The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Weapons of mass destruction not found in Iraq and in my opinion they didn’t need to be found.
Does this mean the war was pointless and that it cost money and lives without any reason?
To most of the people yes, for the government said that they had to go into Iraq to get rid of the weapons of mass destruction. Most people agreed, some disagreed, but all most all the people who agreed said it had to be done because of the threat of chemical and biological weapons. So as you know the war happened costing lots of money and many soldiers lives, with out no apparent threat of the so-called weapons. So many people, mainly everyone, were angry with the government because they said there was an increasing threat to the world. Still no weapons have been found. But I think even if there were no weapons of mass destruction we should have gone to war. Not because I love war because nobody does. But because it was releasing oppressed people from a cruel man who was torturing them. He was one evil man. So that’s why I don’t think you need the weapons to go in to Iraq because we should all be free which the Iraq people were not.
One example of Saddam’s evil:
Unfortunately the following facts are true. In one of his meetings with his Generals: they were all discussing the countries problems and what to do about it. Saddam had made a comment. Everyone but one person agreed with him almost immediately. The person who disagreed was to be punished, Saddam asked everyone to step out side with him. He loaded a gun in front of the general’s sweaty face. He fired. The bullet had caught the General’s shoulder, but it wasn’t over. The other Generals were ordered to finish the poor man who was now on the floor, they did it. So just for disagreeing with him he was killed, is that right? What's the point when you can’t express yourself at a meeting.
I think everyone is missing the point of the war, it wasn’t just for those damn weapons of mass destruction, it was to release oppressed people from an evil man’s clutch. And this, I think was the main point of the war, but people wont except it, they have to have the weapons of mass destruction found before they say the war was needed. Do these people not care about other’s freedom?
As long as those Iraqis are free the war is a success in my eyes.
Does this mean the war was pointless and that it cost money and lives without any reason?
To most of the people yes, for the government said that they had to go into Iraq to get rid of the weapons of mass destruction. Most people agreed, some disagreed, but all most all the people who agreed said it had to be done because of the threat of chemical and biological weapons. So as you know the war happened costing lots of money and many soldiers lives, with out no apparent threat of the so-called weapons. So many people, mainly everyone, were angry with the government because they said there was an increasing threat to the world. Still no weapons have been found. But I think even if there were no weapons of mass destruction we should have gone to war. Not because I love war because nobody does. But because it was releasing oppressed people from a cruel man who was torturing them. He was one evil man. So that’s why I don’t think you need the weapons to go in to Iraq because we should all be free which the Iraq people were not.
One example of Saddam’s evil:
Unfortunately the following facts are true. In one of his meetings with his Generals: they were all discussing the countries problems and what to do about it. Saddam had made a comment. Everyone but one person agreed with him almost immediately. The person who disagreed was to be punished, Saddam asked everyone to step out side with him. He loaded a gun in front of the general’s sweaty face. He fired. The bullet had caught the General’s shoulder, but it wasn’t over. The other Generals were ordered to finish the poor man who was now on the floor, they did it. So just for disagreeing with him he was killed, is that right? What's the point when you can’t express yourself at a meeting.
I think everyone is missing the point of the war, it wasn’t just for those damn weapons of mass destruction, it was to release oppressed people from an evil man’s clutch. And this, I think was the main point of the war, but people wont except it, they have to have the weapons of mass destruction found before they say the war was needed. Do these people not care about other’s freedom?
As long as those Iraqis are free the war is a success in my eyes.
Page:
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower
April 16, 1953
The cost of the war in Iraq so far is around $87,500,000,000
(from http://costofwar.com/ )
To put things in perspective, that is well over TWICE the value of food transfers donated to the third world by the US in the last FIFTY YEARS.
When thousands of people die every day of starvation, can you really say that Iraq was the best place to spend this money?
President Dwight D. Eisenhower
April 16, 1953
The cost of the war in Iraq so far is around $87,500,000,000
(from http://costofwar.com/ )
To put things in perspective, that is well over TWICE the value of food transfers donated to the third world by the US in the last FIFTY YEARS.
When thousands of people die every day of starvation, can you really say that Iraq was the best place to spend this money?
Yeah I would agree that maybe it wasnt their main concern, but it still happened and those people are better of now then before. Or thats what the government have been saying, and it obviously isnt better for every single person in Iraq.
I think the main point of the war was revenge and also so the US government could say that they were doing something proactive to combat terrorism.
"Weapons of mass destruction", was banded about left right and centre throughout the whole war, and to me, it was just going to be the “get out of jail free card” for the US. If they found some, then they could say going into Iraq was all worth it and they had made the world a safer place, blah blah.
The fact that they have yet to find any hasn’t hindered them too much though. Now they can just come out and say that they were mainly going in to liberate the Iraqi people. Personally, I’m much too sceptical to believe this truly was their main concern.
"Weapons of mass destruction", was banded about left right and centre throughout the whole war, and to me, it was just going to be the “get out of jail free card” for the US. If they found some, then they could say going into Iraq was all worth it and they had made the world a safer place, blah blah.
The fact that they have yet to find any hasn’t hindered them too much though. Now they can just come out and say that they were mainly going in to liberate the Iraqi people. Personally, I’m much too sceptical to believe this truly was their main concern.
I know, it was one of many. Another would be that he gassed his own people who did nothing.
He's done far more evil things than your example, that's for sure.
Opinions anyone, I would love to here what you think about it all.
Weapons of mass destruction not found in Iraq and in my opinion they didn’t need to be found.
Does this mean the war was pointless and that it cost money and lives without any reason?
To most of the people yes, for the government said that they had to go into Iraq to get rid of the weapons of mass destruction. Most people agreed, some disagreed, but all most all the people who agreed said it had to be done because of the threat of chemical and biological weapons. So as you know the war happened costing lots of money and many soldiers lives, with out no apparent threat of the so-called weapons. So many people, mainly everyone, were angry with the government because they said there was an increasing threat to the world. Still no weapons have been found. But I think even if there were no weapons of mass destruction we should have gone to war. Not because I love war because nobody does. But because it was releasing oppressed people from a cruel man who was torturing them. He was one evil man. So that’s why I don’t think you need the weapons to go in to Iraq because we should all be free which the Iraq people were not.
One example of Saddam’s evil:
Unfortunately the following facts are true. In one of his meetings with his Generals: they were all discussing the countries problems and what to do about it. Saddam had made a comment. Everyone but one person agreed with him almost immediately. The person who disagreed was to be punished, Saddam asked everyone to step out side with him. He loaded a gun in front of the general’s sweaty face. He fired. The bullet had caught the General’s shoulder, but it wasn’t over. The other Generals were ordered to finish the poor man who was now on the floor, they did it. So just for disagreeing with him he was killed, is that right? What's the point when you can’t express yourself at a meeting.
I think everyone is missing the point of the war, it wasn’t just for those damn weapons of mass destruction, it was to release oppressed people from an evil man’s clutch. And this, I think was the main point of the war, but people wont except it, they have to have the weapons of mass destruction found before they say the war was needed. Do these people not care about other’s freedom?
As long as those Iraqis are free the war is a success in my eyes.
Does this mean the war was pointless and that it cost money and lives without any reason?
To most of the people yes, for the government said that they had to go into Iraq to get rid of the weapons of mass destruction. Most people agreed, some disagreed, but all most all the people who agreed said it had to be done because of the threat of chemical and biological weapons. So as you know the war happened costing lots of money and many soldiers lives, with out no apparent threat of the so-called weapons. So many people, mainly everyone, were angry with the government because they said there was an increasing threat to the world. Still no weapons have been found. But I think even if there were no weapons of mass destruction we should have gone to war. Not because I love war because nobody does. But because it was releasing oppressed people from a cruel man who was torturing them. He was one evil man. So that’s why I don’t think you need the weapons to go in to Iraq because we should all be free which the Iraq people were not.
One example of Saddam’s evil:
Unfortunately the following facts are true. In one of his meetings with his Generals: they were all discussing the countries problems and what to do about it. Saddam had made a comment. Everyone but one person agreed with him almost immediately. The person who disagreed was to be punished, Saddam asked everyone to step out side with him. He loaded a gun in front of the general’s sweaty face. He fired. The bullet had caught the General’s shoulder, but it wasn’t over. The other Generals were ordered to finish the poor man who was now on the floor, they did it. So just for disagreeing with him he was killed, is that right? What's the point when you can’t express yourself at a meeting.
I think everyone is missing the point of the war, it wasn’t just for those damn weapons of mass destruction, it was to release oppressed people from an evil man’s clutch. And this, I think was the main point of the war, but people wont except it, they have to have the weapons of mass destruction found before they say the war was needed. Do these people not care about other’s freedom?
As long as those Iraqis are free the war is a success in my eyes.
Page: