Erollisi Marr - The Nameless

Go Back   Erollisi Marr - The Nameless > NON EQ Stuff (Real life, other games, etc.) > Steam Vent


Reply
 
Add/Share Add/Share Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-24-2003, 06:34 PM   #26
Maximus Faticus
Registered User
 
Maximus Faticus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 1,291
Oh and Zolmaz- why don't you read the posts man instead of spouting off. I already mentioned companies like Texaco, Exxon and there are many others who can and do this kind of work. Why was it given to an oil company with less resources and experience like Halliburton? TO LINE THEIR POCKETS.
All that Texaco, and Exxon do is ship oil, and turn it into Gasoline. Halliburton manufactures the oil rigs, and pump stations.

It is not pointless to disagree with this administration.
I didn't say it was. I said we don't have enough information on that Halliburton contract. A ton of what everyone has said about it is speculation.

We said that they were not in this war for WMD.
Regardless of you may think, the WMD was a big reason for attacking Iraq.

We said that oil and other reasons were there for it.
I have point blanked asked many people here if oil was the reason for attacking Iraq. Not one person said yes. I think I have even asked you actually.
__________________
My Music

Last edited by Maximus Faticus; 05-24-2003 at 06:42 PM.
Maximus Faticus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2003, 06:53 PM   #27
Laoke
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 488
Originally posted by Maximus Faticus

I have point blanked asked many people here if oil was the reason for attacking Iraq. Not one person said yes. I think I have even asked you actually.
I have point blank asked many people if they know why the US attacked Iraq. In what way Iraq was a threat to the US. The responses I recieved can be broken down two ways:

(1) Because we're America
(2) I dunno

So, Max, I ask with all seriousness. In your opinion, why was an invasion of Iraq, a sovereign nation, justified.

Laoke
Laoke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2003, 01:30 AM   #28
Maximus Faticus
Registered User
 
Maximus Faticus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 1,291
I have point blank asked many people if they know why the US attacked Iraq
1.Freedom for the Iraqi people.
2.Saddam violated many UN resolutions. (and continued until his demise I might add.)
3. To remove Saddam because he is a evil dictator that kills/tortures his own people.
4. Remove any WMD from Iraq
5. He sponsored terrorism
6. He had threatened the US.
7. He had resources that will enable us to rebuild his country after his removal (oil)
8. To bring Democracy to the region.
9. To show that the US will back up it's threats.

Those are all the reasons I can think of off the top of my head.
In what way Iraq was a threat to the US.
Saddam obviously doesn't like the US, so what's to stop him from handing some of his WMD to terrorists that would use it against us?

So, Max, I ask with all seriousness. In your opinion, why was an invasion of Iraq, a sovereign nation, justified.
It is way to early for me to judge if it was justified. We paid a ton of money for this war, and lost some of our troops. We still haven't found any WMD, and the new government still hasn't been established. So far I'm not sure if it was worth all the trouble. I'm hopeful though that Iraq may turn out to be like a Japan that happened after WW2.
__________________
My Music
Maximus Faticus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2003, 02:06 AM   #29
Laoke
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 488
Originally posted by Maximus Faticus
1.Freedom for the Iraqi people.


So we can expect to see you pulling into every country ruled by the Iron Fist of a dictator soon then? Might I suggest South Korea? Or Zimbabwe?

2.Saddam violated many UN resolutions. (and continued until his demise I might add.)


Which is a reason for the UN to mandate a reaction. Not the US.

3. To remove Saddam because he is a evil dictator that kills/tortures his own people.


So, you invaded a country to remove a single person? Look, usually wars are about control of terrority, not removal of a person or a political system. There are and were better ways to achieve this aim. Like nuking Bagdadh in my opinion.

4. Remove any WMD from Iraq


Firstly: show me the evidence. Like, for example, the plethora of weapons of mass destruction you've pulled out of Iraq to date.

Secondly: So, you'd be willing to let an outside sovereign nation pull up and disarm the US of it's weapons of mass destruction?

