Author Topic: Soldiers Choose Canada (Read 3323 times)

Nash · « **Reply #75 on:** July 08, 2004, 08:21:31 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by FUNKED1
You are the one who attempted to judge the justness of the war by the number of deserters. I merely pointed out that you hadn't proved your point.

well, that was a weak stab at it.

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #76 on:** July 08, 2004, 08:24:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
well, that was a weak stab at it.

I do that too, NP.
Hell you are probably right anyways. I certainly would not want to get killed to help those ungrateful bastards. It makes the guys who DID do their duty even more remarkable.
I don't even think that Dubya's War was a very good idea. Other things should have been higher priorities for our military, and had Boosh been patient, Saddam would have eventually done something stupid enough to generate UN and NATO support for kicking his ass. There still would have been much whining, but we wouldn't have had things like European politicians using the Deth to Amreeka theme to win over muslim and lefty voters to ensure their reelection.

SOB · « **Reply #77 on:** July 08, 2004, 08:24:45 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by FUNKED1
*****, please.

Ahhh, damnit, gay is catching!

Nash · « **Reply #78 on:** July 08, 2004, 08:29:29 PM »

gay is the new orange. just ask lazs.

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #79 on:** July 08, 2004, 08:30:16 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
gay is the new orange. just ask lazs.

And the new Pepsi with half the sugar.

SLO · « **Reply #80 on:** July 08, 2004, 08:30:16 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by VOR
I can't help but think that you're creating facts as you go, SLO. Call it a hunch or an eerie intuition.

quiet at work...everything is spiffy and running well....in a good mood

I like too exagerate some times:D

ok ok...maybe not 99.9...but lets say....99.0:p

xrtoronto · « **Reply #81 on:** July 08, 2004, 08:31:57 PM »

funk i found a page that said the Baath Party was responsible for between 190K and 250K deaths in iraq over the past 10 years...but that figure is half the number of kids under the age of 5 who died because of those sanctions...and in the link i supplied above the US government acknowledges that the sanctions failed to produce the 'desired results'.

My question now is why are you doing exactly the same thing against Syria? Is Damascus the new centre of terrorism? Bush is claiming that the WMD (

) that iraq had are now in Syria. And the cycle repeats.

You call saddam a madman...you're right he's a fediddleing total arse...why did the US put him into power in iraq to begin with? Why did the US supply him with the gas he used against the kurds? Why did the US supply both iraq and iran with weapons to kill one another? (Iran contra?) etc... etc...

Saddam is not the only fediddleing total arse madman out there. Some town in Tx is missing their's.

Habu · « **Reply #82 on:** July 08, 2004, 08:36:37 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by xrtoronto
I am aware that the sanctions ended: just because the sanctions are now over does that negate that 100's of thousands in iraq died because of them? for what did all those kids die?

BTW: you have only now started to do the same thing against Syria, wtg!:aok

Those numbers are bogus. I am amazed that this fact has been discussed in the media and there are still people that quote the original Iraqi propaganda and believe it.

Do a little research on that topic with an open mind. Then come here and let us know if you still believe those numbers.

xrtoronto · « **Reply #83 on:** July 08, 2004, 08:40:31 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Habu
Those numbers are bogus. I am amazed that this fact has been discussed in the media and there are still people that quote the original Iraqi propaganda and believe it.

Do a little research on that topic with an open mind. Then come here and let us know if you still believe those numbers.

this is one of the links I located this info on:

source (from US)

If you have another source plz advise habu.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #84 on:** July 08, 2004, 08:40:33 PM »

The USA did not put Saddam in power... He got into power by bullying out an older cousin of his... What are you smoking?

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #85 on:** July 08, 2004, 08:42:34 PM »

And why are you whining about sanctions? Those were put there by the migthy dear UN multinational coalition of wonderful multilaterall legal action because saddam did not meet his obligations to the mighty dear UN multinational coalition of wonderful multilaterall legal action.

Remember to you guys UN = good! Mkay?

Nash · « **Reply #86 on:** July 08, 2004, 08:49:31 PM »

ohh... Grun shows up...

I'm picturing tumbleweeds...

Tumor · « **Reply #87 on:** July 08, 2004, 08:51:12 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by xrtoronto
funk i found a page that said the Baath Party was responsible for between 190K and 250K deaths in iraq over the past 10 years...but that figure is half the number of kids under the age of 5 who died because of those sanctions...and in the link i supplied above the US government acknowledges that the sanctions failed to produce the 'desired results'.

My question now is why are you doing exactly the same thing against Syria? Is Damascus the new centre of terrorism? Bush is claiming that the WMD ( ) that iraq had are now in Syria. And the cycle repeats.

You call saddam a madman...you're right he's a fediddleing total arse...why did the US put him into power in iraq to begin with? Why did the US supply him with the gas he used against the kurds? Why did the US supply both iraq and iran with weapons to kill one another? (Iran contra?) etc... etc...

Saddam is not the only fediddleing total arse madman out there. Some town in Tx is missing their's.

Saddam had plenty of cash to take care of the people in Iraq, sanctions or no. Ever looked into some of the "Palaces" he built? The word "Palace" is an understatement at best. These things are more easily described as "really really nice counties", not to mention other projects he had going. Blaming anyone other than Saddam for kids who died in that time frame is simply wrong.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #88 on:** July 08, 2004, 08:55:13 PM »

I think its Ironic that they are using some of these palaces as barracks and command centers. Hell they were built with the protection of SH in mind.

I buddy of mine wrote me the other day and his company is HQd and garrisoned at a "palace". He says "its the best dammed barracks he's ever lived in"

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #89 on:** July 08, 2004, 08:55:18 PM »

Yawn..