View Full Version : Was it right to invade Iraq?


platinummatt
07-27-2006, 11:58 AM
We know sudam was a nutjob who didnt let anyone speak who didnt agre with him, killed thousands of curds, and tortured many people.
There again our soldiers are over there torurng them, people still being killed.

Should we have invaded? Imo I think maybe Zimbabwe would have been a better one.

neils7147933
07-27-2006, 12:00 PM
Dozens of threads like this on these boards.

platinummatt
07-27-2006, 12:01 PM
Dozens of threads like this on these boards.
Feel free to delete this one then. I dont see half of them for some reason.

RAESAAD
07-27-2006, 12:10 PM
No plain and simple.......there were some reasons but none were worth the trouble it has been.Iraq was never a direct threat to the U.S. and Bin laden was and still is.....where the **** is he?

K-DOGG
07-27-2006, 12:28 PM
No. We are not the World's Police Force. If the people of a country won't stand up for themselves, they deserve whatever they get. That may sound cold; but it's just a fact.

It's the same with a person in an abusive relationship; until she (or he) wants help or wants to leave, there's no helping them. They're never gonna press charges, they're never gonna testify in court, they're never gonna stand up for themselves.

If the people of Iraq really wanted Sadaam out of office, they would have tried to rebel....Al Qaida, for example or Hezbollah should have gone after him. What a bunch of useless ****ers they are, huh. Here they are claiming to be standing up for Islam and Allah and they let Sadaam, who is anything but a religious Muslim, do all that **** witout going after him. What a bunch of hypocrits and useless ****ers. Cowards, really.

Well, that's enough from me on this.

The Noose
07-27-2006, 12:55 PM
No. We are not the World's Police Force. If the people of a country won't stand up for themselves, they deserve whatever they get. That may sound cold; but it's just a fact.

It's the same with a person in an abusive relationship; until she (or he) wants help or wants to leave, there's no helping them. They're never gonna press charges, they're never gonna testify in court, they're never gonna stand up for themselves.

If the people of Iraq really wanted Sadaam out of office, they would have tried to rebel....Al Qaida, for example or Hezbollah should have gone after him. What a bunch of useless ****ers they are, huh. Here they are claiming to be standing up for Islam and Allah and they let Sadaam, who is anything but a religious Muslim, do all that **** witout going after him. What a bunch of hypocrits and useless ****ers. Cowards, really.

Well, that's enough from me on this.

Aint that harsh?
They deserve it!

I mean arent governemts controlling all of us all the time?
Whether its oppressing them or creating a slobbish consumer society.
They imopsed their laws by force and public executions.
I dont know if i could compare the nazis to Sadams Iraq. But should the jews of stood up to them?
I dont know my ****. Im asking.

K-DOGG
07-27-2006, 01:04 PM
Aint that harsh?
They deserve it!

I mean arent governemts controlling all of us all the time?
Whether its oppressing them or creating a slobbish consumer society.
They imopsed their laws by force and public executions.
I dont know if i could compare the nazis to Sadams Iraq. But should the jews of stood up to them?
I dont know my ****. Im asking.

That's fair; but I feel it has to be a joint effort by the world communnities, not just the US. And, yes, I know GB and a handful of smaller countries were involved in the second Iraqi conflict; but if you compare it to the first Gulf War when everybody was involved, it's quite a different picture.

Should the Jews have fought against Hitler and the Nazis? I don't think I'd compare that situation to what was going on in Iraq or even if that was our reason for invading. If we're so concerned about genocide, why aren't we getting involved in that mess going on in Africa.

I don't mind a "noble cause", in fact, I'm in favour of it; but I see Waaaay too much hypocrisy going around in that "knight of the round table/white cowboy hat bs that we're being fed.

RAESAAD
07-27-2006, 01:05 PM
No. We are not the World's Police Force. If the people of a country won't stand up for themselves, they deserve whatever they get. That may sound cold; but it's just a fact.

It's the same with a person in an abusive relationship; until she (or he) wants help or wants to leave, there's no helping them. They're never gonna press charges, they're never gonna testify in court, they're never gonna stand up for themselves.

If the people of Iraq really wanted Sadaam out of office, they would have tried to rebel....Al Qaida, for example or Hezbollah should have gone after him. What a bunch of useless ****ers they are, huh. Here they are claiming to be standing up for Islam and Allah and they let Sadaam, who is anything but a religious Muslim, do all that **** witout going after him. What a bunch of hypocrits and useless ****ers. Cowards, really.

Well, that's enough from me on this.
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to K-DOGG again.

You are the man K-Dogg great post.

platinummatt
07-27-2006, 01:08 PM
Yeh africa is really in a bad state. Why did we have to invade them, whe nwe could have just shot Hussane. The SAS were in the speakign persian lol, no one even knew. The uk were involved in this gulf war.

K-DOGG
07-27-2006, 01:11 PM
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to K-DOGG again.

You are the man K-Dogg great post.

Thank you. I'm just sick of it, man. It's always the same. People won't stand up for themselves, then you ride in on the "white horse", so to speak, and nobody's ever happy with what you do. Yah never come out smelling like a rose...Never.

RAESAAD
07-27-2006, 01:21 PM
Thank you. I'm just sick of it, man. It's always the same. People won't stand up for themselves, then you ride in on the "white horse", so to speak, and nobody's ever happy with what you do. Yah never come out smelling like a rose...Never.
YUP you can't help people who don't want to help themselves......

The Noose
07-27-2006, 01:26 PM
The reasons for invading were lies.

Its like shooting someone whom u THINK has a gun, and IF they did have a gun they MIGHT want to shoot u.

Intelligence my arse.

K-DOGG
07-27-2006, 01:32 PM
The reasons for invading were lies.

Its like shooting someone whom u THINK has a gun, and IF they did have a gun they MIGHT want to shoot u.

Intelligence my arse.

Exactly. The time to overthrow Sadaam was back in '91, if we were going to do it. Then we would have had a unified rebuilding effort like what took place after WWII. As it is, it was wrong to invade, we came off looking as a country with a vendetta; and now we've got a big old cluster****. It's all FUBAR over there; and more is still to come.

Here's to good leadership!....whereever it is. :mad:

* FeistyWench *
07-27-2006, 01:33 PM
Exactly. The time to overthrow Sadaam was back in '91, if we were going to do it. Then we would have had a unified rebuilding effort like what took place after WWII. As it is, it was wrong to invade, we came off looking as a country with a vendetta; and now we've got a big old cluster****. It's all FUBAR over there; and more is still to come.

Here's to good leadership!....whereever it is. :mad:
FUBAR!
lmao!
i have not heard that in ages! :D

K-DOGG
07-27-2006, 01:46 PM
FUBAR!
lmao!
i have not heard that in ages! :D


Here's to Stallone and Russell, aye! :fing02:

luistwentyone
07-27-2006, 02:18 PM
Should we have invaded?

..........no

The Noose
07-27-2006, 02:55 PM
Here's to Stallone and Russell, aye! :fing02:
Tango and Cash.
I dont know that film well enough to know wtf FUBAR stands for.
I was busy watching Police Academy and Commando.

K-DOGG
07-27-2006, 02:57 PM
Tango and Cash.
I dont know that film well enough to know wtf FUBAR stands for.
I was busy watching Police Academy and Commando.



lol!!!

FUBAR: ****ed Up Beyond All Recognition

Boxclever
07-29-2006, 04:35 AM
We know sudam was a nutjob who didnt let anyone speak who didnt agre with him, killed thousands of curds, and tortured many people.
There again our soldiers are over there torurng them, people still being killed.

