Wmd

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@19 April 2004 - 01:42

So you honestly think that he invaded Kuwait because they were a security concern to Iraq? I bet that it had nothing to do with all oil fields that are in Kuwait.

We may have invaded countries but they were never to prosper from their riches it was to liberate them from someone who had.

So you honestly think that he invaded Iraq because they were a security concern to USA? I bet it had nothing to do with all oil fields that are in Iraq.

As to the 2nd part, i suggest you go and look through the History books..maybe a good starting point is why Cuba was ripe for Revolution and throwing the USA out. Or maybe China (along with just about every European Country) at the end of the 19th Century/start of the 20th.. or...

If we were just to liberate countries that are only rich in oil then what about Afghanistan? I guess that we sent troops in there because of their of all the oil fields that they have Its just not logistically possible to help every single country everywhere, you can't help everyone everywhere its just not possible.

Afganistan has huge Gas Reserves, and is required for an oil pipeline that the Taliban refused to let a US Oil company build... so yes, it was still about the Energy Companies (yes, oil)

The USA were offered Bin Laden twice for extradition.

1st time in 1998, and the response was to send Rockets to bomb the country, so the offer was withdrawn.

2nd time was shortly after 9/11, although the Taliban would not hand them over directly to the USA, as they wouldnt receive a fair trial (something the USA has proved to my satisfaction with the camps in Cuba)...they offered to hand them over to an American Ally though....Pakistan.

[the mask]

9.123: O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).

This proves that they have to kill the unbelievers, however like i said b4 the Quran says to be kind to everyone.

danyj, i dont know if you understand arabic but you have not fully translated the verse, it seems to me that you have just taken it from an arabic/english quran. but let me explain something for you - firstly you have to know why and when this verse was revealed- it was at the time when 'jihad' was necessary, it is explaining to the muslims as what to do for, and how to fight against the non-muslims if they invade a muslim country. jihad is farz-e-kifiyah (compulsoray on some) which should be done according to the natural sequence against those kafirs (non-muslims) who are near to the muslims and then those who are close to them. in this way the circle of jihad should be widened. the jihads of the holy prophet (peace be upon him) and the khulafa-e-rashedeen (the 4 deputies after the passing of the prophet) were made according to this arrangement. in defensive jihads the same system is given by the muslim fuqaha (jurists) that if some non-muslims invade a darul-islam (islamic state) jihad is obligatory on the muslims of that islamic state. if those muslims are not sufficient or are indolent then those muslims who are adjacent to them should wage jihad on the aggressors. if they too are insufficient or weak then those near them should join the jihad and so on and so fourth the jihad shall become obligatory from east to west.

so as you can now see muslims are not allowed to go around just killing who they feel like it, when they feel like it. there are set rules codes and practices.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by the mask@19 April 2004 - 09:27
so as you can now see muslims are not allowed to go around just killing who they feel like it, when they feel like it. there are set rules codes and practices.

Yet Muslims violates their own "rules" all the time.....just like everyone else.


People need to understand that there good and evil people that follow Islam.

Keep in mind to that on 9/11 those hijackers killed many Muslims as well.

Nice going....idiots.

[BigBank_Hank]

So you honestly think that he invaded Iraq because they were a security concern to USA? I bet it had nothing to do with all oil fields that are in Iraq.

Absolutely they were a security risk. We had the opportunity to finish Saddam off in the first gulf war we didn't take it and now we had to go back and finish the job. Even the last administration knew that Saddam had to be taken care of but of course Clinton wouldn't do anything about it.

Saddam was a menace to his own people and posed a threat to the entire world. He had weapons that violated UN resolutions and the UN was content to sit on there asses and do nothing about it. Sure he may have allowed inspectors in but it was when he wanted them in and what areas he allowed them to search.

The continued agreement over we invaded Iraq because of oil reserves is weak. If that was the main purpose for invasion then why wouldn't we just have done it on our own? We kept trying to convince the UN that it was the right thing to do along with other countries and asked for their support. If we were there for the soul purpose of oil we would have just bombed everything in every city and took control of everything.

[the mask]

Yet Muslims violates their own "rules" all the time.....just like everyone else

i have to agree with you busyman, unfortunately this is why the world is in the state that it is, but i had to just clarify a point to danyj. it just appears to me that the USA government try to make everything look that they abide by all the rules and everyone else is breaking them but have they forgot japan,JFK oh and by the way are blacks allowed to drink from the same tap as whites or is that all over now...mmm
and bigbank i disagree, yes one of the major factors for going to war is oil. going in alone would have been risky business because other surrounding countries may have taken iraq's side and that would have been bad for the US army as they cant even gain control now with a united force so imagine if they were alone. and as for going in and just bombing everything well i go back to my original remarks about the USA showing that they obey all the rules etc

[vidcc]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@19 April 2004 - 07:55

Absolutely they were a security risk.



Saddam was a menace to his own people and posed a threat to the entire world. He had weapons that violated UN resolutions and the UN was content to sit on there asses and do nothing about it. Sure he may have allowed inspectors in but it was when he wanted them in and what areas he allowed them to search.

well we still haven't been able to prove that...where are those WMD? Even Bush admitted that the intelligence he had at the time was inacurate. There has been no evedence linking Iraq with bin laden...iraq was not the war on terror.

The continued agreement over we invaded Iraq because of oil reserves is weak. If that was the main purpose for invasion then why wouldn't we just have done it on our own? We kept trying to convince the UN that it was the right thing to do along with other countries and asked for their support. If we were there for the soul purpose of oil we would have just bombed everything in every city and took control of everything.

America may be the dominant superpower but it would not stand a chance against the rest of the world combined...it needed support even if it was just diplomatic. Even if the rest of the world didn't take military action the embargos and sanctions would cripple us.

[BigBank_Hank]

vidcc you would be content to sit on your hands and wait for Saddam to kill more innocent people before we would have to finally do something? How many more people need to die under his regime before it would be acceptable to remove him?

Militarily we cold have done the job on our own. We had plenty of weapons in the arsenal that we didn't even use because the regime toppled so quickly. Post war is where we knew we would need help. And I'll admit that we underestimated how much trouble it would be to settle things down, of course Iran and Syria sending weapons and troops to fight isn't helping the cause.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@19 April 2004 - 12:13
vidcc you would be content to sit on your hands and wait for Saddam to kill more innocent people before we would have to finally do something? How many more people need to die under his regime before it would be acceptable to remove him?

I don't want to see any innocent people killed, But as you pointed out we can't go around liberating the whole world.......
So which people do we liberate?.....but we are just going round in circles here

Don't misunderstand me, i think Saddam was and is an evil man and i'm glad to see the back of him

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@19 April 2004 - 21:13

Militarily we cold have done the job on our own. We had plenty of weapons in the arsenal that we didn't even use because the regime toppled so quickly.

This my friend is the point.

It is the people of the USA and the UK (and their coalition allies) who are risking their people's lives and spending their countries resources.

It is a matter for them who they choose to help and who they do not choose to help. It is not a situation that if you depose one dictator you must depose them all. The reality is that the world should be glad that another one of them is gone.

The rest of the world does not have the right to choose the next conflict. If the USA, the UK etc say nope, we have done what we think is right and now we rest, then that is their business.

If they choose to take up arms again then that will be their choice, where to do it and when to do it.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@19 April 2004 - 12:13
Militarily we cold have done the job on our own. We had plenty of weapons in the arsenal that we didn't even use because the regime toppled so quickly. Post war is where we knew we would need help. And I'll admit that we underestimated how much trouble it would be to settle things down, of course Iran and Syria sending weapons and troops to fight isn't helping the cause.

nobody could deny that we have the weapons to tackle smaller countries unilaterally...but without the approval of the rest of the world or a large part thereof then it's the reprocussions that we would have a problem with. this is why we needed the UN on our side

Jpol
I agree with what you said, it is up to us who we choose to help. But it was argued by an American that the USA helps for humanitarian reasons and not because we can benefit and it was pointed out that we seem to only be humanitarian to nations that we can benefit from, Bush uses phrases like fighting to protect "American interests abroad"...Its a fair comment.
It is the way we sell our campaigns that bring out the question "why help one and not the other ?"