Anti American sentiment

Post Reply New Topic

YEP!! ! ME!! !!

Oooooo...NOT, So?? whooppty doo, no one is perfect. and i said the standards, dude, not the procedures, sheesh. Haha. you're using CNN...well better than flybynight.net. But if you use one biased source, yoiu must use an opposite biased source to balance it. And for your information, there was WMDs...Duh...he killed thousands of kurds and shiites with them. And they found traces that he still had them, at least before they invaded, there is still quite a bit unaccounted for. I know for a fact, he had chemical weapons, which are WMDs. WMDs are not just nukes.

Well, because, for one, he was fighting againgst Soviet backed Iran, and Iran before that war took U.S. hostages for like 2 years. So the enemy of my enemy is my friend applied, besides Saddam was NOT actively persuing WMD research, at least much beyond chemical weapons, and was not eyeing peaceful, non Soviet backed regimes.

This whole thing reminds of when the DEMOCRATS were accused of the very same thing as the Republicans are now. Greed, selfish reasons for war, yadda, yadda. This occured in 1846 under DEMOCRATIC president James K. Polk and the War with Mexico. Technicaly started by Mexican Troops crossing the border into unrecognized by Mexico freed terriroty and then state of Texas. Over 12,000 U.S. troops died in that war, and it feed an already crumbling infrastructure based on the "slavery" question in the states, that debate continued for 14 years and resulted in veterans of that war, fighting each other in the U.S. CIVIL WAR, in which over 500,000 americans died. Thats what arguing too angrily can do to a nation over a war that only one party may or may not have wanted. The Whigs (which later became the Republicans) started accusing Polk of harboring Imperical designs and attacking a "weaker" power, strictly to sieze assests of Mexico, and using other excuses such as unpaid bills Mexico owed the U.S., various border disputes, and possible European intervention. Polk had been planning a war with Mexico or at least felt it would occur at least a year before it started, he sent secret agents into California to stir up a revolt, the Mexicans had over 3,500 troops on our southern border, emmissaries offered to buy California outright, but were summarily rejected which angered Polk. Perhaps history is repeating itself. I cant really say if that war was truly unjust, but if you are using the reasons for the Iraq war, then the Mexican War was more so, as Polk's actions were more apparent, and started conspiracy theories then too.

ROFLMAO, hahahahaha, thats hilarious. News dont come from comic books.

Glutton for punishment eh? Both words relate to the performance. Cant you understand that high standards need good procedures? Who is flybynight.net? CNN is one of many sources and is an American source. Can you find me an a Iraqi source that backs up the idea that there was only around 100 deaths caused by allied bombing during the capture of Iraq?

Why dont you read one of my posts guy, i already pointed out how Saddam had wmd supplied to him by.....the allies and used them against the kurds. If you or anyone else from the US had good proof of there being wmd when the allies invaded then im rather sure theyd be shouting about it by now instead of the silence and playing down of the whole wmd issue,(except for you it seems) replaced by laughable stories of the war being against Islamic fundamentalism and humanitarian in origin.

There was no wmd, even Tony Blair admitted it, why cant you? Glad you mentioned nukes, another alliied fallacy brought on by the pressure to make anything up to go to war with Iraq.
You have just ruled yourself out as a serious debater with your failure to admit anything to do with reality and by your "i know for a fact" routine.

Are we to believe that your America's equivelent of James Bond? Yes im sure there was wmd and you stopped Saddams missiles (that were up in a meteroid cave in outerspace pointed towards the US) from destroying the world and then flew back down to earth in a flying saucer, but not before making love to a hot blond on the way down to earth.

As i have pointed out you have ruled yourself out of being a contender here but if you go to the "kid's crater" or the "random fun" forums im sure they will lap up your fanciful storytelling.

Last edited by eamonn on 04 Jan 2006, 2:45 am, edited 1 time in total.

So a few US hostages are more important than over a million middle eastern lives? Can you tell me if that attitude is common in the US so that i know if i should switch my stance to one of "insurgent" backing. Saddam was an evil tyrant that got to his position of power by allied backed murder and was looking to take over as much power/countries as he could.

