Osama 48 replies

Please wait...

NiteStryker

Biggest F-ing A-hole 2010

215,560 XP

24th April 2003

0 Uploads

18,771 Posts

0 Threads

#41 16 years ago

yod@how can capturing him be not important , who knows what plans he is making?[/QUOTE]

Because he is not the sole leader anymore. He was more valuable years ago when al-queda was growing....now he is like removing 10 cancer cels in a tumor - it will help but there is so much more

[QUOTE=]Kerry was lied to, he changed his mind because he had false information that was given to him by a man who knew that they were lies.

Whatever, You can make excuses all you want in his defence Mihail....




yod@

I'm way cooler than n0e (who isn't though?)

50 XP

14th April 2004

0 Uploads

4,898 Posts

0 Threads

#42 16 years ago

saddam too was not as dangerous as he was a decade ago why did they go to depose him?




NiteStryker

Biggest F-ing A-hole 2010

215,560 XP

24th April 2003

0 Uploads

18,771 Posts

0 Threads

#43 16 years ago

because we knew where he was....osama could be pretty much anywhere




Octovon

Spaceman

54,945 XP

5th August 2003

0 Uploads

5,317 Posts

0 Threads

#44 16 years ago
NiteStrykerbecause we knew where he was....osama could be pretty much anywhere

Yet the US sends 140,000+ soldiers to Iraq to invade and occupy a nation who had no involvement in 9/11 and who's ties to terrorism were limited to sending money to Palestinian militants. For that reason, the US could have invaded any Middle Eastern country, even Saudi Arabia. Those 140,000+ soldiers could have been better used in Afghanistan, the country Bush has forgotten about, the country which has returned to mostly warlord control, the country where its puppet government's power does not extend farther than the capital. If Bush and all the other countries who invaded Afghanistan [including my own] had sent more troops to Afghanistan, I'm sure we could have found Osama by now. Its a lot easier.

Instead, Bush invades another country for some Black Gold, no terrorist links, no WMDs, nothing. Is their proof of any of those lies? Barely, and what there is, are half-truths. Terrorism? America only helped Israel by stopping financial aid to some of the militants, while Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Kuwait, Qatar, Yemen, etc continue their aid to Palestinian militants. Its an even better thing to say that the invasion of Iraq has only proven to be a breeding ground for terrorism in Iraq as the slaughter of innocent Iraqi civilians [which now far outnumbers those killed in 9/11] is reasonably good reason for more widespread anti-americanism. WMDs? Less than ten shells and rockets hardly proves the capability for Saddam to use biological or chemical weapons on the battlefield in 45 minutes warning. He was no threat to anyone but his own people, which is a good reason to depose him through invasion, well not really, mess up an entire country for one man? Not really worth it.

Bush made a bigger flop than all of Kerry's combined by switching from Al-Queda to Saddam.




NiteStryker

Biggest F-ing A-hole 2010

215,560 XP

24th April 2003

0 Uploads

18,771 Posts

0 Threads

#45 16 years ago

OctovonYet the US sends 140,000+ soldiers to Iraq who's ties to terrorism were limited to sending money to Palestinian militants. [/QUOTE] Thats still links to terrorism...money transferance

OctovonFor that reason, the US could have invaded any Middle Eastern country, even Saudi Arabia.[/QUOTE] We probably will

OctovonThose 140,000+ soldiers could have been better used in Afghanistan,[/QUOTE] I agree with that.
Octovon the country Bush has forgotten about, [/QUOTE] Dont think he 'forgot' about it..he is kinda running a war in another country

Octovon the country which has returned to mostly warlord control, the country where its puppet government's power does not extend farther than the capital. [/QUOTE] Its gonna take time to fix the government

Octovon If Bush and all the other countries who invaded Afghanistan [including my own] had sent more troops to Afghanistan, I'm sure we could have found Osama by now. Its a lot easier. [/QUOTE] Afghanistan is a very large mountainious region. He only needs a 10 square feet to live comfortably...there are extensive caves all around that region. He prolly isnt in Afghanistan, hes in the pakistani mountains, im guessing

OctovonInstead, Bush invades another country for some Black Gold, [/QUOTE] Prove he went their for oil. All you liberals keep toting that whistle...prove it then...if we wanted oil we'd go to Saudi Arabia

Octovonno terrorist links,
wait, you contradict yourself now, you said in the second line [QUOTE=]Iraq who's ties to terrorism were limited to sending money to Palestinian militants

Thats a terrorist tie, nomatter how u try 2 spin it

[QUOTE=Octovon]no WMDs, nothing.

Other than the 40 tons of chemical gas found at the syrian border, some assorted gasses, a nerve gas shell? There were WMD's, just not the stockpiles in the cave wraped up all pretty with a bow. And when he gassed his own people in the 90's, im sure he didnt do it with oxygen...

[QUOTE=Octovon]America only helped Israel by stopping financial aid to some of the militants, while Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Kuwait, Qatar, Yemen, etc continue their aid to Palestinian militants.

They should be dealt with

[QUOTE=Octovon] Its an even better thing to say that the invasion of Iraq has only proven to be a breeding ground for terrorism in Iraq as the slaughter of innocent Iraqi civilians [which now far outnumbers those killed in 9/11] is reasonably good reason for more widespread anti-americanism.

Prove the number of civlians that have been killed is over 3,000...

[QUOTE=Octovon]WMDs? Less than ten shells and rockets hardly proves the capability for Saddam to use biological or chemical weapons on the battlefield in 45 minutes warning.

More than 10 shells....and where the hell did you get the '45 minute warning' from?

[QUOTE=Octovon]He was no threat to anyone but his own people, which is a good reason to depose him through invasion, well not really, mess up an entire country for one man? Not really worth it.

The country was a messed up place anyway. Supposedly the "Cradle of Civilization" was a place where you were shot for not thinking Saddam was the greatest.

[QUOTE=Octovon]Bush made a bigger flop than all of Kerry's combined by switching from Al-Queda to Saddam.

How do you kno he did that? You have no proof. The media focused on the war alot and not alot of AL-Queda....




yod@

I'm way cooler than n0e (who isn't though?)

50 XP

14th April 2004

0 Uploads

4,898 Posts

0 Threads

#46 16 years ago

if transgerence of money means terrorism u.s is the biggest of all because

all of the terrorists inclusive of osama were financed by u.s to fight against russia




Octovon

Spaceman

54,945 XP

5th August 2003

0 Uploads

5,317 Posts

0 Threads

#47 16 years ago
NiteStrykerDont think he 'forgot' about it..he is kinda running a war in another country[/QUOTE] Begging to ask the question, why is he running a war in another country? Especially since the one he previously invaded was not yet stable or in full control.
NiteStrykerIts gonna take time to fix the government[/QUOTE] Karzai's power does not extend outside the capital. Warlords [including pro-Taliban warlords], Opium drug lords, and tribal leaders have slowly reclaimed most of the country under their rule. It will take more than just time to fix Afghanistan.
NiteStrykerProve he went their for oil. All you liberals keep toting that whistle...prove it then...if we wanted oil we'd go to Saudi Arabia[/QUOTE] You already buy oil from Saudi Arabia, you dont have to invade them for that. When US forces entered Baghdad, what was the first government building that they went to to protect, the Iraqi Oil Ministry. At the same time, banks were being robbed, the Iraqi National Museum was pilfered along with many ancient artifacts from Sumerian, Babylonian, Assyrian, etc civilizations. Thousands of years of history, gone.

NiteStrykerThats a terrorist tie, nomatter how u try 2 spin it[/QUOTE] In my opinion, so is financing Sharon's Israel. Supporting a nation that uses violent means to effect change in another land [which can also be argued that is in defense, but who entered the Dome on the Rock in 2001 that started this recent intifadah? Sharon, he started this one].

As for Saddam's role in all this, if you were a leader of a Middle Eastern country and saw that your "brother's" land was being annexed and their homes destroyed by tank and helicopter gunship fire by a country supported largely impart by the largest most powerful nation on the planet, who also happens to be your enemy, would you sit idle and let 'your' people die?

The US did the same thing in Afghanistan in the '80s. You financed and armed rebels to fight against the Soviets who entered Afghanistan to help the Marxist government remain in power. Ironic that most of those same rebels would later turn on their former friends.

NiteStrykerOther than the 40 tons of chemical gas found at the syrian border, some assorted gasses, a nerve gas shell? There were WMD's, just not the stockpiles in the cave wraped up all pretty with a bow. And when he gassed his own people in the 90's, im sure he didnt do it with oxygen...
The gassing in halabja in 1988 was in response to the Iranian-Kurdish alliance of the Iran-Iraq War. At the time, Saddam ordered his army to destroy kurdish villages by conventional means, but when that did not work, he approved the use of chemical weapons. It is also speculated that Iran may have gassed Halabja in '88, but that has not been proven so far as yet. US-supported Saddam was being pressured from two fronts. In the '90s he did not gas his own people, he killed them by conventional means when Bush Sr. told them to rise up and did nothing to aid them. [QUOTE=NiteStryker]They should be dealt with
Oh what a great idea, its about time someone goes on another Crusade :rolleyes: [QUOTE=NiteStryker]Prove the number of civlians that have been killed is over 3,000...
Iraq Body Count. The number of civilians reportedly killed in Iraq is between 11510 and 13483. The US military does not count the number of civilians it kills, it would make them look bad. [QUOTE=NiteStryker]More than 10 shells....and where the hell did you get the '45 minute warning' from?
The '45-minutes' was one of Tony Blair's reasons to bolster claims to invade Iraq. It was that Saddam could depoly his chemical and biological arsenals against foreign nations within 45 minutes. This was later proven to be faulty intelligence. Here's an article about Blair's faulty intel: here. [QUOTE=NiteStryker]The country was a messed up place anyway. Supposedly the "Cradle of Civilization" was a place where you were shot for not thinking Saddam was the greatest.