5. He sponsored terrorism


I'm pretty sure he did. Show me the evidence.

6. He had threatened the US.


You destroyed his military capability in what, 2 weeks?

Ooooh, scarey! Obviously a highly credible threat to the US (US interests, maybe, but you've yet to show evidence)

7. He had resources that will enable us to rebuild his country after his removal (oil)


Resources that enable Americans to keep driving those SUVs you seem so fond of.

To be honest, it's not just you. We get them over here in great thundering flocks as well.

But having the resources to rebuild after an invasion hardly sounds like a reason to invade in the first place now, does it?

8. To bring Democracy to the region.


Yup, and you're finding out the hard way what that means, aren't you?

9. To show that the US will back up it's threats.


God forbid that America be seen as being weak! Can't talk, must fight! Kill! Blood! Death to the infidel!

Of course, in another country... that would be called a jihad. See the similarities?

Saddam obviously doesn't like the US, so what's to stop him from handing some of his WMD to terrorists that would use it against us?


They have to exist before they can be handed over. And if they've already been handed over to prevent you finding them... well, sterling work on the invasion guys! Looked really good!



It is way to early for me to judge if it was justified. We paid a ton of money for this war, and lost some of our troops. We still haven't found any WMD, and the new government still hasn't been established. So far I'm not sure if it was worth all the trouble. I'm hopeful though that Iraq may turn out to be like a Japan that happened after WW2.
So, and let me make sure I've got this right: in your opinion, the thing that will make the invasion of Iraq justified is if you got fucking value for your money???????

Ummmm... speechless really.

"I'd like to grab a 6-pack of Bud.... oh, you've got a special on the invasion of a sovereign nation! I'll take two thanks!"

Now, to be fair: if there exists evidence that Saddam sponsered terrorist attacks on US interests, I can see a case for assassinating his ass. And I'm not one to quibble about collateral damage... as long as you could do it without risking 100+ american lives, I say go for it.

If there were weapons of mass destruction, the invasion was justified.

If, at the end of the day, the average Iraqi in the street is happier with Saddam gone, then it's probably justifiable from a humanitarian point of view. But if that is the case then I expect the US to shoulder the burden and start paying it's fair share of aid to impoverished countries. And invading ones with incompetent fuckers like Saddam in charge.

Laoke
Laoke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2003, 02:53 AM   #30
Maximus Faticus
Registered User
 
Maximus Faticus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 1,291
I know some of those reasons are weak by themselves, but when coupled together I think they make a strong case. I'm just going to comment of a couple.

Firstly: show me the evidence. Like, for example, the plethora of weapons of mass destruction you've pulled out of Iraq to date.
I understand that we haven't found them yet, but at least we know now he doesn't have them anymore.

Secondly: So, you'd be willing to let an outside sovereign nation pull up and disarm the US of it's weapons of mass destruction?
That would be interesting to see that happen. There would have to be a UN resolution for it. You know this could fall into the gun debate in the other thread. The difference between the US and Saddam though is that we are sure that the US wouldn't use them first, but we are not sure about Saddam.

God forbid that America be seen as being weak! Can't talk, must fight! Kill! Blood! Death to the infidel!

Of course, in another country... that would be called a jihad. See the similarities?
Hehe you must be female. I'm just kidding. So what is the use of warning someone if you never back it up? You would just be full of hot air, and no one would take you seriously.

So, and let me make sure I've got this right in your opinion, the thing that will make the invasion of Iraq justified is if you got fucking value for your money???????
I was pointing out a couple things we sacrificed for the war. After re-reading my post I never really said what would have actually made it justified, heh. So I think what would make it justified is if in 10 years Iraq is a prosperous nation, and it's people are free.

Now, to be fair: if there exists evidence that Saddam sponsored terrorist attacks on US interests, I can see a case for assassinating his ass. And I'm not one to quibble about collateral damage... as long as you could do it without risking 100 American lives, I say go for it.
I don't think assassinating would have worked, his whole party was the problem. We would have been happy I bet with just removing him and his 2 sons though.

If, at the end of the day, the average Iraqi in the street is happier with Saddam gone, then it's probably justifiable from a humanitarian point of view. But if that is the case then I expect the US to shoulder the burden and start paying it's fair share of aid to impoverished countries. And invading ones with incompetent fuckers like Saddam in charge.
I don't know, after all the hell this one caused, I'm not sure if it would be worth it.
__________________
My Music

Last edited by Maximus Faticus; 05-25-2003 at 02:55 AM.
Maximus Faticus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2003, 08:22 AM   #31
Aackman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 170
The difference between the US and Saddam though is that we are sure that the US wouldn't use them (WMD) first
After littering bombing the fuck out of them with cluster bombs and Depleted Uranium that we refuse to clean up that statement is pretty funny.

Now we are swinging our dicks at the Europe to force our geneticly altered food on them http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/u...5useurope.html and targeting Iran for the next regime change http://www.guardian.co.uk/internatio...962611,00.html

Things have worked out so well in Afganistan and Iraq we want to spread the love.
Aackman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2003, 01:03 PM   #32
Maximus Faticus
Registered User
 
Maximus Faticus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 1,291
DU, and cluster bombs aren't WMD, but I should have said ABC weapons not WMD.
__________________
My Music
Maximus Faticus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2003, 12:59 AM   #33
Zolmaz Zo'Boto
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,040
Originally posted by bumbleroot
I care much about Freedom, but freedom doesn't mean killing off your own citizens so your friends can get rich and probably you as well. This is treason in my opinion.

Oh and Zolmaz- why don't you read the posts man instead of spouting off. I already mentioned companies like Texaco, Exxon and there are many others who can and do this kind of work. Why was it given to an oil company with less resources and experience like Halliburton? TO LINE THEIR POCKETS. Hitler must be having a good day in hell because when Cheney has his big heart attack he is going to have a new bunkmate.
I posted why Hali can handle the situation and no other company is
big enough to. Because no other company can, as fast as HAL!

The companies you mentioned are mining companies the are not
into putting out fires and stopping leaks and emergency situations
like war to handle.. They can't handle it, Those companys
you mentioned are production only. They recieve oil to make gas.
They do not put out oil fires..

GOD BLESS AMERICA

Zolmaz Zo'Boto (Over a lifetime the average man can produce enough
gas to fuel his own home for 50% of his lifetime) *GRIN
Zolmaz Zo'Boto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2003, 07:51 AM   #34
bumbleroot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 7,756
1.Freedom for the Iraqi people.
2.Saddam violated many UN resolutions. (and continued until his demise I might add.)
3. To remove Saddam because he is a evil dictator that kills/tortures his own people.
4. Remove any WMD from Iraq
5. He sponsored terrorism
6. He had threatened the US.
7. He had resources that will enable us to rebuild his country after his removal (oil)
8. To bring Democracy to the region.
9. To show that the US will back up it's threats.
1. We haven't brought them Freedom, only Chaos- Freedom was never our intent, it was only a sales pitch by Bush.
2. These are UN resolutions. The largest violator of them is US. We violated resolution 1441 and it was our own resolution. What kind of character is a president that isn't true to his words? (Does "Read my Lips" ring a bell?)
3. I'll give you this one, but I also think that if this were the case, Saddam would not be nor should be at the top of the list, because of that there must be other reasons. Also since this is the only reason that is legitimate, are we now going to go and do the same to those other brutal dictators? Why not attack Cuba. There is more interest there than Iraq. We have more citizens of our country who are directly effected by Castro's regime. Bush won't do this because this was never the real reason. Look at my response to number 7. This is the only reason that seems to be all fitting into place.
4. This is a sales pitch also. We were obviously lied to by our President again. The most blatant lies are those that cost American lives.
5. No proof of this whatsoever. In fact terrorists tend to be militias not state run organizations. He had his own army, I can't see where and why he would sponsor terrorism.
6. Wrong, wrong wrong. Saddam NEVER EVER threatened the USA. He did say if he was attacked he would strike back. This is not a threat it is self-defense. If we are to go into countries and attack them because they threaten to defend themselves than we are the evil ones.
7. This makes no sense at all. You don't attack countries so you can rebuild them. Hmm, maybe this was the real reason. Money money money.
8. If this were the intent we would have had more support going in there to help this country in a transition. As it is, the infrastructure is weak in every area except the processing of oil. Its obvious that the only thing Bush thought about was how to get the oil. He neglected even basic services like getting water to the public.
9. So we make the threats. You have finally admitted that we were truly the only aggressive ones in this case. So what you are saying in this is that if we decide to make a threat against anyone we should support it wholeheartedly regardless of the reasons, even if they aren't legitimate? As we can see here the only reason that seems to have played out is to control the oil from Iraq. That is the only thing we have gotten right. We have failed in every other aspect of this war. We have removed a brutal dictator but we haven't given anything in return for this so I can pretty much assume that removal and replacing the government wasn't really a mission.
bumbleroot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2003, 01:48 PM   #35
Maximus Faticus
Registered User
 
Maximus Faticus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 1,291
Like I said, just 1 or 2 of those reasons aren't enough to attack, but when you put them all together it's makes a good case.

1. We haven't brought them Freedom, only Chaos- Freedom was never our intent, it was only a sales pitch by Bush.
Operation Iraqi freedom? When was the last time there was an Iraqi protest? Ask an Iraqi if they have more freedom now.
2. These are UN resolutions. The largest violator of them is US. We violated resolution 1441 and it was our own resolution. What kind of character is a president that isn't true to his words? (Does "Read my Lips" ring a bell?)
It saddens me that you actually believe that.
4. This is a sales pitch also. We were obviously lied to by our President again. The most blatant lies are those that cost American lives.
Just because we haven't found them doesn't mean they aren't there.
5. No proof of this whatsoever. In fact terrorists tend to be militias not state run organizations. He had his own army, I can't see where and why he would sponsor terrorism.
He gave money to the families of suicide bombers who attacked Israel. He has links with Al-Qaeta, do a CNN search.
8. If this were the intent we would have had more support going in there to help this country in a transition. As it is, the infrastructure is weak in every area except the processing of oil. Itís obvious that the only thing Bush thought about was how to get the oil. He neglected even basic services like getting water to the public.
The oil is important for Iraqis future. I'm sure the media has been misleading on this issue as well; I can't blame you for thinking that.
9. So we make the threats. You have finally admitted that we were truly the only aggressive ones in this case. So what you are saying in this is that if we decide to make a threat against anyone we should support it wholeheartedly regardless of the reasons, even if they aren't legitimate? As we can see here the only reason that seems to have played out is to control the oil from Iraq. That is the only thing we have gotten right. We have failed in every other aspect of this war. We have removed a brutal dictator but we haven't given anything in return for this so I can pretty much assume that removal and replacing the government wasn't really a mission.
We threatened to attack them using 1441. Only the coalition of the willing had the balls to follow it through. Like I said before, if Iraq is a free democratic nation in 10 years it was all worth it. I'm pretty sure it will happen too.
__________________
My Music
Maximus Faticus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2003, 06:32 PM   #36
Zolmaz Zo'Boto
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,040
Originally posted by Aackman
Now we are swinging our dicks at the Europe to force our geneticly altered food on them http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/u...5useurope.html and targeting Iran for the next regime change http://www.guardian.co.uk/internatio...962611,00.html

Things have worked out so well in Afganistan and Iraq we want to spread the love.
I see nothing wrong with swinging our uber dick. Especially since
its the biggest swinging dick in the world.
Be glad its not hitting you!



GOD BLESS AMERICA
GOD BLESS PRESIDENT BUSH
GOD BLESS FREEDOM IN IRAQ
GOD HAVE MERCY ON THE IRANIANS


Zolmaz Zo'Boto (The smallest swinging dick in the world)
Zolmaz Zo'Boto is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:48 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.