Should we have invaded? Imo I think maybe Zimbabwe would have been a better one.


to me it was a bad decision i was against it from the start. :(

TheHoff!
07-29-2006, 08:21 AM
If the people of Iraq really wanted Sadaam out of office, they would have tried to rebel....Al Qaida, for example or Hezbollah should have gone after him. What a bunch of useless ****ers they are, huh. Here they are claiming to be standing up for Islam and Allah and they let Sadaam, who is anything but a religious Muslim, do all that **** witout going after him. What a bunch of hypocrits and useless ****ers. Cowards, really.
The Iraqi's did rise up against Sadam during the 1991 gulf war. They were encouraged by the thought that America had also come to get rid of Sadam and would support them, but the Americans instead just watched (and effectively collaborated) as Sadam's forces brutally dealt with the uprising.

marvdave
07-29-2006, 10:21 AM
I don't normally like to discuss this on the internet...but.....I don't know who is right or wrong, all I know is that it breaks my heart everytime I see a 19 year old kid come home without legs or arms.

* FeistyWench *
07-29-2006, 10:56 AM
I don't normally like to discuss this on the internet...but.....I don't know who is right or wrong, all I know is that it breaks my heart everytime I see a 19 year old kid come home without legs or arms.
a local radio station does this daily tally of how many US soldiers have been wounded and killed and how many billions the war has cost us so far. then they do a separate little tally of how many soldiers have been wounded and killed that are from our area (state). when 9/11 happened everyone seemed so patriotic and glued to their tv and radio to hear about what is going on. However, it seems like NOW many americans just want to tune it all out. unless they know someone in the war they just seem to forget it is actually happening or are just numb to it all now (out of sight, out of mind).

Oasis_Lad
07-29-2006, 11:00 AM
bush invaded iraq for the wrong reasons

he really should be tried for war crimes which sadly he wont be because he is the leader of the worlds number 1 super power

we truly are slaves to them

* FeistyWench *
07-29-2006, 11:03 AM
bush invaded iraq for the wrong reasons

he really should be tried for war crimes which sadly he wont be because he is the leader of the worlds number 1 super power

we truly are slaves to them
he's an idiot. :rolleyes:

Oasis_Lad
07-29-2006, 11:06 AM
he's an idiot. :rolleyes:

no denying that!

marvdave
07-29-2006, 11:11 AM
a local radio station does this daily tally of how many US soldiers have been wounded and killed and how many billions the war has cost us so far. then they do a separate little tally of how many soldiers have been wounded and killed that are from our area (state). when 9/11 happened everyone seemed so patriotic and glued to their tv and radio to hear about what is going on. However, it seems like NOW many americans just want to tune it all out. unless they know someone in the war they just seem to forget it is actually happening or are just numb to it all now (out of sight, out of mind).

bingo...and I'm guilty of being numb to it ...I will admit. I get quite irritated when I start discussing it..so I try to avoid. Not to say I don't follow whats happening..I just prefer to not discuss it much. So why the hell did I come into this thread? :D

Hard Boiled HK
07-29-2006, 07:34 PM
It's simple. Bush invaded Iraq because the economy was at a poor state and re-election was coming up. We still haven't found Bin Laden yet, and the public opinion of him was (and is) slipping badly. He needed to shift the focus away from the economy and the missing Bin Laden. Also, a country never wants a leadership change while it's at war and he knows it.

Bush insist on WMD in Iraq (when none are found, he blames it on the CIA for poor information). And while the UN inspector searches Iraq to prevent a war, North Korea has been saying they are developing WMD and will test them soon. What does Bush say to that? He says he's not afraid to fight a 3 front war (Iraq, Iran, North Korea). What a macho thing to say right? He felt good saying it, but his advisors must have told him he's a moron because there's no way the US has enough troops to fight a three way war. Why didn't he invade North Korea instead of Iraq? Simple, Bush is a bully and only picks on easy targets. If he invades North Korea, do you think Russia and China would just sit and watch? Bush certainly didn't want to start a war with either of those countries.

So now what? After 9/11, Bush said Bin Laden must be captured dead or alive for terrorism to die. Now that has failed, he says the capture of Bin Laden is not necessary to end the war on terror. What about the troops in Iraq? When can the US withdraw its troops? Bush says that's up to the next president. What a responsible guy. I cannot believe he was re-elected.

Bush says he's trying to control the oil situation and automakers are not doing enough to help it. He says we must not be dependent on foreign oil. Basically he wants to drill Alaska. Controlling the oil situation? Does anyone inform him? In the 2nd quarter of this year, Exxon Mobile made 10.4 billion dollars, or just over $1,300 a second, which is 2nd highest in the history of the United States company. Maybe he should control these record profits by oil companies, which will help lower consumer burdens.

I wouldn't be surprised if Bush pardons those Enron and Tyco executives shortly before his term is up.

EDIT: $10.4 billion dollar profit in one quarter is the 2nd hightest ever in a publicly traded company in the United States, not within Exxon Mobile.

Dr.Depravity
07-29-2006, 10:00 PM
Heres the skinny people wether you want to beleive it or not, it doesn't really matter. Fact: There are Facist Muslims who want to kill you, regardless of who you are. Just the fact that your not Muslim. They are waging a holy war. Christians are not willing to engage in holy wars anymore, the church doesnt have that sort of power, and frankly its followers arn't as manical as these Muslims.
So that leaves a simple choice. Do nothing, and let the terrorist attacks come and go and eventually loose more and more countries to facist Muslims.
Heres a little Muslim fact sheet.

I. Some Basic Facts About Islam
Islam is the fastest growing religion in the U.S. (U.S. NEWS AND WORLD REPORT, Oct. 8, 1990). It is growing at a rate of 400% per year in the USA.
Half of all the Muslims in the U.S. are African Americans.
Islam has mosques in every major city in Europe and is the second largest religion in the world with 1.1 billion followers.
Islam has been a dominant force in Asia and Africa for hundreds of years. It is spreading mostly through marriage and breeding in these countries.
Countries with a high population of Muslims (Indonesia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc.) have a reputation for persecuting Christians.
Christian nations in the West tolerate Islam, but Islamic countries are unwilling to tolerate Christianity.
Islam is a theocracy, which means that Moslem laws govern both religion and civil state: both personal and public laws
"There is no way that Islam can reform itself and remain Islam, no way it can ever be made compatible with pluralism, free speech, critical thought and democracy. Anyone convinced they already possess the truth have no need for such things. Although Muslims resident in non-Muslim countries clamour for every kind of indulgence for their own beliefs and customs, there can be no doubt that given any kind of power they would impose their own beliefs and eliminate all difference."

Dr.Depravity
07-29-2006, 10:02 PM
It's simple. Bush invaded Iraq because the economy was at a poor state and re-election was coming up. We still haven't found Bin Laden yet, and the public opinion of him was (and is) slipping badly. He needed to shift the focus away from the economy and the missing Bin Laden. Also, a country never wants a leadership change while it's at war and he knows it.

Bush insist on WMD in Iraq (when none are found, he blames it on the CIA for poor information). And while the UN inspector searches Iraq to prevent a war, North Korea has been saying they are developing WMD and will test them soon. What does Bush say to that? He says he's not afraid to fight a 3 front war (Iraq, Iran, North Korea). What a macho thing to say right? He felt good saying it, but his advisors must have told him he's a moron because there's no way the US has enough troops to fight a three way war. Why didn't he invade North Korea instead of Iraq? Simple, Bush is a bully and only picks on easy targets. If he invades North Korea, do you think Russia and China would just sit and watch? Bush certainly didn't want to start a war with either of those countries.

So now what? After 9/11, Bush said Bin Laden must be captured dead or alive for terrorism to die. Now that has failed, he says the capture of Bin Laden is not necessary to end the war on terror. What about the troops in Iraq? When can the US withdraw its troops? Bush says that's up to the next president. What a responsible guy. I cannot believe he was re-elected.

