Topic: NORTH KOREA artillery fire HITS SOUTH KOREA

[sino_one]

@ Sino_one

Hindi ko alam kung matatawa ako sa iniisip mo oh maiinis. Sa totoo lang thinking of planting WMDs to Iraq to justify the invasion is stupid!!

Mag isip isip ka naman iho. Hindi madaling gumawa ng WMD!!! Oo kaya ng US, ang tanong kaya ba ng Iraq? like I said, WMDs dont grow on trees. Whether it be Nuclear, Chemical, or Biological, all require large specialized facilities, complex technical "know-hows" and a huge budget to develop. Kung Hindi kaya ng Iraq at biglang nag karoon ng WMD dun then ang next question ay san yun nang galing at pano yun nakuha ng Iraq. Iilang bansa lang sa mundo ang may kakayahang gumawa ng WMD so sinong source ang ituturo ng US? syempre hindi pwede na mga ka alyado nila, so sino? China? Russia? How do you think these countries will react if accused of "proliferation of weapons of mass destruction"? At syempre lalabas at lalabas ang issue na planted yun ng US mismo. DUUHH!!! Its far easier to be wrong than fabricate another lie that can compromise relations with other key countries. Again, konting common sense naman. Hindi yan paniwalang paniwala ka sa mga propaganda ng US.

facilities ? meron nyan (google mo) or kaya basahin mo yung bagong wikileaks." know hows ,budget?" 
wla bang pera ang iraq and if you have oil ay pwede ka kumuha ng may know how.Google mo wmd ,kurds ano sabi about wmd.Maybe not substantial amount pero MERON.Sino pwede pagkuhaan ng wmd ?sino may kakayahan?india,pakistan.NOKOR,us,uk,ussr ,china.Amongst those countries wala bang makakapagbigay ng know how at materials sa iraq?

According sa argumento mo,bago pa man lumusob ang us ay alam na nila na walang wmd.Dahil sa oil lang kaya nila ito ginawa.So ano ang plano nilang sabihin sa mundo at sa mga allies nila?" Ay sorry po ,wala palang wmd." na wow mali po kami." thats it? yun ang master plan ng US?sige nga lagyan mo ng common sense yan.

You totally miss the point about the other conflicts. The others are legit. They have a clear and valid reason to be involved and the US did not start those conflicts, they merely stepped-in for a cause.

BINGO!!

Seriously, some people believe the the US goes to war for the sake of "Freedom", "Peace" and "Justice"?  quote lang kita

Pwede ang peace ,freedom and justice kapag hindi sila ang nag umpisa?   whatabout afghanistan US started it pero valid yun diba?cause? what cause? oil ulit? drugs ?yun madami. drug dealer na ba ang US?

What about Iraq? They invaded a sovereign country because of imaginary WMDs 

And the security council? are you sure that the UNSC supports it? read your sources again pls.

At sa bandang huli ay sinuportahan pa rin nila ang US...sad     Ayaw nila pero goggle mo yung oil companies na nasa iraq ngayon .Halos lahat sila meron kumpanya doon sa iraq pero ayaw nila ng war na iyan ha.Another thing,ang sa tingin mo ay US na ang may ari ng 2nd largest oilfield sa buong mundo .Google mo nga kung sino nag kokontrol ng mga ito.Sa tingin mo rin ba na papayag ang mga sumali sa war na iyon na us lang ang makinabang?

France: "We think that military intervention would be the worst possible solution,"
Germany: German chancellor Gerhard Schr�der at a meeting with French president Jacques Chirac said that he and Mr. Chirac would do all they could to avert war
Russia: "Russia deems that there is no evidence that would justify a war in Iraq."
China: China supports continued weapons inspections... "the Chinese position was "extremely close" to France's."
Angola supports continued inspections, but has not yet taken a stand on disarmament by military action. 
Cameroon has encouraged the continued inspections, but has not taken a firm stand on whether or not the country would support a US led strike to liberate Iraq.
Chile has indicated that it would like inspections to continue, but has not taken a position on the use of military force to disarm Iraq.
Guinea has supported further inspections, but has not taken a position on the use of military force to disarm Iraq. 
Pakistan supports continued inspections.
Syria seems to feel that Iraq is cooperating and meeting its obligations under UN resolutions. Syria would like to see UN sanctions on Iraq lifted.

