monkeys-r-orange
Jun 13 2005, 12:55 AM
| | EVERYONE IS WRONG ABOUT THE IRAQ WAR!!!!!!!!!!!!
People say that Bush is a monster and had no right to invade Iraq.
Well...
THAT'S NOT TRUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bush decided to invade Iraq because he and his cabinet had substancial evidance that Iraq had WMD(Weapons of Mass Destruction). The only reason the UN's inspectors didn't find any is because they told the Iraqies beforehand that they were going to search an area. Subsequently giving them time to remove or hide WMD. There are also satalite pictures of large trucks parked at a building the day before the inspectors arive and the trucks are gone the next day. Meaning... the inspectors are not able to inspect the trucks.
One more thing.
The reason no one in America likes the French and the reason they didn't help in the war in Iraq is because nearly HALF of the weapons used to kill American soldiers were given to the Iraqies by the French. |
Reply
Mikalah
Jun 13 2005, 02:12 AM
Sorry but I completely disagree, I don't even know where you got that information about weapons of mass destruction, but what the public knows is that there are no weapons of mass destruction. What I think is that Bush only used that and the democracy thing as an excuse to get more oil, he also just wants to finish what his father did. And I don't think you can justify 150,000 Iraqi lives for something they never even asked for in the first place. Bush also says we were attacked first which is Bull Sh*t, seriously it was Bin Laden not the innocent Iraqis, sure they have some bad people in thier country (Hussein) but is that any reason to kill so many innocent people. Everycountry has a few evil people in it. This is just my opinion 
Reply
monkeys-r-orange
Jun 13 2005, 03:40 AM
Ok, in case you haven't noticed, if Bush was in it for the oil, gasoline prices all over the country wouldn't be so high there Doctor Brain Surgeon!
Reply
aotlo
Jun 13 2005, 06:37 AM
i fully agree with the war, sure lots of people have died but if you look at how many people we have lost in previous wars we have been in we are doing fairly well. ya, the gas prices would be lower if he was in it for the oil.
Reply
Harisn
Jun 13 2005, 09:41 AM
Regardless of whether Bush is a monster or not, his original goals were unsuccessful, which many people seem to ignore. If they could've been successful by giving no warning before going into Iraq and therefore giving them no time to hide the weapons of mass destruction, Bush should've done that or whatever is needed to ensure that these weapons stay out of bad hands. If they really are gone, this is even worse than the original situation in that now we don't know where they are, whereas previously we had satellite images knowing exactly where they are as you claim. So, even if we do get oil, it is an expendable resource and prices are always going to go up. People need to realize that it won't be around forever and we will have to start switching to alternative modes of fuel.
Reply
monkeys-r-orange
Jun 13 2005, 10:35 AM
No no no no no!!!! That is completely false. Bush's goals were 1) to create a democratic government 2) to free the people of Iraq from Saddam He has done both of these things. You cannot say that he has done nothing or more harm than good. Saddam was killing his own people with mustard gas. It was a geniside. A GENISIDE!!!!!!!!!! Now I've heard a lot of people compare this war to the Vietnam War and how the death toll per day is almost equal. THIS IS NOT TRUE!!!!!!!!!! In Vietnam, we lost an average of 22 people per day. 22!! In Iraq right now, the average is less than 5 per day and most of them are from road-side bombs, not actual attacks on our troops.
Reply
dontmaimyourself
Jun 13 2005, 11:03 AM
Finally some one I can agree with, ok so at this spacific time I am totally p***** off at the amount of people still saying how it was an unjust war, I mean its happened already and no one can change that so what is the point in still protesting aginst it, I also agree with your statement that if it was about oil then petrol would not be so bloody expensive, but thats another matter. I also urge people who do not agree with the war to look at some of the things Saddam has done I mean this is a guy that if said something he did not like, he would feed you to his dogs. And also all those weapons he 'doesn't', well guess what he fired into Kuwait at the start of the war, thats right weapons he did 'not' have.
Reply
AbstracT
Jun 14 2005, 02:07 AM
I don't understand if Bush's goal was to free people of Sadaam because he is such a horriblt person why are people in Iraq killing for him..dying for him...sacrificing other people for him. We only see what the media wants us to see and We only think on what the media wants us to think on. If Sadaam is such a Tyrant why are so many people pushing for the United States to be out of Iraq. Why do they believe we were wrong to be there in the first place. Which is true because there were no WMD. I don't understand.
Reply
Twilight-seraphim
Jun 14 2005, 02:32 AM
well i do not agree w/ ur points. although they might have had WMD's or w/e and although it might not be "for the oil" or w/e... why attack iraq? i dont get it? same w/ afgantistan(sp?) why? who bombed america? saudi arabia. so why iraq? why afganistan? random. what u dont know is it's not only the oil that will make Bush some money, but his father is close to another company that produces weapons for war.... HUMMM...?! i dont mean to sound like i'm critisizing or w/e but that's my two cents.
Reply
Tyssen
Jun 14 2005, 02:55 AM
QUOTE(monkeys-r-orange @ Jun 13 2005, 10:55 AM) Bush decided to invade Iraq because he and his cabinet had substancial evidance that Iraq had WMD(Weapons of Mass Destruction). The only reason the UN's inspectors didn't find any is because they told the Iraqies beforehand that they were going to search an area.
The only reason? I think maybe the fact there weren't any to start with might have something to do with it. And this 'substantial evidence' you're talking about has been reported widely as having been falsified.
