++ [ originally posted by TonyMontana ] ++
You havent got a clue what you are talking about. Seriously, not a clue.
1. The casualty argument is weak and full of holes, I remeber seing Iraqi people celebrating the day they tore down the huseein statue. Also figures show that 75% of the iraqi population was greatfull for the removal of Saadam. Of course there are other figures that show that 90% of the population wanted the Americans to leave directly after removing him.
Also a casualty argument is in black/white, meaning that it doesnt take into consideration all other aspects of the war and only concentrates on the deathcount. With your reasoning Europe should of just let Hitler take over without putting up a fight.
The Iraq war was good at the wrong time and for the wrong reasons.
All of the countries in the world agree Sadaams removal was a good thing.
Except for some muslim nations.
however they feel it should of been done ten years ago and he should never of had power from the start. America put him in power and sold him weapons. This is one of the many mistake done by america throuh time. But dont think for one second it was wrong to remove him. Sure it would be great to do so without the cost of lives, but Sadaam wouldnt abdicate and go into exil, he had that opportunity and he didnt take it. This was the only way for him to be removed.
Sadaams wars put together has had ten times the deathcount then that of the recent Iraqi war.
You assumptions are ridicoulusly wrong. Who feeds you this stuff?
1.Removin a president after a terrorist attack wouldnt happen(there are circumstance where it could, but this isnt one of them) simply because it sends out all the wrong messages to the terrorist and the rest of the world.
They terrorists would probaly only strengthen by any country removing their president after an attack and would get the feeling that what they are doing is actually working. Not to mention they would take this as a sign of weakness and probably only go on with their stupid senseless "holy war". The rest of the world would interpret this as a sign of weakness as well and the country would lose power in the UN, and as i already mentioned a nation under attack stand by their leader.
Think of Tony Blair and the terroristattack in England.
Youre whole argument is full of holes and viewed from one point of view only. Too see the big picture you can never go solely on stats, just like in soccer it doesnt paint a Picasso.
Peace
You havent got a clue what you are talking about. Seriously, not a clue.
1. The casualty argument is weak and full of holes, I remeber seing Iraqi people celebrating the day they tore down the huseein statue. Also figures show that 75% of the iraqi population was greatfull for the removal of Saadam. Of course there are other figures that show that 90% of the population wanted the Americans to leave directly after removing him.
Also a casualty argument is in black/white, meaning that it doesnt take into consideration all other aspects of the war and only concentrates on the deathcount. With your reasoning Europe should of just let Hitler take over without putting up a fight.
The Iraq war was good at the wrong time and for the wrong reasons.
All of the countries in the world agree Sadaams removal was a good thing.
Except for some muslim nations.
however they feel it should of been done ten years ago and he should never of had power from the start. America put him in power and sold him weapons. This is one of the many mistake done by america throuh time. But dont think for one second it was wrong to remove him. Sure it would be great to do so without the cost of lives, but Sadaam wouldnt abdicate and go into exil, he had that opportunity and he didnt take it. This was the only way for him to be removed.
Sadaams wars put together has had ten times the deathcount then that of the recent Iraqi war.
You assumptions are ridicoulusly wrong. Who feeds you this stuff?
1.Removin a president after a terrorist attack wouldnt happen(there are circumstance where it could, but this isnt one of them) simply because it sends out all the wrong messages to the terrorist and the rest of the world.
They terrorists would probaly only strengthen by any country removing their president after an attack and would get the feeling that what they are doing is actually working. Not to mention they would take this as a sign of weakness and probably only go on with their stupid senseless "holy war". The rest of the world would interpret this as a sign of weakness as well and the country would lose power in the UN, and as i already mentioned a nation under attack stand by their leader.
Think of Tony Blair and the terroristattack in England.
Youre whole argument is full of holes and viewed from one point of view only. Too see the big picture you can never go solely on stats, just like in soccer it doesnt paint a Picasso.
Peace
My god !!!
I'm agreeing with TonyMontana
Buy on AliExpress.com