BMW M3 Forum (E90 E92)

BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Go Back   M3Post - BMW M3 Forum > BIMMERPOST Universal Forums > Off-Topic Discussions Board > Politics/Religion
 
Steve Thomas BMW
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      03-25-2013, 10:58 AM   #45
Mss396
Jet Pilot
Mss396's Avatar
Germany
2
Rep
57
Posts

 
Drives: 4 wheels
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Mobile

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by lmaleke View Post
I see your point. But, why not attack Iran instead of Iraq? Iran is proven to have been supporting Hamas and other band of fanatics/terrorists. Is it because the cost of attacking and invading Iran is greater than Iraq?
Same analogy goes to Pakistan. Their ISI been harboring the Taliban and OBL before the US military nailed the guy.
Great idea..... Maybe the US should nuke the world so we could all start over and get it right the next time. Ya think? Now let's see where should they start, Jakarta
Appreciate 0
      03-25-2013, 11:43 AM   #46
OldArmy
Lieutenant
United_States
17
Rep
523
Posts

 
Drives: 2007 Z4 3.0si
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Central Virginia

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mss396 View Post
Great idea..... Maybe the US should nuke the world so we could all start over and get it right the next time. Ya think? Now let's see where should they start, Jakarta
Now that's the spirit! After all, we need to rotate out all the old ordnance so we can build new! And where to start? So many targets, so few warheads. Hooah!
Appreciate 0
      03-26-2013, 04:16 AM   #47
lmaleke
Second Lieutenant
Hong Kong
3
Rep
218
Posts

 
Drives: shifting priorities for now...
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mss396 View Post
Great idea..... Maybe the US should nuke the world so we could all start over and get it right the next time. Ya think? Now let's see where should they start, Jakarta
I'm not sure how am I going to reply to your answer.. Again, as to why not Iran and why not Pakistan, spare me let's nuke the world to start all over again thing. Everyone knows that the reason US is attacking Iraq instead of Iraq is simply because the cost of attacking Iran will be unbearable and oil is another. Practicing the ancient Chinese proverbs "to kill a chicken to scare a monkey". Now you think Iran is scared? They speed up their nuclear research to defend themselves. This create a more volatile region..
Just look up on how Iranian Pasdaran (sp?) been supporting band of fanatics in the region.



Quote:
Originally Posted by OldArmy View Post
Now that's the spirit! After all, we need to rotate out all the old ordnance so we can build new! And where to start? So many targets, so few warheads. Hooah!
I suppose you support the OIF to make the world a safer place or perhaps, in your words, to spend all the old ordnance from US war reserves all over Europe? What your government did was igniting an ancient feud; sectarian rife.

Last edited by lmaleke; 03-26-2013 at 04:39 AM.
Appreciate 0
      03-27-2013, 05:35 AM   #48
Ahmed
Private First Class
Ahmed's Avatar
Bahrain
1
Rep
130
Posts

 
Drives: 2013 C63 AMG
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Bahrain

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
1999 BMW M5  [0.50]
Quote:
Originally Posted by lmaleke View Post
I see your point. But, why not attack Iran instead of Iraq? Iran is proven to have been supporting Hamas and other band of fanatics/terrorists. Is it because the cost of attacking and invading Iran is greater than Iraq?
Same analogy goes to Pakistan. Their ISI been harboring the Taliban and OBL before the US military nailed the guy.
The US funded and supported the Taliban and now they are the reason why USA has gone to war. The US suported and funded the team behind Iraq's war on Iran for 8 years, then USA goes to war with Iraq.

The list goes on and one but let's fast forward to today:

USA funds and supports Israel which 90% of the regions nations and people consider a terrorist state.

I am sorry, but credibility out the fucking window, I ain't listening to any cuntfalp in the oval office. Not today not tomorrow!

You want war? Cut the crap and just do it!
__________________
2013 Mercedes Benz C63 AMG
2009 Lexus GS460

Appreciate 0
      03-27-2013, 05:58 PM   #49
P-rex
Second Lieutenant
5
Rep
217
Posts

 
Drives: Black 335is DCT
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Ontario

iTrader: (0)

someone name name country outside of Israel that Americans can go and will be welcomed?..... American marines, navy pose as Canadians just so they won't get a whale shoved up their rears....

It's time Americans wake up and stop watching FOX News....
Appreciate 0
      03-27-2013, 08:15 PM   #50
gatorfast
Colonel
gatorfast's Avatar
32
Rep
2,659
Posts

 
Drives: MR E90 M3
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SoFla

iTrader: (3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by P-rex View Post
someone name name country outside of Israel that Americans can go and will be welcomed?..... American marines, navy pose as Canadians just so they won't get a whale shoved up their rears....

