The UN Vote Proves

[irosie91]

you are a joke-----Saddam never made his LONG RANGE CANNON ---he tried-----he tried to
make lots of things including innovations in biological warfare------but did not succeed----he
contented himself with old time poisons including nitrogen mustard gas and INNOVATIVELY he
put electrical currents into swampy areas to murder Shiites wholesale for the BAATHIST CAUSE----
think NASSER, ASSAD, SADDAM----they are of the same family and RUSSIA loves them

Hon, you're babbling again.

Here's the thing. None of this is ANY OF OUR BUSINESS. If they want to kill the Zionists or each other "how many imams can dance on the head of a pin", that is TOTALLY NOT OUR PROBLEM.

It never was.

We need to stop sticking our dicks in the Middle East Hornet's nest.

Isolationism never works--------Father Charles Coughlin finally lost his cookies and
chalice-----pius saw the light

 

[JoeB131]

wrong again-----MUHUMMAD INVENTED ISIS-------I have been hearing about DA GLORIOUS
CALIPHATE since I came into contact with muslims-----more than 55 years ago

That was just the voices in your head. They have medications for that now.

 

[harmonica]

all irrelevant as my point is he was a threat--he did what hitler did--...so to take him out was the right thing

Not really.

Hitler wasn't taken out because he was a bad man. He was taken out because he made war on the rest of the world.

Saddam was a bad man. He wasn't a threat. Not a credible one, and taking him out has created more problems than it has solved. It's why we are still dicking around over there 14 years later.

you are CORRECT
so we have Kuwait helping saddam--then he attacks Kuwait
add ANOTHER point to my many points I have stated that saddam was crazy, a threat, etc --
another reason to take him out

Not at all. The dispute between Kuwait and Saddam really wasn't our problem. Kuwait caused a lot of that problem by trying to drain all the oil from the Rumalia Oil Fields it shared with Iraq.

o--another point on saddam--he invaded Iran before Kuwait!
add that to the other points---he was definitely a threat!

But here's the problem. When he invaded Iran, the US and most of the rest of the world supported him.

history!
saddam made and USED WMDS/chemical weapons--against Iran and his own people
he harbored terrorists in Iraq
terrorists + chemical weapons
--you don't see this as a threat??!!!?? it's a threat to the world

Iraq supported several terrorist groups in the past.

Terrorism and the War with Iraq

then he burns the oil wells! crazy man saddam was undeniably a threat

"One of our key objectives is to search for, capture and drive out terrorists who have found safe haven in Iraq,

CNN.com - U.S. captures mastermind of Achille Lauro hijacking - Apr. 16, 2003

also--he invaded Iran, then Kuwait---if he takes over Saudi Arabia and/or it's oil--this is a threat to the US and world economy

actually saddam was a bigger threat than hitler to US citizens [ and the world's ] because:
1. world travel much easier--making it easier for terrorists to travel just about anywhere
2. hitler never developed the atom bomb
...even if he did--they did not have a delivery device to reach the US
.....they developed the rockets--but these were far, FAR from being able to deliver---to the US -- just the 2000lb pound warhead the V2 carried, much less the 9700lbs of the US atom bomb

good thing we took out saddam--or you would have another Kim Jong supporting terrorists and chemical weapons---AND Kim doesn't have the volatile, dangerous, destructive, history that saddam had

 

[JoeB131]

history!
saddam made and USED WMDS/chemical weapons--against Iran and his own people

So what? First, it's kind of silly to call a chemical weapon a WMD. They just aren't that effective, which is why no one has used them all that much since WWI. Even in WWI, they stopped being effective after everyone developed effective countermeasures.

he harbored terrorists in Iraq
terrorists + chemical weapons
--you don't see this as a threat??!!!?? it's a threat to the world

Naw, I don't see it as a threat because a chemical weapon is only effective- if at all- when it is used en masse. Also, we didn't find any active chemical weapons in Iraq after we invaded it and most of the evidence was that Saddam had destroyed most of his stockpiles after the 1991 war.

then he burns the oil wells! crazy man saddam was undeniably a threat

Oh, noes, not the oil wells! Think of all those sweet Exxon profits that were lost!!!!

also--he invaded Iran, then Kuwait---if he takes over Saudi Arabia and/or it's oil--this is a threat to the US and world economy

Or we could just buy the oil when he sold it and spent that 900 Billion we spend on a bloated military on energy independence.