Bush says he's trying to control the oil situation and automakers are not doing enough to help it. He says we must not be dependent on foreign oil. Basically he wants to drill Alaska. Controlling the oil situation? Does anyone inform him? In the 2nd quarter of this year, Exxon Mobile made 10.4 billion dollars, or just over $1,300 a second, which is 2nd highest in the history of the United States company. Maybe he should control these record profits by oil companies, which will help lower consumer burdens.

I wouldn't be surprised if Bush pardons those Enron and Tyco executives shortly before his term is up.

EDIT: $10.4 billion dollar profit in one quarter is the 2nd hightest ever in a publicly traded company in the United States, not within Exxon Mobile.
Exxon Mobile has invested more this year in drilling, upgrading production for refineries and re-newable energy than it made.

The Noose
07-29-2006, 10:21 PM
Heres the skinny people wether you want to beleive it or not, it doesn't really matter. Fact: There are Facist Muslims who want to kill you, regardless of who you are. Just the fact that your not Muslim. They are waging a holy war. Christians are not willing to engage in holy wars anymore, the church doesnt have that sort of power, and frankly its followers arn't as manical as these Muslims.
So that leaves a simple choice. Do nothing, and let the terrorist attacks come and go and eventually loose more and more countries to facist Muslims.
Heres a little Muslim fact sheet.

I. Some Basic Facts About Islam
Islam is the fastest growing religion in the U.S. (U.S. NEWS AND WORLD REPORT, Oct. 8, 1990). It is growing at a rate of 400% per year in the USA.
Half of all the Muslims in the U.S. are African Americans.
Islam has mosques in every major city in Europe and is the second largest religion in the world with 1.1 billion followers.
Islam has been a dominant force in Asia and Africa for hundreds of years. It is spreading mostly through marriage and breeding in these countries.
Countries with a high population of Muslims (Indonesia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc.) have a reputation for persecuting Christians.
Christian nations in the West tolerate Islam, but Islamic countries are unwilling to tolerate Christianity.
Islam is a theocracy, which means that Moslem laws govern both religion and civil state: both personal and public laws
"There is no way that Islam can reform itself and remain Islam, no way it can ever be made compatible with pluralism, free speech, critical thought and democracy. Anyone convinced they already possess the truth have no need for such things. Although Muslims resident in non-Muslim countries clamour for every kind of indulgence for their own beliefs and customs, there can be no doubt that given any kind of power they would impose their own beliefs and eliminate all difference."

Wat is ur point??
U are anti-islam? I have friends who are Muslim, they keep their beliefs to themselves, they disagree as much with my life style as many Christians do.
But they dont bother me.

I just think u shouldnt confuse these terrorists with the average Muslim.
Plus, i dont see wat this has to do with the war really.

IMO although there is a threat of extremist militant muslims, there also seems a swelling in the fundamentalist christian population in America.
Bush should not be playing the Christian card.

Dr.Depravity
07-30-2006, 02:13 AM
I dont/ didn't or havent confused average Muslims with terrorist, I refered to the terrorist as Facist. I think my point is abundently clear. It is a problem. And are trying to tell me there are more fundemental christians now then 50 years ago? I seriously doubt it.

Dye
07-30-2006, 02:21 AM
We know sudam was a nutjob who didnt let anyone speak who didnt agre with him, killed thousands of curds, and tortured many people.
There again our soldiers are over there torurng them, people still being killed.

Should we have invaded? Imo I think maybe Zimbabwe would have been a better one.
yes it was right to invade Iraq, do you have any idea what Saddam did to thousands of people i have seen with my own eyes in videos, i have lost 1 cousin in Iraq but it is something we had to do, what Saddam did to those people is beyond torture. they should not even give Saddam a trail. What he did was if you disagreed with him he kill you and your family. He could kill you just because he was jealous of you, he killed thousands of innocent people anyone that says we should not have invaded needs to go live over there and see how they like it

The Noose
07-30-2006, 04:55 PM
I dont/ didn't or havent confused average Muslims with terrorist, I refered to the terrorist as Facist. I think my point is abundently clear. It is a problem. And are trying to tell me there are more fundemental christians now then 50 years ago? I seriously doubt it.

U stated a few facts about Islam. That to me refers to all muslims.

Any religion of belief system could be used to justify terroism by the terrorists.
I just dont think stating certain facts about Islam in the context of terrorism is very subjective.
I dont think the war has anything to do with Islam. Its a political issue.
If your going to talk about Islam, talk about all aspects of it. Positive and negative.

Dont make a small minority out to be the face of Islam.

The Noose
07-30-2006, 04:57 PM
yes it was right to invade Iraq, do you have any idea what Saddam did to thousands of people i have seen with my own eyes in videos, i have lost 1 cousin in Iraq but it is something we had to do, what Saddam did to those people is beyond torture. they should not even give Saddam a trail. What he did was if you disagreed with him he kill you and your family. He could kill you just because he was jealous of you, he killed thousands of innocent people anyone that says we should not have invaded needs to go live over there and see how they like it

And now without Saddam? How is it?

Hard Boiled HK
07-31-2006, 04:02 PM
Exxon Mobile has invested more this year in drilling, upgrading production for refineries and re-newable energy than it made.

And they're still making record profits? We're talking about profits here, not gross. For the people to be paying high prices for gasoline because of "shortages" and multiple oil corporations making record profits at the same time is highly unacceptable. The government should have regulations.

Dr.Depravity
07-31-2006, 11:27 PM
And they're still making record profits? We're talking about profits here, not gross. For the people to be paying high prices for gasoline because of "shortages" and multiple oil corporations making record profits at the same time is highly unacceptable. The government should have regulations.
Why? Milk cost more per gallon than gas. And its renewable. Do we piss ourselves everytime Dairy farmers make a profit. Why not ***** at the government. They make way way way more off a gallon of gas than Exxon.

7001
07-31-2006, 11:41 PM
Why? Milk cost more per gallon than gas. And its renewable. Do we piss ourselves every time Dairy farmers make a profit. Why not ***** at the government. They make way way way more off a gallon of gas than Exxon.
The difference is you buy a gallon a week of milk as to buying 15+ gallons of gas every week. That's $4 compared to $50. And trust me I ***** every time I buy a gallon of milk. And I really ***** when I buy gas. Another thing look at the amount of fuel it takes to get that milk to your refrigerator. Sorry for butting in.

Hard Boiled HK
08-01-2006, 12:09 AM
Why? Milk cost more per gallon than gas. And its renewable. Do we piss ourselves everytime Dairy farmers make a profit. Why not ***** at the government. They make way way way more off a gallon of gas than Exxon.

So using your logic you think it's perfectly acceptable paying $5.00 for a gallon of gas, since at that price it's still less than a bottle of water from a vending machine? If there's a shortage of food, do you think it's acceptable for farmers to charge $10.00 for a head of cabbage? Farmers don't make record profits while saying they are doing everything they can to help the situation. There is an enormous monetary profit between farmers and oil companies.

Dr.Depravity
08-02-2006, 11:04 PM
So using your logic you think it's perfectly acceptable paying $5.00 for a gallon of gas, since at that price it's still less than a bottle of water from a vending machine? If there's a shortage of food, do you think it's acceptable for farmers to charge $10.00 for a head of cabbage? Farmers don't make record profits while saying they are doing everything they can to help the situation. There is an enormous monetary profit between farmers and oil companies.
The market determines price. A world wide market. In Iraq I think the price of gas right now is like five bucks a gallon. So a fill up runs about 50 bucks. A weeks salary. And the have the oil there!
Plus Farmers are subsidized by the government. I know a lot of farmers, and ain't one of them too bad off. An average size farm is worth about 3 million right now where I live.

Dr.Depravity
08-02-2006, 11:06 PM
So using your logic you think it's perfectly acceptable paying $5.00 for a gallon of gas, since at that price it's still less than a bottle of water from a vending machine? If there's a shortage of food, do you think it's acceptable for farmers to charge $10.00 for a head of cabbage? Farmers don't make record profits while saying they are doing everything they can to help the situation. There is an enormous monetary profit between farmers and oil companies.
P.S. Farmers dont dictate price at all. Its the MARKET. They are told how much their crop is worth at harvest time, and thats what they get. Unless they sell it on the side of the road. Then they can sell it for whatever they want.

Dr.Depravity
08-02-2006, 11:07 PM
The difference is you buy a gallon a week of milk as to buying 15+ gallons of gas every week. That's $4 compared to $50. And trust me I ***** every time I buy a gallon of milk. And I really ***** when I buy gas. Another thing look at the amount of fuel it takes to get that milk to your refrigerator. Sorry for butting in.
No problem bro. I just love to stir up ****. :cool:

Hard Boiled HK
08-02-2006, 11:27 PM
The market determines price. A world wide market. In Iraq I think the price of gas right now is like five bucks a gallon. So a fill up runs about 50 bucks. A weeks salary. And the have the oil there!
Plus Farmers are subsidized by the government. I know a lot of farmers, and ain't one of them too bad off. An average size farm is worth about 3 million right now where I live.

I'm saying IF there's a food shortage. If there is one, the government would not subsidize the farmers, since they will be told to grow everything they possibly can. If there is a country wide shortage of food, then they can dictate the price. You can't seriously believe that demand completely dictate the price of oil. A few years ago gas is like what, $1.25 a gallon? Now it's $3.09 a gallon. There is no way the demand for oil in this country has jumped almost 2.5 times within the past few years.

You can't really use Iraq as a good example, given the current state of the country. FYI, in Saudi Arabia, gas is about 60 cent per gallon. Pretty good huh.

The place you live must have a large average sized farms. I think the average sized farms in where I live is about 1 million.

Dr.Depravity
08-02-2006, 11:43 PM
I'm saying IF there's a food shortage. If there is one, the government would not subsidize the farmers, since they will be told to grow everything they possibly can. If there is a country wide shortage of food, then they can dictate the price. You can't seriously believe that demand completely dictate the price of oil. A few years ago gas is like what, $1.25 a gallon? Now it's $3.09 a gallon. There is no way the demand for oil in this country has jumped almost 2.5 times within the past few years.

You can't really use Iraq as a good example, given the current state of the country. FYI, in Saudi Arabia, gas is about 60 cent per gallon. Pretty good huh.

The place you live must have a large average sized farms. I think the average sized farms in where I live is about 1 million.
Im not sure what the demand for gas has done in this Country. Im sure its increase. Plus you add how much its increased with China and India becoming industialized. It adds up quick.
Plus lets use your farmer anology.
Corn cost 3 bucks a can. The farmer makes between 5-10 cents a can on that same corn. The government makes 25 cents on that can of corn. Yet the government, the liberals anyways are saying to the farmers. "Were in the **** do you get off making so much money on this corn!" Its incredibly hypocritical. And in fact that is what is happening now.

Hard Boiled HK
08-03-2006, 12:01 AM
Im not sure what the demand for gas has done in this Country. Im sure its increase. Plus you add how much its increased with China and India becoming industialized. It adds up quick.
Plus lets use your farmer anology.
Corn cost 3 bucks a can. The farmer makes between 5-10 cents a can on that same corn. The government makes 25 cents on that can of corn. Yet the government, the liberals anyways are saying to the farmers. "Were in the **** do you get off making so much money on this corn!" Its incredibly hypocritical. And in fact that is what is happening now.

The demand in China has increased signaficantly, but Europe's gas prices are relatively the same (still higher than our prices though). So there is no reason why ours skyrocketed while Europe's remained about the same.

As for your farmer example, I've always thought the government subsidized farmers to grow less food in order to control the market price for the protection of the farmers.

Dr.Depravity
08-03-2006, 12:26 AM
The demand in China has increased signaficantly, but Europe's gas prices are relatively the same (still higher than our prices though). So there is no reason why ours skyrocketed while Europe's remained about the same.

As for your farmer example, I've always thought the government subsidized farmers to grow less food in order to control the market price for the protection of the farmers.
Yeah, Subsidies are there to cut production. Its also a form of welfare. I know big farmers who pull in almost 300 grand a year in subsidies a year. When the government gets involved they screw things up. It was originally supposed to help the small farmer. It hasn't in fact the small guy cant keep up. It also drives up the cost of land so that only bigger farmers can afford to expand. And the more land you farm the bigger check you get, till you reach the limit.
I was using the farmer analogy to show whats currently happening with oil prices in respect to tax and company profit.

OptimusWolf
08-03-2006, 09:58 AM
And they're still making record profits? We're talking about profits here, not gross. For the people to be paying high prices for gasoline because of "shortages" and multiple oil corporations making record profits at the same time is highly unacceptable. The government should have regulations.
You can retain profits and reinvest them, so what really matters is what they gave out in dividends and share options, bonuses etc, if you're interested in profit in the way I think you are.....

OptimusWolf
08-03-2006, 10:02 AM
The market for farm produce is very distorted my friend, you mentioned subsidies, and in Europe for instance there is the Commmon Agricultural Policy which guarantees prices for certain produce, screwing over develping countries with a comparative advantage in agriculture for European farmers to prosper.

* FeistyWench *
08-03-2006, 10:04 AM
No problem bro. I just love to stir up ****. :cool:
hey! this is a "no stirring **** up" zone!


lol! :cool: :D

OptimusWolf
08-03-2006, 10:07 AM
I'm saying IF there's a food shortage. If there is one, the government would not subsidize the farmers, since they will be told to grow everything they possibly can. If there is a country wide shortage of food, then they can dictate the price. You can't seriously believe that demand completely dictate the price of oil. A few years ago gas is like what, $1.25 a gallon? Now it's $3.09 a gallon. There is no way the demand for oil in this country has jumped almost 2.5 times within the past few years.

You can't really use Iraq as a good example, given the current state of the country. FYI, in Saudi Arabia, gas is about 60 cent per gallon. Pretty good huh.

The place you live must have a large average sized farms. I think the average sized farms in where I live is about 1 million.
Demand and supply disctate it, so of course it does depend on the dtructure of the market. If you can think of OPEC as a benevolent monopolist (probably not an outrageous assumption) then the price of oil is a function of the rapidly growing worldwide demand and reestimations of the worldwide supply.

I'm a market economist by trade but even I feel that the market is probably understating the true value of oil. Quite simply, we're all living beyond our ecological means.

OptimusWolf
08-03-2006, 10:10 AM
Yeah, Subsidies are there to cut production. Its also a form of welfare. I know big farmers who pull in almost 300 grand a year in subsidies a year. When the government gets involved they screw things up. It was originally supposed to help the small farmer. It hasn't in fact the small guy cant keep up. It also drives up the cost of land so that only bigger farmers can afford to expand. And the more land you farm the bigger check you get, till you reach the limit.
I was using the farmer analogy to show whats currently happening with oil prices in respect to tax and company profit.
Yep, subsidies are mainly there as a political measure to prevent regional collapse where agriculture is the main economic activity. There are arguments that a nation state should maintain certain products for self sufficiency - The UK wouldn't want to buy all of its defence from the US.....but I'm not sure with agriculture this line of thinking holds that much water. Some but not as much as you'd think.