It's time Americans wake up and stop watching FOX News....
What does Fox News have anything to do with what you just said

Should we be watching msnbc instead? Is that a better source for unbiased factual information?
Appreciate 0
      03-27-2013, 10:51 PM   #51
bbbbmw
Lieutenant
6
Rep
589
Posts

 
Drives: 135i
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southwest

iTrader: (0)

Why do people think that Bush/Cheney started the whole concept of Sadaam having WMD's? It was clearly begun under the Clinton Administration, years before Bush/Cheney. Clinton's inaction and unresponsiveness to numerous terror attacks on the US led to 9/11. So rather than more "lecturing" and another 9/11, at least Bush took action. Bush's one mistake was that he waited almost a year for UN support of the invasion, while convoys were observed taking large military items (WMD's?) into Syria, which were never found.

Conversely, Obama has kept us involved in Afghanistan for absolutely no apparent reason, and illegally invaded Libya. He and Hillary's incompetence led to the assasination of our Ambassador and countrymen. And this thread is worried about the WMD's?
----------------

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons
of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to
seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and
others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction
technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and
palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs.
Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the
peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons
throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we
should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is selling and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam
Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if
necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of
weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop
nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also
should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in
development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological
weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
Appreciate 0
      03-27-2013, 11:10 PM   #52
amanda hor$t
Banned
27
Rep
208
Posts

 
Drives: a380
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ny ny

iTrader: (0)

i'd say it was a way to save face after 9/11 (and after bush sr wasn't able to beat saddam). so bush jr, who gets his intel from bush sr, was convinced to go for it. of course cheney was not gonna refuse the opportunity to jack some oil.

if none of that happened, saddam would have been a free check on iran (but since he's gone we're left to clean that up too). and the humanitarian argument doesn't really hold water: america tortures too, there's plenty of corruption right here. china tortures even more, yet most in power seem very tolerant given that china's big rich and powerful. invasion was not really justified simply because "we don't like his policies" when they didn't directly affect america.

bottom line: waste of money. and furthermore, if america's so against others owning nucular weapons, why not invade nk and pakistan tomorrow?

Last edited by amanda hor$t; 03-27-2013 at 11:19 PM.
Appreciate 0
      03-28-2013, 05:36 AM   #53
OldArmy
Lieutenant
United_States
17
Rep
523
Posts

 
Drives: 2007 Z4 3.0si
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Central Virginia

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Grubba Balls View Post
i'd say it was a way to save face after 9/11 (and after bush sr wasn't able to beat saddam).
Really? We turned the fourth largest army in the world into the second largest army in Iraq in five days. Achieved the limited objectives, didn't want to burn the gas driving all the way to Baghdad.
Appreciate 0
      03-28-2013, 07:20 AM   #54
gatorfast
Colonel
gatorfast's Avatar
32
Rep
2,659
Posts

 
Drives: MR E90 M3
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SoFla

iTrader: (3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Grubba Balls View Post
.
bottom line: waste of money. and furthermore, if america's so against others owning nucular weapons, why not invade nk and pakistan tomorrow?
Because a nuclear Iraq posed a much more credible threat.
Appreciate 0
      03-28-2013, 09:06 AM   #55
ZaraGSPBMW
New Member
United_States
0
Rep
29
Posts

 
Drives: 2011 328i Coupe
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: ATX

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2011 BMW 328i  [0.00]
I got a Combat Infantryman's Badge and a couple Bronze Stars for the effort...in addition to some great war stories to tell my grandkids someday.
Appreciate 0
      03-28-2013, 11:51 AM   #56
Mr Tonka
Tonka.... Mr. Tonka
United_States
41
Rep
1,202
Posts

 
Drives: Exceptionally well :)
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Tampa, FL

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbbbmw View Post
Why do people think that Bush/Cheney started the whole concept of Sadaam having WMD's? It was clearly begun under the Clinton Administration, years before Bush/Cheney. Clinton's inaction and unresponsiveness to numerous terror attacks on the US led to 9/11. So rather than more "lecturing" and another 9/11, at least Bush took action. Bush's one mistake was that he waited almost a year for UN support of the invasion, while convoys were observed taking large military items (WMD's?) into Syria, which were never found.

