]

once again, you assume too much... i dont spew out nonsense (unlike yourself) without directly getting information from the horses mouth... [i](if youve ever read any of my posts you may have noticed that i dont watch the tv for "news," i watch the tv for entertainment, tv is biased pure and simple, but again so are writers of printed media, although theyre less obviously biased so i refer to papers for my news sources, although that is a seperate issue in itself)[/i] ...i have never taken the media for its word and i will probably never 100% believe anything i am told unless i see it and live it for myself, with that said my news on iraq does not come from what fox news tells me i should believe, my lone reliable sources comes from those, i know, who are actually over there, those are the people i believe and those are the people who tell me that we are a long way from earning the trust and respect of iraqis so therefore, maybe, just maybe, they have a reason for this... maybe us killing tons of innocent civilians isnt just collateral damage to them but actual members of iraqi families... ill take their words before sean hannitys anyday, and yes i understand that innocent civilians were not the target of this war, my problem is that iraq/ saddam should not have been the target of this war, terrorists and their proven supporters should have been, you know... the ones who blew up the towers on 9/11, yea i kinda think maybe we should had gone after them before we worry about what daddy dubya fucked up back in the early 90's

additionally, yes we did bomb "saddams henchmen," whoever they might be, although that is a broad term and by definition is only left up to our gov't, would you care to define this term for me? because, personally, according to the new laws dubya passed, whoever we see as possibly helping out saddam we can illegally detain without prosecution, interesting how our new gov't works... isnt it?




EDIT: all in all i believe if done correctly iraq will be better off after our invasion and without saddam as long as we do it right, the problems i have are that we should have never invaded it in the first place and i belive the facts prove this and that we invaded for all of the wrong reasons, etc., etc., rhetoric, rhetoric
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest oldschooler
[quote name='BlackJesus' date='Aug 23 2005, 05:26 PM'][i][b]Old would you like to provide what gives you this idea  [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/37.gif[/img] [/b][/i]
[right][post="136472"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]



If you notice everyday the media talks about
how car bombs, suicide bombers and other attacks
by insurgents kills soldiers and civillians. They are the ones commiting
all of the violent attacks. The U.S. soldiers are there
to keep the peace and try to stomp out any such attacks.
They aren`t bombing buildings and people...they are
just trying to protect and rebuild now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest oldschooler
[quote name='Nati Ice' date='Aug 23 2005, 05:57 PM']wrong again... i never made it out to be a joke nor did i claim that it was slanted, all i did was explain how the article comes from a shakey source and proves nothing, all it says, in a nutshell, is that we have helped to rebuild iraq back to where they were pre-invasion, now what part about that should i be proud of? we helped fucked up their shit, then we fixed it, the least we could do is fix part of their infrastructure that we helped damage, you quoting that article was the joke, not the article itself, the article in itself was just "shakey" [right][post="136478"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]



How is it shaky ? Because it doesn`t have CNN in the URL ?
Oh and it sure looks like you were making a joke out
of it when you just wrote it off and put a [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/24.gif[/img] smiley
like the thought of the info just made you roll on the floor
with laughter. The leter from the American soldier is real.
I think he knows about what is going on there.
And all that site did was research what he said.


[quote]who said we did? find it and quote your source, where did i say we bombed hospitals and schools? all i ever said was that "we destroyed mass buildings and killed their infrastructure," which we did genius, i never said anything about bombing schools or hospitals, although im sure we did albeit unintetional or whatever it doesnt really matter, the point i was trying to make was that the deterioration of the schools, hospitals, stores, museums, gov't offices and all of the other buildings would have never happened if we had not invaded iraq, therefore the work we have done to repair and renovate these buildings was only needed as a direct result of our invasion[/quote]

Well that "shaky" site plainly talks about hospitals, schools
and the like. You act like the only reason that we rebuilt
or supplied them was because we bombed them Einstein.

[quote]once again, you assume too much... i dont spew out nonsense (unlike yourself) without directly getting information from the horses mouth... [i](if youve ever read any of my posts you may have noticed that i dont watch the tv for "news," i watch the tv for entertainment, tv is biased pure and simple, but again so are writers of printed media, although theyre less obviously biased so i refer to papers for my news sources, although that is a seperate issue in itself)[/i] ...i have never taken the media for its word and i will probably never 100% believe anything i am told unless i see it and live it for myself, with that said my news on iraq does not come from what fox news tells me i should believe, my lone reliable sources comes from those, i know, who are actually over there, those are the people i believe and those are the people who tell me that we are a long way from earning the trust and respect of iraqis so therefore, maybe, just maybe, they have a reason for this... maybe us killing tons of innocent civilians isnt just collateral damage to them but actual members of iraqi families... ill take their words before sean hannitys anyday, and yes i understand that innocent civilians were not the target of this war, my problem is that iraq/ saddam should not have been the target of this war, terrorists and their proven supporters should have been, you know... the ones who blew up the towers on 9/11, yea i kinda think maybe we should had gone after them before we worry about what daddy dubya fucked up back in the early 90's[/quote]

