Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Where are the Bush supporters now??

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 01:09 AM
link   
i clearly stated what i meant by 'bush supporters' keeping in mind that people like you would be using those words to attack my argument rather than actually presenting any facts. Please go back and read when I said in detail about what I meant by calling anyone a 'Bush supporter'.

And if after all this you guys cannot see the truth then I think its just useless for anyone to even try to change ur minds.

You have again presented what in general world knowledge and not actually given a reason to why NK has not been attacked till now.

The one reason you gave about the lack of military......so u admit that NK has better military than the US. US is fighting in 2 different countries and still continues to do so after they toppled the regime. They never actually caught the guy who started all this. And they are still fighting in the country which is no longer a threat and ignoring the real threat.

You say the insurgents are responsible for killing more people than americans, then answer me this. How many people were dying in Iraq before/after the attack.

Seems to me that watever the reason, its only after the US attacked that people started dying on a daily basis. All those who claim that US is helping these countries....I fail to see how. They have only caused destruction and mayhem and loss of lives. Country was doing much better before the attacks. So stop telling me that US is trying to help these people. I am not counting the number of people insurgents kill and how many the US soldiers kill (just see the news and you will see that more people are killed by US), i just see what the country was before and after the attack.

Maybe you should go and ask an Iraqi if he/she preferred Saddam or the 'present' iraq....You will get your answer.

Its only about time that people start realizing that US is not all it seems and its agenda maybe far more different than anyone thinks.




posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
We helping the people...not our fault that the insurgents decided to kill more people than America does. We can't protect everyone. Not to mention that Iraq HAD WMDs, these days the CIA has no reliable intel on Iraq so its a guessing game. Nothing new there, in CIA's history.


You help the people? So according to your logic, Iraq was less peaceful and more people were dying there on a daily basis even though we all know thats not the case. welcome to the real world. Iraq NEVER had WMDs, even Bush admitted that and to top it off he also admitted that Saddam had no connection to Al-Qaida. Still they stopped hunting the person they should be after (Osama) and went ahead in a hurry to attack Saddam. CIA always does not seem to have the correct intel when it need to be. However, after 9/11 it was immediately determined that Osama was after the attacks. Shouldn't you be doubting where your billion of tax dollars go when you country does not even have the correct intel and decides to launch a huge attack on country which they knew would not get over soon and would eventually cause the death of thousands of people, including their own soldiers. Nice help there to the innocent people of these countries. I hope US never decides to help anyone else if that there idea of help.


Originally posted by deltaboy
We invaded NK, China backed them up and we lost over 40,000 men for that. We invade NK, we go to war with China since its nearby and NK is China's ally. We still have about 25,000 troops in SK. But then SK won't support our invasion of NK if we decided to. Not to mention we are stretch thin.


You never actually invaded NK because the international world leaders, including China stopped you. You see, unlike US, the rest of the world belives in handling things without violence and launching attacks on countries and destroying homes and lives. You have lot of troops in SK and also in lot of countries around the world including middle eastern countries. And what do you think the 'terrorists' are protesting in the first place. They want the US military out of their countries. Yet US ignores them and continues its plan of world domination by occupying so many countries, peacefully or forcefully.



Originally posted by deltaboy
We could invade NK but then we have only 25,000 men. against how many NK men? 1.2 million?


So, you just agreed that US likes to bully countries when it knows that they cant fight back. Makes sense. Anyone would. Anyone with the plans of occupying that country and sucking its natural resources. When the real threat lingers over the world, US just sits back. Talk about hypocrites. Why not pull troops out of Iraq and other countries and attack the immediate threat. Ofcourse, if they were so concerned with world peace that wud be the case but sadly its not.


Originally posted by deltaboy
Your opinion, Al Qaeda has been left alone for years, about time we strike back.


And so has been Kim (who is clearly a bigger threat. Just need common sense to figure that one out), yet US attacked the countries which were weaker and less capable of harming US while NK has been MAKING nukes and TESTED them and now they are threatening US that would use them. All they want to do is that, yet US does not want to talk because they dont belive in peace talks, only attacking and occupying countries. If US is being such a daddy to other countries and trying to make them more peaceful then why not talk to NK and try to resolve matters, esp. now when NK has nukes and could possibly use them against the world.



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 03:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
Give us another million soldiers and we could do it.


You already have the military power, you dont need equal numbers of soldiers to win the war, just better technology, which u already have. Regardless, you do have a big military, i mean you must be having it right? since you can fight wars in 2 countries at the same time and also place lot of military in different countries around the world. Too bad the military is more busy in occupying the oil rich countries and filling up pockets of the people who control your military. so busy in fact that they cannot even fight a country which is openly threatning them of using nukes against them.


Originally posted by deltaboy
We gave Afghanistan about a month before we invaded. Iraq 3 years.


Yes, you may have given them time but that still does not disprove my point that Iraq war was based on lies. Giving them time has nothing to do with what the war was based upon. Because, simply put, the same logic and reasoning appllies even more to NK than Iraq. It always has, yet US chose to attack Iraq and not NK, knowing full well that this would cause them to be open to threats from NK and possible attacks.


Originally posted by deltaboy
Definitely yes.


I asked a question which could not have been answered by yes or no. Read the question carefully again. And just a simple yes does not really refute my argument. You have to give some logical reasoning or facts to answer my question.


Originally posted by deltaboy
I'm sorry thats pretty much wrong, since we fought conflicts with many non-oil producing countries than oil producing countries.


I am talking about current world situation which has been ongoing since the 'war on terror' started. After that, the only agenda of the US gov. has been to attack oil rich countries and clearly ignoring the real threats like NK. If you have any other wars in mind you must have fought before 9/11 with some other countries then its irrelevant to this topic. Not to mention, Bush wasn't even the president then.



Originally posted by deltaboy
Thats funny. Thats based on what you believe not current news reality.


Yet again, you state a simple statement saying that whta i say is against wats in the current news. Hello, thats what ive been trying to say, US news and media is filled with propoganda, and if you belive anything you see on the news then you are very ignorant of wats really happening in the world. In any case, watver I have stated above is in accordance with the current and recent news. Except my conclusion, which I deduced from my own common sense and logical reasoning after seeing the 'evidence'.



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 03:38 AM
link   
Half_Minded again...


Where are the Bush supporters now??


Right here


So let me get this straight. All the people who thought that US government is actually fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan to 'help' the people, whr are you now?

US invaded Iraq saying that it MIGHT have WMDs and it MIGHT be a threat to US. Also invaded afghanistan because AQ was behind 9/11.

Makes you wonder why US has not invaded NK. Because according to logic, NK should have been invaded and Kim Jong Il should have been put out of power long before he was even allowed to make nuclear weapons, let alone test them and threaten the US of using them.


Look at this from a military point of view. North Korea not only has a massive army of their own, but they had Chinese support in 2003 when Iraq was invaded. That's one hell of a war to go into. The casualties of the War on Terror are nearly 3,000. They would've been 50x that if the US invaded North Korea.

Not to mention a while nation full of brain washed civilians.

So I understand what you're saying politically, but militarily is a totally different matter.


Both KJI (Kim) and Saddam are considered mad men capable of attacking US. Then why hasn't US taken the same actions towards North Korea. Give me an answer.

I never believed Bush's BS anyway and now it is more than clear to me what the true agenda of his administration was. Why the 'war on terror'?

If Bush was concerned about the american public even one bit then KJI should have been dealt with exactly the same way as Saddam.


What's best for the American people was removing the two easiest threats back in 2003. Ever since this Nuclear test the United States will now be able to place more sanctions and further gain Chinese support for action against North Korea. This will greatly minimize casualties in any kind of war.

Kim Jong Il will be dealt with the same as Saddam. Once the US has South Korea, Japanse and possibly Chinese support for an attack on the North it will happen. Right now is a good time. North Korea doesn't have deployable nukes yet and China is rather mad at them.


On top of this, the reasons for attacking Iraq were based on lies which is now a widely known fact. Now, where is the US 'intelligence'? regardless of whether US knew about Kim's plans or not, why hasn't been NK attacked by US. Why were afghanistan and iraq attacked so fast and based on reasons which were either questionable or downright lies.

Now I ask all the Bush supporters and people who believe that Al-Qaeda attacked US on 9/11, what answer do you have for this?


For starters WMD's that have been formally classified as illegal which Saddam DENIED having have been found in Iraq. In fact over 700 munitions containing Sarin and Mustard Gas have been found and tested.

That and proven connections between Mussab Al-Zarqawi and Saddam's regime are plenty of a reason to go to war. Not to mention the genocide and murder of innocent civilians performed by Saddam.

Iraq and Afghanistan were attacked first because they were the easiest targets and/or the top priority at the time. Would it have made sense to invade North Korea right after 9/11?


I only see two reasons. Either US is scared of the country that can actually fight back, or it is not interested in the public interest because NK does not have oil.

In any case, does not look too good for the US and Bush administration and is a slap on the faces of all the people who blindly follow Bush and support this 'war on terror' which is actually aimed at control of middle east and the oil.


Not scared, but wise. Read my initial responses for more info. No point attacking in '03 without Chinese support.

It's not aimed at 'control' of the Middle East. A better word would be stabilization. Saddam's regime had caused ALOT of trouble in the Middle East. From attacking Iran to attacking Kuwiat. May aswell stop him before he can cause more trouble.



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 03:38 AM
link   

I forgot to add one thing. If you answer is gonna be that US cannot invade NK because its too tied up in Iraq then let me ask you this:

Why didn't the US attack NK in the first place when it named it among the 'axis of avil' knowing full well that of all the US enemies, NK would possibly be the first to make nukes and use them against US or its allies.


The US is hardly tied up in Iraq but that's besides the point.

The US couldn't invade NK because they didn't have enough support from neighbouring nations to complete a difficult mission.

At that point in 2003 Japan would not have commited troops, South Korea would have hesitated and China would have backed up North Korea. But times change and the whole situation is different now.


When Bush 'suspected' saddam of having WMDs, im sure he suspected Kim of the same thing. Given the 'US intelligence', wouldn't Bush have known about Kim's plans. I mean it didnt take them long to know that Osama was behind 9/11.


As I said before, Saddam did have illegal arms. So it wasn't 'suspected' it was fact. That's simply ignoring the 14 trucks that left a suspected bio lab in Iraq and entered Syria.

Like I said before they've known about Kim's plans for ages. I guess they were hoping diplomacy would work but due to recent events that's been disproven.

Diplomacy didn't have to work in Afghanistan or Iraq because the US was equipped to handle a military situation against smaller armies and malitia. North Korea has 6,000,000 troops including reservers. Too much for a ground invasion.


After attacking Afghanistan, Bush had 'choice' between Iraq and NK.

Iraq had oil, NK did not. Iraq was easier to attack then NK, being the pushover US is. NK had a higher probability of having WMDs than Iraq, much higher. Kim is crazier than Saddam ever was. Bush knew after putting hisarmy into afghanistan and iraq, there wudnt be much left to put anywhere else and would therefore make the US 'vulnerable' against bigger threats like NK, still he did not attack NK.

Now, after all those above mentioned points, Bush chose to attack Iraq and ignore NK, makes one wonder as to the true motive of the US government and then lot more questions arise like maybe 9/11 was an inside job considering all the conspiracies around it.


Iraq had an inexperienced pitiful excuse for an army, NK did not. Kim crazier than Saddam? Mabey now because Saddam is out of power but Kim aint the one with Human Shredding machines who gased the Kurds and invaded two of his neighbours.

The US is equipped for a war with North Korea but that would leave them short of a war with China or Russia. That's the main priority of the US army. Defending against Russia and China. If you don't have enough guys to do that... you don't have an army at all.

No point arguing your conclusion. The rest of my threads put it to rest.

Save your 9/11 crap for its respective forum. Which should probably be renamed to "ATS Trash Can".



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 04:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by doctorfungi
Right here


ok


Originally posted by doctorfungi
Look at this from a military point of view. North Korea not only has a massive army of their own, but they had Chinese support in 2003 when Iraq was invaded. That's one hell of a war to go into. The casualties of the War on Terror are nearly 3,000. They would've been 50x that if the US invaded North Korea.


So, killing 3,000 people is justified as long as it is less compared to a different war. As I said earlier, these days more than manpower, the technology is important in winning a war. And US has better technology than NK. And US attacked Iraq and Afghanistan when lot of world countries were against it. Including UN. Then US did not worry about what would happen, why, because Iraq was weak. So you are saying, Bush decided to attack the enemy which was weaker and was lesser of a threat. GJ.



Originally posted by doctorfungi
Not to mention a while nation full of brain washed civilians.
So I understand what you're saying politically, but militarily is a totally different matter.


What do u mean by politically and militarily. WAR is always MILITARILY, its the motive that POLITICAL. And the topic of discussion is to discuss the motive.



Originally posted by doctorfungi
What's best for the American people was removing the two easiest threats back in 2003. Ever since this Nuclear test the United States will now be able to place more sanctions and further gain Chinese support for action against North Korea. This will greatly minimize casualties in any kind of war.


The two threats as you claim were threats according to the US. And if they were such a threat then why hasn't been Osama been caught. Why did Bush agree that he is not interested in capturing Osama. Lets look at it this way. US has three enemies....Osama, Saddam, Kim. Osama actually attacked US (according to popular belief), and NK has nukes and threatens to attack US. Yet US decides to let Osama roam free and does nothing to stop Kim from making and testing the nukes. And puts all the military in Iraq where it is needed the least. Bravo!



Originally posted by doctorfungi
Kim Jong Il will be dealt with the same as Saddam. Once the US has South Korea, Japanse and possibly Chinese support for an attack on the North it will happen. Right now is a good time. North Korea doesn't have deployable nukes yet and China is rather mad at them.


US did not wait for support from other countries while attacking Iraq and Afghanistan, even going against the UN support. That could have been a REAL world conflict. And now the US needs permission to attack a real live threat which is openly challenging them?


Originally posted by doctorfungi
For starters WMD's that have been formally classified as illegal which Saddam DENIED having have been found in Iraq. In fact over 700 munitions containing Sarin and Mustard Gas have been found and tested.


I wonder how come the UN inspectors never found these even though Saddam let them search. and yet somehow after claiming they did not have WMDs, US then says Iraq did have WMDs, sounds like a 'frame job' to me. Proves nothing. If these had been found while saddam was in power, i wud have taken these as credible evidence.


Originally posted by doctorfungi
That and proven connections between Mussab Al-Zarqawi and Saddam's regime are plenty of a reason to go to war. Not to mention the genocide and murder of innocent civilians performed by Saddam.


Can you present sources or facts to backup this claim. And make sure its not FOX news or any other western media.

[edit on 11-10-2006 by half_minded]

[edit on 11-10-2006 by half_minded]



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 05:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by doctorfungi
Iraq and Afghanistan were attacked first because they were the easiest targets and/or the top priority at the time. Would it have made sense to invade North Korea right after 9/11?


Yes it would have made lot of sense, esp since Bush included NK in the axis of evil. It would have made a lot more sense to invade NK when US actually had enough army to fight against them rather than engaging the troops in iraq and afghanistan and laeving themselves 'vulnerable' to attacks from a bigger threat.


Originally posted by doctorfungi
Not scared, but wise. Read my initial responses for more info. No point attacking in '03 without Chinese support.
It's not aimed at 'control' of the Middle East. A better word would be stabilization. Saddam's regime had caused ALOT of trouble in the Middle East. From attacking Iran to attacking Kuwiat. May aswell stop him before he can cause more trouble.


Wise indeed. attack the weaker country which poses less of a threat. A better word would NOT be stabilization because the situation is far from stable in iraq much less any better. Saddam caused a lot of trouble in middle east but Bush is causing even more. Causing more wars and casualities than saddam ever dreamed of. May as well stop Bush too before he can cause more trouble.


Originally posted by doctorfungi
The US couldn't invade NK because they didn't have enough support from neighbouring nations to complete a difficult mission.

At that point in 2003 Japan would not have commited troops, South Korea would have hesitated and China would have backed up North Korea. But times change and the whole situation is different now.


So was the case with iraq and afghanistan. Neighbouring countries were against the war but Bush went ahead anyway. So why not now too?


Originally posted by doctorfungi
As I said before, Saddam did have illegal arms. So it wasn't 'suspected' it was fact. That's simply ignoring the 14 trucks that left a suspected bio lab in Iraq and entered Syria.

Like I said before they've known about Kim's plans for ages. I guess they were hoping diplomacy would work but due to recent events that's been disproven.

Diplomacy didn't have to work in Afghanistan or Iraq because the US was equipped to handle a military situation against smaller armies and malitia. North Korea has 6,000,000 troops including reservers. Too much for a ground invasion.


So you are saying that US priority is ATTACK first TALK later. Good policy indeed. Attack the nations that cannot fight back (forget diplomacy) and 'try to talk' with the countries that actually put up a fight. Reminds me of a bully in my school, ofcourse i beat his ass up...lol.


Originally posted by doctorfungi
Iraq had an inexperienced pitiful excuse for an army, NK did not. Kim crazier than Saddam? Mabey now because Saddam is out of power but Kim aint the one with Human Shredding machines who gased the Kurds and invaded two of his neighbours.

The US is equipped for a war with North Korea but that would leave them short of a war with China or Russia. That's the main priority of the US army. Defending against Russia and China. If you don't have enough guys to do that... you don't have an army at all.


You keep on mentioning the same response to all my arguments. US did not have enough army to attack Nk but had enough to blow up Iraq. This point however does not disprove my theory that US motive was something else rather than 'war on terror'.

[edit on 11-10-2006 by half_minded]

[edit on 11-10-2006 by half_minded]



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 05:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by doctorfungi
No point arguing your conclusion. The rest of my threads put it to rest.

Save your 9/11 crap for its respective forum. Which should probably be renamed to "ATS Trash Can".


No point? Then why did you waste so much of your precious time writing a long reply to my post and try to argue my points. You could have easily clicked the cross button on the upper-right corner of the screen and this bad dream would have been blown away. Yet you are here arguing my post in detail while you claim that there is no point to it and it should belong in the trash can. Maybe you should go back to the trash can you come from before you come to a conspiracy website and a forum dedicated entirely to arguing the points presented here and say that the poeple here post 'crap' thst should belog in a trash can. I didnt put a knife on your throat and ask you to believ what i have written. I have asked you to use some common sense and apply logical reasoning and open your mind to the possibilities and atleasst try to question your govenment without following them blindly. I got a more appropriate website for you. www.break.com.....u... need it.



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 05:11 AM
link   
Sorry about the quoting mess up earlier. I dunno how to fix it. Still I hope it does not make the reading any difficult. Also I apologize for the long posts but I have to pick out every point of a person's argument to be able to effectively refute it.

Never mind....i was able to fix the quoting mess up.


[edit on 11-10-2006 by half_minded]



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 07:05 AM
link   
Deleted. I didn't see half-minded's response.


[edit on 11-10-2006 by jsobecky]



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by half_minded

You help the people? So according to your logic, Iraq was less peaceful and more people were dying there on a daily basis even though we all know thats not the case. welcome to the real world.


Who says it was need to be less peaceful to go to war? Afghanistan must have been peaceful before we went to war there as well. Welcome to the real world.




Iraq NEVER had WMDs, even Bush admitted that and to top it off he also admitted that Saddam had no connection to Al-Qaida.


Sure he did. Have you forgotten Halabja? Or the attacks on Iranian soldiers during Iran-Iraq war? As I say before, the CIA had lack of intel in Iraq so its a guessing game now.


Still they stopped hunting the person they should be after (Osama) and went ahead in a hurry to attack Saddam. CIA always does not seem to have the correct intel when it need to be. However, after 9/11 it was immediately determined that Osama was after the attacks.


Who says we stopped hunting? We have thousands of troops in Afghanistan near the Pakistani border fighting and dying. We found out that it was Osama thanks to the NSA, not the CIA.