Conversely, Obama has kept us involved in Afghanistan for absolutely no apparent reason, and illegally invaded Libya. He and Hillary's incompetence led to the assasination of our Ambassador and countrymen. And this thread is worried about the WMD's?
----------------

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons
of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to
seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and
others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction
technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and
palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs.
Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the
peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons
throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we
should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is selling and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam
Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if
necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of
weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop
nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also
should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in
development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological
weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
You should know that posting facts will only garner name calling.
__________________
-Joe


"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." — Frédéric Bastiat
Appreciate 0
      03-28-2013, 12:30 PM   #57
P-rex
Second Lieutenant
5
Rep
217
Posts

 
Drives: Black 335is DCT
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Ontario

iTrader: (0)

Such nonesense around iraq and posing a threat to US with nukes... This is the kind of jibberish that Americans get brainwashed by via FOX news...
Name the last war that democrats approved?

Saddam was the lion king who tames a nation of wild animals... Ousting him was for political/personal issues as well, for the sake of the Saudis to stop wetting their panties over a possible Iraq invasion...

I am just glad that the US has a sensible and rational obama administration that is rebuilding the US global reputation instead of engulfing in corruption.... And yes USA reeks of corruption ... It's just so well hidden in the form of "lobbying"
Appreciate 0
      03-28-2013, 12:40 PM   #58
Templar
Lieutenant Colonel
Templar's Avatar
United_States
39
Rep
1,823
Posts

 
Drives: 2011 E92 M3
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: One of the coasts...

iTrader: (1)

Garage List
2011 BMW M3  [5.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by P-rex View Post
Such nonesense around iraq and posing a threat to US with nukes... This is the kind of jibberish that Americans get brainwashed by via FOX news...
Name the last war that democrats approved?

Saddam was the lion king who tames a nation of wild animals... Ousting him was for political/personal issues as well, for the sake of the Saudis to stop wetting their panties over a possible Iraq invasion...

I am just glad that the US has a sensible and rational obama administration that is rebuilding the US global reputation instead of engulfing in corruption.... And yes USA reeks of corruption ... It's just so well hidden in the form of "lobbying"
__________________
'11 BMW E92 ///M3 - ZCP and DCT
'13 Toyota Tundra - 4x4 Platinum CrewMax, 5.7l iForce V8
Appreciate 0
      03-28-2013, 01:06 PM   #59
RalphT5
Private
United_States
2
Rep
42
Posts

 
Drives: 2013 F30 M Sport
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Houston, TX

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by P-rex View Post
Such nonesense around iraq and posing a threat to US with nukes... This is the kind of jibberish that Americans get brainwashed by via FOX news...
Name the last war that democrats approved?

Saddam was the lion king who tames a nation of wild animals... Ousting him was for political/personal issues as well, for the sake of the Saudis to stop wetting their panties over a possible Iraq invasion...

I am just glad that the US has a sensible and rational obama administration that is rebuilding the US global reputation instead of engulfing in corruption.... And yes USA reeks of corruption ... It's just so well hidden in the form of "lobbying"
Libya
__________________
2013 335i M-Sport
Estoril Blue II, Sport Trans w/ Paddles, Premium Pkg, Tech Pkg, Dynamic Handling Pkg, Driver Assist+
Appreciate 0
      03-28-2013, 02:12 PM   #60
P-rex
Second Lieutenant
5
Rep
217
Posts

 
Drives: Black 335is DCT
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Ontario

iTrader: (0)

Obama was smart not to wage war directly with ghadaffi knowing the benefactors would be France and Britain. Instead Obama sought to start the NATO led war with advanced military technologies ... Without committing to invasion...

So no... This was not a democrat instigated war
Appreciate 0
      03-28-2013, 02:54 PM   #61
bbbbmw
Lieutenant
6
Rep
589
Posts

 
Drives: 135i
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southwest

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by P-rex View Post
Such nonesense around iraq and posing a threat to US with nukes... This is the kind of jibberish that Americans get brainwashed by via FOX news...
Name the last war that democrats approved?

Saddam was the lion king who tames a nation of wild animals... Ousting him was for political/personal issues as well, for the sake of the Saudis to stop wetting their panties over a possible Iraq invasion...

I am just glad that the US has a sensible and rational obama administration that is rebuilding the US global reputation instead of engulfing in corruption.... And yes USA reeks of corruption ... It's just so well hidden in the form of "lobbying"
I think the last war that Democrats approved was Iraq and Afghanistan, if memory serves me? It certainly wasn't Libya - that wasn't approved by anyone except Obama, even after the 60 day max of Presidential authority for a Military Action.