K-DOGG
08-03-2006, 02:03 PM
The demand in China has increased signaficantly, but Europe's gas prices are relatively the same (still higher than our prices though). So there is no reason why ours skyrocketed while Europe's remained about the same.

As for your farmer example, I've always thought the government subsidized farmers to grow less food in order to control the market price for the protection of the farmers.

Well, if I'm not mistaken, doesn't a lot of European oil come from Russia where our oil comes primarily from the Middle East, which is where China also gets teh bulk of theirs?

I may be dead ass wrong; but I distinctly remember a big stink over Russia cutting off their oil supply to Europe because somebody hadn't paid their bills and was stealing some in the Ukraine or some place.

Am I off my rocker,here?

Hard Boiled HK
08-03-2006, 04:07 PM
Yeah, Subsidies are there to cut production. Its also a form of welfare. I know big farmers who pull in almost 300 grand a year in subsidies a year.

$300,000 a year for a big farmer just from subsidies? That's impressive. Does anyone know the average yearly income for a farmer in the United States?

inats
10-15-2006, 12:12 AM
Thank you. I'm just sick of it, man. It's always the same. People won't stand up for themselves, then you ride in on the "white horse", so to speak, and nobody's ever happy with what you do. Yah never come out smelling like a rose...Never.i accidently quoted you.

Chimps.Ahoy
10-16-2006, 01:06 AM
time to pull out of Iraq. It's an unjust war

K-DOGG
10-17-2006, 02:22 PM
A friend of mine had a conversation the other day with a mid-level officer who has just returned from Iraq. He was stationed in Texas when 9-11 happened; and had this to say:

The command that came down almost immediately after the World Trade Center Bombing was that we would take out Afghanistan, and then occupy some country in the area, where we could set up future operations over the next 15 years, to take out all of our enemies in that area.

Once Iraq was decided on, contrary to popular belief that the administration was too near-sighted to expect the current activity, the insurgency was expected, as it would give us a reason to stay in Iraq as a base of operation.

He also said he'd bet his hind teeth that we will take out North Korea before Bush's term of office is up, seeing as how the general attitude was to get them as soon as they really messed up.



Thought......according to this officer, there is a tunnel under the 10 Mile long neutral zone between North and South Korea, which is covered on the surface by razor fences and land mines. He thinks that the North Koreans very well could detonate another Nuclear Bomb underneath the neurtral zone, which would set off all of the land mines by concussion.



Thoughts?

Chimps.Ahoy
10-20-2006, 12:16 AM
A friend of mine had a conversation the other day with a mid-level officer who has just returned from Iraq. He was stationed in Texas when 9-11 happened; and had this to say:

The command that came down almost immediately after the World Trade Center Bombing was that we would take out Afghanistan, and then occupy some country in the area, where we could set up future operations over the next 15 years, to take out all of our enemies in that area.

Once Iraq was decided on, contrary to popular belief that the administration was too near-sighted to expect the current activity, the insurgency was expected, as it would give us a reason to stay in Iraq as a base of operation.

He also said he'd bet his hind teeth that we will take out North Korea before Bush's term of office is up, seeing as how the general attitude was to get them as soon as they really messed up.



Thought......according to this officer, there is a tunnel under the 10 Mile long neutral zone between North and South Korea, which is covered on the surface by razor fences and land mines. He thinks that the North Koreans very well could detonate another Nuclear Bomb underneath the neurtral zone, which would set off all of the land mines by concussion.



Thoughts?


seems like the world is ripe for world war III

K-DOGG
10-20-2006, 02:26 PM
seems like the world is ripe for world war III

Yup. Either that or the Apocolypse, depending upon what you believe.


Either way, fun times seem to be just around the corner. One thing I'll say about Earth-life....it's never dull.

The Noose
10-20-2006, 04:34 PM
seems like the world is ripe for world war III

I knew i shouldnt have looked at this thread. :( :(

BIGPOPPAPUMP
10-20-2006, 04:37 PM
Yes, , but the only mistake we made was not dropping off juyjuy in Iraq. He would have made the extremists surrender after five days of listening to Eubank banter.

K-DOGG
10-20-2006, 04:47 PM
Yes, , but the only mistake we made was not dropping off juyjuy in Iraq. He would have made the extremists surrender after five days of listening to Eubank banter.

lol!! That' funny...true; but funny.


Hey, Big Poppa, as long as you're logged on, I've just about finished a new article on the Best Matches ever in the history of the sport.......you know if Rick would have use for something along those lines?

LHWchamp5
11-24-2006, 10:57 AM
seems like the world is ripe for world war III

My opinion,
too many morons somehow became leaders and these same morons think bombs are toys and once they push the button all their problems will be solved..

I'm pretty pissed off with the fact that NK has nukes and they have publically threatened the world.. Nobody does nothing, they stick their thumb in their ass, hang saddam and focus their attention on iran, a country without nukes??

As i said somehow alot of moron's gained the position of power.. I say it's time for a dethroning..:grouphug: this is a huddle not a grouphug lol.

DeltaSigChi4
08-03-2007, 04:25 AM
No. It's a quagmire.

E

Ta Khent
08-03-2007, 04:36 AM
The absolute worst decision in the history of the Presidency. Iraq was no more of a threat to the US than Singapore. Bush's warmongering has cost this nation thousands of lives and billions of dollars.

FUMIN 88
08-03-2007, 09:10 AM
The absolute worst decision in the history of the Presidency. Iraq was no more of a threat to the US than Singapore. Bush's warmongering has cost this nation thousands of lives and billions of dollars.

yes but now hes got more petrol

DeltaSigChi4
08-03-2007, 02:20 PM
Wrong. Iraqi production is well down and has remained down since the illegal invasion/occupation started. In other words, less oil/petro.

E

Steelhammer86
08-03-2007, 07:49 PM
Nothing good has come from the decision to invade Iraq. There was no justification for the invasion. True, Saddam was a nasty dictator, but there are plenty of other dictators like him. The situation in Iraq is worse now than it was before the war.

There were no weapons of mass destruction and Iraq had never done anything to the US. Al Quaida wasn't in Iraq then, although they are there now.

I feel sorry for the Iraqi people, especially the poor women and children who have suffered because of the war. I've read that tens of thousands of children have permanent injuries - including thousands who've been permanently blinded. The UN estimated that at least 500,000 Iraqi civilians have died, millions have been injured and traumatized...

I also feel sorry for the American soldiers who have been lied to...they believe they're fighting for a good cause in occupying Iraq, but many return with a different idea. It is sad that so many young soldiers have died unnecessarily, and even more have become permanently disabled.

I'm not anti-war - members of my family fought and one died in WW II, and if I was alive then I would have been one of the first to join up. But WW II was necessary...this war in Iraq is not.

Palma
08-03-2007, 09:02 PM
I do not agree with Iraq, but I support the troops and wish them a safe return!

Ironside
08-03-2007, 11:42 PM
I still don't see why this war continues on, they said they started the war cause Saddam might have had some nuclear weapons or something like that, then they said they found none, so why is it not over?

phallus
08-04-2007, 01:09 AM
The reasons for invading were lies.

Its like shooting someone whom u THINK has a gun, and IF they did have a gun they MIGHT want to shoot u.

Intelligence my arse.

I don't normally like to discuss this on the internet...but.....I don't know who is right or wrong, all I know is that it breaks my heart everytime I see a 19 year old kid come home without legs or arms.

I still don't see why this war continues on, they said they started the war cause Saddam might have had some nuclear weapons or something like that, then they said they found none, so why is it not over?

bush sent the army over to protect america's interest in getting cheap oil and to set up huge contracts for halliburton and kbr. once these poor kids that go over there come back from how they think they've ben serving their country ( they'e just doing the work for a corrupt president) without arms and legs and their govt spits on them and throws them away by not giving them verteran's benefits or making their families pay for their funerals. that's all iraq is, bush fighting for corporate interests.

LoftyDog
08-07-2007, 05:56 PM
bush sent the army over to protect america's interest in getting cheap oil and to set up huge contracts for halliburton and kbr. once these poor kids that go over there come back from how they think they've ben serving their country ( they'e just doing the work for a corrupt president) without arms and legs and their govt spits on them and throws them away by not giving them verteran's benefits or making their families pay for their funerals. that's all iraq is, bush fighting for corporate interests.

I think there was also a personal vendetta with Saddam, among other reasons. Bush jr. said he tried to kill his dad. If someone tried to kill my dad I'd be pissed and want to go after him (hopefully I'd do it w/o spending billions of taxdollars and countless lives). Not saying oil wasn't a factor, just don't think it was the only one.

Plus you make a good point about the vets getting treated like ****. One loophole is if you went into the military with a preexisting mental disorder, you cannot get benefits for injuries from it. This one soldier was too close to an explosion and went deaf. The army determined it was a preexisting mental disorder. Now I'm not a doctor but WTF?

Then, after the story broke they was an investigation and the cases had to be reexamined...and they were by the doctors that originally did the diagnosis. Needless to say, nothing got done. I think it is shameful the way these guys are treated.

majestiC
08-07-2007, 09:47 PM
Illegal War.

1. U.S hasn't even declared war.
2. No Weapons of Mass Drestuction.
3. No Al Qaeda there before war.
4. CIA Armed Saddam
5. Saddam changes from dollar to euro, last straw.
6. Military Industrial Complex gets more money the longer the war lasts, the longer the war lasts the more debt Americans owe.
7. Food for Oil
8. Osama Bin Laden is Saudi Arabian living in Pakistan.
9. Big Oil pipeline in Aghanistan built, $100m a year offered before that to taliban.
10. Afghan President worked for oil company that sold the pipeline off.

Illegal maybe :P

majestiC
08-07-2007, 09:51 PM
Plenty more where that came from, can't believe U.S is threatening Iran after Operation Ajax.

LoftyDog
08-07-2007, 11:16 PM
Illegal War.

1. U.S hasn't even declared war.
2. No Weapons of Mass Drestuction.
3. No Al Qaeda there before war.
4. CIA Armed Saddam
5. Saddam changes from dollar to euro, last straw.
6. Military Industrial Complex gets more money the longer the war lasts, the longer the war lasts the more debt Americans owe.
7. Food for Oil
8. Osama Bin Laden is Saudi Arabian living in Pakistan.
9. Big Oil pipeline in Aghanistan built, $100m a year offered before that to taliban.
10. Afghan President worked for oil company that sold the pipeline off.

Illegal maybe :P

We also trained Osama, back when he was fighting the Russians.

Kojak
12-05-2007, 09:55 AM
We gave Saddam money and chemical weapons
I feel bad for him because he was used as a pon by the US. Take a look at this: During the Iran-Iraq war, Hussein used poison gas on his enemies, and not just the ones in Iran. Those pesky Kurds tried Revolution No. 9 (more like 99, or 999), and they got a face full of toxins for their trouble.
Saddam's move to gas the Kurds is a great talking point for some U.S. propagandists who gleefully note that the "Butcher of Baghdad" has "gassed his own people." The Kurds were poisoned mostly with Mustard Gas (http://www.rotten.com/library/history/war/wmd/chemical-weapons/mustard-gas/), which blisters the skin and lungs, as well as Nerve Agents (http://www.rotten.com/library/history/war/wmd/chemical-weapons/nerve-agents/) and good old-fashioned cyanide.
The downside to the whole "gassing his own people" angle is, of course, that the United States under President Ronald Reagan (http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/presidents/ronald-reagan/) was actively supporting Iraq with logistical and military assistance at the time, in one of those little "proxy wars" with the Soviets.
In the late 1980s, Reagan dispatched a very special envoy to the Middle East, one Donald Rumsfeld (http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/usa/donald-rumsfeld/), who wined and dined Saddam even as the dictator was slicing and dicing the Kurds. Rumsfeld claims he warned Saddam about those bad old chemical weapons at the time.
U.S. companies were recruited and encouraged, both covertly and overtly, to ship poisonous chemicals and biological agents to Iraq, by the administrations of both Reagan and George Bush Sr. (http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/presidents/george-hw-bush/), according to the Washington Post and numerous other reports. The CIA (http://www.rotten.com/library/conspiracy/cia/) also followed up on these efforts with various military and intelligence assists.
U.S. care packages to Saddam included sample strains of anthrax and bubonic plague, which must have seemed like a really ****ing great idea to someone at the time. With U.S. assistance and on its own initiative, Iraq also reportedly developed new and improved toxins, such as ricin and sarin gas.
Public sentiment in the U.S. slowly turned against Hussein into the early 1990s, what with all the gassing and killing and torture and whatnot, but policy lagged behind. Seeing the secular Iraq as a bulwark against the Islamic fundamentalists in Iran, the U.S. kept right on kissing Saddam's ass until he decided to invade Kuwait (http://www.rotten.com/library/history/countries/kuwait/) in 1991.
At that point, the gloves came off. It's one thing to slaughter your own people in genocidal attacks with outlawed weapons, but it's another thing entirely to screw with the steady output of black gold, the life's blood of the world. President Bush Sr. successfully united a coalition of nations and led an invasion that drove Iraq out of Kuwait and destroyed much of the country's infrastructure.
Once the oil supply was secured, everyone cooled down, and the coalition decided to leave Saddam in power and the U.S. (now under President Bill Clinton (http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/presidents/bill-clinton/)) promptly returned to its policy of not giving a ****. The outright support of Saddam had now ended, of course, replaced with a series of tough economic sanctions. The sanctions helped kill even more of the Iraqi people, thus sparing Hussein the trouble of having to do it himself.
As the Clinton era faded into a sex-soaked afterglow, it took about 30 seconds for the new George W Bush (http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/presidents/george-w-bush/) administration to start rumbling about Iraq. The rumbling really didn't have any legs, however, until the September 11 attack which leveled the World Trade Center (http://www.rotten.com/library/history/wtc/) and damaged the Pentagon (http://www.rotten.com/library/culture/pentagon/).
Almost immediately after the attack, Bush started making noises about Iraq, and the world started getting nervous. Although the attack was immediately blamed on al Qaeda (http://www.rotten.com/library/history/terrorist-organizations/al-qaeda/) and Osama bin Laden (http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/crime/terrorists/osama-bin-laden/), there didn't seem to be much of a distinction between the two in the president's mind.
Bush explained the connection to reporters in 2002: "This is the guy who tried to kill my dad." Around the same time, Bush's national security advisor Condoleezza Rice (http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/usa/condoleeza-rice/) further explained the situation by saying "No one is trying to make an argument at this point that Saddam Hussein somehow had operational control of what happened on September 11." Note the phrase "at this point."
The administration's attempts to tie al Qaeda and Iraq were controversial, largely because of the massive dearth of facts to support the contention. While no one doubted there was some degree of overlap between al Qaeda and Iraq ("the enemy of my enemy is my friend"), there has historically been little love lost between the two.
In the aftermath of the devastating U.S. invasion of 2003, a hoarde of soldiers pored over Iraq with a fine tooth comb but found little convincing evidence that Hussein and Qaeda had any noteworthy connections, and no evidence at all that Iraq had any significant role in the September 11 attack.
In fact, al Qaeda long considered itself an enemy of the Hussein regime. al Qaeda is an organization based on religious fundamentalism, the strictest and most inflexible interpretation of Islam, while Iraq is a secular regime with a history of waging war against Islamic fundamentalist regimes, namely Iran. Even as Saddam Hussein was gassing Iranian forces during the late 1980s, Tehran was providing critical support in the formation and financing of al Qaeda.
But no one ever let a lack of pretext get in the way of a good war, and Saddam Hussein didn't exactly try to avoid the inevitable. In March 2003, the juggernaut arrived in Iraq, despite opposition from nearly the whole world. Unlike in the first Gulf War (http://www.rotten.com/library/history/war/gulf-war/), the U.S. sent ground forces into the country immediately and launched repeated "decapitation" strikes in attempts to assassinate Hussein.
U.S. forces took over the country in fairly short order, but Hussein and his sons were nowhere to be found. Once or twice a week, the U.S. news media engaged in an orgy of speculation that the dictator was finally dead, but he kept on resurfacing in tapes and broadcasts, urging the Iraqi people to resist the U.S. occupation.
Bush declared "major combat" in Iraq a victory in May, the head of U.S. armed forces in Iraq said in July that an organized resistance was waging a guerilla war against the occupation, raising the prospect that U.S. troops might have to stay in the country for years to come.
The prospect of a long-term guerilla war was also complicated by new revelations that the U.S. and British basically had no real evidence that Iraq was hoarding Weapons of Mass Destruction (http://www.rotten.com/library/history/war/wmd/), the primary justification for the invasion.
Under Hussein, Iraq repeatedly violated various agreements regarding weapons inspections, to the point that even the bleeding heart liberals assumed he actually did possess terrible and dangerous weapons.
However, none of those terrible and dangerous weapons were used in an attempt to repel the U.S. invasion, and a vast search effort found absolutely zilch-zero Biological Weapons (http://www.rotten.com/library/history/war/wmd/biological-weapons/), chemical weapons (http://www.rotten.com/library/history/war/wmd/chemical-weapons/nerve-agents/) or nuclear weapons (http://www.rotten.com/library/history/atomic-bomb/). If the guerrilla war drags on for months or years, the U.S. could find itself in deep trouble with Middle Eastern Muslim states in light of the utter lack of evidence that Saddam was doing any of the things the Bush administration accused him of (http://www.rotten.com/library/history/war/wmd/saddam/).
On Sunday December 14, 2003, something amazing happened. While hiding underground in a tiny dirt hole, Saddam Hussein was captured alive by the 4th Infantry Division of American Special Forces.
George W. Bush's bid to earn just a whisper of his father's approval had finally paid off. "I am Saddam Hussein," the former dictator spoke in fractured boobly English while clutching a small pistol. "I am the president of Iraq and I want to negotiate." The pistol was taken from him without argument, and DNA later confirmed his identity. One soldier replied tartly, "President Bush sends his regards."
What soldiers found was a cave littered in filth and squalor;with two AK-47 rifles and $750,000 in U.S. currency.