Well it did not help that the UN imposed sanctions against Iraq for the 10 years prior to the war, in which more than a million children were thought to have died.




obijon1138

CyBeR-plague

50 XP

15th July 2004

0 Uploads

153 Posts

0 Threads

#48 16 years ago

Ok, I thought this thread was about Bin Laden not Saddam and the whole Jihad that has been going on since we settled the Jewish nation in their native homeland after the Nazi's slaughtered over 6 million of them in slavery....anyway.

Osama is alive. The military has him. The Commander in Chief has given them some bull$#1t order so he can pull the magic rabbit out of the hat to win the election. Our boys did their job and now some politician is just going to use them again for clout. Give those service guys a break...they deserve it! Of course this is just a theory...I know nothing, but I wouldn't put it past ANY politician.




NiteStryker

Biggest F-ing A-hole 2010

215,560 XP

24th April 2003

0 Uploads

18,771 Posts

0 Threads

#49 16 years ago

OctovonBegging to ask the question, why is he running a war in another country? Especially since the one he previously invaded was not yet stable or in full control.[/QUOTE] Ask him...i am not physic...

OctovonKarzai's power does not extend outside the capital. Warlords [including pro-Taliban warlords], Opium drug lords, and tribal leaders have slowly reclaimed most of the country under their rule. It will take more than just time to fix Afghanistan.[/QUOTE] Ok...well now we gotta fix 2 countries

OctovonYou already buy oil from Saudi Arabia, you dont have to invade them for that. When US forces entered Baghdad, what was the first government building that they went to to protect, the Iraqi Oil Ministry. [/QUOTE] Cuz thats Iraq's main source for money..thats not proof we went their for oil, quit avoiding the question. I want solid, hardcore proof that the war was for oil.

BTW, want to see something amusing? Look @ this: http://costofwar.com/

Octovon At the same time, banks were being robbed, the Iraqi National Museum was pilfered along with many ancient artifacts from Sumerian, Babylonian, Assyrian, etc civilizations. Thousands of years of history, gone.[/QUOTE] And actually i think thay have tracked quite a bit of it down, but i could be wrong

OctovonIn my opinion, so is financing Sharon's Israel. Supporting a nation that uses violent means to effect change in another land [which can also be argued that is in defense, but who entered the Dome on the Rock in 2001 that started this recent intifadah? Sharon, he started this one]. [/QUOTE] Agreed with

OctovonAs for Saddam's role in all this, if you were a leader of a Middle Eastern country and saw that your "brother's" land was being annexed and their homes destroyed by tank and helicopter gunship fire by a country supported largely impart by the largest most powerful nation on the planet, who also happens to be your enemy, would you sit idle and let 'your' people die?[/QUOTE] Are u asking me as if I were Saddam?

[QUOTE=Octovon]The US did the same thing in Afghanistan in the '80s. You financed and armed rebels to fight against the Soviets who entered Afghanistan to help the Marxist government remain in power. Ironic that most of those same rebels would later turn on their former friends.

Yes...agreed with there

[QUOTE=Octovon]The gassing in halabja in 1988 was in response to the Iranian-Kurdish alliance of the Iran-Iraq War. At the time, Saddam ordered his army to destroy kurdish villages by conventional means, but when that did not work, he approved the use of chemical weapons. It is also speculated that Iran may have gassed Halabja in '88, but that has not been proven so far as yet.

Thats still chemical weapons...

[QUOTE=Octovon] US-supported Saddam was being pressured from two fronts. In the '90s he did not gas his own people,

Ok I may be thinking the 80's then, my bad...

[QUOTE=Octovon]Iraq Body Count. The number of civilians reportedly killed in Iraq is between 11510 and 13483.

I dont kno if I trust that...can u find 1 other source for verification?

[QUOTE=Octovon]The '45-minutes' was one of Tony Blair's reasons to bolster claims to invade Iraq. It was that Saddam could depoly his chemical and biological arsenals against foreign nations within 45 minutes. This was later proven to be faulty intelligence. Here's an article about Blair's faulty intel: here.

Ah ok, I was wondering why ppl kept saying that

[QUOTE=Octovon]Well it did not help that the UN imposed sanctions against Iraq for the 10 years prior to the war, in which more than a million children were thought to have died.

But most people wanted more sanctions instead of war anyhow...

and only the civilians suffered...saddam was doing plenty of udnerground buisness to feed his empire