Seven against the world (2 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Vinman

2013 Prediction Cup Champ
Jul 16, 2002
11,481
++ [ 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

My god !!!

I'm agreeing with TonyMontana :eek:
 

Buy on AliExpress.com

Shoryuken

Senior Member
Jan 7, 2005
1,418
++ [ originally posted by jaecole ] ++
Not everyone one has stood by Blair and we haven't re-elected him since the attack. So it's wrong to make that assumption.
The assumption is that he wont be removed from office, not that he will be re-elected. Huge difference.
 

swag

L'autista
Administrator
Sep 23, 2003
83,474
++ [ originally posted by Seven ] ++
What I'm talking about is that America needs a president who softens their foreign policy. We've seen a lot of things from Bush, but intelligence isn't one of them. He's already responsible for a lot more innocent deaths due to his warfare than 9/11.
I wouldn't use the word "softens" per se. But one that actually acknowledges that the rest of the world isn't necessarily a bunch of illiterate savages who don't know what they're talking about would be an improvement.

As for intelligence, he's not a stupid man. He knows what he's doing and is doing it with purpose. I just don't happen to agree with much of it.

And I have said this before, in Iraq he has created a sort of 9/11 (in terms of human and economic costs) in the name of (on the surface) preventing another 9/11. And while TonyMontana rightfully points out that mere body counts aren't the only metric on which to base decisions of whether or not to invade Iraq, I also don't feel there's a good mental connection between the general public and the real sacrifices being made ... lives of just Americans being lost, the > $1,000 per person the war is currently costing every man, woman, and child in the U.S., etc. I don't think you can make good judgements until you have the right connection to information.

I honestly don't see why Americans would still stick by George W. Bush. What has the guy done right TBH? The war in Iraq was totally unacceptable and IMO only a breeding ground for future terrorists. Not only did Iraq provide some perfect training, it spread hatred around the world as well.
Not all Americans are alike. Believe it or not, there is a bit of disagreement and infighting that goes on regularly about this sort of thing. Bush's 50.73% of the popular vote in the last election doesn't exactly indicate a singular mind about things. So I'd suggest taking a step back before making gross generalizations.
 

The Pado

Filthy Gobbo
Jul 12, 2002
9,939
++ [ originally posted by Andy ] ++


You were speaking hypothetically? I thought your supposed brother was speaking hypothetically..

BUSTED!!!!!!!!!!




Seven, I was willing to believe that "your brother" was posting, but alas you have lost my trust. You must know that to be a good liar you must have a good memory. You sir, are a bad liar.
 
OP
Seven

Seven

In bocca al lupo, Fabio.
Jun 25, 2003
38,203
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #233
    ++ [ originally posted by Andy ] ++
    I guess Seven logged into the wrong account. :howler:
    I did actually. Makes sense since I was posting from our pc and not from my laptop.

    Once again, I don't care whether you believe he's my brother or not. I don't need him to back up my arguments anyway and I doubt he's willing to do that in the first place.
     
    OP
    Seven

    Seven

    In bocca al lupo, Fabio.
    Jun 25, 2003
    38,203
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #235
    ++ [ originally posted by Padovano ] ++



    BUSTED!!!!!!!!!!




    Seven, I was willing to believe that "your brother" was posting, but alas you have lost my trust. You must know that to be a good liar you must have a good memory. You sir, are a bad liar.
    Like I said: I did log in on the wrong account because I used his computer. I can't be bothered to "prove" anything here though. If you read his posts and compare them to mine I'm sure you'll see a big difference.
     
    Status
    Not open for further replies.

    Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 2)