col Blake
12-05-2007, 10:42 AM
when sadam was in power you never heard a peep out of Iran, but now Irac is open season and Iran are doing everything in there power to rock the boat, under Sadam there was no terrorist in Iraq, he hated Bin Lard Arse, and is terrorists, women were allowed to work, be educated, there was less state executions than there is now, it was far more peacefull than it is now, removal for Sadam has distroyed the middle east and pushed Iran to the top of the heap of terror states, they are a lot better equiped than Iraq next war will be very diffrent, then after Iran it's on to Korea.

eazy_mas
12-05-2007, 04:52 PM
well does this matter if it right or wrong?

it already been done so you cant change what has already been done.

Anyway Iraqi was handed to Americans rather than invaded.

LOLORSKATES
12-05-2007, 06:09 PM
no in my opinion, it was never right to do that but like Mas said we can't go back on what happened. We can't pull out every single troop NOW which would be pointless because after being in this **** for the longest of time we gotta finish the job.

From what i've been told, American Soldiers want to stay just so they can get the job done.

Semper Fi.

col Blake
12-06-2007, 04:05 PM
the Russians tried and failed in Afganistan (thanks to the US who wanted to get them back for their help and support to the Viet Con, and the North Koreans, Britian failed in Afganistan before that, more down to incompetance than being defeated, but any country that went there had to leave because it was pointless in the end, and to costly

RAESAAD
12-06-2007, 04:08 PM
I've already posted in here before but ahh what the hell.....It was absolutely wrong.

GERONIMO
12-07-2007, 10:42 PM
it was right to invade if the goverment's intentions were to make money for the former corporation led by the vice president and the corporations of there greedy brotherhood.

col Blake
12-11-2007, 12:09 PM
economically it was right, which is all that matters apparently.

Dorian
01-07-2008, 03:18 PM
no it wasn't, bad move

fasman
01-10-2008, 05:13 PM
no it definitely was not, cannot be justified enough in a moral sense......

col Blake
01-10-2008, 05:53 PM
great watching it on the telly though

blacksky
01-11-2008, 06:04 AM
someone should invade Blairs house and execute him

SonnyG8R
01-11-2008, 04:49 PM
There is an argument to be made for attacking Iraq. After all they ignored UN directives to allow weapons inspectors free access and they were warned repeatedly that doing so would result in military action. The biggest problems I have with the way Iraq was handled were the devias and misleading reasons we were given for the invasion, and the lack of a clear mission objective or exit strategy. There was a way to enter as liberators instead of invaders and I believe that very early on that is how we were welcomed. Unfortunately it did not take long before the tail started wagging the dog and we not only lost the hearts and minds battle but increased the danger and terrorist activity in that country 1000 fold...

LOLORSKATES
01-12-2008, 01:51 PM
May I please get some reasons why we went to war with Iraq? I need them in order for a portfolio piece I am doing for my ap history class.

guzi815
01-12-2008, 02:48 PM
May I please get some reasons why we went to war with Iraq? I need them in order for a portfolio piece I am doing for my ap history class.
Ay, that's cool man, I'll help you out with a few facts, but dude because I serve In the Military, I can't give names....cool beans?