Shouldn't you be doubting where your billion of tax dollars go when you country does not even have the correct intel and decides to launch a huge attack on country which they knew would not get over soon and would eventually cause the death of thousands of people, including their own soldiers. Nice help there to the innocent people of these countries. I hope US never decides to help anyone else if that there idea of help.


We are helping as best as we can, after all not our fault that insurgents like to kill many people. We have over 130,000 troops compare to the population of millions.



You never actually invaded NK because the international world leaders, including China stopped you.


We invaded them in 1950s, China responded by sending hundred of thousands of troops so its a stalemate.


You see, unlike US, the rest of the world belives in handling things without violence and launching attacks on countries and destroying homes and lives.


Well it seems to me that it didn't work, and now China admits to wanting to punish NK, go figure.



You have lot of troops in SK and also in lot of countries around the world including middle eastern countries. And what do you think the 'terrorists' are protesting in the first place. They want the US military out of their countries. Yet US ignores them and continues its plan of world domination by occupying so many countries, peacefully or forcefully.


Yeah, go figure, we got troops in South Korea and you are complaining about why we have troops in the Middle East for oil. You have yet to explain why we have troops in South Korea or Kosovo or Bosnia for example? No answer to that?



So, you just agreed that US likes to bully countries when it knows that they cant fight back.


No we target countries that bullies others. Like for example North Korea invaded South Korea, we intervene for that. People always assume that superpowers starts wars first all the time. Go figure.


Why not pull troops out of Iraq and other countries and attack the immediate threat. Ofcourse, if they were so concerned with world peace that wud be the case but sadly its not.


Its true, we too busy in Iraq. Unless you believe we should leave it as it is. But then we be condemned for leaving the job unfinished.



And so has been Kim (who is clearly a bigger threat. Just need common sense to figure that one out), yet US attacked the countries which were weaker and less capable of harming US while NK has been MAKING nukes and TESTED them and now they are threatening US that would use them. All they want to do is that, yet US does not want to talk because they dont belive in peace talks, only attacking and occupying countries. If US is being such a daddy to other countries and trying to make them more peaceful then why not talk to NK and try to resolve matters, esp. now when NK has nukes and could possibly use them against the world.


Kim is a big threat, thats why Bush compares to the 3 countries to Axis of Evil unless you forgotten. The Clinton talked with North Korea, but results failed no surprise there. We can do peace talks, but you know how some dictators refuse to listen. Remember the six nation party talks, which NK REFUSED.

[edit on 11-10-2006 by deltaboy]



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by half_minded


You already have the military power, you dont need equal numbers of soldiers to win the war, just better technology, which u already have. Regardless, you do have a big military, i mean you must be having it right? since you can fight wars in 2 countries at the same time and also place lot of military in different countries around the world. Too bad the military is more busy in occupying the oil rich countries and filling up pockets of the people who control your military. so busy in fact that they cannot even fight a country which is openly threatning them of using nukes against them.


Thats pretty funny since it looks good on paper, but then technology don't always compensate for everything. We have troops in countries that don't have oil. Pretty weird eh? Too busy there as well.



Yes, you may have given them time but that still does not disprove my point that Iraq war was based on lies. Giving them time has nothing to do with what the war was based upon. Because, simply put, the same logic and reasoning appllies even more to NK than Iraq. It always has, yet US chose to attack Iraq and not NK, knowing full well that this would cause them to be open to threats from NK and possible attacks.


Based on false intel. We pretty much can attack whoever we perceived as a threat. But then explain the attacks on Serbia in 1999? They weren't a threat to America, but we bombed them anyways.



I asked a question which could not have been answered by yes or no. Read the question carefully again. And just a simple yes does not really refute my argument. You have to give some logical reasoning or facts to answer my question.


You asked a simple question which is did you believe that Al Qaeda had something to do with 9/11. Simple answer was yes. You did not add, why or why not.




I am talking about current world situation which has been ongoing since the 'war on terror' started. After that, the only agenda of the US gov. has been to attack oil rich countries and clearly ignoring the real threats like NK. If you have any other wars in mind you must have fought before 9/11 with some other countries then its irrelevant to this topic. Not to mention, Bush wasn't even the president then.


O yes, now we are talking about the current situation which you feel comfortable talking about. We have tens of thousands of soldiers in 6 continents currently, and many of those nations do not have oil or few oil fields to be considered worth fighting for, yet you probably going to ignore it anyways. Bush has sent troops like the Phillipines, Liberia, etc. So those nations must have some oil at least to die for.




Yet again, you state a simple statement saying that whta i say is against wats in the current news. Hello, thats what ive been trying to say, US news and media is filled with propoganda, and if you belive anything you see on the news then you are very ignorant of wats really happening in the world. In any case, watver I have stated above is in accordance with the current and recent news. Except my conclusion, which I deduced from my own common sense and logical reasoning after seeing the 'evidence'.


It is based on your opinion and not what has happened. You are not a journalist nor an anchor person.


Except my conclusion, which I deduced from my own common sense and logical reasoning after seeing the 'evidence'.


Huh?



