Conquer Club

OnlyAmbrose wrote:I for one disagree with the US funding of the IRA, and just because we did in no way obligates me to believe that we shouldn't take out a dictator who is funding a terrorist organization. I honestly can't see your point there.

The USA wanted to "take out" someone who was funding a terrorist organisation. The USA funded/funds terrorist organisations, should they be taken out? My point.

OnlyAmbrose wrote:--> Saddam committed genocide. You can't debate the moral issue about that; all you can debate is whether or not it's our business whether or not thousands of people in Iraq are killed just because they are Kurdish.

He did, and so he had to be dealt with. However, my problem is with the way in which it has been done and the USA's arrogance in regards to world deplomacy.

OnlyAmbrose wrote:--> Saddam was a threat to our country. I'm not going to go into the WMD debate, because it makes me want to tear my hair out and bash in my television screen so I never have to see the media again, so forget about that. Even without WMD, any dictator of a primarily Islamic country who harbors blatantly anti-American sentiments (and in this case has a history of open defiance toward the US, hence the Kuwait incident) is a threat to us because they can a- provide terrorist organizations with arms, intel, funding, and many other things such organizations need, and b- because he may just get powerful enough to BECOME an overt threat to us, through treaties, acquiring WMD, etc.

If Saddam was a threat to the USA because of his funding terrorists, then most of the world is a threat. The USA is a threat to Britain. Where does it end? Being Anti-American (or anti-septic) is no threat and no justification for attack. He would not have become powerful and even if he did he would not have dared facing off.

I do not regret that Saddam is now being tried for his crimes. I do regret that the USA thinks that it is in some way superior. I hope that in the future your country will mature and see it has to be part of the world system as an equal.

P Gizzle wrote:

hitandrun wrote:I agree with your earlier post, Sadam should have been dealt with in the first Gulf war. I do not but this "war on terror" thing though, Sadam had nothing to do with 11/9. And let us not forget the US funding of the IRA.

9/11., but i agree about the first Gulf Part. but, Saddam did support genocide and terrorism throughout his country. isn't he a Talibani or whatever someone in the Taliban would be called. and i believe Al-Queda is part of the Taliban, so if everything i said is true (im not sure it is) then Saddam, in some way, did have something to do with 9/11. and he IS a terrorist

Saddam was in no way affiliated with the Taliban, nor was Al Queda part of the Taliban. The Taliban was the government in Afghanistan a few years ago and they were extremely sympathetic to Al Queda, and essentially gave them a home.

Either way, as I said in my last post (which seems to be being ignored ) I do NOT connect the war in Iraq to 9/11.

hitandrun wrote:

OnlyAmbrose wrote:I for one disagree with the US funding of the IRA, and just because we did in no way obligates me to believe that we shouldn't take out a dictator who is funding a terrorist organization. I honestly can't see your point there.

The USA wanted to "take out" someone who was funding a terrorist organisation. The USA funded/funds terrorist organisations, should they be taken out? My point.

OnlyAmbrose wrote:--> Saddam committed genocide. You can't debate the moral issue about that; all you can debate is whether or not it's our business whether or not thousands of people in Iraq are killed just because they are Kurdish.

He did, and so he had to be dealt with. However, my problem is with the way in which it has been done and the USA's arrogance in regards to world deplomacy.

OnlyAmbrose wrote:--> Saddam was a threat to our country. I'm not going to go into the WMD debate, because it makes me want to tear my hair out and bash in my television screen so I never have to see the media again, so forget about that. Even without WMD, any dictator of a primarily Islamic country who harbors blatantly anti-American sentiments (and in this case has a history of open defiance toward the US, hence the Kuwait incident) is a threat to us because they can a- provide terrorist organizations with arms, intel, funding, and many other things such organizations need, and b- because he may just get powerful enough to BECOME an overt threat to us, through treaties, acquiring WMD, etc.

If Saddam was a threat to the USA because of his funding terrorists, then most of the world is a threat. The USA is a threat to Britain. Where does it end? Being Anti-American (or anti-septic) is no threat and no justification for attack. He would not have become powerful and even if he did he would not have dared facing off.

I do not regret that Saddam is now being tried for his crimes. I do regret that the USA thinks that it is in some way superior. I hope that in the future your country will mature and see it has to be part of the world system as an equal.

anti-septic? do you mean anti-semetic, or im i too american to know what that means cuz here in the US, im not sure about GB, septic is the plumbing system

the american goverment does not fund terrorsts. what private citizens do with their money is up to them

P Gizzle wrote:9/11., but i agree about the first Gulf Part. but, Saddam did support genocide and terrorism throughout his country. isn't he a Talibani or whatever someone in the Taliban would be called. and i believe Al-Queda is part of the Taliban, so if everything i said is true (im not sure it is) then Saddam, in some way, did have something to do with 9/11. and he IS a terrorist

11/9., but Saddam wasn't a "Talibani". The Taliban were a religious organisation that gained control of Afganistan. Al-Queda are a religious/political terrorist group not affiliated to any country.

Bush is a terrorist, "Shock and Awe" - what is that if it is not terror tatics.

bush may not be the greatest preisndent but shcok and awe wasnt his phrase. i thinki t was a britsih general that came up with it

P Gizzle wrote:anti-septic? do you mean anti-semetic, or im i too american to know what that means cuz here in the US, im not sure about GB, septic is the plumbing system

Sorry it's slang:
Septic Tank = Yank.
Anti-Septic = Anti-American

hitandrun wrote:

P Gizzle wrote:9/11., but i agree about the first Gulf Part. but, Saddam did support genocide and terrorism throughout his country. isn't he a Talibani or whatever someone in the Taliban would be called. and i believe Al-Queda is part of the Taliban, so if everything i said is true (im not sure it is) then Saddam, in some way, did have something to do with 9/11. and he IS a terrorist

11/9., but Saddam wasn't a "Talibani". The Taliban were a religious organisation that gained control of Afganistan. Al-Queda are a religious/political terrorist group not affiliated to any country.

Bush is a terrorist, "Shock and Awe" - what is that if it is not terror tatics.

11/9 what date is that? im sorry i didnt know we had a major date like that. is that when we invaded iraq? and Bush, if anything, is trying to get back at Saddam. if anything this is a grudge match, a war for his daddy. and sorry about the false info, just guesing. thought that's what i heard

hitandrun wrote:

P Gizzle wrote:9/11., but i agree about the first Gulf Part. but, Saddam did support genocide and terrorism throughout his country. isn't he a Talibani or whatever someone in the Taliban would be called. and i believe Al-Queda is part of the Taliban, so if everything i said is true (im not sure it is) then Saddam, in some way, did have something to do with 9/11. and he IS a terrorist

11/9., but Saddam wasn't a "Talibani". The Taliban were a religious organisation that gained control of Afganistan. Al-Queda are a religious/political terrorist group not affiliated to any country.

Bush is a terrorist, "Shock and Awe" - what is that if it is not terror tatics.

In America it would be 9/11.

hitandrun wrote:

P Gizzle wrote:anti-septic? do you mean anti-semetic, or im i too american to know what that means cuz here in the US, im not sure about GB, septic is the plumbing system

Sorry it's slang:
Septic Tank = Yank.
Anti-Septic = Anti-American

alright thanks for the clearing, even though it's making fun of me. and even though Yankee was meant to be derogatory, us Yanks like it when you call us that, it tells us we bothered you enough to come up with a derogatory word for us!!!! and we have a baseball team called the Yankees. and 11/9 in your country is 9/11, says Strike Wolf. sorry about international mix-ups!

P Gizzle wrote:Bush, if anything, is trying to get back at Saddam. if anything this is a grudge match, a war for his daddy.

I'm sure that's a small part of it

hitandrun wrote:

P Gizzle wrote:Bush, if anything, is trying to get back at Saddam. if anything this is a grudge match, a war for his daddy.

I'm sure that's a small part of it

hitandrun wrote:

OnlyAmbrose wrote:I for one disagree with the US funding of the IRA, and just because we did in no way obligates me to believe that we shouldn't take out a dictator who is funding a terrorist organization. I honestly can't see your point there.

The USA wanted to "take out" someone who was funding a terrorist organisation. The USA funded/funds terrorist organisations, should they be taken out? My point.

Like I said, we're talking about my opinion is, and my firm opinion is that no nation should be funding terrorist organizations, including America AND including Mr. Saddam. Should America be attacked for funding the IRA? Well, to be perfectly honest I don't have a clue, I've never researched the subject. If you'd give me a few articles I'd be happy to read them. Personally, I definately would have a problem with our tax dollars going to the IRA. A big problem.

Now would it be SMART for someone to attack America for funding the IRA? Definately not. Not trying to be arrogant here, just stating the facts. Any change in THAT policy is going to come from within, and after I get a few articles on the subject I may indeed send my senator an email on the topic.

But this isn't the issue. I'm speaking for myself, not America, and certainly not for whoever is behind American tax dollars being put into a terrorist organization.

hitandrun wrote:

OnlyAmbrose wrote:--> Saddam committed genocide. You can't debate the moral issue about that; all you can debate is whether or not it's our business whether or not thousands of people in Iraq are killed just because they are Kurdish.

He did, and so he had to be dealt with. However, my problem is with the way in which it has been done and the USA's arrogance in regards to world deplomacy.

