Butterfly_Wings
Cornflake Girl
It is a simple fact, but a simple fact George Bush doesn't seem too concerned by. He was rather vocal about going to war with Iraq with or without UN approval.
-
Finished your HSC? Check out our University Discussion, Non-School forums or help out next year's HSC students! -
YOU can help the next generation of students in the community! Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
Stupid White Americans (4 Viewers)
- Thread starter EmmaKate
- Start date
- Status
ArgueEverything
Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2003
- Messages
- 48
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- 2004
Actually, Bush can do that. There are plenty of precedents where US presidents have bombed countries without the approval of Congress - Panama in the 80s by Ronald Reagan, for instance.
Bush could also push another "button" at any time which would blow up more than just Canada, but that's another story.
No, it's not a "simple fact" at all. Iraq has, for the past decade, been one of the poorest nations in the Middle East, its people some of the most malnutritioned in the entire world, due primarily to a murderous sanctions policy enforced by the United Nations. It simply has not had the economic or military capacity to launch a war since the first Gulf War.
Also, the two wars that Saddam DID fight in the past (The Iran-Iraq war in the 80s and the first Gulf war in the early 90s) only begun once Saddam secured the backing of the United States. Yes, that's right, Saddam got the all clear from a United States envoy before he invaded Kuwait - it was only afterwards that Bush and his cronies decided it would be an opportune time to stab Saddam in the back and establish a strong military presense in the region. The point is, Saddam has only engaged in wars of aggression when he's had superpower backing. He doesn't just "click his fingers" and begin wars - he always made sure that the top dog in the White House clicks his fingers, too.
crazyhobo
Member
Oh, most definately. America only kill people who don't matter.
crazyhobo
Member
Like Osama bin Laden, just because we cannot find any evidence of Russia being a threat does not mean that it doesn't exist.
Replace Canada with Guatemala, or Laos, or Hungary, or Indonesia, or North Vietnam, or Cuba, or Dominican Republic, or Chile, or Ecuador, or Bolivia, Cambodia, or Libya, or Phillippines, or El Salvador and it suddenly doesn't seem so unlikely.
When did the UN give the US permission to invade Iraq?
crazyhobo
Member
Who would? People who live in countries without clean water don't deserve to live at all.
hatty
Banned
""Like Osama bin Laden, just because we cannot find any evidence of Russia being a threat does not mean that it doesn't exist.""
are u suggesting America should bomb every country out there because they are unsure of the threat they pose? nah im kidding
the threat of Russia hit its peak when the Cuban Missile Crisis came around, and that was solved peacefully. nevertheless, there was more "inteligence" saying Iraq was a bigger threat.
""Replace Canada with Guatemala, or Laos, or Hungary, or Indonesia, or North Vietnam, or Cuba, or Dominican Republic, or Chile, or Ecuador, or Bolivia, Cambodia, or Libya, or Phillippines, or El Salvador and it suddenly doesn't seem so unlikely.""
Just because America has stuck their nose in so many foreign affairs doesn't mean that the Congress at the time did not approve. In most cases they did.
Presidents can't say lets send a few thousand soldiers to [Country].
The most simple and obvious proof of this is that you can't fight a war without money, Congress has to approve then set asside alot of money ( billions + ) towards the war effort.
""When did the UN give the US permission to invade Iraq?""
...
are u suggesting America should bomb every country out there because they are unsure of the threat they pose? nah im kidding
the threat of Russia hit its peak when the Cuban Missile Crisis came around, and that was solved peacefully. nevertheless, there was more "inteligence" saying Iraq was a bigger threat.
""Replace Canada with Guatemala, or Laos, or Hungary, or Indonesia, or North Vietnam, or Cuba, or Dominican Republic, or Chile, or Ecuador, or Bolivia, Cambodia, or Libya, or Phillippines, or El Salvador and it suddenly doesn't seem so unlikely.""
Just because America has stuck their nose in so many foreign affairs doesn't mean that the Congress at the time did not approve. In most cases they did.
