Baghdad is free!

[Marweas]

agreed alex. but was the average russian in the same financial situation the average iraqi or afgani is in? Not to downplay your strife or anything but would you say you had it a bit better....hmm maybe a bit easier is the word im looking for than the average iraqi? Easier in terms of picking up and leaving.

I was too young to understand averages. My family was comfortable in Russia, while many were greatly deprived. There are those in Iraq who prosper and those who suffer. My personal experience was surely better than the average Iraqi's.

But in terms of picking up and leaving, I cannot hazzard a guess how hard it is for Iraqis. I can only say that for my family it was an ordeal I will always be vividly remembered by all who went through it.

I'm very happy for Iraqis liberated from Saddam's rule. I think it was stupid foreign policy. And I'm somehow complex enough to maintain both those thoughts as true in my head, no matter how impossible this may seem to some.

 

[Marweas]

The USSR never had religilous fanatics flying planes into buildings, blowing up their embassies around the world, hijacking planes, etc. Iraq was a danger to the United States; not at this time, but they were developing WMDs and showed an inclination to use them. Are we supposed to wait until we have a chemical, biological or nuclear attack in this country?

They never showed an inclination to use them on US. Not even while we were rolling over them in their own country.

Your last question would imply that we should attack NK and Iran and Syria and many others as well. Is that what you think?

 

[DMAUL]

:bananasex

 

[Wulfen]

Let's see how the post-conquest scenario plays out before you start shaming people who can think more than one move ahead.

Protester 1: Dude, let's go block some traffic!!

Protester 2: Nah man, it's gotta be something really good. Ya know, we gotta think more than one move ahead!

Protester 3: ...

Protester 4: (Thinking)

Protester 1: I got it! Let's go block some traffic!!

Protester 2: Holy shit man, that's a great idea!

 

[triple]

Don't underestimate how blocking traffic and pissing everyone off can change the world.

I mean seriously..

Do you think bush is going to listen to idiots holding everyone up and generally being fucktards? Getting laughed at on national tv?

Or do you think hes going to consider the opinion of people who present a logical, complete, backed up argument for not taking action.

Bumper stickers dont change the world. Fucking hippies still dont get it.

 

[Wulfen]

We killed the security council, ves. Hey stone, I finally did find a SC Resolution regarding Israel too; 1967, they were to leave all areas they were occupying after the 6 day's war.

I supported them blowing off that resolution completely. The surrounding Arab countries invaded Israel, got beat back, and then Israel taught them a lesson by taking additional territory BACK.

Naturally the aggressors in the 6 Day War started crying like bitches.

Sorry for the late replies to these, I have to work unlike some of you people.

 

[ktm]

They never showed an inclination to use them on US. Not even while we were rolling over them in their own country.

Your last question would imply that we should attack NK and Iran and Syria and many others as well. Is that what you think?

They could have supplied the terrorists with the weapons ala "dirty" bombs. Saying, "Whoops, President Bush was right, we should have attacked Iraq" after 10,000+ people die in a dirty bomb attack is better?

NK is playing games and their nuclear program was frozen for years (until we discovered that they were developing the technology in secret in violation of the treaty). The last I checked, N. Koreans were not openly supporting terrorist activities.

Syria, on the other hand, is a wild card. They might be more forthcoming and reluctant to shelter and/or support terrorists given recent events. If it is proven that Iraq's WMDs were sent to Syria, then we all best put our heads between our legs and kiss our assess goodbye.

Edit: What is your feeling about Chechnya?

 

[Wulfen]

Why do you think you're smart? Dummy.

Holy shit, I never thought I'd say this to this guy:



All past tribal arguments aside, you're on a roll!

 

[Marweas]

They could have supplied the terrorists with the weapons ala "dirty" bombs. Saying, "Whoops, President Bush was right, we should have attacked Iraq" after 10,000+ people die in a dirty bomb attack is better?

Iraq is not the most likely supplier of wmd to terrorists, therefore it makes no sense to attack them now. Feel free to make up more fictional numbers of casualties to prove your point though.

What you missed is we have set a precedent for attacking a country unprovoked. How's your history? How many "good guys" in history attacked unprovoked?

Edit: What is your feeling about Chechnya?

You mean US liberating Chechnya? Oh please.

 

[triple]

Iraq is not the most likely supplier of wmd to terrorists, therefore it makes no sense to attack them now. Feel free to make up more fictional numbers of casualties to prove your point though.

What you missed is we have set a precedent for attacking a country unprovoked. How's your history? How many "good guys" in history attacked unprovoked?


You mean US liberating Chechnya? Oh please.

Technically its not an unprovoked attack, as if iraq followed the terms of the cease fire, they wouldnt be under attack.

The blame lies with saddam, no matter how much you want to shift it to bush.

 

[Marweas]

Technically its not an unprovoked attack, as if iraq followed the terms of the cease fire, they wouldnt be under attack.

The blame lies with saddam, no matter how much you want to shift it to bush.

I get your point, but it's a fine one. Technically the US wasn't authorized by the UN to enforce the UN resolution either.

I'm not sure if any country has ever justifyably attacked another country for breaking a treaty/agreement with another country or organization. judges?

 

[triple]

I get your point, but it's a fine one. Technically the US wasn't authorized by the UN to enforce the UN resolution either.

I'm not sure if any country has ever justifyably attacked another country for breaking a treaty/agreement with another country or organization. judges?

The US does not have to let France decide how it handles international affairs, especially when them, russia, and syria is lookin out for #1 as well.

We were justified, just get over it.

BTW: Im not talking about 1441, it was the cease fire from 91 that forbid iraq to have wmd/long range missles etc.. obviously they did not think we were serious. They didn't hold up their end, so we didnt hold up ours.

 

[Wulfen]

Iraq is not the most likely supplier of wmd to terrorists, therefore it makes no sense to attack them now. Feel free to make up more fictional numbers of casualties to prove your point though.

What you missed is we have set a precedent for attacking a country unprovoked. How's your history? How many "good guys" in history attacked unprovoked?


You mean US liberating Chechnya? Oh please.

Unprovoked? Who's missing what here? Quit fucking acting like you're somehow superior to these guys because you're a fucking suit for a game publisher! Holy shit if the game is as fucking one-sided as you forget it.

I can't believe you're still crying over this. Keep telling yourself we're the "bad guys." To yourself please.

 

[ktm]

Chechnya - my mistake. I brushed up on the history and saw that my memory was faulty. I thought Chechyna had seperated (and became and independent nation) from Russia during the great breakup and Russia subsequenty invaded Chechnya because of the militants. In fact, Russia sent forces there to stop the militants and prevent Chechnya from seperating.

I was going to make the connection between the militants in Chechnya attacking Russia and their response in the name of sovereignty, and the US attacking Iraq. Terrorists are terrorists whether right next door or half the world away.

As for my numbers on the dirty bomb, there are the worse case numbers for such an explosion. Reaslitically, you would be looking at 1000 people dying from cancer in a major metropolitan center. Do you consider 1000 people dying from one single terrorist act acceptable?

The fact remains that Saddam used chemical weapons against another country. Period. If he has done it once, then what would have stopped him from doing it again?