saddam should have died in '92

Hey! That missile was fine when I left it there. How was I supposed to know it wasn't supposed to be set to a 20 second timed detonation. They should have worked faster.
 
saddam should be dead back in the old 50's when he was runing lose on the streets with a stolen AK...
 
Who wants to take bets on when we'll see osama in handcuffs? I say around 1 or 2 months before november 04!
 
well if iraq turns out to be a very profitable, prosperous and safe country then you guys will be the ones with egg on your faces. just sit back and see where they go from here. i know i've said bush is a monkey (and i still believe he is), but he isn't the sole person responsible for rebuilding iraq. there are thousands of normal and competent people behind this drive. so let's sit back for a while and see what happens.
 
I don't think it will be any different then Afganistan, wich is currently in turmoil :/
 
Oh because contries can magically become the greatest places on earth over night. Even western countries which are supposed to be setting examples, have massive problems such as crime.
 
I don't think it will be any different then Afganistan, wich is currently in turmoil :/

The lad's got a point. Look what happened over there. Did the US manage to clean it up, get the country back on its feet? Don't be silly. While I wish it weren't true, I doubt Iraq will be any different.
 
Dedalus said:
well if iraq turns out to be a very profitable, prosperous and safe country then you guys will be the ones with egg on your faces. just sit back and see where they go from here. i know i've said bush is a monkey (and i still believe he is), but he isn't the sole person responsible for rebuilding iraq. there are thousands of normal and competent people behind this drive. so let's sit back for a while and see what happens.

true enough, but he shouldn't have gone in there in the first place. He provoked war with a country that was not a global threat as he said and didn't have capabilities to even harm usa. No weapons of mass destruction has even been found yet. But lets not turn this into a bush competance debate, as they all turn into.
 
JonTheCanuck said:
true enough, but he shouldn't have gone in there in the first place. He provoked war with a country that was not a global threat as he said and didn't have capabilities to even harm usa. No weapons of mass destruction has even been found yet. But lets not turn this into a bush competance debate, as they all turn into.


But thats just. If they dont threaten us, then we should bother...great attitude. They had to go on about WMD's and the global threat, because otherwise they wouldnt have had a chance getting support. They saveda lot of people from an oppresive regime. Yes, they country still has problems, but at least they can be sorted out now. Before, what hope did the iraqis have? Saddam would have died eventually..but then what happens when his successors carve the country up because they all want power. THen they have even worse dictatorships. This could have been about oil, but the US has the second largest oil reserve in the world, they just dont want to use it before everyone else. THe dont have to get th eoil from Iraq, but its a nice bonus if they do. Liberating the coutry has given them something far more important than oil contracts from the middle east. Its given them an allie right in the heart of the middle east. Something they have needed for a long while.
 
I thought this was about some missiles going off in Israel a long time ago.
 
Back
Top