Phoenix Network Forums

I apologize. When I said "looks like we are doing a fine good job at our little war" I meant it as sarcasm, as I was pissed of at an unrelated thing while I was typing it up. Unfortunitly, it is hard to convey sarcasm on the internet.

In addition, you only count american deads, what about english soldiers or civil deads for example?

Because the previous poster was talking about George Bush. Also, the UK has only lost 98 soldiers. Not really 'dying everyday'.

For now, we can't say if americans have done a good job because we can't see now all the postives and negatives effects of this war.

I applaud you for your foresight, and hope that you continue to utilize the Serious Discussion Forum, as you are obviously intellectually capable for it. Once again, I hope my sarcastic post does not make you have the wrong ideas about me for future discussions.

I think that american soldiers (like frenchs in Ivory coast) didn't be enough prepared to manage foreign populations.

I agree with you. The United States has been lacking in the Foreign Policy department for the past few decades. However, that seems to be a common theme around the world as well...

Oh and, welcome to Phoenix Network!

When I said "looks like we are doing a fine good job at our little war" I meant it as sarcasm, as I was pissed of at an unrelated thing while I was typing it up. Unfortunitly, it is hard to convey sarcasm on the internet.

Oh ok, well. I'm pleased to know you didn't think what you said

Yes, sarcasm is difficult to detect when we don't have the interlocutor in front of, but sometimes it's very effective to have more reactions.

I was in favor of removing Saddam from power. It's time to turn it over to the Iraqi people now and let them sink or swim.

I don't have a problem with Bush's foreign policy. I can, however, find faults with many domestic issues...

I was in favor of removing Sadam as well, but I couldn't never see the connection between the US and Iraq - I don't think the US should have anything to do with overturning the Iraqi system. And you're right - there are way too many faults with the system at home.

And in the long run? The US is getting more fucked up, and there ~100,000 people less in the World. (my estimate is based on the Pentagon report that there were 30.000 Iraqis killed so far - if they're saying it's 30k, it's at least 50k - and there was Afghanistan as well...

I think Bush should not have been reelected, he is a waste of space

Ok, well here is my Fanatically Crazy opinion. The way I see it the bush administration is trying to do a few things here.

1. He is trying to finish what his dad started, and outdo him.

2. Obviously gain more money.

3. Trying to fulfill a prophecy.

Number 1. The first Iraq war did nothing, but protect our relationship with saudi arabia, and keep us getting cheap oil that can be hiked up for americans.

Number 2. This Iraq war has been the key thing to keeping current gas prices high. I was appalled when gas prices hit 3 dollars a gallon.

Number 3. The craziest. The bush administration is setting up someone to be a peacekeeper in the middle east. That is going to be the whole campaign for our next president. If you examine this closely it will match to a prophecy in a very famous book. Couple it along with the digital angel chips that are currently being tested, and you have the makings for the fullfilment of this prophecy.

I would like to hear some other peoples views on these things.

nagual wrote:Number 1. The first Iraq war did nothing, but protect our relationship with saudi arabia, and keep us getting cheap oil that can be hiked up for americans.

Well we did save the country of Kuwait from being overrun.

nagual wrote:Number 2. This Iraq war has been the key thing to keeping current gas prices high. I was appalled when gas prices hit 3 dollars a gallon.

You mean right after Hurricaines Rita and Katrina hit? When the Gulf Coast oil production was crippled? Do you also realize the president has no direct control over the cost of oil? It's managed by corporations and OPEC (for certain foreign oil). It is not set by Bush.

nagual wrote:Number 3. The craziest. The bush administration is setting up someone to be a peacekeeper in the middle east. That is going to be the whole campaign for our next president. If you examine this closely it will match to a prophecy in a very famous book. Couple it along with the digital angel chips that are currently being tested, and you have the makings for the fullfilment of this prophecy.

Best way to refer to something in a discussion is not in a vague way. I assume by a very famous book you mean a bible of some sort, but what are you talking about exactly? And who is the Bush Administration setting up to be the "peacekeeper" in the Middle East?

Just look @ the world's map... and see from where america is threatened by iraq ...

i believe if iraq would have gotten some nuclear installations
Uncle Bush would have never taken a risk

And btw who is UNCLE Bush to take care of the world ?

Who is he to influence on other counties ?

I agree foreign policies are there...

But invading a democratic country ...is beyond the holy concepts of humanity


regards,
Asrar.

yoman wrote:Just look @ the world's map... and see from where america is threatened by iraq ...

The United States never operated under the premise that we were scared of a direct invasion from Iraq.

yoman wrote:i believe if iraq would have gotten some nuclear installations
Uncle Bush would have never taken a risk

The problem wasn't that he had them, the problem was is that he attempted to purchase nuclear material, and threatened to use them.

yoman wrote:Who is he to influence on other counties ?

He's there to remove threatening figures to the American government.

yoman wrote:But invading a democratic country ...is beyond the holy concepts of humanity

If you believe that Saddam Hussein was democratically elected, there is nothing I can say to change your opinion.

a democratic country? You gotta be kidding. When a person gets "elected" with 99.6% of the votes, something's wrong, not to mention that the country was starving while the a-hole stuffed his pockets and built his mansions.

That doesn't excuse the invasion though.