Nope got it but since we are at "war" with "islamist radicals" why do we keep giving them money?? don't you find that strange?
Your making the mistake, although not a stretch that all Muslims are of the "islamic radicals"group. Not all of them are like that and it seems like a good majority of the population wants a democracy of some type. that takes an money for the government to run so the oil provides that.
Your making the mistake, although not a stretch that all Muslims are of the "islamic radicals"group. Not all of them are like that and it seems like a good majority of the population wants a democracy of some type. that takes an money for the government to run so the oil provides that.
So why attack a whole country instead of going after just the splinter groups?
The radical Islamists are a small group of terrorists. And we don't buy oil from them.
The bulk of the Arab/Muslim world are good people with cultural differences from ours. Overall they are good moral people and want world peace just like us. In their ranks are people that sympathize with the terrorists just like there are people in our country that sympathize with Eric Rudolph and Timothy McVeigh.
Unfortunately some of the extremist sympathizers are Arab world leaders and it is these people we must focus on for the good of all people wanting stability and peace.
Blown has expressed the solution to rid the world of Saudi Arabia and Israel. This won't solve the problem of ridding the world of the core problem, extremists who belive violence is their answer.
I don't see it as a war on religion. That is just avoidance of the issues. The terrorist ilk know no borders nor are prevalent to a particular society. We will never eliminate all extremists as they will find a way to hide and grow back like rats and cockroaches.
The real solution is common sense and agreement among the vast majority that just want peace and prosperity for themselves, their families, and their friends around the world of all cultures. That is the real goal andsolution. Reality though is what we have and what we must deal with to make the world safe from those filled with senseless hate.
A good step would be to stop the political liberal/conservative, religious, cultural, racial, and other dividers that cloud the issues. Whoever solves that problem will no doubt win the ultimate Nobel Prize. No one ever said it was easy.
Same question for you.....why attack a whole country instead of going after just the splinter groups?
Same question for you.....why attack a whole country instead of going after just the splinter groups?
I assume the country of which you speak is Iraq. Iraq under Saddam is a rogue dictatorship full of corruption and PROVEN links to al Quaida inspite of the liberal spin to the contrary.
Another known fact gone unreported was the probable coup by Saddam's rogue son who had gained major control of a powerful faction from within the country. He woiuld have supportted and helped fund terrorists.
This on top of the fact that UN sactions had not been fulfilled and the general consensus including the now backsliding Dems, was that Saddam had, used, and would continue to use WMD's. And yes WMD's were found and there is great evidence and belief more were smuggled out of the country. The short mindedness of Dems and libs is the fact a majority of Congress voted to attack Iraq but true to form the flip flop on their support and earlier committment. When the going gets tough the libs turn and run.
Now questions for you:
Is the world better off with Saddam removed from power?
Would you rather see Saddam in power? If so do you agree with his way of governing Iraq?
Same question for you.....why attack a whole country instead of going after just the splinter groups?
And furthermore, read this:
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004242.htm
I assume the country of which you speak is Iraq. Iraq under Saddam is a rogue dictatorship full of corruption and PROVEN links to al Quaida inspite of the liberal spin to the contrary.
Another known fact gone unreported was the probable coup by Saddam's rogue son who had gained major control of a powerful faction from within the country. He woiuld have supportted and helped fund terrorists.
This on top of the fact that UN sactions had not been fulfilled and the general consensus including the now backsliding Dems, was that Saddam had, used, and would continue to use WMD's. And yes WMD's were found and there is great evidence and belief more were smuggled out of the country. The short mindedness of Dems and libs is the fact a majority of Congress voted to attack Iraq but true to form the flip flop on their support and earlier committment. When the going gets tough the libs turn and run.
Now questions for you:
Is the world better off with Saddam removed from power?
Would you rather see Saddam in power? If so do you agree with his way of governing Iraq?
Actually I was thinking more along the lines of Iran....
