Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: 240 is Back on January 03, 2007, 02:29:32 PM
-
How many wars has obama started in the last 6 years?
How many soldiers has obama gotten killed in the last 6 years?
Thanks in advance!
-
240 hates black people
(http://www.celebopedia.com/kanye-west/images/kanye-west.jpg)
-
How many wars has obama started in the last 6 years?
How many soldiers has obama gotten killed in the last 6 years?
Thanks in advance!
The same number of people Saddam has tortured/inprisoned/mutilated/executed since he was caught.
The same number of people in the USA that Al Queda and the terrorist network has bombed/murdered/crashed airplanes into since we started stomping thier guts out world wide.
-
How has the death rate in Iraq looked since we won that war? ;) Sadaam kept better peace than you guys are, sorry, but its' true. Less life was lost under sadaam. Less innocents died. Sorry again, but it's true.
You wish... Why don't you take some time to figure out how many INNOCENTS Saddam MURDERED since coming to power and than double that for what would've happened if we never went there. And that's a conservative estimate. It's a drastic change in a radical part of the world. War ALWAYS gets worse before it gets better.
Hey, how many people in the USA were "bombed/murdered/crashed airplanes into" BEFORE a very shady GW Bush took office?
0.
Classic liberal.. blames the conservative prez. for acts committed by foreign terrorists. Shame shame.
-
DOUBLE THAT? Sadaam killed one million in 22 years. What evidence do you have that he would have killed ONE MILLION PEOPLE from 2003 to 2006? (kinda a bold statement ya made there)
I was figuring leaving him in power for many years to come. Get it?
Do you think it's easier for jihadists to kill Americans on US soil, or in the middle east?
You want them killing women and children over here for many many years or do you want our soldiers killing them (and being killed) over there?
-
What difference does it make how many people Saddam killed?
How many people were being killed in Darfur in the last few years?
How many americans did he kill is a better question.
-
Also Saddam wasn;t going to do anything to jepordize hiw power that would include:
- Harboring terrorist
- Supporting terror
- Harming US interests
He was under our thumb plain and simple and becuase of that Iraq was indirectly under our control in the above regards
Now we may just lose 400 billion for nothing and lose Iraq also.
-
What difference does it make how many people Saddam killed?
How many people were being killed in Darfur in the last few years?
How many americans did he kill is a better question.
To anyone that actually knows anything Darfur is a lost cause.
I'm sure glad Americans did something when Hitler was killing off a third of Europe. We could've just said "well he's not killing americans!"
-
Also Saddam wasn;t going to do anything to jepordize hiw power that would include:
- Harboring terrorist
- Supporting terror
- Harming US interests
Funny how he did all those and more.
-
To anyone that actually knows anything Darfur is a lost cause.
I'm sure glad Americans did something when Hitler was killing off a third of Europe. We could've just said "well he's not killing americans!"
Thank Japan for that. Hitler and Saddam? Are comparing the 2? you are not are you? Was Hitler invading 10 countries at once? Did Saddam have a "world power" army? com on dude.
Darfur a lost cause? Are you camparing this to Iraq it's current lost cause? ;)
-
Funny how he did all those and more.
reports befor ethe invasio had saddam not invovled in terrorist.
Think about it bulldog............. in the fear based histeria of 2002-2003 would we really have needed to sight WMD's if there was any concrete evidence of terrist invovlement? Of course not. We would have wave the terrorist flag and never brought up WMD.
But we didn;t because there wasn't a terrorist threat of harboring etc.. going on in any significant way in Iraq.
Think!
-
Thank Japan for that. Hitler and Saddam? Are comparing the 2? you are not are you? Was Hitler invading 10 countries at once? Did Saddam have a "world power" army? com on dude.
Were you willing to wait until he built one? Isolationism is ignorance.
Darfur a lost cause? Are you camparing this to Iraq it's current lost cause? ;)
Nope.
-
reports befor ethe invasio had saddam not invovled in terrorist.
Satellite photos had been watching terrorist camps for years. Of course our capabilities were classified making it really hard for that to be a reason to go.
Think about it bulldog............. in the fear based histeria of 2002-2003 would we really have needed to sight WMD's if there was any concrete evidence of terrist invovlement? Of course not. We would have wave the terrorist flag and never brought up WMD.
