Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/28/05 04:36 AM, darkmage8 wrote: Well I must be psychic then. Because all the crap I just made up concerning U.S involvment with Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia building up to the Gulf War is basic history. If you can find anything that stringently contradicts the basic history I've written about the U.S involvement with Iraq before the war, I'd very much like to see it.

First, I'm still waiting for an explaination as to how your reply had anything to do with my question.

Second, If it's such basic history then why can't you provide a source?

I thought it pretty obvious by the tone of the articles that it was common knowledge the united States had willingly armed Saddam. If I honestly have to find an article that spells out how we armed Iraq, then this should be sufficient. If you can't trust sources that range from the Washington Post, to ABC Nightline, to Times, you're on your own to live in the dark. I especially like this one:

First of all, those weren't sources. Those were editorials. You might as well cite a blog. Robert Novak needs to offer proof just as you do.

Second, it's not even a matter of not trusting them. None of them offered prove, they just gave conjecture.

http://www.iranchamb..cles/arming_iraq.php

What is this? A blog? A blog that cites editorials as sources? A blog that cites ITSELF as a source? 13 'Iran-Iraq War, 1980-1988. Iranchamber.com'

Look, Jim. Bombing the shit out an entire nation whose religion already considers Westerners infedels and lost followers of Satan is one thing. Keeping medicine, food, and clean water from them for six years before even implementing the damn Oil for Food program is another. Throw in the Radical Islam that's already *been* in Iraq though the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites, who are already pissed off at eachother for not *agreeing* on who the successor of Islam is, and you can honestly NOT tell me that Radical Islam in Iraq was uneffected by western bombing of their country in the Gulf War.

So basically your argument isn't that you neccesarily have any proof that radical islam has spread because of the bombings, but rather that it should have. Because, you know, if you do anything to muslims, they turn radical and start bombing.

I really don't even know how to respond to that. It would seem you think the combined strength and technology of the Axis that rivaled much of the Western world in it's era was on par with the non-existant strength and power Iraq posed against the United States in the 90s. A group of rag-tag Iraqi soldiers in clunker Soviet tanks as opposed to running into a flank of highly-trained S.S troopers jacked up on stims and meth. Yeah, the nazis posed the same threat as the Iraqis.

HAH! Saddams army during the first invasion was not rag-tag, it was a huge army with weapons bought from not just the Soviets but other well developed countries like France as well.

But of course, you still basically said that a bomb will kill an Iraqi easier than a Nazi. Which doesn't need anything to be proven wrong.

i only read the topic starters intro, but it infuriated me to much to read the rest of the posts so i will stick with just that. Listen i don't like killing civilians. I don't like bombing populated areas. But what i don't like even more are people who want to sit back and let it happen to us. My aunt uncle and two cousins died on 9/11. My uncle has surprised my aunt at work and brought the kids. I miss them everyday. I'm not saying what president Bush did was correct in invading Iraq. Infact i don't see any connection btween the 9/11 bombing and the iraqi invasion other than the fact that its in the middle east and the terrorist behind 9/11 live in the region. You seem to lack the simple comprehension that some people aren't well educated and that western ideology is not as wide spread and taken to as people think. I'm also jewish and i've grown up learning about the palestein and israeli conflict. I've seen and talked to people who have grown up with the perception that all jews are terrible people when in fact they've never met one. Arab boys are taught at age 9 to shoot guns and to plot attacks against people. The live and let live theory does not work. The terrorists who were behind the 9/11 attacks weren't striking back for a moral victory. Their goal is to destroy our way of life. If the United States was sitting back and doing nothing abroad someone else would have to or we would cowar in fear from the possible attacks of a ghost assassin body. They and when i say i' don't mean all arabs i mean the radical islamic extremists, they want everyone to follow their religion anyone who doesn't is an enemy. Osama bin ladan after kuwait turned down his offer to help them in the fight against the soviet union in 1985 i believe it was took a special disliking to the united states who was the country that stepped in and helped instead. Bin Ladan wanted to help kuwait gain the peoples support.

Terrorist the smarter ones, not the mind slaves, know damn well that sending suicide bombers into london and madrid will scare people hurt the world economy but its a slow and tedious process. Trying to rip down the world scare after scare. Letting them be was never an option. You want to argue politics over getting involved in world war 2? and that causing the United states to become a super power? Or would u like to go farther back to world war one where the germans got fucked over in the treaty of versaile and let to the rise of Hitler? Whats done is done and the terrorist will not stop. They will continue to fight us and we will continue to derail them. The only real hope would for enough power muslims who the radicals might possibly listen to speak up and unify and put a clamp and educate a different way. really its up to the children and like i said age 9 they are being taught to shoot a gun. The untited states is on the defence. Iraq was stupid but has nothing to do with terrorism. If we had gone into north korea instead then we would be getting hell over there. Or worse we sit back and don't show any kind of military presence... then its happy hour for terrorist training grounds. I disagree with going to war in Iraq. I was arrested for protesting it. I was part of the school walkout... but do not fucking tell me that we should sit back because its our fault that we piss these people off.

Too bad, we SHOULD sit back. Not ebcause it's our fault. I don't know, or care who's fault it is, but they're is no reason to off with our guns blazing stroking our penis (metaphorically) around the world. I have better things to do with my life than worry about some psychos. We shouldn't be doing a damn thing abroad, and not that much at home to combat the terrorits. Yeah, sure, beef up security, but no need to freak out. Just sit back and act as if they don't exist.

We, North America, are doomed as a nation. Pissing the world off is in our blood.

1) We changed to the right side of the street to piss England off.

2) Protests

3) We finished 2 world wars then turned around and lost to a 3rd world contre40

4) someone finish this for me.(we Americans are very lazy)

Omfg, this thread IS shit. Anyone who've read this just got dumber by reading it. [Unless you've agreed with it, you can't possibly be dumber.] They've declared a holy war on us, we can't fucking hold hands and play kiss ass with them. They want us dead. We can't be friends that wants us to be killed no matter what. Especially these retarded demands like, "Move out of your country for it's Muslim holy land! Blakha derka allah!" Gah'...fuckin' hippies and cry baby teenagers.

hmmm what are you all thinking!?
THE TERRORISTS AINT GONNA STOP JUST CUS WE ALL PULL OUT OF IRAQ OR WHATEVER. AND WE AINT GONNA PULL OUT OF IRAQ BECAUSE OF ALL THE OIL.
WE NEED TO IRADICATE THEM. kk enough caps.... they have declaired holy war (dont you just hate religion, it always starts wars! (and now you cant even talk about religion anymore because you dont know who you are gonna offend and if you do offend someone, you are branded a racist)) we gotta eradicate them. and we start by cracking down on illigal immogrants!
tax payers are paying for those terrorists to live in a flat and get paid £x to live there!
doesnt it just piss you off!!!?

by the way that one goes out to all the brits

At 7/28/05 04:50 AM, Jimsween wrote: First, I'm still waiting for an explaination as to how your reply had anything to do with my question.
Second, If it's such basic history then why can't you provide a source?

Considering you've said that like 4 times, common sense would say this would go faster by restating the question in the first place. I could search for it myself, but that would be too ironic considering you've abandoned every hint of acknowledging the cold-hard fact that Saddam was sold chemical and bio weapons by the U.S because you don't like "this" or "that" with any given source. Since these sources obviously have to come from the words of the people themselves to wash away your conspiracy theory that I'm making it all up, knock yourself out. You can either choose to accept the truth that we had commercial involvement in Iraq before and during the Gulf war, or choose to live in the dark in your own fairy-tale.

it was learned that U.N. inspectors had identified many United States-manufactured items that had been exported from the United States to Iraq under licenses issued by the Department of Commerce, and that these items were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and missile delivery system development programs

http://www.usiraqprocon.org/bin/procon/pro
con.cgi?database=5-E-subs-3.db&command=vie
wone&id=6&rnd=376.73961234550643

First of all, those weren't sources. Those were editorials. You might as well cite a blog. Robert Novak needs to offer proof just as you do.

Second, it's not even a matter of not trusting them. None of them offered prove, they just gave conjecture.

What news media today doesn't report on an editorial foundation? You cite a fact, then report a point of view on it. Some things are so blatant and obvious that it would be stupid to cite the source every time. Does someone writing an editorial about 9/11 have to footnote CNN everytime they write that the Hijackers were Islamic Extremists? You're really boardering on that line.

What is this? A blog? A blog that cites editorials as sources? A blog that cites ITSELF as a source? 13 'Iran-Iraq War, 1980-1988. Iranchamber.com'

You're right, I forgot. Opinions negate all factual events editorials are based off of.

So basically your argument isn't that you neccesarily have any proof that radical islam has spread because of the bombings, but rather that it should have. Because, you know, if you do anything to muslims, they turn radical and start bombing.

No, it's not like when Radical Islamists crash planes into buildings and people start saying their way of life needs to be crushed because they are naturally evil and violent. Nope, that didn't happen at all when we bombed Baghdad. Ignoring everything about the warring extremist tribes, you still manage to come out correct.

HAH! Saddams army during the first invasion was not rag-tag, it was a huge army with weapons bought from not just the Soviets but other well developed countries like France as well. But of course, you still basically said that a bomb will kill an Iraqi easier than a Nazi. Which doesn't need anything to be proven wrong.

If you can't get it through your head that fighting a World War against the plague of Facism that nearly conquered Europe was different then going out of our way to settle a crisis in some small country that posed no direct threat to the United States, then there is truly little that can deter you from your own version of history.

At 7/28/05 07:33 PM, wispa wrote: hmmm what are you all thinking!?
THE TERRORISTS AINT GONNA STOP JUST CUS WE ALL PULL OUT OF IRAQ OR WHATEVER. AND WE AINT GONNA PULL OUT OF IRAQ BECAUSE OF ALL THE OIL.
WE NEED TO IRADICATE THEM.

So you think you would stop shooting at your neighbors if they stopped camping on your lawn.

If somebody came to your house for false reasons and started to hunt you down, you'd shoot at them. Leave this topic, please.

At 7/28/05 08:19 PM, darkmage8 wrote: Considering you've said that like 4 times, common sense would say this would go faster by restating the question in the first place.

Hey idiot, maybe you could have looked at the question THE FIRST FUCKING TIME I ASKED IT???

"Second, Iraq had a war going on for quite some time, why couldn't we have made something up then?"

it was learned that U.N. inspectors had identified many United States-manufactured items that had been exported from the United States to Iraq under licenses issued by the Department of Commerce, and that these items were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and missile delivery system development programs

First of all, that is yet again a blog. Funny the only sources you can find on this issue are all from web pages dedicated to proving it.

Second, that doesn't even say what the items are. They could very well have been vaccines.

What news media today doesn't report on an editorial foundation? You cite a fact, then report a point of view on it. Some things are so blatant and obvious that it would be stupid to cite the source every time. Does someone writing an editorial about 9/11 have to footnote CNN everytime they write that the Hijackers were Islamic Extremists? You're really boardering on that line.

Every news media doesn't report on an editorial foundation. They have things called articles. The editorials are a completely seperate part where the writers get to express thier opinions and don't have to be as factual.

Every time someone cites an editorial, it's on an issue that was purely speculation, and its because no article would claim speculation was fact.

You're right, I forgot. Opinions negate all factual events editorials are based off of.

Unless they have a credible source for these factual events, they do indeed.

No, it's not like when Radical Islamists crash planes into buildings and people start saying their way of life needs to be crushed because they are naturally evil and violent. Nope, that didn't happen at all when we bombed Baghdad. Ignoring everything about the warring extremist tribes, you still manage to come out correct.

Is there a point in that statement? I couldn't decifer one, it sounded like you were trying to do a rant, but forgot to make your sentences have something to do with eachother.

If you can't get it through your head that fighting a World War against the plague of Facism that nearly conquered Europe was different then going out of our way to settle a crisis in some small country that posed no direct threat to the United States, then there is truly little that can deter you from your own version of history.

Thats not at all what youre claiming. Your trying to say that NAZI's need more bombs to kill then Iraqis, which is bullshit and you know it.

Some actual news source info on the subject:

http://news.bbc.co.u..dle_east/1099005.stm

http://www.cbc.ca/fi../kurds/alliance.html

General history:

http://www.cbc.ca/ne..ound/iraq/index.html

Finding such information online is difficult as there was no internet in 1988 (not like it is now, anyway) and most media archives don't go beyond 1996.