But since you asked:
the THEORIES on his son are just that
The UN Resolutions....The key word in that statement is UN...Not US. By doing what the US did it helped to focus the crazies hate on the US and others that helped it
WMD? You could find more on ONE aircraft carrier than they did in the whole country of Iraq
Is the world better off with out Saddam? Maybe But by attacking Iraq the US has pissed off most of the worlds Islamic Countries And crazies contained with in and in the long run that might be worse than Saddam. Think back to what Reagan did to Kadafy(sp)...It kept him in check
Is the average Joe in Iraq better off? Yes
no, but as for the way Saddam governed Iraq is there much difference in the way Canada or the US is governed? At least Saddam didn't pretend to care for the average Joe before he took power.....Unlike the slimey bastards that run for office on both sides of the border on this side of the ocean....Sure we can try to vote them out but the options are not always any better
All political leaders should be scared of the people. we should have public hangings of a couple of randomly chosen polititians every year to keep them honest :rollside:
You neglected A hell of a lot of Saddam thes the mass graves the terrorist ties the paying for terrorism the terrorist training sites the dual use material the constant violation of the cease fire agreement the constant violation of UN resolutions the constant threatening of neighbors the torture chambers the plastic shredders the wild dogs tearing people apart the rapes the murders the sanctions being worn away by people like you the plan to startup WMD production after sanctions lifted the 500 tons of yellowcake and a couple tons of enriched uranium the firing of WMD tipped missiles during the invasion the use of poison gas the mass murder of entire villages the invasion rape and pillage of Kuwait the greatest ecological disaster ever done by man the 700 oil well fires the oil in the gulf. And on
Actually I was thinking more along the lines of Iran....
But since you asked:
the THEORIES on his son are just that
The UN Resolutions....The key word in that statement is UN...Not US. By doing what the US did it helped to focus the crazies hate on the US and others that helped it
WMD? You could find more on ONE aircraft carrier than they did in the whole country of Iraq
Is the world better off with out Saddam? Maybe But by attacking Iraq the US has pissed off most of the worlds Islamic Countries And crazies contained with in and in the long run that might be worse than Saddam. Think back to what Reagan did to Kadafy(sp)...It kept him in check
Is the average Joe in Iraq better off? Yes
no, but as for the way Saddam governed Iraq is there much difference in the way Canada or the US is governed? At least Saddam didn't pretend to care for the average Joe before he took power.....Unlike the slimey bastards that run for office on both sides of the border on this side of the ocean....Sure we can try to vote them out but the options are not always any better
All political leaders should be scared of the people. we should have public hangings of a couple of randomly chosen polititians every year to keep them honest :rollside:
the THEORIES on his son are just that
Nope, Uday was wounded by a car bomb when found out by Pop. They were at odds and he had enough backingto keep himself alive.
WMD? You could find more on ONE aircraft carrier than they did in the whole country of Iraq
Answered the question. The armament on 1 carrier is more than many nations entire military. Plenty of damage could be done.
no, but as for the way Saddam governed Iraq is there much difference in the way Canada or the US is governed? At least Saddam didn't pretend to care for the average Joe before he took power.....Unlike the slimey bastards that run for office on both sides of the border on this side of the ocean....Sure we can try to vote them out but the options are not always any better
This remark scares me that anyone could even compare a ruthless dictator that slaughterd thousands, ran rape rooms, and took all wealth and public property for his own selfish use.
All political leaders should be scared of the people. we should have public hangings of a couple of randomly chosen polititians every year to keep them honest :rollside
Can't disagree with this theory, just as long as Hildabeast and Fat Teddy get first 2 spots.
Overall I just don't understand the paranoia that comes forth about government and our way of life. The US is in pretty great shape compared to the rest of the world. Ain't no other country I'd rather live in. Canada has problems but if you'd get the socilist doctrine thrown out you'd have solved the bulk of your issues.
[U]no, but as for the way Saddam governed Iraq is there much difference in the way Canada or the US is governed? At least Saddam didn't pretend to care for the average Joe before he took power.....Unlike the slimey bastards that run for office on both sides of the border on this side of the ocean....Sure we can try to vote them out but the options are not always any better
[QUOTE]This remark scares me that anyone could even compare a ruthless dictator that slaughterd thousands
On or off of their own soil? The British Empire and the US have done the same just to a lesser extent at home
ran rape rooms
not going to touch this one
and took all wealth and public property for his own selfish use.
Taxes come to mind here
On or off of their own soil? The British Empire and the US have done the same just to a lesser extent at home
not going to touch this one
Taxes come to mind here
Where is this Utopia you dream about? What country is your model?
US, Australia, or Canada are as good as it gets for me. I'm sure people of other nationalities have their preferences.
Would you prefer a Taliban like state in your country?
Taxes are inevitable and I expect to pay something for what I get. I get far more PO'd with how they are dispersed. That's why I do my part in community and at the voting booth.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote