KrustyKidd Posted August 1, 2004 Report Posted August 1, 2004 quote: Was that before or after the origional Gulf War and 911? ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Of course, it was before the original Gulf War or 9/11. What difference does that make? It was during the Reagan Years. It was during the time when Iraq was accused of gassing the Kurds. At that time, the American War College claimed the gas that affected the Kurds was Iranian gas. (Both sides were using gas) They can't have it both ways. Just because they change allies; they change their findings on who gassed the Kurds. So then it was not during the Gulf War then. Where is it written that an ally or somebody you support at one time has to be supported forever? And how much support did Saddam get from the US? Figures that I knowof detail 5% from the US and over 80% from Europe. You go on about American support for bad regimes, you should be happy that the US stopped supporting him and did the right thing, not angry. note; no such slaughter was then ongoing or imminent Oh, I didn't know this stuff happens according to schedules, like a train or something? Historicaly it occured at the rate of over a thousand a month. You don't know what would have happened next week much less next year. Gotta get those long term contracts signed first. eh. Uh? I don't think those contracts were any good after March of last year. The French sure tried everything they could to ensure theirs were still good, all the hundreds of billions of dollars worth. The difficulty of establishing stable institutions in Iraq is making the country an increasingly unlikely staging ground for promoting democracy in the Middle East Try Varying your news sources in order to get a broader picture Quote We're Paratroopers Lieutenant. We're supposed to be surrounded - CPT Richard Winters
caesar Posted August 1, 2004 Report Posted August 1, 2004 Canadians were strongly againt the INVASION of Iraq; it was not a war; none was declare, It was based on lies, fraudulent, forged or irrelevant "proofs" The Iraq invasion was a waste of innocent lives; and the destruction of others through serious injuries. Iraqis, American, journalists, Red Cross and UN workers, etc. It has NOTHING to do with terrorists. The terrorists arrived in Iraq at the same time as the Coalition. Quote
caesar Posted August 1, 2004 Report Posted August 1, 2004 Krusty; Uh? I don't think those contracts were any good after March of last year. The French sure tried everything they could to ensure theirs were still good, all the hundreds of billions of dollars worth."--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DUH. Not the old contracts; the American handled NEW contracts; after all that is what they protected; the oil fileds ; not the ancient art galleries with irreplaceable treasures no even the dangerous nuclear power plants. Quote
Big Blue Machine Posted August 1, 2004 Report Posted August 1, 2004 What if Canada send a little force of troops to stabilize Iraq? Maybe Peacekeepers? Quote And as I take man's last step from the surface, for now but we believe not too far into the future. I just like to say what I believe history will record that America's challenge on today has forged man's destiny of tomorrow. And as we leave the surface of Taurus-Littrow, we leave as we came and god willing we shall return with peace and hope for all mankind. Godspeed the crew of Apollo 17. Gene Cernan, the last man on the moon, December 1972.
Stoker Posted August 2, 2004 Report Posted August 2, 2004 It has NOTHING to do with terrorists. The terrorists arrived in Iraq at the same time as the Coalition. Please tell what the war was for then........... DUH. Not the old contracts; the American handled NEW contracts; after all that is what they protected; the oil fileds ; not the ancient art galleries with irreplaceable treasures no even the dangerous nuclear power plants. Are you making things up again? Iraq doesn't or didn't have nuclear power plants...... remember they have oil........you know the black stuff that Bush is "stealing" from them What if Canada send a little force of troops to stabilize Iraq? Maybe Peacekeepers? It's a moot point. We didn't have troops to send last year, and we don't have the troops to send now and with us just reportedly commiting to staying on with ISAF until 2008, we won't have troops in the near future for Iraq. Quote The beaver, which has come to represent Canada as the eagle does the United States and the lion Britain, is a flat-tailed, slow-witted, toothy rodent known to bite off it's own testicles or to stand under its own falling trees. -June Callwood-
caesar Posted August 2, 2004 Report Posted August 2, 2004 Quote: Stoker: "PLease tell what the war was for then...........------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Well Stoker; since Iraq did not have any WMD or ties to Al qaeda; It is not my responsibility to justify the "INVASION of Iraq" Perhaps you have a valid excuse???? Quote