What amuses me is that the Islamic world has been using oil to fuck with us since 1974, and never at any point does anyone say, "Hey, maybe we can use something else for fuel!"

 

[harmonica]

all irrelevant as my point is he was a threat--he did what hitler did--...so to take him out was the right thing

Not really.

Hitler wasn't taken out because he was a bad man. He was taken out because he made war on the rest of the world.

Saddam was a bad man. He wasn't a threat. Not a credible one, and taking him out has created more problems than it has solved. It's why we are still dicking around over there 14 years later.

you are CORRECT
so we have Kuwait helping saddam--then he attacks Kuwait
add ANOTHER point to my many points I have stated that saddam was crazy, a threat, etc --
another reason to take him out

Not at all. The dispute between Kuwait and Saddam really wasn't our problem. Kuwait caused a lot of that problem by trying to drain all the oil from the Rumalia Oil Fields it shared with Iraq.

o--another point on saddam--he invaded Iran before Kuwait!
add that to the other points---he was definitely a threat!

But here's the problem. When he invaded Iran, the US and most of the rest of the world supported him.

and hitler invaded Poland because it was Poland's fault

 

[JoeB131]

and hitler invaded Poland because it was Poland's fault

Okay, let's look at that.

Germany's complaint with Poland was that there was a lot of German territory where Germans - not Poles - lived, and Germany wanted those territories back.

But the Poles refused to negotiate on those issues because the French and British wrote the "Colonel's Regime" (Poland was a military dictatorship at the time) a blank check. IN short, the western allies made promises they really couldn't keep, then refused to negotiate after the Colonels were trounced in six weeks.

WWII was ultimately a failure of diplomacy, of countries making promises they couldn't keep.

 

[harmonica]

history!
saddam made and USED WMDS/chemical weapons--against Iran and his own people

So what? First, it's kind of silly to call a chemical weapon a WMD. They just aren't that effective, which is why no one has used them all that much since WWI. Even in WWI, they stopped being effective after everyone developed effective countermeasures.

he harbored terrorists in Iraq
terrorists + chemical weapons
--you don't see this as a threat??!!!?? it's a threat to the world

Naw, I don't see it as a threat because a chemical weapon is only effective- if at all- when it is used en masse. Also, we didn't find any active chemical weapons in Iraq after we invaded it and most of the evidence was that Saddam had destroyed most of his stockpiles after the 1991 war.

then he burns the oil wells! crazy man saddam was undeniably a threat

Oh, noes, not the oil wells! Think of all those sweet Exxon profits that were lost!!!!

also--he invaded Iran, then Kuwait---if he takes over Saudi Arabia and/or it's oil--this is a threat to the US and world economy

Or we could just buy the oil when he sold it and spent that 900 Billion we spend on a bloated military on energy independence.

What amuses me is that the Islamic world has been using oil to fuck with us since 1974, and never at any point does anyone say, "Hey, maybe we can use something else for fuel!"

1.Tokyo gas attack--over 4000 suffered effects from the attack--not effective???!!! hahahahahhahahahaaa
2. not used often does not mean it's not a threat
....aircraft carriers had not been used often to attack major naval ports---but you see what happened at Pearl Harbor

 

[harmonica]

and hitler invaded Poland because it was Poland's fault

Okay, let's look at that.

Germany's complaint with Poland was that there was a lot of German territory where Germans - not Poles - lived, and Germany wanted those territories back.

But the Poles refused to negotiate on those issues because the French and British wrote the "Colonel's Regime" (Poland was a military dictatorship at the time) a blank check. IN short, the western allies made promises they really couldn't keep, then refused to negotiate after the Colonels were trounced in six weeks.

WWII was ultimately a failure of diplomacy, of countries making promises they couldn't keep.

what about Russia, I guess that was Russia's fault

history!
saddam made and USED WMDS/chemical weapons--against Iran and his own people

So what? First, it's kind of silly to call a chemical weapon a WMD. They just aren't that effective, which is why no one has used them all that much since WWI. Even in WWI, they stopped being effective after everyone developed effective countermeasures.

he harbored terrorists in Iraq
terrorists + chemical weapons
--you don't see this as a threat??!!!?? it's a threat to the world

Naw, I don't see it as a threat because a chemical weapon is only effective- if at all- when it is used en masse. Also, we didn't find any active chemical weapons in Iraq after we invaded it and most of the evidence was that Saddam had destroyed most of his stockpiles after the 1991 war.

then he burns the oil wells! crazy man saddam was undeniably a threat

Oh, noes, not the oil wells! Think of all those sweet Exxon profits that were lost!!!!

also--he invaded Iran, then Kuwait---if he takes over Saudi Arabia and/or it's oil--this is a threat to the US and world economy

Or we could just buy the oil when he sold it and spent that 900 Billion we spend on a bloated military on energy independence.

What amuses me is that the Islamic world has been using oil to fuck with us since 1974, and never at any point does anyone say, "Hey, maybe we can use something else for fuel!"

and saddam was a bigger threat, than hitler, to the US because the world economy was more global in the 90s than in the 40s

 

[JoeB131]

1.Tokyo gas attack--over 4000 suffered effects from the attack--not effective???!!! hahahahahhahahahaaa

Yes, 4000 people suffered - GASP - temporary vision problems.

Only 12 died and 50 were seriously injured.

Tokyo subway sarin attack - Wikipedia

2. not used often does not mean it's not a threat
....aircraft carriers had not been used often to attack major naval ports---but you see what happened at Pearl Harbor

actually, they had been used quite effectively by the British and Japanese for years. The Brits launched a very effective attack on the Italians at Taranto.

Battle of Taranto - Wikipedia

And they only used one Aircraft carrier.

 

[JoeB131]

what about Russia, I guess that was Russia's fault

What, now you think Stalin was a victim?

and saddam was a bigger threat, than hitler, to the US because the world economy was more global in the 90s than in the 40s

Saddam wasn't a threat to anyone... He was actually kind of inept.

 

[harmonica]

1.Tokyo gas attack--over 4000 suffered effects from the attack--not effective???!!! hahahahahhahahahaaa

Yes, 4000 people suffered - GASP - temporary vision problems.

Only 12 died and 50 were seriously injured.

Tokyo subway sarin attack - Wikipedia

2. not used often does not mean it's not a threat
....aircraft carriers had not been used often to attack major naval ports---but you see what happened at Pearl Harbor

actually, they had been used quite effectively by the British and Japanese for years. The Brits launched a very effective attack on the Italians at Taranto.

Battle of Taranto - Wikipedia

And they only used one Aircraft carrier.

1 time is often?? 1 time is ''for years''???!
ok---you are big time wrong--
carriers did not destroy fleets/bases/etc before PH--except Taranto--that's not even a close comparison
the Japanese NEVER attacked with carriers before PH
wtf are you talking about?
they used ONE carrier at Taranto--the Japanese used SIX at PH !! ''carrierS'' with an S--per my post

 

[harmonica]

1.Tokyo gas attack--over 4000 suffered effects from the attack--not effective???!!! hahahahahhahahahaaa

Yes, 4000 people suffered - GASP - temporary vision problems.

Only 12 died and 50 were seriously injured.

Tokyo subway sarin attack - Wikipedia

2. not used often does not mean it's not a threat
....aircraft carriers had not been used often to attack major naval ports---but you see what happened at Pearl Harbor

actually, they had been used quite effectively by the British and Japanese for years. The Brits launched a very effective attack on the Italians at Taranto.

Battle of Taranto - Wikipedia

And they only used one Aircraft carrier.