If you have any alternative solutions, it would be great to hear them. It's too late at this point, but quite frankly the only practical way I can think of to remove Saddam from power was to capture him and try him for his crimes. And he wasn't about to turn himself over because we asked him to. If I remember correctly, he was quite determined not to walk right into the arms of the American Army.

Arrogance in regards to world diplomacy... well that is something we've developed over the ages and something which has pissed off Europeans since day one. But just like the precotious Monroe Doctrine back in the early 1820s/30s, there really isn't much anyone can do about it. Really, not much has changed, except that in the 1820s/30s the reason no one could do anything was because we had the British navy behind us. Now we're a bit more self-reliant when it comes to military matters to say the least. Anyways, American "arrogance" has been around since about 1770, and I don't think it's going away. Sorry.

hitandrun wrote:

OnlyAmbrose wrote:--> Saddam was a threat to our country. I'm not going to go into the WMD debate, because it makes me want to tear my hair out and bash in my television screen so I never have to see the media again, so forget about that. Even without WMD, any dictator of a primarily Islamic country who harbors blatantly anti-American sentiments (and in this case has a history of open defiance toward the US, hence the Kuwait incident) is a threat to us because they can a- provide terrorist organizations with arms, intel, funding, and many other things such organizations need, and b- because he may just get powerful enough to BECOME an overt threat to us, through treaties, acquiring WMD, etc.

If Saddam was a threat to the USA because of his funding terrorists, then most of the world is a threat. The USA is a threat to Britain. Where does it end? Being Anti-American (or anti-septic) is no threat and no justification for attack. He would not have become powerful and even if he did he would not have dared facing off.

I do not regret that Saddam is now being tried for his crimes. I do regret that the USA thinks that it is in some way superior. I hope that in the future your country will mature and see it has to be part of the world system as an equal.

Honestly I find it difficult to believe that Britain would at the present be America's closest allies if we were supplying the IRA to the degree you seem to be implying. I'm seriously interested in this, lol.

In any event, I daresay Saddam was far more of a threat to America than America is at the present to Britain. I can't say for certain, but I for one feel a tad safer now that Saddam is in custody.

We've never been mature in that way, lol. Let's face it, we're about 300 years old and you guys have been around for several times that. History has, in the past, smiled on America and given us an ego. Fact of life. Maybe as the "adult nations" you guys should smile a bit to yourselves that this upstart teenager thinks he's so good.

Why?


Because thats where Barney came from! duh?

P Gizzle wrote:

hitandrun wrote:

P Gizzle wrote:anti-septic? do you mean anti-semetic, or im i too american to know what that means cuz here in the US, im not sure about GB, septic is the plumbing system

Sorry it's slang:
Septic Tank = Yank.
Anti-Septic = Anti-American

alright thanks for the clearing, even though it's making fun of me. and even though Yankee was meant to be derogatory, us Yanks like it when you call us that, it tells us we bothered you enough to come up with a derogatory word for us!!!! and we have a baseball team called the Yankees. and 11/9 in your country is 9/11, says Strike Wolf. sorry about international mix-ups!

Aren't you from Seattle?

nope. why?

Yet you root for the Seahawks and the mariner?

sure why not?

strike wolf wrote:Yet you root for the Seahawks and the mariner?

Well I'm from SoCal and I'm a die-hard Rams fan...

Though of course they sorta ditched us here >.<

ANYWAYS back on topic

P Gizzle wrote:sure why not?

Well it doesn't matter to us southern boys anyways. Anyways, do you think Osama is on the Pakistan side or the Afghanistan side, and for that matter, does it really matter which side he's on? Or just that we need to catch him.

strike wolf wrote:

P Gizzle wrote:sure why not?

Well it doesn't matter to us southern boys anyways. Anyways, do you think Osama is on the Pakistan side or the Afghanistan side, and for that matter, does it really matter which side he's on? Or just that we need to catch him.

The last one.

strike wolf wrote:Anyways, do you think Osama is on the Pakistan side or the Afghanistan side, and for that matter, does it really matter which side he's on? Or just that we need to catch him.

I don't think he's in those hills anymore.
He's probably hiding in a hole in Iraq!

strike wolf wrote:

P Gizzle wrote:sure why not?

Well it doesn't matter to us southern boys anyways. Anyways, do you think Osama is on the Pakistan side or the Afghanistan side, and for that matter, does it really matter which side he's on? Or just that we need to catch him.

either in Pakistan or the US. mayb Britain. if i were him, id be in NYC. because nobody looks for a terrorist in a city. he could shave his beard and look as american as apple pie, baseball and George Washington....combined!

I STILL want to see those articles!

he could shave his beard and look as american as apple pie, baseball and George Washington....combined!

that is an inuslt to america...and pie