Presidents can't say lets send a few thousand soldiers to [Country].
The most simple and obvious proof of this is that you can't fight a war without money, Congress has to approve then set asside alot of money ( billions + ) towards the war effort.
""When did the UN give the US permission to invade Iraq?""
...
hatty
Banned
It is a fact that before the war started. UN inspectors were able to find empty chemical warheads in very good condition.
This begs the question who would make empty warheads?
No one.
commonsense would tell you that they were going to be 'filled' and then used.
My argument is not fundamentally flawed due to that simple fact.
Its a piece of simple evidence, yet I think that should be enough.
You just dont make empty chemical warheads.
"""using the excuse 'just because because we cant find them doesnt mean they dont exist' does not justify an illegal and unprovoked attack on a soviergn nation."""
You seem to have misinterpreted what i have said.
The justification of the war is not "'just because because we cant find them doesnt mean they dont exist"
it doesnt make sense does it?
The justification of the war is that Iraq had WMD.
And IMO, the point a few lines above, proves that.
because people just dont make empty chemical warheads for no particular reason at all.
I am very well aware of the fact that there are lots of countries out there that treat their people pretty much the same way Saddam treated his.
The fact is, America did not free the Iraqi people on purpose. They couldn't care less, they were just over there protecting their own interests.
I can admit that Bush couldn't care less about the Iraqi people.
However, the truth is millions of people are no longer oppresed anymore.
And thats pretty much all I care about.
Bush probably didn't have it at heart.
But he did it, even if it is just a good side effect of American imperialism.
The simple fact is.
Millions of people are now free.
You can analyse as much as you want, but now millions of other fellow human beings now get the same privileges that we so take for granted.
Why is it that people try and think that war can be regulated? I always thought that the idea was to win, and while there is a moral argument for holding the higher ground and acting within international law, it makes little sense to do so when you recognise an open threat that should be dealt with.
This case is different. Nobody in here would know for a fact what the actual reason for the invasion was meant to be, although we could all guess that it was along the lines of regional and economic security.
I have no idea, so I'll just leave it at that.
This case is different. Nobody in here would know for a fact what the actual reason for the invasion was meant to be, although we could all guess that it was along the lines of regional and economic security.
I have no idea, so I'll just leave it at that.
crazyhobo
Member
"the threat of Russia hit its peak when the Cuban Missile Crisis came around, and that was solved peacefully. nevertheless, there was more "inteligence" saying Iraq was a bigger threat."
What "inteligence"? I was under the assumption that they have not found evidence that Iraq has possessed WMDs recently. Maybe I'm wrong, could you point me to sources that state otherwise.
"Just because America has stuck their nose in so many foreign affairs doesn't mean that the Congress at the time did not approve. In most cases they did.
Presidents can't say lets send a few thousand soldiers to [Country].
The most simple and obvious proof of this is that you can't fight a war without money, Congress has to approve then set asside alot of money ( billions + ) towards the war effort. "
Do you realise that the US has not had congress declare war since Japan in 1941? Every military operation since then has been for 'peacekeeping', or 'national security', not war. And most of these CIA operations were kept out of congress so they could be kept secret from the American public. It is only recently that the details have been coming out.
And you still didn't answer my question about the UN. Please, when did it happen? Because from memory, the UN was against any military action against Iraq.
What "inteligence"? I was under the assumption that they have not found evidence that Iraq has possessed WMDs recently. Maybe I'm wrong, could you point me to sources that state otherwise.
"Just because America has stuck their nose in so many foreign affairs doesn't mean that the Congress at the time did not approve. In most cases they did.
Presidents can't say lets send a few thousand soldiers to [Country].
The most simple and obvious proof of this is that you can't fight a war without money, Congress has to approve then set asside alot of money ( billions + ) towards the war effort. "
Do you realise that the US has not had congress declare war since Japan in 1941? Every military operation since then has been for 'peacekeeping', or 'national security', not war. And most of these CIA operations were kept out of congress so they could be kept secret from the American public. It is only recently that the details have been coming out.