PH was the FIRST time carriers were used en masse

 

[Aba Incieni]

The South Vietnamese may disagree with you, but it doesn't change history. Slaughter and re-education camps were their payback for resisting.

So? Hey, civil wars suck, especially for the losers. You still miss my point. South Vietnam lost because most people didn't support the Quislings we propped up in Saigon. They were gone as soon as the checks stopped coming.

Many muslim countries have felt the blessings of ISIS for eight long years. They're educated enough.

There wouldn't be an ISIS if we hadn't toppled Saddam to start with.

Eight years of ISIS was enough to know who they were. One or two years is probably all it took to learn about Chinese communism.

 

[JoeB131]

the Japanese NEVER attacked with carriers before PH
wtf are you talking about?

Um, yes, they extensively used carriers to attack coastal cities in China.

they used ONE carrier at Taranto--the Japanese used SIX at PH !! ''carrierS'' with an S--per my post

And um, before Pearl Harbor, they weren't at war with an enemy who had significant naval assets. The British, on the other hand, were very effectively using their carriers against the Axis.

 

[harmonica]

the Japanese NEVER attacked with carriers before PH
wtf are you talking about?

Um, yes, they extensively used carriers to attack coastal cities in China.

they used ONE carrier at Taranto--the Japanese used SIX at PH !! ''carrierS'' with an S--per my post

And um, before Pearl Harbor, they weren't at war with an enemy who had significant naval assets. The British, on the other hand, were very effectively using their carriers against the Axis.

please link the attacks on China
they did not use the carriers en masse as they did at PH
please--the Taranto destruction was nowhere near the same as PH--very poor comparison---not even close
Taranto::
59 killed
600 wounded
1 battleship lost
2 battleships heavily damaged
1 heavy cruiser slightly damaged
2 destroyers slightly damaged
2 aircraft destroyed on the ground

PH::
Casualties and losses
4 battleships sunk
4 battleships damaged
2 other ships sunk[nb 2]
3 cruisers damaged[nb 3]
3 destroyers damaged
3 other ships damaged
188 aircraft destroyed
159[6] aircraft damaged
2,335 killed
1,143 wounded

you do see the HUGE difference--yes?

I've been reading/researching WW2 for over 40 years
PH was the FIRST time carriers were used en masse

 

[harmonica]

the Japanese NEVER attacked with carriers before PH
wtf are you talking about?

Um, yes, they extensively used carriers to attack coastal cities in China.

they used ONE carrier at Taranto--the Japanese used SIX at PH !! ''carrierS'' with an S--per my post

And um, before Pearl Harbor, they weren't at war with an enemy who had significant naval assets. The British, on the other hand, were very effectively using their carriers against the Axis.

a lot of the Brit carriers were used in Naval battles
please link these ''effective'' uses....they were NOTHING like PH.....not even close!! please, let's see the links

 

[Deno]

When you are dealing with a "religion" that passes their children through the fire"?
Yes, you bomb them wherever they are.

Only if you are a complete racist asshole who doesn't actually understand their religion.

Our problem with the Middle east have nothing to do with religion, buddy.

This is the dumbest post I have ever read....

 

[Deno]

invade ? SAVING you mean
saddam was like hitler:
1. gassed his OWN people
2. invaded innocent, tiny Kuwait
3. violated the ceasefire

1) We didn't say jack shit when Saddam gassed the Kurds. IN fact, Ronnie Reagan actually denied it and sold them the chemicals.
2) Kuwait was hardly innocent. They were sponsoring Saddam when he was attacking Iran for years.
3) He really didn't violate the cease fire..

The reason why we took Saddam out was because the Zionists saw him as a threat.

Not our fucking problem.

You seem to have a problem with Jews....

 

[cnm]

The UN vote proves just how many countries are afraid of muslim violence

I guess that goes to the courage of Palau, the Marshall Islands and Togo. They're brave.

 

[cnm]

You [JoeB131] seem to have a problem with Jews....

You on the other hand have no problem conflating all Jews with Zionists.