President Bush.... RESPECT

justin syder said:
raheel_qamar said:
I would say if a war is going on, a gvt should only attack the military and not the civilians. If US wanted to end the war, they should have bombed the major Military Bases...

Throwing a bomb at 2 whole cities was cruel and millions of innocent lives were lost. And still there are radioactive waves in those areas which are causing serious harm to the citizens.
Click to expand...

We have hit civilians, yes. However, the technology has improved vastly since the last gulf war. Bombs hit more preciseley and civilian casualties are far less. It is almost impossible to have a war without casualties. To say that we purposely bomb civilians is unfar, military targets were bombed and unfortunately other locations had civilians nearby but we did not intend to bomb civilians for no reason or any reason for that matter.

Yes, back then it was cruel to use 2 bombs but we have learned from that and havent used them since. Also the technology was new and it was unclear as to the effects of the bomb so there was no way of knowing the damage of such a new technology.
Click to expand...

In reference to Japan, they bombed civilian targets on purpose. And the government did run tests before, so they had some idea of the effects.

Regarding modern warfare. Yup, it has changed a great deal. What do you think about these reports about "new weapons" the government looked into? Like a gay bomb etc....:lol:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4174519.stm
 
Firecat said:
Regarding modern warfare. Yup, it has changed a great deal. What do you think about these reports about "new weapons" the government looked into? Like a gay bomb etc....:lol:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4174519.stm
Click to expand...

I want to know what drugs they were on when they thought those up. That's not an idea that comes when not in a drug induced state. :-D

As for the use of them? I have to say I dunno, if it were temporary it could be very useful in warfare in civilian areas (even though our troops may have horrible psychological problems after clearing an area) because the enemy would be too busy to notice an American soldier come up and ID them, and disarm them. I just don't think its something that could work, I'd think Cartman playing the brown noise would be more effective.
 
What the pentagon was thinking was, better a bunch of flaming homo-soldiers then a fried crater and a bunch of nuked soldeirs.

Non-lethal ways of stopping the ememy. It was a dumb idea, in my opinion.
 
A way of making the enemy suffer here aswell as after death (in Hell of course)
 
If you are going to bump an old topic atleast say something worthy of discussion.

hes just a puppet of his daddy
Click to expand...

???
 
bellows said:
hes just a puppet of his daddy
Click to expand...

How on earth can you be a puppet of your own father???? President Bush Makes his own decisions along with his gvt. he's not governed by anyone.... I don't exactly get what you really mean or want to say!!!
 
Perhaps the term puppet is too strong.

But dagg nabbit, that sand nagger Saddom Hoosaayn is gonna pay for tryin' to kill his daddy.
 
jajajaja I been reading this for almost 1/2 hour... First of all I want to apologize for my spelling.. english is not my first tounge.

Coming for a third world country, you can only be amazed by how different culture thinks, comming from a country that was actually in good economical shape before the US intervention, I can only dislike this FALSE statements about "WE GIVE YOU DEMOCRACY", all this super power nations the only thing they want for US is CHEAP LABOR and slaves for your big multinational countries.

Is amazing how THEY come here to our countries trying to take over, telling us how to live, how to rule our own nations and trying to impose your economies and religion and all your stupid crap about how to destroy our teenagers.. with out you there would not be gangs "maras" or drug dealears in our country.. we probably still leave in the agricultural age, but what that heck, at least we would not leave like New York Rats.

It is easy to say from the other side, yeah we should invade or not, is funny how the US Government pray about the elections when it was oviously a fraudulent business , and believe me they where... we have experince on that.... they tend to put the people that will look over their interests. Maybe in the beginning it wont look like that... but it is.

It is sad that people thinks that the invation was the best for the irakies, when the people was suffering, with out water or electricity, and their sons are being kill by the TROOPS, this is only generating more revenge feelings.. and more massacre, is incredible that the US can invade a country and try to change the way people have leave for 1000s of years.... is such a dis-respectfull act.. coming from a country that only has existed for les than 300 years.

My country is Guatemala, and our currency was better valued in the market than the dollar before the 50s, in 1952 the CIA cue our president and put their puppet to rule, all because the US companies like banana chiquita where in serious danger, because the poor people wanted better wadges and they will probably were going to go to a strike. Banana is the Guatemalan Petroleum. THE US democracy in IRAK will only make the poor people worst...

And it is such a hipocracy to say that any country care about the other.... just because.. there is alwasy a hidden agenda in this GOOD acts like liberating the Irikys... My POINT is.... If a contry want to make business with a contry DO busines with a country... if you want to help it, help it..... if you want to invade it to get the oil do so... (IF you can)... :lol: but dont say the BULL$%T that you care about the people.... cause is FALSE!!!

AHHHHH that feels so much better.. thanks for listening and is not personal! just business! jajajajaj :p
 
Where is the proof?

The argument of the US in Iraq for oil came from protestors chanting, "No Blood for Oil" and other statements which were seen worldwide. That is a good point to argue against the Iraq war but it is based on emotion, false accusations of the US govt and a strong opposition to the US. It also has no fact. There is no proof that we are in Iraq for its oil or started the war to get our hands on Iraqi oil.

Iraq isnt even our main oil exporter, Canada, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia individually export more oil to the US than Iraq. Also, with rising gas prices in the US and oil barrel prices rising what does that tell you?

I'd love for you to show the connection between the US in Iraq for oil. Also, you never hear anyone saying why we went into Afghanistan for. That country has no oil, no nothing!

Furthermore, Iraqis oil fields were repaired and made sure they were running because it was the way Iraq would be able to economically develop during post-Saddam era. That is their economy and with that up and running, they not the US, can be able to rebuild their country. It has already happened with the election of their Prime Minister and President. Its only a year or less and troops will be coming home. ;)

:thumbsup:
 
justin syder said:
Also, you never hear anyone saying why we went into Afghanistan for. That country has no oil, no nothing!
Click to expand...

Trans-Afghan pipeline.

Regarding Iraq, it was essentially an easy target. Weak military, easy sell. Was oil the main reason? Well, it certainly doesn't hurt that it's rich in oil. So if you were to have 2 similar places of interest (to invade or "liberate"), one had loads of oil...the other didn't. :thumbsup:

Regarding Guatamala. Yayox is absolutely correct. The overthrowing of the democratically elected president (Jacobo Arbenz) and the subsequent unrest resulted in the death of thousands and thousands. Yayox mentioned some U.S. companies were in danger. To be more specific, United Fruit Company was one of the main ones
 
wow! you are very knowladge of history my respect for you 8)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top