If we weren't concerned about Nat'l security.... then we could've used that. Of course he DID have WMD's and he DID use them. You have no arguement.
-
Were you willing to wait until he built one? Isolationism is ignorance.
Well then what about N. Korea and Iran? We've already just let them build nukes!
Not a good point to argue becuase Saddam didn;t have the capability, but the 2 countries who do we've nothing and we are committed in Iraq. Monster brilliance by the conservative admin.
Are you suggesting Saddam was more of a threat the wacked out leaders of N- Korea and Iran? I'm sure you are not. being they have nukes now.
-
How has the death rate in Iraq looked since we won that war? ;) Sadaam kept better peace than you guys are, sorry, but its' true. Less life was lost under sadaam. Less innocents died. Sorry again, but it's true.
Hey, how many people in the USA were "bombed/murdered/crashed airplanes into" BEFORE a very shady GW Bush took office?
0.
less life was lost under saddam? either you know your full of shit or you are misguided. saddam murderd between 750,000 and 1 million people.. you ignorent fool
-
Satellite photos had been watching terrorist camps for years. Of course our capabilities were classified making it really hard for that to be a reason to go.
our satellite capabilities have been common knowlege for years. So showing photos of camps wouldn't have been any big deal. All they would have had to do was show the public a few pics and off to war we all would havbe gladly gone. But they instead had to amke up a story about WMD's becuase there was no Threat.
What isn;t common knowledge is that we can measure how much gasoliine is in a gas tank of a car from UAV's.
So were are the WMD's? Why isn't the proof been waved in our faces? The Conservatives would have not lost the election if they could have justified the war.
Well?
-
Well then what about N. Korea and Iran? We've already just let them build nukes!
Not a good point to argue becuase Saddam didn;t have the capability, but the 2 countries who do we've nothing and we are committed in Iraq. Monster brilliance by the conservative admin.
Are you suggesting Saddam was more of a threat the wacked out leaders of N- Korea and Iran? I'm sure you are not. being they have nukes now.
When countries enter the nuclear arena diplomacy is almost the only option. Look at the consequences.
We could afford to go after saddam militarily but no western nation will push for that and risk nuclear war.
-
Well then what about N. Korea and Iran? We've already just let them build nukes!
Not a good point to argue becuase Saddam didn;t have the capability, but the 2 countries who do we've nothing and we are committed in Iraq. Monster brilliance by the conservative admin.
Are you suggesting Saddam was more of a threat the wacked out leaders of N- Korea and Iran? I'm sure you are not. being they have nukes now.
How about the fact Saddam had billions in cash that he stole from his people? We found a billion in cash in one of his palaces. I am certain that kind of cash was not being used for legitimate reasons. No telling who he was bankrolling. I don't think it's a stretch at all to say that money was used to support terrorists. We know he was giving financial rewards to the families of suicide bombers in Israel.
-
our satellite capabilities have been common knowlege for years. So showing photos of camps wouldn't have been any big deal. All they would have had to do was show the public a few pics and off to war we all would havbe gladly gone. But they instead had to amke up a story about WMD's becuase there was no Threat.
Our the terrorists might be gone before we got there. Strategically speaking it would have been wrong to devulge our capabilities. Yeah everyone knows we can take pictures but what no one else needed to know is what exactly we were taking pictures of. Of course no one acknowledges that Iraq was harboring them. That would be disasterous for your argument.
What isn;t common knowledge is that we can measure how much gasoliine is in a gas tank of a car from UAV's.
So were are the WMD's? Why isn't the proof been waved in our faces? The Conservatives would have not lost the election if they could have justified the war.
Media BURIES that information. It WAS known and it WAS shown. We found him with loads of VX gas. And, once again, the WMD's we watched go "other" places right before our invasion isn't something our gov't wants to acknowledge openly. The things you see from my side are a little difference when you have accessto privalidged information.
-
Whenever anyone compares Saddam to Hitler it is absolutely mind-boggling. it's like they have no clue what hitler did. I am speechless.
As it applies here the argument makes perfect sense. Innocents being murdered/tortures in large numbers... act or don't act.
-
Well then what about N. Korea and Iran? We've already just let them build nukes!
Not a good point to argue becuase Saddam didn;t have the capability, but the 2 countries who do we've nothing and we are committed in Iraq. Monster brilliance by the conservative admin.