2 August 1990 Iraqi military forces invaded Kuwait. 6 August 1990 President George Bush orders the deployment of U.S. armed forces to defend Saudi Arabia in an operation named "Operation Desert Shield."10 August 1990 Marine Safety Offices [MSOs] around the U.S. became immediately involved in Operation Desert Shield. MSO Hampton Roads was directly responsible for the activation inspections of 22 of 78 Ready Reserve Fleet [RRF] vessels activated nationwide. These and similar inspections by MSOs throughout the U.S. ensured that RRF vessels were fully capable of safely meeting their vital support mission. The quality of the inspection work is reflected in the 95 percent operationally ready rate achieved by the RRF vessels once they were in service. Additionally, a flexible Merchant Marine manning and licensing program was established to facilitate movement of RRF vessels. In addition to the supervision of all regularly assigned peacetime port safety and security missions, Coast Guard MSOs were responsible for the establishment and supervision of Port Security Detachments in the coastal ports of the U.S. This effort involved the activation and organization of Coast Guard reservists to oversee shoreside and waterside security at facilities plus the supervision of the loading of hazardous materials and explosives aboard Military Sealift Command vessels bound for the Kuwaiti theater of operations.
16 August 1990 Multi-national maritime intercept operation began intercepting ships going to or from Iraq and Kuwait, consistent with U.N. Security Council Resolution 661.17 August 1990 At the request of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Transportation and the Commandant of the Coast Guard commit Coast Guard law enforcement boarding teams [LEDETs] to Operation Desert Shield. A total of 10 four-person teams served in theatre to support the enforcement of UN sanctions by the Maritime Interdiction Forces. Approximately 60 percent of the 600 boardings carried out by U.S. forces were either led by or supported with the USCG LEDETs. Additionally, a 7-man liaison staff was designated by the Commandant as Operational Commander for the USCG forces deployed in theatre.
22 August 1990 President George W. Bush authorized the call up of members of the selected reserve to active duty in support of Operation Desert Shield. Three port security units (PSU's), consisting of 550 Coast Guard reservists are ordered to the Persian Gulf in support of Operation Desert Shield. (This was the first involuntary overseas mobilization of Coast Guard Reserve PSU's in the Coast Guard Reserve's 50-year history). A total of 950 Coast Guard reservists are called to active duty. Other reservist duties included supervising RRF vessel inspection and loading hazardous military cargoes.4 September 1990 USS Goldsborough (DDG 20) stops and challenges the Iraqi cargo ship Zanoobia. She was loaded with tea, a cargo prohibited under UN Resolutions. The Coast Guard officer in charge of the boarding party ordered the master to sail his vessel to a non-Iraqi or Kuwaiti port--the master refused. Whereupon the Coast Guard officer ordered a member of the boarding team to seize the helm. The team sailed the vessel to Muscat, Oman. [Edward J. Marolda & Robert J. Schneller, Jr., Shield and Sword: The United States Navy and the Persian Gulf War, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1998, p. 91]15 September 1990 The Secretary of Transportation and the Commandant of the Coast Guard authorized the first-ever deployment of a reserve port security unit overseas. PSU 303 is the first unit deployed. They were stationed in ad-Dammam.15 September 1990 A multinational boarding team, including four Coast Guardsmen, boarded the Iraqi tanker Al Fao after the tanker was stopped by the USS Brewton (FF 1086) and the HMAS Darwin. The tanker was permitted to proceed after the boarding team determined that it had no cargo on board.22 September 1990 The second port security unit, PSU 301, was deployed to Saudi Arabia. They were stationed in al-Jubayl.28 September 1990 "A Coast Guard LEDET from the USS Brewton (FF 1086) boarded HMAS Success and presented relevant briefings and lectures to the visit and search parties of HMAS Success, HMAS Darwin, and HMAS Adelaide." [Marolda & Schneller, p. 91.]22 October 1990 The Iraqi merchant vessel Al Bahar Al Arabi was cleared to proceed by a multi-national boarding team including Navy and Coast Guard personnel from the USS Reasoner (FF 1063) in the North Arabian Sea. The merchantman had apparently "disposed of" its prohibited cargo.November 1990 PSU 302, staffed by reservists from Cleveland, Ohio, arrive in the Gulf. They were stationed in Bahrain.16 January 1991 The White House announced the commencement of Operation Desert Storm: offensive action against the forces of Iraq under the provisions of U.N Security Council/U.S. Congressional resolutions. With the commencement of Operation Desert Storm, Coast Guard MSOs increased both the level and tempo of port safety and security activities in the port to protect critical commercial and military waterfront facilities from the threat of terrorism. The Coast Guard increased both shoreside and waterside security patrols in ports using regular and reserve augmentation forces, established and enforced waterside security zones around key facilities and in one case, in Norfolk, responded to a potential terrorist bombing incident at a bulk liquid facility.
17 January 1991 The air offensive against Iraqi forces began.18 January 1991 Coast Guard LEDET personnel on board the USS Nicholas (FFG-11) assisted when the frigate cleared eleven Iraqi oil platforms and took 23 prisoners.13 February 1991 In response to the Iraqi action of firing oil wells and pumping stations, some off shore, in Kuwait that caused oil spills in the Gulf, two HU-25A Falcon jets from Air Station Cape Cod, equipped with Aireye technology [which precisely locates and records oil as it floats on water], depart for Saudi Arabia as part of the Inter-agency oil spill assessment team [USIAT] They were accompanied by two HC-130 aircraft from Air Station Clearwater which transported spare parts and deployment packages. The Falcons mapped over 40,000 square miles in theatre and located "every drop of oil on the water. . .The USIAT used the mapping product to produce a daily updated surface analysis of the location, condition and drift projections of the oil." The AVDET was deployed for 84 days, flew 427 flight hours and maintained an aircraft readiness rate of over 96 percent. [Christopher J. Stickney, "'Are You Derby?--No, We're Coast Guard!", Coast Guard Academy Alumni Association The Bulletin (August/September 1991), pp. 17-20.]24 February 1991 Coalition forces began a ground offensive to liberate Kuwait.28 February 1991 By presidential order all Coalition offensive operations ceased at 0800 local time.11 April 1991 The UN Security Council declared a formal cease-fire, ending the Gulf War.21 April 1991 A tactical port security boat [TPSB] of PSU 301, stationed in Al Jubayl, Saudi Arabia, was the first boat in the newly reopened harbor, Mina Ash Shuwaikh in Kuwait City, Kuwait. The USCG TPSB led a procession of multinational vessels into the harbor. [Ronald L. Davis, "CG port security boat first into reopened harbor in Kuwait City," The Coast Guard Reservist (Sep/Oct 1991), p. 13.]23 April 91PSU 302 from Cleveland returns home.30 April 91 Aviation detachment departs Middle East.22 May 91 General Colin Powell, Joint Chiefs of Staff, praises the Coast Guard for its important role in Desert Shield and Desert Storm during commencement speech at Coast Guard Academy.28 May 91 PSU 301 (Buffalo) returns from Persian Gulf area. 01 June 91 PSU 303 (Milwaukee) returns from theater of operations leaving only reduced-strength LEDET teams and a handful of advisors.08 June 91 Coast Guard active duty and reserve personnel participate in National Welcome Home Parade in Washington, D.C., and...10 June 91 ...in the New York City Ticker Tape Parade.

guzi815
01-12-2008, 02:48 PM
Operation Iraqi Freedom
At 9:34 PM EST on March 19, 2003 (5:34 AM local time in Baghdad on March 20), United States and United Kingdom forces consisting of 40 cruise missiles and strikes led by 2 F-117s from the 8th Fighter Squadron (supported by Navy EA-6B Prowlers) and other aircraft began conducting military operations against the state of Iraq designed to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction and to remove the Iraqi Regime from power. Less than two hours after a deadline expired for Saddam Hussein to leave Iraq, the sound of air raid sirens were heard in Baghdad. A short time later, President Bush addressed the American public stating that coalition forces were in the "early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger."

The name of this Operation for British troops is Operation Telic. For Australian Troops involved, it is Operation Falconer.

The military objectives of Operation Iraqi Freedom consist of first, ending the regime of Saddam Hussein. Second, to identify, isolate and eliminate, Iraq's weapons of mass destruciton. Third, to search for, to capture and to drive out terrorists from the country. Fourth, to collect intelligence related to terrorist networks. Fifth, to collect such intelligence as is related to the global network of illicit weapons of mass destruction. Sixth, to end sanctions and to immediately deliver humanitarian support to the displaced and to many needed citizens. Seventh, to secure Iraq's oil fields and resources, which belong to the Iraqi people. Finally, to help the Iraqi people create conditions for a transition to a representative self-government.

Operation Iraqi Freedom consisted of the largest special operations force since the Vietnam War. While the vast majority of special operations forces were American, the United Kingdom and the Australian militaries also provided forces. In northern Iraq there was a significant special operations presence. Coalition personnel worked with Kurdish fighters against the regime. SOF helped bring in the 173rd Airborne Brigade, and marked and called in coalition air power on regime targets. Special operations forces were also responsible for attacking a number of specific targets such as airfields, weapons of mass destruction sites, and command and control headquarters. In the south, special operations personnel gave aid to conventional forces and did some of the work in the cities to help the Shi'ia elements.