Reply
jmb2006
Jul 9 2005, 11:50 AM
well ive heard rumours that Bush just wanted Iraq's oil, after all they didn't actually find any Weapons of Mass Destruction do they?
Reply
Joshua
Jul 9 2005, 11:46 AM
QUOTE(NovaTerra @ Jun 21 2005, 02:27 AM) He wanted to finish up what his Father had not finished. The guy spoken of here? John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
Reply
vusay
Jun 23 2005, 06:41 AM
Yehr, I completely agree with you monkeys-r-orange. I am starting to get so annoyed by this 'Anti-Iraq-War' thing. It'sm gone too far. So if you disagree with this war, you disagree with the Gulf? He was firing Scuds! But it sounds like your trying to defend this mass mudering, heartless..... He IS a treat and you can't let a threat like him control a country! it's far too dangerous. However I do agree that Bush was boosted by the oil. But tony Blair. He's just the sheep. He took OUR army, no arguments please - the British have the best army in the world (That should hopefuly start an argument), and there all going off to sit in the desert. Ah! I need to stop before I get too mad.
Reply
Neutrality
Jun 22 2005, 01:31 AM
To the topic starter: I'm sorry, but to say that we are all wrong about our view on Iraq is a pretty ignorant way to start off a topic. It is well documented that WMDs were not found in Iraq. I'm not exactly sure if Bush was going for the oil when he first sent troops to Iraq, we can't say for sure. For all we know, he might have more of an agenda than that. You know how governments are these days. But anyways... Did/Do I support the war in Iraq? Yes and No. Yes because they are "liberating" the nation and fighting off the enemy. No because many innocent people are losing their lives in the process.
Reply
BordaForx
Jun 21 2005, 07:27 AM
QUOTE(wariorpk @ Jun 17 2005, 03:48 PM) I agree with you on some points. The fact is Saddam was a threat to America in my opinion. Also I think in the long run we are helping Iraq. But I also believe Bush had another motive like wanting oil or something but that can't be proven. He wanted to finish up what his Father had not finished.
Reply
Recent Queries:--
critisism in war of iraq - 58.97 hr back. (1)
Similar Topics
Keywords : wrong, iraq, war, tuth
- Vietnam/iraq
Some care to enlighten me on the difference? (10)
What's The Mission In Iraq?
(23) Bush will go down in history as the most stubborn and least wise of all Presidents of the USA. I
emphasize "least wise" because I feel that there is no wisdom being used - only bad intelligence
(remember the scene from "Team America"? Spotswoode "That was bad I.N.T.E.L.L.I.G.E.N.C.E., very
bad I.N.T.E.L.L.I.G.E.N.C.E."). So, Bush said very recently "There is one thing we will not do: We
will not pull our troops off the battlefield before the mission is complete." I know that he is
trying to straddle the line for support from moderate republicans, keeping up the "to....
The So-called War In Iraq
(8) I'm tired of hearing the news medi and the left bang the peace drum night after night constanty
calling for America to tuck tail and run. What realy gets me is that in a span of 5 years we as a
country of 300 million people have lost around 4 thousand of our brave sons and daughters which is
sad but when compared to the lives lost in most of our wars I would dare say we've been getting
off fairly easy concidering that in the second world war we lost three thousand men on an average
day. As a matter of fact on D. Day alone we lost 10 thousand men in one day. In Ko....
War In Iraq
you opposed to it? (11) So do you like the war or not? I think this IS a vent because i get to express my concerns about
the war... I think the war is "eh... I dont really care".... What do you think? ....
How Much Sovereignty Iraqi Authorities Really Has?
Iraq under Occupation (3) In the beginning, the U.S.-led Coalition forces said that their mission are liberation and not
occupation. In the summer of 2004, the U.S.-led Coalition Provision Authority handed over power to
an interim Iraqi government . In January 2005 was election to new Assembly to write the new
Consitution and new governement was declared. This week, a British force of more than 10 tanks
backed by helicopters attacked the central jail of Basra , and broke down the walls and freed two
British soldiers, allegedly undercover commandos dressed in Arab clothing, for allegedly shoot....
Current And Upcoming Gas Prices
Also discussion on my views of Iraq (25) Alright, I am 17 years old. From 8am to 3:15 pm I go to school. Right after school I work until 8-9
pm depending on the days. I make more than minimum wage. My truck gets about 25 miles per gallon.
Now you know a bit about me, The current gas prices in my are are close to $2.30 a gallon.
This is due to some circumstances in IRAQ, I have heard on Fox News that gas may reach up to 6
dollars a gallon in the next year or so. Driving to work and school cost me about 40 dollars a
week. That is about 1/3 my paycheck, Now, I know that were liberating IRAQ, and all b....
The War In Iraq
followup of "People Against The War..." (12) "People Against The War And The Soldiers" got a lot of attention, but it was just too long and
starting to go off topic (a topic that wasn't very clearly defined, but was basically about
patriotism and turned into a debate about the war). Hence, I create this FRESH topic... general
discussion about the War in Iraq. I'm a college student who is majoring in History and
Political Science, so I have a lot of experience with this controversy... was the war worth it?
First of all, I am very against President Bush... and this is what I think. Bush's policy is a ....
Looking for wrong, iraq, war, tuth
|
*RANDOM STUFF*
*SIMILAR VIDEOS*
Searching Video's for wrong, iraq, war, tuth
*MORE FROM TRAP17.COM*
|
advertisement
|
|