Are you suggesting Saddam was more of a threat the wacked out leaders of N- Korea and Iran? I'm sure you are not. being they have nukes now.
Anyone who gets a nuke is because secretely we allowed it and wanted it to happen...As soon as they use one of their nukes any where in the world, they will be wiped off the map...
In the eyes of our government why wouldn't they want them to have one?...Even if Iran set off a moble nuke in grand central station, in the whole scheme of things, does it really doesn't matter?...We would have total control of the middle east...This government would probably drop a few in Iraq also...They are already telling us the Iran controls Iraq...
-
You see no difference between Hitler invading soverign nations, and Sadaam killing people inside his own borders?
This whole international law thing - they don't teach that in boot camp?
Of course there is a difference, don't ask stupid questions. What we DO about it is the same.
Didn't Saddam invade a soveirgn nation? Oh yeah and we didn't finish the job the first time. Glad we did this time.
-
Of course there is a difference, don't ask stupid questions. What we DO about it is the same.
Didn't Saddam invade a soveirgn nation? Oh yeah and we didn't finish the job the first time. Glad we did this time.
Don't try and confuse people with the facts. Yes Saddam invaded a sovereign nation and was about to invade a second before we stopped him.
-
you're referring to 1991, and that was resolved with sanctions.
This was a new war for new reasons.
Resolved with sanctions... ah HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!@!!!!!!!
oh jeez
Hey, maybe we should go an invade england for f'king up DC in 1812... whatddya think?
Sure ... I dub you in charge of making up rediculus nonsense and inventing a conspiracy.
-
brix - are you now saying that Bush2 invaded Iraq not for any of the reasons we were told, but now, it was to finish 1991?
Make up your mind :)
All of the above... we let saddam off and he just gave us more reasons.
-
oh, so um, 6 reasons now? Since WMD, the main reason, fell thru, you want to play the 1991 card?
LOL... so are you cool with invading england for 1812 or what?
I have always said that even without WMDs (which did exist) we had more than enough reason to go. I've never changed my story on this just because I have to spend more time defending certain motives.
No... we can forget about england... even they didn't want our women and children slaughtered.
-
I think perhaps everyone should ask themselves that one question:
What has happened to the foreign relations of USA during George W Bush's time in office?
Have they improved? Have they worsened? Have they stayed the same?
Who would give GWB approval after that? :-\
I don't think any Republican or Democrat would. I doubt even George Bush Sr approves.
His father, Clinton, Reagan, Nixon or just about any president, has been better suited for office than GWB. He's a Dan Quayle with ADHD and flatulation disorder.
-Hedge
-
you're referring to 1991, and that was resolved with sanctions.
This was a new war for new reasons.
??? It was resolved with military action. ::) I know I'm wasting my time here, but you tried to draw a distinction between Hitler and Saddam based on Hitler invading sovereign nations and Saddam killing people inside his own country: "You see no difference between Hitler invading sovereign nations, and Saddam killing people inside his own borders?" The fact is Saddam did invade a sovereign nation was going to invade another before we stopped him with military action, not sanctions. Poor analogy.
-
How many wars has obama started in the last 6 years?
How many soldiers has obama gotten killed in the last 6 years?
Thanks in advance!
bump
-
How many wars has obama started in the last 6 years?
How many soldiers has obama gotten killed in the last 6 years?
Thanks in advance!
Well he has been president for two years,so since he has kept us in both wars,and increased the military presence in Afghanastan,wouldnt the question be ,how many American soldiers has Obama sent to their deaths in last two years of presidency?
My question is,what has Obama done to decrease the deaths in last two years.As far as I can see,not a dam thing.
-
Ha ha 240 are you sure you did not vote for Bama?
-
Ha ha 240 are you sure you did not vote for Bama?
Of course he voted for Obama.The Bob Barr lie is idiotic.He rants about amnesty and Barr was for it.Unless your telling me he doesnt know what his candidates are for and he votes out of ignorance.
-
Of course he voted for Obama.The Bob Barr lie is idiotic.He rants about amnesty and Barr was for it.Unless your telling me he doesnt know what his candidates are for and he votes out of ignorance.
Some of 240's old threads are really going to come back t bite him unless he deletes them all. ha ha ha ha