US Presidential Elections thread - the fate of the world to be decided (34 Viewers)

Who would you vote to be the next President of the United States?

  • John McCain

  • Barack Obama

  • undecided


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Loppan

Senior Member
Jul 13, 2002
2,528
#43
++ [ originally posted by HWIENIAWSKI ] ++



exactly!!! you would think that people would realize that! especially the Iraqis
I agree Saddam was bad but that is not a reason for entering a country. It's even worse now in Iraq that some people wishes he was back which is really bad.
And if the reason was freeing the people, why hasn't Bush entered North Korea which also is romoured to have nuclear weapons??
 

Henry

Senior Member
Sep 30, 2003
5,517
#44
because if they do, the it's nuclear war ;) also, North Korea has no possible connection with Islamic terrorist sects. The decision to invade Iraq was based on several critereon, and North Korea doesn't seem to meet them. and it would be much more dangerous if it turned out that North Korea had nuclear weapons.
 

Loppan

Senior Member
Jul 13, 2002
2,528
#45
++ [ originally posted by HWIENIAWSKI ] ++
because if they do, the it's nuclear war ;) also, North Korea has no possible connection with Islamic terrorist sects. The decision to invade Iraq was based on several critereon, and North Korea doesn't seem to meet them. and it would be much more dangerous if it turned out that North Korea had nuclear weapons.
And it wouldn't be a nuclear war if Iraq had it?
Iraq didn't have connection with Islamic terrorist sects which Bush said before the war. They might have it now since it's become a "nowhere land".
 

Henry

Senior Member
Sep 30, 2003
5,517
#46
if the US gov. had thought that Saddam had working nuclear weapons, do you think we would have invaded and risked nuclear war???? and actually while there may not have been an actual contract between Al-Qaeda, I'll bet that there was at least a "as long as you hurt the US, we'll leave you alone" type of relationship going on. and since Iraq doesn't have a working government at the moment, how could they have ties with AL-Qaeda? :wallbang: if what you mean is terrorist cells functioning in Iraq, well, only an idiot would argue otherwise. and that is precisely why the US is staying in Iraq-to stabilize the situation and eliminate terrorist cells, training compounds, etc. and the funny thing is that so much of the mess in Iraq can be blamed on American leniency towards ex-republican guard, baathists, etc
 

aressandro10

Senior Member
Jul 30, 2003
2,884
#47
++ [ originally posted by HWIENIAWSKI ] ++
if the US gov. had thought that Saddam had working nuclear weapons, do you think we would have invaded and risked nuclear war???? and actually while there may not have been an actual contract between Al-Qaeda, I'll bet that there was at least a "as long as you hurt the US, we'll leave you alone" type of relationship going on. and since Iraq doesn't have a working government at the moment, how could they have ties with AL-Qaeda? :wallbang: if what you mean is terrorist cells functioning in Iraq, well, only an idiot would argue otherwise. and that is precisely why the US is staying in Iraq-to stabilize the situation and eliminate terrorist cells, training compounds, etc. and the funny thing is that so much of the mess in Iraq can be blamed on American leniency towards ex-republican guard, baathists, etc


so the US only attack those who have 50-50 chance of having nuclear weapons while leaving contries who we completely sure have nuclear weapons scots free?

using all the reasons they use to attack Iraq , North Korea is further top the list than Iraq do...
 

Loppan

Senior Member
Jul 13, 2002
2,528
#48
++ [ originally posted by HWIENIAWSKI ] ++
if the US gov. had thought that Saddam had working nuclear weapons, do you think we would have invaded and risked nuclear war????
That's was the reason for entering! I watch the discussion in the UN so don't tell me that it wasn't.

The only thing we agree on is that we don't agree at all :D

But I gotta tell you that US has a very strange voting system.
 
OP

Zlatan

Senior Member
Jun 9, 2003
23,049
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #49
    ++ [ originally posted by HWIENIAWSKI ] ++
    because if they do, the it's nuclear war ;) also, North Korea has no possible connection with Islamic terrorist sects. The decision to invade Iraq was based on several critereon, and North Korea doesn't seem to meet them. and it would be much more dangerous if it turned out that North Korea had nuclear weapons.

    Yes, you're right, North Korea doesnt meet the most important US criterea for invading a country... OIL!



    ++ [ originally posted by HWIENIAWSKI ] ++
    if the US gov. had thought that Saddam had working nuclear weapons, do you think we would have invaded and risked nuclear war???? and actually while there may not have been an actual contract between Al-Qaeda, I'll bet that there was at least a "as long as you hurt the US, we'll leave you alone" type of relationship going on. and since Iraq doesn't have a working government at the moment, how could they have ties with AL-Qaeda? :wallbang: if what you mean is terrorist cells functioning in Iraq, well, only an idiot would argue otherwise. and that is precisely why the US is staying in Iraq-to stabilize the situation and eliminate terrorist cells, training compounds, etc. and the funny thing is that so much of the mess in Iraq can be blamed on American leniency towards ex-republican guard, baathists, etc

    Thats where most Americans are wrong. Saddam had no ties with Al Queda whatsoever. In fact, Sadam and Osama hated eachother and had no contact.
     

    Dragon

    Senior Member
    Apr 24, 2003
    27,407
    #50
    ++ [ originally posted by Zlatan ] ++

    Thats where most Americans are wrong. Saddam had no ties with Al Queda whatsoever. In fact, Sadam and Osama hated eachother and had no contact.
    How are you so sure of that? Have you asked Saddam or Osama?
     
    OP

    Zlatan

    Senior Member
    Jun 9, 2003
    23,049
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #51
    Because Saddam and Osama hate eachother. Saddam had on of the most western-like islamic countries, with women rights, great education and health system, good industry and infrastructure, and he kept religion on a low note and Saddam hated that. Now, he might have connections to Hezbolah or hamas, but they are of no threat to the US. And certanly not Osama.
     

    nedved34

    Senior Member
    Oct 3, 2002
    3,919
    #52
    ++ [ originally posted by Zlatan ] ++
    Because Saddam and Osama hate eachother. Saddam had on of the most western-like islamic countries, with women rights, great education and health system, good industry and infrastructure, and he kept religion on a low note and Saddam hated that. Now, he might have connections to Hezbolah or hamas, but they are of no threat to the US. And certanly not Osama.
    man r u dreaming?Iraq was a western-like country??:confused:
    u don't really think so do you?
     
    OP

    Zlatan

    Senior Member
    Jun 9, 2003
    23,049
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #53
    Man oh man, do you people NOT read before you post??? :rolleyes:


    ++ [ originally posted by Zlatan ] ++
    Because Saddam and Osama hate eachother. Saddam had on of the most western-like islamic countries, with women rights, great education and health system, good industry and infrastructure, and he kept religion on a low note and Saddam hated that. Now, he might have connections to Hezbolah or hamas, but they are of no threat to the US. And certanly not Osama.
     

    BigIzz

    Senior Member
    Jul 12, 2002
    1,088
    #57
    It means that compared to other Islamic countires, Iraq was comparativly more Western in their society and way of life. I don't know if I would characterize it exactly like that, but it's a valid point. Iraqi had a very educated population, technologicly advanced, espically before Saddam took over in the late 1970s.

    However the real reason I think Hussien wouldn't premit terrorists to operate out of his country is they would be a threat to his power. He was a real control freak and had numerous levels of survalliance and secret police - watchers watching the watchers who were watching the watchers. He didn't want anything to go on that he didn't know about and wouldn't have premitted an outside group to gain much power because they might have posed a threat to his regime in the future. When you consider Saddam had quite a different agenda then pretty much any terrorist group that I've heard of, it wouldn't be a very terrorist friendly place.
     

    nedved34

    Senior Member
    Oct 3, 2002
    3,919
    #58
    ++ [ originally posted by BigIzz ] ++
    It means that compared to other Islamic countires, Iraq was comparativly more Western in their society and way of life. I don't know if I would characterize it exactly like that, but it's a valid point. Iraqi had a very educated population, technologicly advanced, espically before Saddam took over in the late 1970s.
    this is exactly what i understood from him.and I answered him like that.But the dumbass likes to "fight" with people then put smileys like ":rolleyes::rolleyes:" like he is smart or something.
    I still wonder why is this stupid thread open btw.it only insults people and i tought talking politics was not allowed..
     
    Status
    Not open for further replies.

    Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 34)