And you still didn't answer my question about the UN. Please, when did it happen? Because from memory, the UN was against any military action against Iraq.
Constip8edSkunk
Joga Bonito
but war is such a bad bad word.... especially considering how saying it will lose you half of your support in your country and alot more ally countries.... also most of the moral arguments are easily manipulated to suit the cause... i mean the "morals" are a pretty malleable quality.
You are very uninformed 'hatty'. You are not the authority on this topic OK?
In regards to Russia, you want proof they're a threat?? I could think of about 50,000 proofs, all of them capable of destroying THE PLANET. You think the Americans relaxed when the Soviets collapsed? do you remember the replacement? a Mr Boris Yeltsin??? maybe the heaviest drinking world leader ever, with full authority to close the curtains on human existence.
However, if you want to talk on your ultra-conservative, pro-US lines, Russia is broke. Russia can barely afford to maintain the 10s of thousands of WMDs they have, let alone their defence force (eg Kursk). The US is damn scared that the next plane into New York may contain a terrorist with a big bomb that he had minimal difficulties in obtaining 'from Russia with love'. Dont you remember the anthrax scare? that was from a poorly maintained Russian lab. That's why Bush is throwing millions of dollars at them--to fix the security.
In Iraq, defence was the issue. That is why the US defence force was sent in. Iraq was considered a real threat to the US (by a special few) due to WMDs, so in defence of the US, their country was sent to the shit hole. And dont give us that crap that millions are now free and happy with roses and butterflies---id like to see you live in a country full of trigger ready invaders, thinking everyone has explosives strapped to them. One wrong move, a bit suss, a bit quick, ur dead. Not pleasant.
Furthermore, you dont need approval of congress to launch nukes in the US. They arent completely stupid. I think that they realise that if a country like Russia was to lanch all WMDs to the states, they may not have time to gather all of congress to discuss the issue over dinner---we're talking of a matter of minutes here.
The US like to look humanitarian to the electorate, so instead of dropping one big big bomb on Iraq, decimating the whole area, saving kagillions of dollars (even though they didnt have to do anything) they drop lots and lots of little ones instead.
If you think that there was no other choice but to invade Iraq because they were ruled by a nasty dictator, and that's why the US have caused all sorts of crap for themselves, then you really need a history lesson.
This is not an ethical war. Get out of fairy land.
In regards to Russia, you want proof they're a threat?? I could think of about 50,000 proofs, all of them capable of destroying THE PLANET. You think the Americans relaxed when the Soviets collapsed? do you remember the replacement? a Mr Boris Yeltsin??? maybe the heaviest drinking world leader ever, with full authority to close the curtains on human existence.
However, if you want to talk on your ultra-conservative, pro-US lines, Russia is broke. Russia can barely afford to maintain the 10s of thousands of WMDs they have, let alone their defence force (eg Kursk). The US is damn scared that the next plane into New York may contain a terrorist with a big bomb that he had minimal difficulties in obtaining 'from Russia with love'. Dont you remember the anthrax scare? that was from a poorly maintained Russian lab. That's why Bush is throwing millions of dollars at them--to fix the security.
In Iraq, defence was the issue. That is why the US defence force was sent in. Iraq was considered a real threat to the US (by a special few) due to WMDs, so in defence of the US, their country was sent to the shit hole. And dont give us that crap that millions are now free and happy with roses and butterflies---id like to see you live in a country full of trigger ready invaders, thinking everyone has explosives strapped to them. One wrong move, a bit suss, a bit quick, ur dead. Not pleasant.
Furthermore, you dont need approval of congress to launch nukes in the US. They arent completely stupid. I think that they realise that if a country like Russia was to lanch all WMDs to the states, they may not have time to gather all of congress to discuss the issue over dinner---we're talking of a matter of minutes here.
The US like to look humanitarian to the electorate, so instead of dropping one big big bomb on Iraq, decimating the whole area, saving kagillions of dollars (even though they didnt have to do anything) they drop lots and lots of little ones instead.
If you think that there was no other choice but to invade Iraq because they were ruled by a nasty dictator, and that's why the US have caused all sorts of crap for themselves, then you really need a history lesson.
This is not an ethical war. Get out of fairy land.
um..
hip hop antagoniser
posted by hatty
It is a fact that before the war started. UN inspectors were able to find empty chemical warheads in very good condition.
This begs the question who would make empty warheads?
No one.
commonsense would tell you that they were going to be 'filled' and then used.
My argument is not fundamentally flawed due to that simple fact.
Its a piece of simple evidence, yet I think that should be enough.
You just dont make empty chemical warheads.
well ahhh..........where are they? it's been what, nine months since combat ended (hah!) and there has been no trace whatsoever of any WOMD
You seem to have misinterpreted what i have said.
The justification of the war is not "'just because because we cant find them doesnt mean they dont exist"
it doesnt make sense does it?
The justification of the war is that Iraq had WMD.
And IMO, the point a few lines above, proves that.
because people just dont make empty chemical warheads for no particular reason at all.
it proves nothing. if anything, it would prove that the draconian US and UN sanctions were successful - empty warheads would suggest they had nothing to fill them with. so there you go, perhaps the death of over 500000 children (a price the americans were 'willing to pay') due to the sanctions was worth it after all, huh?
I am very well aware of the fact that there are lots of countries out there that treat their people pretty much the same way Saddam treated his.
The fact is, America did not free the Iraqi people on purpose. They couldn't care less, they were just over there protecting their own interests.
I can admit that Bush couldn't care less about the Iraqi people.
However, the truth is millions of people are no longer oppresed anymore.
And thats pretty much all I care about.
Bush probably didn't have it at heart.
But he did it, even if it is just a good side effect of American imperialism.
The simple fact is.
Millions of people are now free.
You can analyse as much as you want, but now millions of other fellow human beings now get the same privileges that we so take for granted.
mmmmm, liberation
http://www.iraqpeaceteam.org/images/Nada_Adman_skull_fracture.jpg
http://www.robert-fisk.com/bloodied_child_3.jpg
It is a fact that before the war started. UN inspectors were able to find empty chemical warheads in very good condition.
This begs the question who would make empty warheads?
No one.
commonsense would tell you that they were going to be 'filled' and then used.
My argument is not fundamentally flawed due to that simple fact.
Its a piece of simple evidence, yet I think that should be enough.
You just dont make empty chemical warheads.
well ahhh..........where are they? it's been what, nine months since combat ended (hah!) and there has been no trace whatsoever of any WOMD
You seem to have misinterpreted what i have said.
The justification of the war is not "'just because because we cant find them doesnt mean they dont exist"
it doesnt make sense does it?
The justification of the war is that Iraq had WMD.
And IMO, the point a few lines above, proves that.
because people just dont make empty chemical warheads for no particular reason at all.
it proves nothing. if anything, it would prove that the draconian US and UN sanctions were successful - empty warheads would suggest they had nothing to fill them with. so there you go, perhaps the death of over 500000 children (a price the americans were 'willing to pay') due to the sanctions was worth it after all, huh?
I am very well aware of the fact that there are lots of countries out there that treat their people pretty much the same way Saddam treated his.
The fact is, America did not free the Iraqi people on purpose. They couldn't care less, they were just over there protecting their own interests.
I can admit that Bush couldn't care less about the Iraqi people.
However, the truth is millions of people are no longer oppresed anymore.
And thats pretty much all I care about.
Bush probably didn't have it at heart.
But he did it, even if it is just a good side effect of American imperialism.
The simple fact is.
Millions of people are now free.
You can analyse as much as you want, but now millions of other fellow human beings now get the same privileges that we so take for granted.
mmmmm, liberation
http://www.iraqpeaceteam.org/images/Nada_Adman_skull_fracture.jpg
http://www.robert-fisk.com/bloodied_child_3.jpg
Last edited:
scarecrow_of_oz
Member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2003
- Messages
- 412
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2003
wat's with all the personal attacks?! if you disagree with someone's opinion, surely you can say so without resorting to insulting them? Hatty (as do many others of conflicting opinions) actually seems quite well informed with regards to the situation, and i am inclined to agree that even if the us motives were... interesting... the removal of iraq's leader was right, even if the us acted immorally with regards to their means and motives. perhaps my perspective is emotional and simplistic, but i like to think their is some (if limited) potential for international recourse for people terrorised, tortured and killed by such a leader
look, there have been no personal attacks on this thread, just a difference in opinion.
It's annoying when some people speak as if they are the authority on the issue and that no furthur discussion should take place after them.
I almost completly disagree with Hatty and think he is uninformed.
Iraqis and the entire middle east are much worse off than they were before G.W. Dont make it personal
It's annoying when some people speak as if they are the authority on the issue and that no furthur discussion should take place after them.
I almost completly disagree with Hatty and think he is uninformed.
Iraqis and the entire middle east are much worse off than they were before G.W. Dont make it personal
hatty
Banned
Alexander. I have only expressed my oppinion, and suddenly you say that I think I am the authority of this topic? What gave you that idea kid?
If I disagree with what you say, dont think that my oppinion is going to monopolise yours, I'm just here trying to discuss a topic, everything you and every other person says has my respect. Maybe at the end of this, I may be Anti-War.
I am open minded and only wish to learn more as I go along.
No need to make personal attacks, and you have made them.
Uninformed? We're all uninformed arn't we? We only base our oppinions on the media, and we all know what a wonderful source of un-biased information that is. Untill you've experienced the war through the eyes the people who are most affected by it, then you may have a chance of being "informed".
However, Alexander you seem to think you know everything there is to know about this, in which your oppinions will be closely read.
-
Saying that the Russians are a threat just because a terrorist can easily obtain a bomb from Russia is wrong.
An example to clear things up.
Before one of the planes hit the WTC, one of the terrorists on board used some type of small metal 'weapon' to overcome a flight attendant, and then rammed the plane right into the building.
Would it then be correct for me to say that the country that the piece of metal was made in, be a threat to the USA? Sounds stupid doesn't it?
Wouldn't the "TERRORIST" himself be the threat? George Bush says yes, and I agree.
How do I know he agrees? Because he didn't bomb BHP for making that piece of metal. (Was that piece of metal made by BHP? No idea, nor do I really care).
He went after the terrorist.
US Intelligence linked Osama to Al-Qaeda to Iraq.
Iraq was a country thought to have WMD with a government that supports terrorism.
Yes their intelligence was wrong, in that they didn't have WMD. But how was anyone supposed to know that?
Then I made a point about how millions of people are now free. In which you think that is just a load of crap.
No its not.
Just because you can awake in a nice comfortable bed and have enough to eat and can drink fresh water and can go to school and can listen to music and play sport and voice your political oppinions without getting killed doesn't mean that you can call it "a load of crap".
The fact that millions of others can enjoy these privileges makes me Pro-War and Pro-America.
As for your oppinion that American soldiers shoots everyone that makes a wrong move or looks a bit suspicous is just inccorect.
More Iraqi suicide bombers (who represent the minority of Iraqis) has killed patrolling US troops than vice versa. The moment an American does something remotely aggresive to an Iraqi civilian, cameras will be all over him.
Almost everyday an American soldier gets killed on the street , you bearly hear anything about an American killing a civilian on the street whilst on patrol duty.
No you certainly dont need the approval of Congress to nuke a country, you need the approval of Congress to start a war.
My original point was. It would be easier for Saddam to start a war than it would be for George Bush. Hence WMD would be more preferable in American hands.
When Saddam gassed his own people. Nothing happened.
If George Bush gassed his own people, something will happen.
And even if they did drop a giant bomb on Iraq, it woudln't save them "kagilions" of dollars because they would have to rebuild the damn country, do they not? are they not?
George Bush was elected. Then September 11 happens.
He gets intelligence from the CIA or whatever, that it was directly coming from Al-Qaeda who was directly linked to the Taliban and Iraq.
We now know that the intelligence 'may' have been wrong.
But right after the events of 9/11, in light of all this evidence, attacking Iraq was damn smart.
What would you have done Alexander? Wait around for another bomb to go off?
Had you waited, nothing would have happened. Because WMD are non-existent (assuming that Saddam builds empty chemical warheads for fun) You would have made the right decision.
But what IF, the intelligence was correct. How was anyone to know?
"Criticism is the luxury of those who stand on the sidelines."
If I disagree with what you say, dont think that my oppinion is going to monopolise yours, I'm just here trying to discuss a topic, everything you and every other person says has my respect. Maybe at the end of this, I may be Anti-War.
I am open minded and only wish to learn more as I go along.
No need to make personal attacks, and you have made them.
Uninformed? We're all uninformed arn't we? We only base our oppinions on the media, and we all know what a wonderful source of un-biased information that is. Untill you've experienced the war through the eyes the people who are most affected by it, then you may have a chance of being "informed".
However, Alexander you seem to think you know everything there is to know about this, in which your oppinions will be closely read.
-
Saying that the Russians are a threat just because a terrorist can easily obtain a bomb from Russia is wrong.
An example to clear things up.
Before one of the planes hit the WTC, one of the terrorists on board used some type of small metal 'weapon' to overcome a flight attendant, and then rammed the plane right into the building.
Would it then be correct for me to say that the country that the piece of metal was made in, be a threat to the USA? Sounds stupid doesn't it?
Wouldn't the "TERRORIST" himself be the threat? George Bush says yes, and I agree.
How do I know he agrees? Because he didn't bomb BHP for making that piece of metal. (Was that piece of metal made by BHP? No idea, nor do I really care).
He went after the terrorist.
US Intelligence linked Osama to Al-Qaeda to Iraq.
Iraq was a country thought to have WMD with a government that supports terrorism.
Yes their intelligence was wrong, in that they didn't have WMD. But how was anyone supposed to know that?
Then I made a point about how millions of people are now free. In which you think that is just a load of crap.
No its not.
Just because you can awake in a nice comfortable bed and have enough to eat and can drink fresh water and can go to school and can listen to music and play sport and voice your political oppinions without getting killed doesn't mean that you can call it "a load of crap".
The fact that millions of others can enjoy these privileges makes me Pro-War and Pro-America.
As for your oppinion that American soldiers shoots everyone that makes a wrong move or looks a bit suspicous is just inccorect.
More Iraqi suicide bombers (who represent the minority of Iraqis) has killed patrolling US troops than vice versa. The moment an American does something remotely aggresive to an Iraqi civilian, cameras will be all over him.
Almost everyday an American soldier gets killed on the street , you bearly hear anything about an American killing a civilian on the street whilst on patrol duty.
No you certainly dont need the approval of Congress to nuke a country, you need the approval of Congress to start a war.
My original point was. It would be easier for Saddam to start a war than it would be for George Bush. Hence WMD would be more preferable in American hands.
When Saddam gassed his own people. Nothing happened.
If George Bush gassed his own people, something will happen.
And even if they did drop a giant bomb on Iraq, it woudln't save them "kagilions" of dollars because they would have to rebuild the damn country, do they not? are they not?
George Bush was elected. Then September 11 happens.
He gets intelligence from the CIA or whatever, that it was directly coming from Al-Qaeda who was directly linked to the Taliban and Iraq.
We now know that the intelligence 'may' have been wrong.
But right after the events of 9/11, in light of all this evidence, attacking Iraq was damn smart.
What would you have done Alexander? Wait around for another bomb to go off?
Had you waited, nothing would have happened. Because WMD are non-existent (assuming that Saddam builds empty chemical warheads for fun) You would have made the right decision.
But what IF, the intelligence was correct. How was anyone to know?
"Criticism is the luxury of those who stand on the sidelines."
hatty
Banned
"well ahhh..........where are they? it's been what, nine months since combat ended (hah!) and there has been no trace whatsoever of any WOMD" um...
Quoted from CNN
-------------------------
"The six destroyed missiles brought the total to 40 dismantled since last weekend, U.N. officials said. Three empty warheads also were destroyed.
The United Nations estimated Iraq had a total of 120-130 such missiles, which weapons inspectors contend exceed the 150 km (93-mile) range limit. '
--------------------------------------
120 empty warheads? EMPTY???
"it proves nothing. if anything, it would prove that the draconian US and UN sanctions were successful - empty warheads would suggest they had nothing to fill them with. so there you go, perhaps the death of over 500000 children (a price the americans were 'willing to pay') due to the sanctions was worth it after all, huh?" um...
500000 = wrong and exagerated number.
An Anti-American study of the number of Iraqi deaths caused by Americans didn't get that high.
But remember, Saddam, had enough money to make toilet flushes out of GOLD. Im certain he would have been able to fill some warheads.
Quoted from CNN
-------------------------
"The six destroyed missiles brought the total to 40 dismantled since last weekend, U.N. officials said. Three empty warheads also were destroyed.
The United Nations estimated Iraq had a total of 120-130 such missiles, which weapons inspectors contend exceed the 150 km (93-mile) range limit. '
--------------------------------------
120 empty warheads? EMPTY???
"it proves nothing. if anything, it would prove that the draconian US and UN sanctions were successful - empty warheads would suggest they had nothing to fill them with. so there you go, perhaps the death of over 500000 children (a price the americans were 'willing to pay') due to the sanctions was worth it after all, huh?" um...
500000 = wrong and exagerated number.
An Anti-American study of the number of Iraqi deaths caused by Americans didn't get that high.
But remember, Saddam, had enough money to make toilet flushes out of GOLD. Im certain he would have been able to fill some warheads.
crazyhobo
Member
1. Bush was not elected. Gore actually won the election. But thanks to the supreme court stopping the recount, Bush gained control of the country.
2. About, what, 400 US soldiers have died in the Iraq war? And about 9000 Iraqi civilians. Seems to me no one actually gives a shit if the Americans kill Iraqis.
'Almost everyday an American soldier gets killed on the street , you bearly hear anything about an American killing a civilian on the street whilst on patrol duty. '
Exactly. You never hear about it, not because it doesn't happen, but because no one actually gives a shit.
3. Iraq has NO ties to Osama and Al Qaeda. The CIA has come out stating they told Bush there was no connection, but he refused to listen to this and insisted on spreading this lie. Notice how now that they have 'won' the war that they don't mention WMDs or terrorism, only the 'freedom of iraqis'? It's because there was no WMD. There was no connection to terrorism.
'No you certainly dont need the approval of Congress to nuke a country, you need the approval of Congress to start a war. '
THE US NEVER DECLARED WAR ON IRAQ.
'If George Bush gassed his own people, something will happen. '
Yeah, people will, and do support it. It's called capital punishment. Bush put more people to death in Texas than all of the other states combined.
2. About, what, 400 US soldiers have died in the Iraq war? And about 9000 Iraqi civilians. Seems to me no one actually gives a shit if the Americans kill Iraqis.
'Almost everyday an American soldier gets killed on the street , you bearly hear anything about an American killing a civilian on the street whilst on patrol duty. '
Exactly. You never hear about it, not because it doesn't happen, but because no one actually gives a shit.
3. Iraq has NO ties to Osama and Al Qaeda. The CIA has come out stating they told Bush there was no connection, but he refused to listen to this and insisted on spreading this lie. Notice how now that they have 'won' the war that they don't mention WMDs or terrorism, only the 'freedom of iraqis'? It's because there was no WMD. There was no connection to terrorism.
'No you certainly dont need the approval of Congress to nuke a country, you need the approval of Congress to start a war. '
THE US NEVER DECLARED WAR ON IRAQ.
'If George Bush gassed his own people, something will happen. '
Yeah, people will, and do support it. It's called capital punishment. Bush put more people to death in Texas than all of the other states combined.
hatty
Banned
Last edited:
- Status