caesar Posted August 2, 2004 Report Posted August 2, 2004 Stoker" quote: you making things up again? Iraq doesn't or didn't have nuclear power plants...... " -------------------------------------------------------------------------- I guess you didn't listen to any news during the invasion eh. Iraq does have nuclear power plants which were looted after the Americans invaded. Some Iraqis bought pails to carry food in that came from the plants and suffered radiation poisoning. I suppose, you didn't know thay had museums, with priceless antiques; that were looted either. Quote
caesar Posted August 2, 2004 Report Posted August 2, 2004 Stoker; just for you: "FOXNews.com - US & World - Report: Major Iraqi Nuclear Plants ... ... Report: Major Iraqi Nuclear Plants Looted. Monday, May 05, 2003. BACKGROUND. NEAR KUT, Iraq — A major radioactive waste site in Iraq has been looted and US " Quote
Stoker Posted August 2, 2004 Report Posted August 2, 2004 Well Stoker; since Iraq did not have any WMD or ties to Al qaeda; It is not my responsibility to justify the "INVASION of Iraq" Perhaps you have a valid excuse???? You said that the war has NOTHING to do with terrorists and that it has nothing to do with WMDs.......so what do you think the War was fought over? I'm sticking with the United States's reasons, what are yours? I guess you didn't listen to any news during the invasion eh. Iraq does have nuclear power plants which were looted after the Americans invaded. Some Iraqis bought pails to carry food in that came from the plants and suffered radiation poisoning.I suppose, you didn't know thay had museums, with priceless antiques; that were looted either. And Stoker; just for you:"FOXNews.com - US & World - Report: Major Iraqi Nuclear Plants ... ... Report: Major Iraqi Nuclear Plants Looted. Monday, May 05, 2003. BACKGROUND. NEAR KUT, Iraq — A major radioactive waste site in Iraq has been looted and US " This Story? Baghdad Nuclear Research Facility As I said, Iraq didn't have nuclear power plants for power generation..........ask yourself, why would an oil rich country spend money on nuclear power? Now nuclear research facilities are a different story........ Map of Nuclear Power Reactors Quote The beaver, which has come to represent Canada as the eagle does the United States and the lion Britain, is a flat-tailed, slow-witted, toothy rodent known to bite off it's own testicles or to stand under its own falling trees. -June Callwood-
caesar Posted August 2, 2004 Report Posted August 2, 2004 I don't need a reason; I didn't support an invasion. Big deal; the results were the same re Nuclear facilities. Which of the Americans changing reasons do you believe? Quote
Stoker Posted August 2, 2004 Report Posted August 2, 2004 I don't need a reason; I didn't support an invasion. I now you didn't support the invasion.......thats not in question. What is in question is the following quote: Canadians were strongly againt the INVASION of Iraq; it was not a war; none was declare, It was based on lies, fraudulent, forged or irrelevant "proofs"The Iraq invasion was a waste of innocent lives; and the destruction of others through serious injuries. Iraqis, American, journalists, Red Cross and UN workers, etc. It has NOTHING to do with terrorists. The terrorists arrived in Iraq at the same time as the Coalition. You say that it has nothing to do terrorist here. The here you go onto say that it had nothing to do with WMDs: Well Stoker; since Iraq did not have any WMD or ties to Al qaeda; It is not my responsibility to justify the "INVASION of Iraq" Perhaps you have a valid excuse???? So I ask you, what did Bush go to war for? What made Bush risk being reelected this Fall? Why did Bush use "lies, fraudulent, forged or irrelevant" facts to go to War? What do you think his reason was for? Which of the Americans changing reasons do you believe? All of them and if you go back to Nov of 2002, you can read all of the reasons for yourself. The only thing that has changed wrt America's reasons, has been the focus by the media and those opposed to the War/Bush on only individual reasons. Another question for yeah caesar......speaking of looted Iraqi nuclear facilities.......Since it's been proven that Iraq had/has no real need for commercial nuclear power due it's vast oil reserves, to what reason then did Saddam need to research nuclear technology? Quote The beaver, which has come to represent Canada as the eagle does the United States and the lion Britain, is a flat-tailed, slow-witted, toothy rodent known to bite off it's own testicles or to stand under its own falling trees. -June Callwood-
caesar Posted August 2, 2004 Report Posted August 2, 2004 Well, fortunately; Americans are being a little more realistic and are now seeing the folly of the Iraq fiasco. Hopefully, come December; Bush will be just a bad memory. Harper is not prime minister; so all is well that end well. Quote
