HerLoss Posted April 15, 2005 Share Posted April 15, 2005 Couple points here. -Terrorists do have a reason for what they do. The term terrorist describes someone who uses violence to make political statements. -The terrorists werent out of Iraq, so the 9/11 attacks had NOTHING to do with Iraq. AlQuaida was the threat, BinLaden was the threat, NOT Huissein. I dont understand why we have Huissein captive and all we hear about is Iraq and we dont here a [bleeped!] thing about the search for BinLaden. -War was never even declared on terrorist account. You cant call it a war on terror cuz, well, terror isnt a country, and we arent even fighting it. We arent even fighting against Iraq the country, but Iraqi insurgents. -Bush Senior was supposedly almost assassinated by some Iraq dudes and some people say that W. is trying to get back at them for that, to continue his daddys "crusade", and for oil. -Bush is VERY christian, and written in Revelations in the Bible, it states that before Jesus' second coming (the Apocolypse, Rapture, Whatever...) will happen after there is a great war in the east. Or something like that. I hope I dont come off as a dick, I just feel very strongly the way I do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhoenixFlame512 Posted April 15, 2005 Share Posted April 15, 2005 -Terrorists do have a reason for what they do. The term terrorist describes someone who uses violence to make political statements. -The terrorists werent out of Iraq, so the 9/11 attacks had NOTHING to do with Iraq. AlQuaida was the threat, BinLaden was the threat, NOT Huissein. I dont understand why we have Huissein captive and all we hear about is Iraq and we dont here a [bleeped!] thing about the search for BinLaden. -War was never even declared on terrorist account. You cant call it a war on terror cuz, well, terror isnt a country, and we arent even fighting it. We arent even fighting against Iraq the country, but Iraqi insurgents. -Bush Senior was supposedly almost assassinated by some Iraq dudes and some people say that W. is trying to get back at them for that, to continue his daddys "crusade", and for oil. If terrorists were really trying to make political statements, they could at least try to find a non-violent way of doing it. I mean, people say that one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter, but the terrorists aren't interested in other people's freedom. They just kill people for the heck of it. Hussein was a threat because he was being a dictator. It is a war on terror. A war is defined as a struggle or competition between oposing forces for a particular end. The United States is fighting against the terrorists, which might I mention are just as dangerous as any other enemy. And the particualr end we want is to have peace. And the insurgents are causing terror in Iraq, so by definition, this is in fact a war on terror. The United States needs the oil. Too many of our cars rely on the stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Korps Commander Posted April 15, 2005 Author Share Posted April 15, 2005 Well, Bush certainly didn't try to establish peace with many Mid-East countries after 9/11................................. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhoenixFlame512 Posted April 15, 2005 Share Posted April 15, 2005 Well, Bush certainly didn't try to establish peace with many Mid-East countries after 9/11................................. Well, it wasn't the mid-east that was the only source of problems for the United States. There were terrorists from other countries as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerLoss Posted April 15, 2005 Share Posted April 15, 2005 The legal term for war is a declaration against a country. Leaders of terrorist groups have chosen their way to make a stand because no one would listen to them otherwise. Saddam Huissein never threatened us once, never had any supposed "WMD's", and was never associated with AlQuaida. No other terrorists threatened or attacked the U.S. AlQuaida did and we havnt caught their leader BinLaden. Iraq didnt and we have their leader in captivity. Why doesnt the rest of the U.N. Fight along with us? Apparently we have no allies in the fight. There must be something wrong. -Edit: We dont need the oil. The U.S. has reserves that have been building for quite some time. Theres enough to last at least 3 or 4 years. We can drill for our own, we can buy it from other countries. We dont have to monopolize on Iraqs buisness. Not to mention the job shortage in the U.S. Bush has a big corporation using workers form India for slave wages. Why cant we have American workers work there? cuz they cost too much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GameClaw_268 Posted April 16, 2005 Share Posted April 16, 2005 Compare it to microsoft. The US got big by making stuff better than other people Microsoft made something most people can't live without today Microsoft defeated competition by buying up its assets(sniff, poor rareware...) The US defeated competition by defeating them in wars, or not shipping them goods Microsoft continues to try to grow with new stuff, and taking over new bussnesses(x-box, buying out rareware, etc.) The US continues to grow by replacing governments with "friendly" ones and getting them to trade with us, and give us their stuff cheap see any similarities... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerLoss Posted April 16, 2005 Share Posted April 16, 2005 Yeah, I see imperialism and monopolization. I understand what your saying, and I agree. What I'm trying to say is a totally different idea. Iraq was never a threat and and I'm sick of hearing about it. Lets see our progress in Afganistan or wherever the hell we're supposed to be looking for BinLaden. What really needs to happen is for Canada to just sweep down and take over the U.S. cuz it would take a good 2 hours for the U.S. to have a strong enough force back here to defend itself and by then Canadian troops coule be a quarter of the way into the U.S. No one would see it coming either. Just BOOM! and we'd all be canadian, or dead, but either one is a viable choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GameClaw_268 Posted April 16, 2005 Share Posted April 16, 2005 Actually, canada has a rather small and unadvanced army, in a few hours, the national guard would be fighting, we'd have air support from the begining, canada is friendly to the US, and if we, for some reason, couldn't beat them, we'd nuke them. Then almost any american with any weapon whatsoever would be trying to fight back, shotguns, rifles, knives, bow and arrows, etc. Canada would get their arses handed to them on a silver platter by US citizens alone with makeshift weapons. There are more cows in the US than canadians, so we could overrun them with cows jk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerLoss Posted April 16, 2005 Share Posted April 16, 2005 Yeah, God knows how many redknecks with guns we have in the northern border states! lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Korps Commander Posted April 17, 2005 Author Share Posted April 17, 2005 But suppose Canada became allies with Mexico? Mexico would be eager to regain lost land from the U.S., and then the U.S. would be surrounded............ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerLoss Posted April 17, 2005 Share Posted April 17, 2005 In that case I'd jump the border to Canada during all the mayhem and just hang out there. To hell with the U.S.!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GameClaw_268 Posted April 17, 2005 Share Posted April 17, 2005 germany tried that once, in WWI, but the mexicans are smart enough to know about the crazy rednecks we have in the south, and our nukes. They're afraid of us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerLoss Posted April 17, 2005 Share Posted April 17, 2005 They better be. I mean, yeah, we got rednecks, but we also have nutso republicans too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GameClaw_268 Posted April 17, 2005 Share Posted April 17, 2005 by "crazy rednecks in the south" I was refering to GWB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerLoss Posted April 17, 2005 Share Posted April 17, 2005 Fine... you win this battle... lol. Its all the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.