If you were ruler of a country that was defeated, and instructed not to make weapons

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
May 8, 2002
4,729
0
0
48
#2
he can make weapons so long as they arent WMD and long range ballistic missiles.

1. and anyway he had no choice but to comply with UN resolution or else we would have gone in there and got him. he did it to save his own skin.

2. for 12 years he has deprived his own country of wealth. while we slapped sanctions on him they could have easily been lifted if he simply comlied with the UN and destroyed all the WMD. but he hasnt. under Iraq's food for oil trade he has made alote of money to help out the country yet the people are still starving. why?? because instead of helping his people he has instead decided to take the food for oil profits and build himself extravagant presidential palaces (about 50 of them), with one of them being the size of WASHINGTON D.C.
 

phil

Sicc OG
Apr 25, 2002
7,311
27
0
115
#3
dont hit them with the facts mclean, it hurts too much to think that saddam might actually be responsible for the plight of his country. who asked him to over run kuwait and invite us to kick his ass in the first place. all these un resolutions were so he COULD STAY IN POWER. NOW HE DOESNT WANT TO COOPERATE. HE THEREFORE FORFEITS HIS POWER BY HIS OWN WILL OR THROUGH THE SCOPE OF AMERICAN MILITARY ARTILLERY!!!!
 
May 8, 2002
4,729
0
0
48
#4
this country of ours needs to speak in strong words to the UN either they will have our backs when we need them or when they need our help they can take a hike. because we all know that without U.S.A.'s money the UN is WORTHLESS. we are the major contributor of money, food and AID, and military presence to the people that really need it in the entire world.
 
May 12, 2002
3,583
101
0
GoProGraphics.com
#7
^YEAH thatts EXACTLY what i was gonna say!!!!

I know 90% for sure that he keeps his people starving from what i know (the other 10% i cant be too sure cause afterall i never met the man). But whos gonna take the responsibility of this nation if hes removed?

The trials we had with trying to employ democracy in nations has such a HIGH failure rate. Also, we would need to dedicate so much time to that country.

I still think, who are we, to go to the MID EAST on the other side of the fucken planet and tell them what to do. We for one never stick to our commitments out ther, they hate us. We have few nations over there on our side. Cause we fuck things up. WHY SHOULD WE EVEN BE INVOLVED WITH THEM?
 
May 12, 2002
3,583
101
0
GoProGraphics.com
#8
Oh yeah and missles that strike targets within your own country, sure whos gonna want them. You need actual threats to be able to defend yourself.

Also THE EUROPEANS will be our rival. CHINA may even get close. Read up on what their money is doing compared to us. We may get a rise in dollar value IF we win the war, but it wont be permanant.
 
May 8, 2002
4,729
0
0
48
#9
pitty4thebitti said:
are we going to rebuild the country and tell them how we want them to run it when we destroy them?
no we shouldnt rebuild their country. they have plenty of oil to rebuild their own country. actually i would charge them what the war would cost us as the price of liberating them.
 
May 12, 2002
3,583
101
0
GoProGraphics.com
#10
Well enslave them to build the country. All we got to do is give them food. Theyll work for it. We modernize them and then MAKE THEM build it to suit our companies.

We need to fight another planet already. These wars on our own planet are getting rediculous. I cant wait till we find aliens so we can declare war on them.
 
Aug 6, 2002
1,637
3
0
42
#11
Mcleanhatch said:


no we shouldnt rebuild their country. they have plenty of oil to rebuild their own country. actually i would charge them what the war would cost us as the price of liberating them.
and who's to say the oil fields will be there. What if they get destroyed during the course of war? What if saddam destroys them?