Toggle shoutbox NYJETSFAN BANTER
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Iraq War Agree or Disagree
#2
Posted 19 April 2005 - 11:48 AM


Well YOU BETTER BLEED GREEN & WHITE!!!!
SANCHEZ IS OUR QB PERIOD!!!!
https://twitter.com/#!/NYJ_Rob3136
http://www.facebook....47353176?v=wall
http://www.nyjetsfan.../gg03on1050.mp3
S-Dubb: like if she was giving me a handjob and I saw that thumb I don't know how I'd react
#4 Guest_a1elbow_*
Posted 19 April 2005 - 12:35 PM
JSTOF, is that really the most constructive way to respond? I know you feel strongly about the war, and I understand (to some degree, as much as I can having never served in battle) why. But there are going to be people who never agree with war, and there are going to be people that will disagree with some wars. That doesn't take away from what you personally were fighting for.
As I have already said, I can't see how this war isn't largely about oil. A "rogue Country" (which is a statement I don't get. Rogue to whom? THe US doesn't listen to the UN, so I suppose it is rogue to us) was invaded. Why Iraq? Why not North Korea or any number of smaller, just as evil and oppressive dictatorships? Iraq is oil rich. As bad as things are over there right now, in the long run I think Iraq will be better off. But to me, that doesn't justify (to me) using faulty documents to convince the country war was the right thing.
I know you and your fellow soldiers went other there for noble reasons. Like a lot of people, you believed you were freeing a people from a horrible, villanous leader. And you did. I don't believe that the majority of our troops are torturers or sadistic. And I don't believe that any of our troops are war profiters, making money on the oil in Iraq.
But unfortunatly, I think you were sent over for two reasons. TO a lesser degree you were there to help free an oppressed people. But I also think the President and his oil company friends went out of their way to make this war happen because they knew that it would be good for their checkbooks.
#5
Posted 19 April 2005 - 12:48 PM
don't rule out vietnam so quickly
JSOTF what are we in Iraq for?