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 10:40 AM
link   
Really until Bush supporters understand that the notion of going into Iraq was perpetuated by PNAC long before Bush was appointed President there's really nothing to debate. Bush is merely a steward to the real power in Washington. All presidents have been for sometime, but Bush's embarrassing level of imcompetance has made his stewardship most glaring. Like all 'good soldiers' he's just following orders. I have an equal level of empathy and angst for Bush supporters now. I know how they got to that place, but see few signs of them getting out.!....But as many posters here have pointed out a divided America is it's ultimate demise.



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by half_minded
So let me get this straight. All the people who thought that US government is actually fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan to 'help' the people, whr are you now?

US invaded Iraq saying that it MIGHT have WMDs and it MIGHT be a threat to US. Also invaded afghanistan because AQ was behind 9/11.

Makes you wonder why US has not invaded NK. Because according to logic, NK should have been invaded and Kim Jong Il should have been put out of power long before he was even allowed to make nuclear weapons, let alone test them and threaten the US of using them.

Both KJI (Kim) and Saddam are considered mad men capable of attacking US. Then why hasn't US taken the same actions towards North Korea. Give me an answer.

I never believed Bush's BS anyway and now it is more than clear to me what the true agenda of his administration was. Why the 'war on terror'?

If Bush was concerned about the american public even one bit then KJI should have been dealt with exactly the same way as Saddam.

On top of this, the reasons for attacking Iraq were based on lies which is now a widely known fact. Now, where is the US 'intelligence'? regardless of whether US knew about Kim's plans or not, why hasn't been NK attacked by US. Why were afghanistan and iraq attacked so fast and based on reasons which were either questionable or downright lies.

Now I ask all the Bush supporters and people who believe that Al-Qaida attacked US on 9/11, what answer do you have for this?

I only see two reasons. Either US is scared of the country that can actually fight back, or it is not interested in the public interest because NK does not have oil.

In any case, does not look too good for the US and Bush administration and is a slap on the faces of all the people who blindly follow Bush and support this 'war on terror' which is actually aimed at control of middle east and the oil.


Well by the same logic you have proposed shouldn't we have invaded the Soviet Union and China. We have never attacked a nueclear armed country and that is why NK is still alive.



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 01:20 PM
link   
What is a really retarded "conservative" or "right wing" concept spawned by the notoriously retarted Fox News folk, is the idea that what is happening with NK is exactly why we need to invade Iran. sarcasm: I mean really, if we don't invade Iran now, they will end up where NK is, launching missles, and setting off nukes - we cannot allow this to happen.

Fox News continues to become more out of touch with reality by the day, and whats worse, people actually continue to buy into it.

It is difficult not to call the Bush supporters names here, (based only on the continous denial of reality), and by the same token, the democrats in Washington have always been the same worthless blood as well.

I just can't see how you can be honest with yourself, while simultaneously believing anyone with the last name "Bush". It's simply impossible.

--



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
Who says it was need to be less peaceful to go to war? Afghanistan must have been peaceful before we went to war there as well. Welcome to the real world.


So you are admitting that both countries were more peaceful than before US army went there. So automatically you are admitting that Bush lied when he said he was actually helping the citizens of that country. And the smart ass comment about 'Welcome to the real world' is completely out of context and does not contribute towards proving anything.


Originally posted by deltaboy
Sure he did. Have you forgotten Halabja? Or the attacks on Iranian soldiers during Iran-Iraq war? As I say before, the CIA had lack of intel in Iraq so its a guessing game now.


So CIA has lack of intel and US launches its massive attacks across the globe based on guesses. No wonder Bush administration is such a failure. Even then, Iraq was just a 'guess'. NK however openly tested a nuke and has openly threatened to use it. Yu do not nmeed CIA or NSA intel to figure that out.


Originally posted by deltaboy
Who says we stopped hunting? We have thousands of troops in Afghanistan near the Pakistani border fighting and dying. We found out that it was Osama thanks to the NSA, not the CIA.


Who said....umm let me see....YOUR PRESIDENT DID. Please do some research......Bush agreed that he is not concerned about Osama. And you have thousands of troops fighting and dying. You makei tsound like they are the only ones dying. Wat about the innocent people they have killed and homes they have destroyed. Whos benefitting from all this? Only Bush and Co. are.


Originally posted by deltaboy
We are helping as best as we can, after all not our fault that insurgents like to kill many people. We have over 130,000 troops compare to the population of millions.


You are helping by attacking countries and palcing troops there? Insurgents want US army to leave THIER country and yet US army wont leave...I wonder why. You are saying that you dont have enough troops to kill every million of them? Every million of them is a terrorist? So you drop a bomb on a city, completely disregarding whether its the innocent people who are getting killed. Some help thr buddy. I hope you never help my country. Btw....help should be offered only when asked for. No one asked you to help.


Originally posted by deltaboy
We invaded them in 1950s, China responded by sending hundred of thousands of troops so its a stalemate.


You agreed to my point there.


Originally posted by deltaboy
Well it seems to me that it didn't work, and now China admits to wanting to punish NK, go figure.


So peace across the globe doesnt work? but attacking a country and pretty much turning it into rubble works? Killing thousands of people and destroying lives works? And what do you hope to achieve.......maybe out of every 100 people you kill, you might be able to bag that 1 extremist muslim who threatens your country?


Originally posted by deltaboy
Yeah, go figure, we got troops in South Korea and you are complaining about why we have troops in the Middle East for oil. You have yet to explain why we have troops in South Korea or Kosovo or Bosnia for example? No answer to that?


I already answered your question. Yet you post a reply asking for the same answer. Please read carefully before you post a reply.



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
No we target countries that bullies others. Like for example North Korea invaded South Korea, we intervene for that. People always assume that superpowers starts wars first all the time. Go figure.


The attacks carried out by Bush were against the will of other world leaders and also not supported by the UN. Enough said. I am sure you can do the math and see who is the bully here.


Originally posted by deltaboy
Its true, we too busy in Iraq. Unless you believe we should leave it as it is. But then we be condemned for leaving the job unfinished.


Job unfinished? You mean the job of killing more people? Coz Saddam is out of power which was supposed to be your motive in the first place. And anyways, my point of argument was that Bush should have attacked NK rather than Iraq.


Originally posted by deltaboy
Kim is a big threat, thats why Bush compares to the 3 countries to Axis of Evil unless you forgotten. The Clinton talked with North Korea, but results failed no surprise there. We can do peace talks, but you know how some dictators refuse to listen. Remember the six nation party talks, which NK REFUSED.


No I did not forget about the 'Axis of evil' crap. I even mentioned it in my original post. I suggest you read it first before making assumptions about me. So Clinton did peace talks and from what I see, NK did not test or use nukes then. But now however, under Bush power, NK successfully managed to test a nuke and even threaten to launch it. Bravo BUSH. I guess every individual in the world should follow suit and never resolve anything by peaceful talks, instead use force and aggression. Simple Rule. Attack First Talk Later. Bravo!


Originally posted by deltaboy
Thats pretty funny since it looks good on paper, but then technology don't always compensate for everything. We have troops in countries that don't have oil. Pretty weird eh? Too busy there as well.


Funny indeed! So then if technology is only good on paper then why waste billions of dollars of tax payer money on advancing technology. The whole world knows that US military superiority is largely due to its technological superiority rather than size of military. And if you read my post carefully you will notice that I mention that US has military all over world for OIL and WORLD DOMINATION. Just like carefully placed chess pieces. Only waiting for checkmate.


Originally posted by deltaboy
Based on false intel. We pretty much can attack whoever we perceived as a threat. But then explain the attacks on Serbia in 1999? They weren't a threat to America, but we bombed them anyways.


Ok Ok...this is funny. So you agree you have false intel most of the time. And yet you support bush and his administration. You can pretty much attack anyone you see as a threat? Who in the world gave you that power? Serbia was not a threat to america and yet you bombed it.

So you agree Bush acts mostly on false intel and also attacks countries which are not a threat to america. And yet you are here supporting Bush. You got me confused there.


Originally posted by deltaboy
You asked a simple question which is did you believe that Al Qaeda had something to do with 9/11. Simple answer was yes. You did not add, why or why not.


Please read the question before you make assumptions. And you picked one sentence out of context and tried to make it look like a simple question when its more than clear that the question was aimed at the entire post in general and not just the sentence right before it. Again I urge you to actually read carefully before posting replies.



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
O yes, now we are talking about the current situation which you feel comfortable talking about. We have tens of thousands of soldiers in 6 continents currently, and many of those nations do not have oil or few oil fields to be considered worth fighting for, yet you probably going to ignore it anyways. Bush has sent troops like the Phillipines, Liberia, etc. So those nations must have some oil at least to die for.


As I said before, OIL and WORLD DOMINATION. yet you seem to have been stuck on my one poiint about US attacking OIL rich countries and you try to attack my argument using the same point over and over again blowing it out of proportion. My thread was to shed a different light on the situation and to give you examples and show you as to why you need to stop following Bush blindly and try to do some research and apply some logical thinking and reasoning. Then you will begin to see that things may not be as they seem.


Originally posted by deltaboy
It is based on your opinion and not what has happened. You are not a journalist nor an anchor person.


So you are saying that you are a journalist and/or anchor person and I should believ you if you were to make that claim? And you simply argue my point by saying that its not what it really is. That is not a very resonable argument or a logical one. Please apply some logic before you reply.


Originally posted by deltaboy
Huh?


Confused? im not surprised. Try to read it over and over again and you might understand the simple point im trying to make. maybe then you might actually be able to argue against them.



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by half_minded

So you are admitting that both countries were more peaceful than before US army went there. So automatically you are admitting that Bush lied when he said he was actually helping the citizens of that country. And the smart ass comment about 'Welcome to the real world' is completely out of context and does not contribute towards proving anything.


Look whos talking, you also say that phrase so why should I not say it back? Whoever says that both countries are at peace. Afghanistan was in a civil war unless you forgot. We are helping the citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan.



So CIA has lack of intel and US launches its massive attacks across the globe based on guesses. No wonder Bush administration is such a failure. Even then, Iraq was just a 'guess'. NK however openly tested a nuke and has openly threatened to use it. Yu do not nmeed CIA or NSA intel to figure that out.


No figure. Clinton wasn't inform of North Korea's launch missile in 98, which he found out by CNN. Looks like we agree on something about the CIA.



Who said....umm let me see....YOUR PRESIDENT DID. Please do some research......Bush agreed that he is not concerned about Osama. And you have thousands of troops fighting and dying. You makei tsound like they are the only ones dying. Wat about the innocent people they have killed and homes they have destroyed. Whos benefitting from all this? Only Bush and Co. are.


Ummm maybe because he aint important enough, that Al Qaeda is not one man!!! O really its pretty much war, and you expect us to discriminate between civilians and enemy fighters so easily. We killed more Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters than civilians. Or unless you haven't been informed of current events.



You are helping by attacking countries and palcing troops there? Insurgents want US army to leave THIER country and yet US army wont leave...I wonder why. You are saying that you dont have enough troops to kill every million of them? Every million of them is a terrorist? So you drop a bomb on a city, completely disregarding whether its the innocent people who are getting killed. Some help thr buddy. I hope you never help my country. Btw....help should be offered only when asked for. No one asked you to help.


Insurgents are killing innocent civilians than American troops I wonder why? Why would you say that we don't have enough troops to kill a million of them? We have enough troops to kill millions of Muslims, but I wonder why? O yeah because we are helping them. Insurgents seem to be killing more civilians than we are, again I ask why. The Shiites and the Kurds asked for help, Sunnis didn't, majority wins. Remember that the Shiites expected America's help after Gulf War? And Saddam put it down. And the Shiites didn't trust us to help them again. Not to mention the Kurds.




So peace across the globe doesnt work? but attacking a country and pretty much turning it into rubble works? Killing thousands of people and destroying lives works? And what do you hope to achieve.......maybe out of every 100 people you kill, you might be able to bag that 1 extremist muslim who threatens your country?


Peace don't solve everything, nor does war, but the option that provides the best is chosen.



I already answered your question. Yet you post a reply asking for the same answer. Please read carefully before you post a reply.


If you have, please repeat it so I can understand what that reply was on.

[edit on 11-10-2006 by deltaboy]



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by half_minded

The attacks carried out by Bush were against the will of other world leaders and also not supported by the UN. Enough said. I am sure you can do the math and see who is the bully here.


The UN didn't support America's invasion of Afghanistan, so why should we listen to them.



Job unfinished? You mean the job of killing more people? Coz Saddam is out of power which was supposed to be your motive in the first place. And anyways, my point of argument was that Bush should have attacked NK rather than Iraq.


You mean killing more insurgents and prevent civil war. We should be attacking a non-Muslim country you mean? Since you are a Muslim yourself. No doubt you wouldn't support America's invasion of Afghanistan because its a Muslim country, understandably.



No I did not forget about the 'Axis of evil' crap. I even mentioned it in my original post. I suggest you read it first before making assumptions about me. So Clinton did peace talks and from what I see, NK did not test or use nukes then. But now however, under Bush power, NK successfully managed to test a nuke and even threaten to launch it. Bravo BUSH. I guess every individual in the world should follow suit and never resolve anything by peaceful talks, instead use force and aggression. Simple Rule. Attack First Talk Later. Bravo!


Wrong, Clinton made an agreement that NK would not make nukes, NK failed to comply, in fact NK admitted in 2002 that they been secretly enriching uranium for years before Bush came into power. So it aint so BRAVO.



Funny indeed! So then if technology is only good on paper then why waste billions of dollars of tax payer money on advancing technology. The whole world knows that US military superiority is largely due to its technological superiority rather than size of military. And if you read my post carefully you will notice that I mention that US has military all over world for OIL and WORLD DOMINATION. Just like carefully placed chess pieces. Only waiting for checkmate.


That is based on your opinion. O yes I remember that we pulled troops out of Saudi Arabia, which is considered the most oil producing nation in the world. I wonder why. So much for conquering or world domination.



Ok Ok...this is funny. So you agree you have false intel most of the time. And yet you support bush and his administration. You can pretty much attack anyone you see as a threat? Who in the world gave you that power? Serbia was not a threat to america and yet you bombed it.


Yeah it is funny, since you are a Muslim you probably supported our bombing of Serbia which was committing genocide against Albanian Muslims. Nothing to do with oil, very funny indeed.


So you agree Bush acts mostly on false intel and also attacks countries which are not a threat to america. And yet you are here supporting Bush. You got me confused there.


Countries as more than one. We know for a fact that Afghanistan was one nation that must be invaded. Iraq under Saddam must be removed since the perception is that we use preemptive strike instead of waiting. I still support Bush. False intel on WMDs mistaken by CIA. Bush is now trying to promote democracy in Iraq which I support.



Please read the question before you make assumptions. And you picked one sentence out of context and tried to make it look like a simple question when its more than clear that the question was aimed at the entire post in general and not just the sentence right before it. Again I urge you to actually read carefully before posting replies.


Again clarify your question. Anyways, if you want to know why I believe Al Qaeda had something to do with it, its based on evidence from interrogations of top Al Qaeda members and Osama's admission and justification of the attacks on America in 2004 as well as the 2001 confession tape. Simple see.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join