Conquer Club

Let us use logic here. Let us say the U.S. left Saddam in power (never invaded Iraq) and forced sanctions down his throat. We (coalition forces) focus on Afghanistan and the U.S. invades the tribal regions of Pakistan because that is where Osama is believed to be living. My question is: Who's to say Pakistan would not become the Iraq War?

Meanwhile, one country over. Iran is developing 'nuclear power' for its people to use. While, Iraq keeps boasting that it has WMDs. Iran fearful that Saddam might be telling the truth rushes their workers to finish their nuclear program. When their about finished with their program, Saddam decides to invade (because no one wants a nuclear Iran definitely not Iraq). So, while the U.S. is bogged down in the mountains of Pakistan and Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran begin to attack one another, only this time one has nuclear capibilities.

I think you know what I'm getting at. Nothing helps motivate people than when there are enemies at the gates. So, in this scenrio we would have a nuclear Iran, a second Iran Iraq War, and the U.S. is still bogged down in the Middle East. But, of course this is all fiction none of it could have happened, right?

Gillipig wrote:

JJM wrote:

comic boy wrote:Dim Jim

Firstly you have been told several times that getting rid of Saddam DID NOT make the world safer, care to explain why you think it did ? Secondly redneck is not a term reserved only for Southerners, dont they teach you anything that is factual in your red neck North Dakota 'school '

If you don't think that saddam Hussein was very cruel then I don't know what you are thinking.

You're the one not thinking, he didn't say anything about that saddam wasn't cruel! he said that the world didn't get safer without him, and I agree with him on that! Removing Kim Jong-il from power in North korea could be wrong if it lead to equal instability in that region as it did to remove Saddam from power in Iraq! The world isn't more safe now than it was 10 years ago!!

The people of Iraq are much better offf now that we got rid of him.

Is it just me or has this thread got completely off topic?

Back on topic people

jsholty4690 wrote: But, of course this is all fiction none of it could have happened, right?

yep, glad you were able to suss this one out yourself

JJM wrote:

Gillipig wrote:

JJM wrote:

comic boy wrote:Dim Jim

Firstly you have been told several times that getting rid of Saddam DID NOT make the world safer, care to explain why you think it did ? Secondly redneck is not a term reserved only for Southerners, dont they teach you anything that is factual in your red neck North Dakota 'school '

If you don't think that saddam Hussein was very cruel then I don't know what you are thinking.

You're the one not thinking, he didn't say anything about that saddam wasn't cruel! he said that the world didn't get safer without him, and I agree with him on that! Removing Kim Jong-il from power in North korea could be wrong if it lead to equal instability in that region as it did to remove Saddam from power in Iraq! The world isn't more safe now than it was 10 years ago!!

The people of Iraq are much better offf now that we got rid of him.

Yes and Mugabe is a very bad man, he has destroyed Zimbabwe, Bush didn't get rid of him so Bush was a bad president........glad we sorted that out

comic boy wrote:Yes and Mugabe is a very bad man, he has destroyed Zimbabwe, Bush didn't get rid of him so Bush was a bad president........glad we sorted that out

come now. that doesn't count, mugabe is a christian

SultanOfSurreal wrote:

comic boy wrote:Yes and Mugabe is a very bad man, he has destroyed Zimbabwe, Bush didn't get rid of him so Bush was a bad president........glad we sorted that out

come now. that doesn't count, mugabe is a christian

That does not mean that gitting rid of Saddam Huesain didn't matter simply because he didn't get rid of every other dictator in the world. I don't see why people always potray him as an idiot.

Jackson was the only one that had the balls to stand up against the central bankers. Kennedy did to, cut history is still a "little" foggy about all that

Phat Scotty wrote:Jackson was the only one that had the balls to stand up against the central bankers. Kennedy did to, cut history is still a "little" foggy about all that

What kind of a saying is that and besides nothing Jackson did made is signing of the Indian Removal Act just. He was as awful as they git. He promised that any Indian tribe that fought on his side during the war of 1812 would be allowed to keep their land. There is no excuse for him breaking his promise.

JJM wrote:

SultanOfSurreal wrote:

comic boy wrote:Yes and Mugabe is a very bad man, he has destroyed Zimbabwe, Bush didn't get rid of him so Bush was a bad president........glad we sorted that out

come now. that doesn't count, mugabe is a christian

That does not mean that gitting rid of Saddam Huesain didn't matter simply because he didn't get rid of every other dictator in the world. I don't see why people always potray him as an idiot.

No I dont suppose you can

comic boy wrote:

JJM wrote:

Sultan Of Surreal wrote:

comic boy wrote:Yes and Mugabe is a very bad man, he has destroyed Zimbabwe, Bush didn't get rid of him so Bush was a bad president........glad we sorted that out

come now. that doesn't count, mugabe is a christian

That does not mean that getting rid of Saddam Hussein didn't matter simply because he didn't get rid of every other dictator in the world. I don't see why people always portray him as an idiot.

No I dont suppose you can

Seriously the bad Economy was not all his fault. When Bush took office the national debt was at five trillion some and when he left office it was at nine trillion some. Although the a large portion of it was added on during his administration over half of it was already there before his administration and you can't blame him for all of it either.

JJM wrote:

comic boy wrote:

JJM wrote:

Sultan Of Surreal wrote:

comic boy wrote:Yes and Mugabe is a very bad man, he has destroyed Zimbabwe, Bush didn't get rid of him so Bush was a bad president........glad we sorted that out

come now. that doesn't count, mugabe is a christian

That does not mean that getting rid of Saddam Hussein didn't matter simply because he didn't get rid of every other dictator in the world. I don't see why people always portray him as an idiot.

No I dont suppose you can

Seriously the bad Economy was not all his fault. When Bush took office the national debt was at five trillion some and when he left office it was at nine trillion some. Although the a large portion of it was added on during his administration over half of it was already there before his administration and you can't blame him for all of it either.

And don't forget people like Barney Franks were pushing the banks to give loans to low income families who couldn't pay for the loans. The blame for the economic collapse goes further than just Bush and the banking and real estate industries.

Phat Scotty wrote:Jackson was the only one that had the balls to stand up against the central bankers. Kennedy did to, cut history is still a "little" foggy about all that

Kennedy was probably above average. Certainly better than Jackson.

William Henry Harrison.

Longest inaugural address.

He cared about his country.

Army of GOD wrote:William Henry Harrison.

Longest inaugural address.

He cared about his country.

Why didn't he just quit talking and git right to work. lol. Also he owned slaves.

What politician didn't own slaves at that time? Most politicans at that time were from the South and if you lived in the South that was your lively hood (not that I'm condoning slavery, which I'm not). If you were to condem every person who did something that we don't see as moral today, but they did at the time, you should condem every historical figure. And yes I know Lincoln didn't have any slaves. Wait a second why am I defending Harrison?

P.S. I agree with you on the Jackson thing, what he did was outrageous and he fed the flames to the one of the greatest injustices in American History ( In my book only the persecution of blacks pre and post slavery would top it).

jsholty4690 wrote:What politician didn't own slaves at that time? Most politicans at that time were from the South and if you lived in the South that was your lively hood (not that I'm condoning slavery, which I'm not). If you were to condem every person who did something that we don't see as moral today, but they did at the time, you should condem every historical figure. And yes I know Lincoln didn't have any slaves. Wait a second why am I defending Harrison?

P.S. I agree with you on the Jackson thing, what he did was outrageous and he fed the flames to the one of the greatest injustices in American History ( In my book only the persecution of blacks pre and post slavery would top it).

Most politicians lived in the South? What?

InkL0sed wrote:

jsholty4690 wrote:What politician didn't own slaves at that time? Most politicans at that time were from the South and if you lived in the South that was your lively hood (not that I'm condoning slavery, which I'm not). If you were to condem every person who did something that we don't see as moral today, but they did at the time, you should condem every historical figure. And yes I know Lincoln didn't have any slaves. Wait a second why am I defending Harrison?

P.S. I agree with you on the Jackson thing, what he did was outrageous and he fed the flames to the one of the greatest injustices in American History ( In my book only the persecution of blacks pre and post slavery would top it).

Most politicians lived in the South? What?

Maybe referring to the fact that during the original 13 colonies, Virgina was the largest state and many of the Founding Fathers came from there (not all, but quite a few). Unless he is talking about into the 19th century then my reaction is the same.

muy_thaiguy wrote:

InkL0sed wrote:

jsholty4690 wrote:What politician didn't own slaves at that time? Most politicans at that time were from the South and if you lived in the South that was your lively hood (not that I'm condoning slavery, which I'm not). If you were to condem every person who did something that we don't see as moral today, but they did at the time, you should condem every historical figure. And yes I know Lincoln didn't have any slaves. Wait a second why am I defending Harrison?

P.S. I agree with you on the Jackson thing, what he did was outrageous and he fed the flames to the one of the greatest injustices in American History ( In my book only the persecution of blacks pre and post slavery would top it).

Most politicians lived in the South? What?

Maybe referring to the fact that during the original 13 colonies, Virgina was the largest state and many of the Founding Fathers came from there (not all, but quite a few). Unless he is talking about into the 19th century then my reaction is the same.

Many major politcians from the first half of the 19th Centruy came from the South (i.e. Monoroe, Jackson, Harrison, Tyler, Polk, Taylor, and even Andrew Johnson)

jsholty4690 wrote:

muay thai guy wrote:

InkL0sed wrote:

sholty 4690 wrote:What politician didn't own slaves at that time? Most politicians at that time were from the South and if you lived in the South that was your lively hood (not that I'm condoning slavery, which I'm not). If you were to condemn every person who did something that we don't see as moral today, but they did at the time, you should condom every historical figure. And yes I know Lincoln didn't have any slaves. Wait a second why am I defending Harrison?

P.S. I agree with you on the Jackson thing, what he did was outrageous and he fed the flames to the one of the greatest injustices in American History ( In my book only the persecution of blacks pre and post slavery would top it).

Most politicians lived in the South? What?

Maybe referring to the fact that during the original 13 colonies, Virgina was the largest state and many of the Founding Fathers came from there (not all, but quite a few). Unless he is talking about into the 19th century then my reaction is the same.

Many major politicians from the first half of the 19th Century came from the South (i.e. Monroe, Jackson, Harrison, Tyler, Polk, Taylor, and even Andrew Johnson)

Many of them were from the South but even some of them were against slavery. Although W.H. Harrison was Senator of Ohio.

Maybe most politicians you remember lived in the South. But so what?

W.H. Harrison was born in Virginia but was a politician from Ohio. Even some southerners were opposed to Slavery.

JJM wrote:W.H. Harrison was born in Virginia but was a politician from Ohio. Even some southerners were opposed to Slavery.

I agree. You can't judge everyone in an entire society by what the majority of the people do. The White Rose (a group of anti-Nazi Germans) standing up to the Nazis would be a perfect example of this.

I would say that Theodore Roosevelt was the best. He signed legislation to put "In God we trust" on all U.S. currency, signed a treaty with Panama to begin building the Panama Canal and made peace between Russia and Japan.