Stoker Posted August 2, 2004 Report Posted August 2, 2004 Well, fortunately; Americans are being a little more realistic and are now seeing the folly of the Iraq fiasco. Hopefully, come December; Bush will be just a bad memory. Harper is not prime minister; so all is well that end well Do you think Canada will be better off with two protectionists like Kerry and Edwards? Quote The beaver, which has come to represent Canada as the eagle does the United States and the lion Britain, is a flat-tailed, slow-witted, toothy rodent known to bite off it's own testicles or to stand under its own falling trees. -June Callwood-
caesar Posted August 2, 2004 Report Posted August 2, 2004 Stoker "Another question for yeah caesar......speaking of looted Iraqi nuclear facilities.......Since it's been proven that Iraq had/has no real need for commercial nuclear power due it's vast oil reserves, to what reason then did Saddam need to research nuclear technology? "------------------------------------------------------------------------- Don't know; don't care; there was no real concern about them. Have you ever heard of nuclear medicine. There are a variety of used for nuclear technologies Quote
caesar Posted August 2, 2004 Report Posted August 2, 2004 quote; stoker; So I ask you, what did Bush go to war for? What made Bush risk being reelected this Fall? Why did Bush use "lies, fraudulent, forged or irrelevant" facts to go to War? What do you think his reason was for?----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What difference does it make what I think. I do not have any reason to make excuses for him but here you go; take your choice stupidity? oil? Strategic military control? Who knows the reasons of a tyrant? Quote
Stoker Posted August 2, 2004 Report Posted August 2, 2004 What difference does it make what I think. I do not have any reason to make excuses for him but here you go; take your choicestupidity? oil? Strategic military control? Who knows the reasons of a tyrant? Stupidity? Thats not a reason, it's a personal trait. Oil? So that's why Gas is so cheap right now and the Iraqi people are not even close to finally starting to "reap the benefits" of their natural resources. Strategic military control? I agree with this one to an extent.......totally if it was worded better.......but this has also been pumped out by the white house. Ala turn Iraq into a "bastion of democracy" in the heart of the middle east......So I ask, whats wrong with that? Do you think that brown people can't handle democracy? And whats wrong if both the Iraqis and Americans benefit from a free Iraq? Iraqis get freedom and Americans get stability in an area that was once Bass Aackwards.........Whats the big deal? Quote The beaver, which has come to represent Canada as the eagle does the United States and the lion Britain, is a flat-tailed, slow-witted, toothy rodent known to bite off it's own testicles or to stand under its own falling trees. -June Callwood-
caesar Posted August 2, 2004 Report Posted August 2, 2004 Stupidity? Thats not a reason, it's a personal trait. You said it hehe None of these justified invading Iraq. None of them justified risking the lives and limbs of young coalition forces. Democracy will only be achieved when the people are ready for it. If they do decide they want a democracy; it would not be patterned on a N A style democracy. Many still want one strong leader. Democracy in Canada is hard enough to hold together with the various Provinces pouting and wanting to opt out. Ours are family fights compared to the different factions in Iraq and their more violent background. Anyhow, too hot to think straight. Gonna chill out. have a fun evening Quote
Stoker Posted August 2, 2004 Report Posted August 2, 2004 None of these justified invading Iraq. None of them justified risking the lives and limbs of young coalition forces. So where is the line drawn? Does the United States have to take the first punch to the head? Democracy will only be achieved when the people are ready for it. If they do decide they want a democracy; it would not be patterned on a N A style democracy. Many still want one strong leader. How do you know that they are not ready for it? Quote The beaver, which has come to represent Canada as the eagle does the United States and the lion Britain, is a flat-tailed, slow-witted, toothy rodent known to bite off it's own testicles or to stand under its own falling trees. -June Callwood-
caesar Posted August 2, 2004 Report Posted August 2, 2004 The United States, like every other country does need legal justification before attacking another country. Otherwise mayhem exists. How does the USA know that they are ready or want a democracy? Stability is something to hope for. I would like a little more stability and accountability here. Democracy is not a magic pill. It does not cure all problems. It should be year round; not once every four years on election day. Quote
Stoker Posted August 2, 2004 Report Posted August 2, 2004 The United States, like every other country does need legal justification before attacking another country. Otherwise mayhem exists. They had legal justifacation, go look at the terms for the ending of the first gulf war. How does the USA know that they are ready or want a democracy?Stability is something to hope for. I would like a little more stability and accountability here. Democracy is not a magic pill. It does not cure all problems. It should be year round; not once every four years on election day. Do you think that dark skinned people can't handle democracy and personnal freedom? Quote The beaver, which has come to represent Canada as the eagle does the United States and the lion Britain, is a flat-tailed, slow-witted, toothy rodent known to bite off it's own testicles or to stand under its own falling trees. -June Callwood-
caesar Posted August 2, 2004 Report Posted August 2, 2004 They did not have legal or moral justification. If you didn't know that at the time; you should know it now. geeesh Why did they avoid the UN resolution after all their bribery and blackmail attempts; bacause they knew they would lose; not by a single veto but by a majority. As for the dark skin comment; let's not attempt the usual right wing tactic and turn EVERY comment into "racist" it is BS and you know it. Quote
caesar Posted August 2, 2004 Report Posted August 2, 2004 By the way Stoker. Why do you think the Iraqi people are revolting against the USA in large numbers. They do want to be free; free of USA interference and control. Quote
Stoker Posted August 2, 2004 Report Posted August 2, 2004 They did not have legal or moral justification. If you didn't know that at the time; you should know it now. geeeshWhy did they avoid the UN resolution after all their bribery and blackmail attempts; bacause they knew they would lose; not by a single veto but by a majority. 1441 By the way Stoker. Why do you think the Iraqi people are revolting against the USA in large numbers. They do want to be free; free of USA interference and control. Define large numbers.........Iraq has 25 million people, I've heard the number of insurgents estimated in the thousands......... Source Seeking to counter the perception that the United States is losing control in Iraq, the coalition commander there said Thursday the insurgency targeting American soldiers involves only about 5,000 organized fighters who eventually will be defeated Now lets double that estimate, hell better yet let's say there are 25,000 insurgents in the country. What percentage is 25,000 of a nation of 25 million? Quote The beaver, which has come to represent Canada as the eagle does the United States and the lion Britain, is a flat-tailed, slow-witted, toothy rodent known to bite off it's own testicles or to stand under its own falling trees. -June Callwood-
takeanumber Posted August 2, 2004 Report Posted August 2, 2004 I agree with Stoker on this one. If you were against the war in Iraq on humanitarian grounds, you're an anti-liberal. There were so many so-called liberals who were saying that we should't go in and fight Baa'thism because we had Saddam contained. Really? At what cost to the civillians. Sounds awfully convinient to me that they should continue to suffer because for us, Saddam isn't a problem. And what of Iraq firing on UN airplanes enforcing the no-fly zones. How convinient that those facts are ignored. You know, can you be a liberal and still hate bush for how he lied to the world and squandered the cred. that we need to fight terror and totaltitarian regimes. You can be a true true liberal and support the war on humanitarian grounds, which were the grounds that I supported the war on. I'm angry at Bush for doing what he did precisely because I'm tough on terror. Yes, I am holier than a Republican. Yes, I am tougher on terror than a pussy willow Canadian Conservative. Personally, I'm disgusted at anti-liberals of both political stripes. Quote
Stoker Posted August 2, 2004 Report Posted August 2, 2004 Of all the reasons stated by the United States for going to war with Iraq, be they WMD, removing tryany, humanitarian reasons, putting stability in a ass backwards region, etc etc..........I've yet to heard what is the problem with any of these above reasons...... I'll go even further, let's say that this war was about securing Iraq oil, on top of the other reasons.......Whats wrong with protecting every facet of ones being? Oil plays a large part of the US economy, whats wrong with protecting it? Quote The beaver, which has come to represent Canada as the eagle does the United States and the lion Britain, is a flat-tailed, slow-witted, toothy rodent known to bite off it's own testicles or to stand under its own falling trees. -June Callwood-
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.