What is the evidence that Sadaam's ouster was for personal/political reasons? That's the kind of brainwashing that comes from MSNBC, HuffPost, and other mainstream media. As well as innuendo of "corruption" and lobbying.

And a sensible and rational Obama Administration? According to what? Why do you think our reputation has been rebuilt? With whom? Certainly not Israel, Britain, other US Allies, Tibet, and more. The Muslim Brotherhood in the Middle East has been the beneficiary of US action, while we have managed to topple the US-friendly regimes in the region. Maybe Obama should apologize more. Or maybe more bowing.
Appreciate 0
      03-28-2013, 03:37 PM   #62
Mss396
Jet Pilot
Mss396's Avatar
Germany
2
Rep
57
Posts

 
Drives: 4 wheels
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Mobile

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by P-rex View Post
Such nonesense around iraq and posing a threat to US with nukes... This is the kind of jibberish that Americans get brainwashed by via FOX news...
Name the last war that democrats approved?"
A little US History for the cousin to the north.

Vietnam - Johnson
Korea - Truman
WWII - Roosevelt
Appreciate 0
      03-28-2013, 05:31 PM   #63
P-rex
Second Lieutenant
5
Rep
217
Posts

 
Drives: Black 335is DCT
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Ontario

iTrader: (0)

I'll give you Vietnam.... But the other two were strategic in name... Korean War for countering USSRs's sphere of influence and communism and WWII because GB begged

As for ousting Saddam ... Dickhead Cheney and papa bush moulded a young to be and will always be 'the biggest idiot president' to go against advisors and take Saddam out for the near assasination of papa bush in the first gulf war.... And the war in Iraq was AGAINST UN's approval... Hence why bush is wanted for war crimes
Appreciate 0
      03-28-2013, 06:15 PM   #64
bbbbmw
Lieutenant
6
Rep
589
Posts

 
Drives: 135i
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southwest

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by P-rex View Post
I'll give you Vietnam.... But the other two were strategic in name... Korean War for countering USSRs's sphere of influence and communism and WWII because GB begged

As for ousting Saddam ... Dickhead Cheney and papa bush moulded a young to be and will always be 'the biggest idiot president' to go against advisors and take Saddam out for the near assasination of papa bush in the first gulf war.... And the war in Iraq was AGAINST UN's approval... Hence why bush is wanted for war crimes
The motivation for Vietnam was the same as Korea and WW2 at the time - they were all "strategic." And WW2 was not because Great Britain begged - we were also attacked in the Pacific by a strong ally of the Nazis.

And there's that name-calling again... For the record, it's well documented that Bush Jr. didn't ask Bush Sr. for his advice on invading Iraq - if he would have, Bush Sr. would most likely have told him not to do it. And Bush didn't go against his advisors - they actually advocated for intervention in Iraq when Clinton was President. Technically, the war was approved by the UN in 1991, and continued the entire time (remember Clinton bombing Iraq in 1998?) - this was just continued military action. And finally, the US doesn't need the UN's approval for anything.

Jimmy Carter (was he a democrat?) said in 1979 that "any assault on the Gulf will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States." This was going on long before GWB.

While answering the Booty Call in the Oval Office, Bill Clinton bombed Yugoslavia without UN approval - killing civilians and destroying the country, all to depose a brutal dictator in a country that had no strategic interest for the US. Apparently that has been forgotten.
Appreciate 0
      03-28-2013, 08:00 PM   #65
P-rex
Second Lieutenant
5
Rep
217
Posts

 
Drives: Black 335is DCT
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Ontario

iTrader: (0)

Vietnam was classic propaganda war... Media said that America is in great threat by Vietnam... Like as if the civil war got put of hand.... They would invade the US in their dragon boats.... Makes me laugh


Yes... The British begged for US help... And Russia was the real unsung hero of ww2.

Read the history... US was paid by king Abdullah of Saudi to destroy the one time Donny Rumsfeld's butt buddy Saddam
Appreciate 0
      03-28-2013, 08:06 PM   #66
P-rex
Second Lieutenant
5
Rep
217
Posts

 
Drives: Black 335is DCT
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Ontario

iTrader: (0)

By the way.... Your facts are wrong.... UN never approved any war on Iraq...

It was a unilateral attack led by US and allies... No Canada, no Britain, no France, no German.... Just some bull shizzy countries that I've barely heard of...

The two countries that lost the most were France and Russia... All the oil contracts (refining and extraction) that were in place by companies like Total SA and others became null and void
Appreciate 0
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:02 PM.




m3post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST