X37375787

[img]http://***********/SPACEDOG.gif[/img]

mike503

fwiw, i think bush was able to leverage 9/11 and the terrorism activity tied to the middle east to finally remove the guy who "tried to kill my dad" and further establish a stronger presence in the area, mainly so we can ensure control like we've been behind the scenes for decades.

there's plenty of other groups slaughtering people throughout the world and we're not waging huge wars against them; perhaps after a few years we might send in some forces, but no such effort as big as this. the main reason is our interest in the region... and you know my opinion (as well as a pretty decent memory of plenty of events in the region learned in history) of why the interest is there to begin with.

__________________
php/mysql guru. hosting, coding, all that jazz.

Gman.357

I wonder who is more brainwashed...

people who think Iraq was capable of eventually launching a chemical or biological attack against one or more of our allies who neighbor them (one scud with a chemical warhead was all it would take to devistate Kuwait City or Isreal). As well as fund terror cells and allow them to operate freely inside their borders, inevitably training and preparing for further attacks on US soil?

or the people who simply scoff at how quickly we've taken charge over there, and point to that as reason enough why Iraq was never a threat.

Let's not forget... people say N. Korea is a threat now. More than Iraq. Well, we had weapons inspectors in N. Korea who never found anything... meanwhile, N. Korea was building nukes RIGHT UNDER OUR NOSES.

__________________

Ouch.

XXXManager

What slaughter - he was just spicing the atmosphere! Its not his fault that they can't stand ketchup or mustard!
He is a freedom fighter. (well, he is fighting for his freedom - isn't he?)
And I dont get those who say the ME has something to do with terrorism - we are just playing in soldiers and victims - a well known ME game. And the 9/11 - mere mis-navigation accident.
Nothing to do with Iraq - and the ME..... I think.... well - I'm sure! - since Saddam said he has nothing to do with Al-Quaeda. And the Iraqi minister of information assured me they have nothing to do with terrorism.
Its all about oil. You know how I know that? Cause what else is there in Iraq? Why would the allied forces waste time on that place? After all 9/11 only happens once a year - its not too frequent. and so what if Osama is Saudi? So what if Iraq is financing terrorism over Israel and other places? So what if he likes bio/chem - we all like some kind of perfume. He likes his spicy!
Iran? financing terror? BULLSHIT - they just solve unemployment among devoted believers!

US has enough of its economical problems after 9/11 - why don?t they just deal with it and rebuild the towers again instead of fighting wars that has to do nothing with them (according Osama).
And as PornWorf said - its not your role to invade the HOLY! lands of the Arabs.
It is so holy that you need a tyrant to keep things orderly so that people can go to heaven (or if need be - Saddam can expedite their journey over to the other side) in orderly manner. It is so holy that most people in the ME are living in poverty (cause Jesus said that gluttony is bad I think ? so why eat at all?)

mike503

i guess another major beef of mine is that we're the ones who gave saddam his power to begin with. hopefully the next government we put in place won't allow history to repeat itself, only for us to have to fight someone we put in charge years ago.

__________________
php/mysql guru. hosting, coding, all that jazz.

Pornwolf

Bro, you are proving my point. Israel should have been the one blowing the whistle and pointing at them especially since they are mortal enemies. Hell, The UK had more to fear but they weren't even thinking about this until we said something.

In the meantime we LET Korea build nukes right under our noses They have really been full fledged enemies of ours for several decades now but we decided to take the wait and see approach there. They on the other hand can blow a hole in L.A. Not just blow up a movie theater in Baltimore like a terrorist, they can turn Hollywood into dirt.

Are you really arguing against me here or not?

__________________
I've trusted my sites to them for over a decade...

Webair, bitches.

mike503

not to mention N. korea masks their nuclear development with the excuse of nuclear power...

__________________
php/mysql guru. hosting, coding, all that jazz.

donnie

Bush got voted into office by 24% of USA population. 76% didn't wanted him there!
USA really is democratic country

Plus he cheated in Florida! And this is the man you are folllowing into war...

ADL Colin

I think that's a little misrepresented.

The US didn't "sell arms to Britain". They LENT them to Britain and the allies. The allies wartime economies were bankrupt and couldn't afford payments for weapons. The US kept sending supplies with the promise of repayment after the war. The US sent enough food to Britain to keep much of it's population from starving [a likely result with the U-boats roaming the coast]. By saying that the US FINALLY decided to sell arms to the allies is well-short of what the US contribution was to the war effort.

The US was a massive contributor to the war, especially in terms of supplies to both the western and eastern fronts. John Keegan's excellent book on WW II provides the following numbers demonstrating the Eastern front supplies from the US.

Supplies sent from the US to USSR:
2000 locomotives
11,000 rail wagons
3 million tons of gasoline
540,000 tons of rails
51,000 jeeps
375,0000 trucks
15 million pairs of boots
15,000 aircraft
7,000 tanks
350,000 tons of explosives

Even before Pearl Harbor, the US started sending supplies to the allies with only the promise of future repayment.

Before D-Day, the battle of the Atlantic had to be waged and the Germans had to be defeated in North Africa in order to remove their Mediterranean ports.

That people in the US were opposed to sending troops to die in World War II like in World War I is true (until the US was attacked). What is also true is that both the Eastern and Western fronts could not have been held without American supplies. Hell, most Americans couldn't decide who was worse - Hitler or Stalin.

Maybe the greatest contribution of the US to Europe at the time was after the war. $13 billion in economic assistance was sent from the US to Europe to assist in rebuilding in the five years after the war. Food, medicine, transportation infrastructure, tools, factories.

__________________

skype = "adultdatelink"

Carrie

Oh jesus christ give it up. It's been THREE YEARS. And you've been proven wrong time and again by independent studies who went through and counted those fucking chads over and over.
No matter which way you want to look at those stupid hanging pieces of paper, Bush WON.

Find something new to bitch about and catch up with the rest of us.

Carrie

We're not sure about that yet. They say they can, but our sources say they can't - just yet. Of course, you know how reliable our sources are.
There *has* been a Korean shell found in Alaska from test flights they were doing to see how far they could hit. "Officially" right now we suspect that they can hit Alaska and Hawaii, but don't have the thrust-weight capability to get one to California.

I hope they're right.
Meanwhile, N. Korea is saying that they will turn Chicago, NY and DC into rubble. Those fuckers are screaming over there and they hate us with a passion, and are just looking for a reason to hit the red button.
They even said that the attack on Iraq was done for no other reason than to threaten *them*. Nothing like having blinders on and thinking the entire world revolves around them.