He was much more of a threat back then and actually had (allied supplied) wmd. He wasnt trying to procure nuclear before this war either and much of the supposed "evidence" of pre-war Iraq wmd has since proven to have been fabricated lies, like the "African uranium" BS.

Intelligence documents that British and US forces said proved Saddam was trying to procure nuclear weapons has been dismissed as forgeries by UN weapons inspectors and all credible sources. Even one high up US official has came out and admitted it though details about his wife being an agent have been realesed as part of his punishment. Dirty game politics.

Here's a site with just a sample of the lies Bush and co have made up over the Iraq war as reported by established media outlets-

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/0 ... _lies.html

Last edited by eamonn on 04 Jan 2006, 2:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

I agree that was was unjust and Democrats were responsible. I could be wrong but it appears to me that the Iraq war wouldnt have happened if the democrats were in power and in recent times they seem to be more reasonable on issues such as warfare, welfare and climate change.

I know, it comes from anomynous internet faces that tell you they "know for a fact" that Saddam had wmd before the war despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Why didnt he use any of this wmd? Dont tell me that he suddenly had moral boundaries over the issue or that he thought he'd win the war easily without them because if i laugh any more today il have a hernia.

I agree. Go democrats! And eamonn, when are you going to change your avatar? I keep thinking you're SB2, lol

There iv changed it just for you Carla Doll. Not as good looking as yourself but i try my best.

Another person calling me a doll? Perhaps I should have that in my name when I finally reach 1000 posts...lol, j/k

The word "doll" is common patter for the female gender here in Scotland. Im sure we can think up of a better name for you than that though. How about Mrs Eamonn?

Ditto to you. As if you have any proof either? or as if you read my posts, i have read your posts in this string, and they are quite amusing, but far from factual. You are not a serious debater yourself, so i fail to see how you could qualify if i am or am not. Get real, BuzzFlash??? OH MY GOD, then those tabloids about bat babies and 9 year old fathers, and aliens having dinner with William Shatner are real??? Though, even that would be a MORE credible source then buzzflash.

And, i think you are wrong, i do not think there would have been much difference if the Democrats were in charge, because, they saw the same evidence that Saddam had WMDs that CIA, Russian Intelligence, MI6, and Egyptian intelligence which pointed toward Saddam having or developing WMDs. And they DID find some evidence that he still had them, and it WAS in the news, but the LEFIST news apparently swept it under the rug so to speak, that is did not give it much air time if any. And don't forget, and this you cannot possibly say otherwise, since i heard it myself first hand, that the Democrats, most of them, agreed with the war in Iraq and thought they should deal with it soon. The only thing different that the Democrats might have done, would be delay the war another month or two, but im sure they would have gone as well, unless Kerry was president, then he would have sent troops, brought them back after a few months, then changed his mind and send them back in, then pull them out again, and thus making all kinds of friends over there, NOT. Even the U.N. tried to get Saddam to comply with the resolutions and inspections, they just provided no serious threat or motivation for Saddam to do so.

Last edited by Epimonandas on 04 Jan 2006, 3:45 am, edited 1 time in total.

NO!! !! !! !!

He didn't. He already HAD power in IRAQ, he had an uncle that ran the nation then Saddam ousted him, before the Iran Hostage Crisis. The U.S. had little if anything to do with Saddam's rise to power. He got their through MURDER as a henchman for the equilvalent of an Iraqi Mob, soon after his uncle rose to power he became head of the Secret Police. Apparently you do not pay attention to data about Saddam.

heh...which reminds me...why are you not viable? What happened to being the resident troll-slayer?

Epimondanas, obviously you dont look into things properly mr man. The CIA organised the regime change (through the usual political assasinations, mass imprisonment, torture and murders) that brought Saddam's Ba'ath party into power. Try and find something out about history and reality before you attempt to put me straight on things i appear to know far more about.