#6
Posted 19 April 2005 - 01:03 PM
i'm not sure how to do a url on the new site but check this out.
http://edition.cnn.c...5/spain.invest/
as for why not north korea or iran? iraq was the biggest threat. we are already stretched thin enough by the war in iraq. kerry tried to get elected by telling everyone how stretched thin our military is right now. real american. we were policing iraq since the end of the first gulf war. you guys want to have us over there policing sadam's ass until he croaks. castro is 80 now? bush tried everthing to get the guy to play ball. all sadam could say is *beep* you mr. bush. kerry asked why not iran or north korea? as if he would authorize any sort of war that we needed to partake in. people like him just care about staying popular. it's like people are blaming the president that we have enemies abroad.
americans that tell me we don't have the right to go around kicking the shit out of scumbag nations after the atrocities that were perpatrated against this country on 9/11 should be shot. i'm not a fascist i really just think they don't have there head on strait. people were dancing in the streets all over the world when the towers fell. this was BEFORE bush waged an aggressive war against terror. americans had all of there i will never forget signs on there lawns for a few months but guess what? americans have forgotten. i blame kerry and moore and all the other phoney americans that spread lies all across this nation to achieve their political goals. i, for one, will not fall prey to those kinds of lies.
#7 Guest_a1elbow_*
Posted 19 April 2005 - 01:23 PM
North Korea has been just as out of control and disrespectful as Iraq. We "knew" both countries were treying to get nuclear weapons. As it stands, a whole lot of legitimate men and women who are in a position to have seen all the information have determined that our info about Iraq was faulty. The weapons inspectors never found anything, and there were a lot more there than in North Korea. Now we know N. Korea has WMDs, even had them when we attacked.
And the terrorists who are executing Americans in Iraq are mostly NOT Al'Queda, but people opposed to us being there at all and those who want Saddam back in power. Once again, there has been plenty of documentation that Saddam and Al'Queda had very bad relations and that Bin Laden personally had denounced him for being too western.
What we did in Afghanistan was fine. They were fully harboring terrorists. What we did in Iraq was not. They didn't have the ties to Al' Queda that the Tallaban did. Even Bush no longer claims that, so don't use that as justification.
#8
Posted 19 April 2005 - 01:24 PM
The only thing I have to say about the war is THANK YOU, thank you for choosing to protect me and my family, giving me a little more peace of mind back, a glimpse of a better furture for my children.
Any of you who think this is an oil thing is wrong, yes the oil will be very valuable.... but do you really want that oil in the hands of people who will use it to buy and fund more weapons to use on you? Why do you think al queda is still there, why is iraq so important to them?
#9
Posted 19 April 2005 - 01:36 PM
North Korea has been just as out of control and disrespectful as Iraq. We "knew" both countries were treying to get nuclear weapons. As it stands, a whole lot of legitimate men and women who are in a position to have seen all the information have determined that our info about Iraq was faulty. The weapons inspectors never found anything, and there were a lot more there than in North Korea. Now we know N. Korea has WMDs, even had them when we attacked.
And the terrorists who are executing Americans in Iraq are mostly NOT Al'Queda, but people opposed to us being there at all and those who want Saddam back in power. Once again, there has been plenty of documentation that Saddam and Al'Queda had very bad relations and that Bin Laden personally had denounced him for being too western.
What we did in Afghanistan was fine. They were fully harboring terrorists. What we did in Iraq was not. They didn't have the ties to Al' Queda that the Tallaban did. Even Bush no longer claims that, so don't use that as justification.
N. Korea, and Bush is quoted to saying this, is not a threat to any of our closest allies. Not like Iraq is to Isreal. N. Korea also is a problem for India, China, Japan, and S. Korea. Now since everyone think Bush only makes enemies and then goes to war without allies then why has he been SO insistant on getting them to do something about their own damn problem. We defended those who needed defending and all those previously mentioned countries can in fact defend themselves. He wants them to do something about it. I believe it will be done. Oil is that the reason, you said it yourself, the oil prices are not going down. If it was for oil then that wouldn't be a problem. If it was about oil then we would have invaded the Saudis. Saddam was a very bad man, and I will believe until I die that we saved ourselves from even more terrorism in our country and around the world because we took action. Remember that we had a chance to do something about Hitler in 1939, but we didn't, and we payed the price of much greater magnitude and yet no one thinks that war was unnecessary. In history you either wait for a good reason to start a war, or you stop it before things get worse, usually the right thing is the wrong thing in the eyes of many.
#10 Guest_a1elbow_*
Posted 19 April 2005 - 01:49 PM
What about the North Korean people? Why does a country have to be our ally for us to want to stop an evil dictator with the means to wage massive destruction on them? What about stopping that country before they do something like Nazi Germany?
#11
Posted 19 April 2005 - 01:51 PM
the same thing would happen if we attacked them that happened in '51. we would push the n. koreans all the way to the yalu and the chinese would attack us. that probably wouldn't happen exactly like it did in the korean conflict because the they have nuclear wepons now. and no it's not mr. bush's fault that they have these either.
i have problems with bush too but compared to kerry he is a godsend. kerry was sitting up there blaming bush that n. korea had nukes now when his political stance on communist nations is to lift embargos on them. just like clinton. bush is no saint but kerry needs to be committed.
#12
Posted 19 April 2005 - 01:57 PM
#13
Posted 19 April 2005 - 03:03 PM
And were is all this oil that President Bush is recieving from this war?
Why was there a mural of 2 tall buildings with planes flying into them found in one of Sadams palaces?
Also, we are not killing Iraqis as much as we are killing individuals that are now entering the country to wage thier war against us...
There was a comment about the UN....I am going to look for an e-mail I got a long time ago about that fine organization......I will post it here for all to read, very interesting.........
#15
Posted 19 April 2005 - 03:15 PM
#16
Posted 19 April 2005 - 03:18 PM
Why didn't we go after bin laden 100% before we go off trying to defend other people. And if we as a nation are so concerned about injustices and mass killings, genocide, etc. What happened to Africa?
This is toal BS and is the cronies getting rich over spilled American blood are the Bush buddies. You can agree or whatever but respect other people's opinions.
IMHO
#18
Posted 19 April 2005 - 03:40 PM

Sign In
Register
Help



MultiQuote








