<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BCB @ Apr 24 2006, 10:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Everyone breaks UN sanctions/resolutions, we have and Israel has.</div>But Iraq is under strict restraint since the first Gulf War.
So you don't think that the money spent on the Iraq war that was designated for military purposes couldn't have been better utilized in Congo or Sudan?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (JustBlaze @ Apr 25 2006, 10:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>So you don't think that the money spent on the Iraq war that was designated for military purposes couldn't have been better utilized in Congo or Sudan?</div>We can play this game all day. We are spending a lot of money and we have a lot of troops all over the globe helping out a lot of different people. Should we step in and help the people of Congo and Sudan? You're damn right we should. And if we did I would support it, but we aren't and we are in Iraq and I support that, too.If you want us to do something in Congo or Sudan tell them we want more money for the military. :happy0144:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (JustBlaze @ Apr 25 2006, 05:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>No because we need to decide what's priority, and obviously Africa should be over Iraq.</div>Africa would cost more money than Iraq and we would get nothing back in return (Iraq has oil) if we did decide to step in. Plus, Iraq is in the heart of the Middle East and, as I have said before, was considered a safe house for some terrorist activity.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Mr Wolf @ Apr 26 2006, 12:10 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Africa would cost more money than Iraq and we would get nothing back in return (Iraq has oil) if we did decide to step in. Plus, Iraq is in the heart of the Middle East and, as I have said before, was considered a safe house for some terrorist activity.</div> How would Africa cost more money? There would be nothing to bomb and little to rebuild not to mention security would be much easier in Sudan for example because the Janjaweed rebels and the goverment don't have a big history and setting there. Iraq was not a safe house for terrorist activity, my god how many times have I told you this? When Bush was making his case for war he never mentioned Saddam harboring islamic extremists because you can pin terrorists as staying in every country in the middle east. Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Pakistan, Syria, UAE, Iran, Cyprus all have supported terrorists.
So you just admitted that the war was about oil and not actually helping out humanity, why should I argue with you about this anymore then. Let's kill 40,000 people just so we can get some oil, great plan. Iraq is no better with out Saddam in power, the insurgents will continue to wreak havoc and make it impossible to restore a stable government and infarstructure.Maybe we wouldn't have gained anything finiancially from sending troops to Congo to elimimate the militias and guerrilla armies, but at least we would have done some unselfish good in the world for once.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BCB @ Apr 25 2006, 11:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>How would Africa cost more money? There would be nothing to bomb and little to rebuild not to mention security would be much easier in Sudan for example because the Janjaweed rebels and the goverment don't have a big history and setting there. Iraq was not a safe house for terrorist activity, my god how many times have I told you this? When Bush was making his case for war he never mentioned Saddam harboring islamic extremists because you can pin terrorists as staying in every country in the middle east. Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Pakistan, Syria, UAE, Iran, Cyprus all have supported terrorists.</div>Do you have any idea how much money it would take to rebuild Africa? They don't have the proper buildings, supplies or education so you would basically be starting at square one.How many times have you told me this? I don't know, but it doesn't matter because I think you are wrong. Bush did mention that Iraq has terrorists in it. In fact, Congress passed the war for like 18 different reasons or something along those lines.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (JustBlaze @ Apr 26 2006, 09:22 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>So you just admitted that the war was about oil and not actually helping out humanity, why should I argue with you about this anymore then. Let's kill 40,000 people just so we can get some oil, great plan. Iraq is no better with out Saddam in power, the insurgents will continue to wreak havoc and make it impossible to restore a stable government and infarstructure.Maybe we wouldn't have gained anything finiancially from sending troops to Congo to elimimate the militias and guerrilla armies, but at least we would have done some unselfish good in the world for once.</div>I never said the war was just about oil, but oil certainly had something to do with it. Name a time when a country has fought in a war without it's best interests in mind? That is what they are suppose to do. You stratch my back and I'll stratch yours. You aren't going to throw away billions and billions and get nothing back in return.Yes, America has done so much evil in our lifetime. Give me a break. We protected Kuwait in the first gulf war, we helped out Bosnia in the 90's, we are helping out Columbia fight it's war on drugs right now. We are all over the world doing a lot of good things for a lot of people.I think I am going to end this debate, for atleast me, because I am sick of arguing with anti-American posters who feel that America is the worst thing that has ever happened to the world. I suppose you think President Bush is right up there with Hitler?I'm sorry, I should remain mature and that is why I feel I have to leave this debate. I do not think I can be professional anymore if I continue on with this debate. Thank you.
Who said we would have to rebuild Sudan? We wouldn't have to build much of anything because we wouldn't have to bomb much of anything. Building a few schools and water treatment would cost nothing compared to Iraq. We can build small cities that don't cost 1/1,000,000,000 the cost what Iraq has cost. Whats costing us so much in Iraq is security not rebuilding. Anti-American posters? Please. Just because we disagree and point out some flaws...give me a break. What is your deal with 'being mature and professional'...come on...
I think saying America has never done good ever is pretty anti-American.Here is the major difference between Iraq and Africa: Iraq has the economy (oil) and the structures to be a great country. Africa's countries are pretty much remote and have very little economic opertunites.Plus, if you go into Africa you'd have to face the AIDs crisis and that would take even more money to deal with. Both situations would cost a lot of money and both situations would be great to step in and get involved in. The fact of the matter is we are in Iraq and it's time to knuckle down, get Iraq standing up and then worry about the next thing.Why did we go to Iraq instead of Sudan or Congo? It's simple. After 9/11, we decided that if you aren't against terrorists then you are with them. Iraq had terrorists inside their borders that they knew about and were doing nothing about it. They were an easy target so we took them out. This is just the first step in our anti-terrorism foreign policy. It doesn't matter if you agree with it or not, that is what is happening right now.
Wow...Sorry Sudan, no help for you, you don't have oil and some of you have AIDS so we won't help you. We will probably pick off the weak islamo countries first, wait your turn.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BCB @ Apr 26 2006, 03:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Wow...Sorry Sudan, no help for you, you don't have oil and some of you have AIDS so we won't help you. We will probably pick off the weak islamo countries first, wait your turn.</div>Wow...Sorry Iraq, no help for you, because some other places have AIDs we won't have help even though you are being slaughtered and abused by your evil dictator. Even though your dictator won't give you proper money to help fund your country and you get raped for speaking against Saddam and his regime.
You exaggerate how bad Saddam was so much, don'tt ry to take the emotional approach and act like what he did is worse than what's going on in Congo where 10 yr old boys are forced to rape their mothers or die.
What does AIDS have anything to do with it? You think Sudan's leaders give them any money? You think they don't torture? Sudan's AIDS rate is only 2.3% which is very low.
I was talking more about Africa in general. Do you know where Congo ranks in terms of AIDs?And I'm sorry, but Saddam was one pretty damn bad dictator.
Well there's plenty of worse situations where people are being abused which should be taken care of, the fact that Iraq isn't the top is not disputable.
But how can you be certain? You want to tell the Iraqi people that they aren't as important as the people of Sudan? Because I wouldn't. Just like I wouldn't want to tell the people of Sudan that Iraqi's are more important than them.The bottom line is we can't do everything and Iraq made more sense for us after 9/11 than Congo or Sudan.
No it didn't. Yes I would tell the Iraqi people that their situation isn't as important as the people in Africa, because it's the truth. Did Saddam kill 7 million people?He posed no threat to us, it was a stupid war.
I just think that you're making it seem like it was a humanitarian aid war, as if we went to Iraq to liberate the people from a tyrant which is pretty absurd. I think there's plenty of other situations in the world right now where are people are under worse circumstances then they were under Saddam's reign.