Saddam didn`t live up to terms of his surrender.
He had 10 years to be the good little boy he was supposed
to be because we ALLOWED him to stay in power.
I know he had nothing to do with 9/11. But 9/11 did change
the way he HAD to be dealt with. He had over a year after 9/11
to comply. He was banking off of the U.N. in the Oil For Food scandal.
And he had 16 empty threats (Resolutions) before. He didn`t think
shit was going to happen to him. And it is a proven fact that he had
every intention of starting up his after he thought the coast was clear...


How I believe has nothing to do with any news source.
I always thought it was a mistake not to take Saddam
out in 1991.
Plus I have a friend that was there too. He`s back home on leave now.
He said it makes him sick how all the news and some people
that hate Bush act like everything there is how you act like it is.
He said he saw a hell of alot more people that was glad to see
him than he didn`t that wasn`t.

[quote]additionally, yes we did bomb "saddams henchmen," whoever they might be, although that is a broad term and by definition is only left up to our gov't, would you care to define this term for me? because, personally, according to the new laws dubya passed, whoever we see as possibly helping out saddam we can illegally detain without prosecution, interesting how our new gov't works... isnt it?
EDIT: all in all i believe if done correctly iraq will be better off after our invasion and without saddam as long as we do it right, the problems i have are that we should have never invaded it in the first place and i belive the facts prove this and that we invaded for all of the wrong reasons, etc., etc., rhetoric, rhetoric[/quote]


Yeah losing 3000 innocent civillians on our soil and watching
the Twin Towers fall sure does change things.
No I`m not linking Saddam to 9/11 ...but 9/11 had alot
to do with not taking any shit from Saddam anymore.
He could have stopped this shit...if he would have just abided
by the origanl terms of his surrender. But I guess it`s just
easier for some people to blame Bush like Saddam was all
innocent and shit...and I guess you`re one of those people...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact of the matter is is that we are sinking gigantic sums of resources into rebuilding an Iraqi nation that had been in decline and decay from Saddam's selfish, ruthless tenure, which lasted for decades. He cared only about enriching himself at the expense of his people. The current Iraq now enjoys cleaner, more reliable sources of drinking water than ever before, MUCH more reliable sources of electrical power, crumbling schools (from Saddam's NEGLECT! Not US bombs....) have been refurbished....their oil infrastructure is being re-built (so THEY can have a GdP!)
I am in a position to know pretty much exactly what is going on in Iraq, due to my having been there in 1991-2, my retired Major General Father (who maintains constant contact with his former subordinates whom are on the ground over there, as part of the US Army Corps Of Engineers, the branch of the Army that is doing the most good over there right now) who keeps me updated and I have 2 cousins that have just returned from Iraq....and yes...1,800+ American soldiers have died....but so have many Iraqis that sided against foreign fighters, insurgents and terrorists.
The stupid, stupid insurgency. For a while now they have been targeting their own people of their own religion.
We have been and will continue to crush them. Don't be fooled into believeing otherwise. AND we are helping a nation that has suffered for years and years under a completely ruthless and insane dictator and his political and military entourage.
Sure, the reasons we got involved in this war seem a bit murky. The term "military intelligence" is often oxymoronic.
Here's the difference:
BJ keeps on comparing the USA and terrorists by maintaining that the term "terrorist" is loosely defined. It is not. A "terrorist" is someone that DELIBERATELY targets innocent lives for political gain or attention to their cause.
The US military has killed innocent people, yes. But we DO NOT deliberately target them. We suffer innocent casualties in the course of fighting a war. Our soldiers die, too.
That is the difference between us and them...they take life callously, indiscriminately and without remorse.
Our military fighting men and women sometimes kill innocents during the course of conducting military operations, and they lose sleep and are haunted by nightmares, regret and remorse until they themselves die.
Do you think that those who wish to kill us with IED's or hijacked airliners (or those who plan such attacks) lose any sleep over what they do?
Nope.
Kill them all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='Aug 23 2005, 02:55 PM']Im supprised that Japan isnt invading countries for their oil too...

[url="http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/ene_oil_con"]http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/ene_oil_con[/url]
[right][post="136326"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]
Manchukuo reborn!

Jamie, you are [i]sooo[/i] 1930's....



I hope Bush stays on this train wreck until at least past 2006, since his approval ratings are around 35% (Five points lower than Tricky Dick's ever got)
(not to rain on Nixon's parade, however. On some of his White House tapes, he essentially refers to Reagan of California as a sneaky bastard, which is fine with me
[img]http://www.allhatnocattle.net/nixon%20reagan%20bush.jpg[/img]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...