"many of the governments that have aligned themselves with the US, despite strong opposition among their constituencies, have done so because of their own economic ties to the United States. The United States has used strong pressure and threats against other nations to attempt to coerce nations on the Security Council to support them."

"Although President Bush described nations supporting him as the "coalition of the willing", the report concludes that it is more accurately described as a "coalition of the coerced." According to the report, most nations supporting Bush "were recruited through coercion, bullying, and bribery."

 

Yeah. US places sanctions to other countries who develop WMDs but applied military actions TO AND ONLY TO IRAQ. Despite the fact that there is no concrete proof that Iraq is indeed capable of developing WMDs while others have shown the fruits of their respective programs.

Now please answer my question. Why was the US so eager to invade Iraq?

 

[tigerwing]

@sino_one

Nasan ang mga WMDs na sinasabi nila? Yan muna ang sagutin mo bago kung ano-ano pa! Dahil yan ang pinangangalandakang dahilan ng US invasion. Again and again. NASAN ANG MGA WMDs NG IRAQ? Nasan ang ibidensya na patuloy silang gumagawa ng WMD's gaya ng sabi ng US? Sa pagkakaalam ko eh kung anu mang meron sila nung 2003 eh tira-tira nalang simula pa nung 1st Gulf war..

Sige sabihin na natin na merong konti. Gumamit nga naman ang Iraq ng chemical weapons dati. Thats it? The US invaded because of that? Ikaw mismo nagsabi: "Maybe not substantial amount"  Other nations TESTED NUKES in broad day light! Why didn't the US apply military actions against them? 

Did the US start afghanistan? If I remember correctly, 9/11 came first before the invasion of Afganinstan. The taliban regime harbors Al Qaeda. Thats why.

As for the other conflicts you mentioned. The UN actually mandated an intervention. Did the same goes for Iraq?

Do I need to explain everything to you? Its as if Im talking to a child


Sa una ayaw ng UNSC pero sinuportahan din nila? RIGHT!!!!

"many of the governments that have aligned themselves with the US, despite strong opposition among their constituencies, have done so because of their owneconomic ties to the United States. The United States has used strong pressure and threats against other nations to attempt to coerce nations on the Security Council to support them."

"Although President Bush described nations supporting him as the "coalition of the willing", the report concludes that it is more accurately described as a "coalition of the coerced." According to the report, most nations supporting Bush "were recruited through coercion, bullying, and bribery."
 
Nang galing yan sa link na ikaw mismo ang nag post. At ikaw na rin mismo ang nagsabi:

"yung oil companies na nasa iraq ngayon .Halos lahat sila meron kumpanya doon sa iraq."




And Please lang sagutin mo ang tanong ko. Why was the US so eager to invade Iraq?

[sino_one]

@sino_one

Nasan ang mga WMDs na sinasabi nila? Yan muna ang sagutin mo bago kung ano-ano pa! Dahil yan ang pinangangalandakang dahilan ng US invasion. Again and again. NASAN ANG MGA WMDs NG IRAQ? Nasan ang ibidensya na patuloy silang gumagawa ng WMD's gaya ng sabi ng US? Sa pagkakaalam ko eh kung anu mang meron sila nung 2003 eh tira-tira nalang simula pa nung 1st Gulf war..

Sige sabihin na natin na merong konti. Gumamit nga naman ang Iraq ng chemical weapons dati. Thats it? The US invaded because of that? Ikaw mismo nagsabi: "Maybe not substantial amount"  Other nations TESTED NUKES in broad day light! Why didn't the US apply military actions against them? 

countries like russia?hmnnnn hindi kaya.www 3 .China?hmnnn...bad for the world economy yan.Pakistan/india?allies ngayon eh.Nokor?back up by china/russia eh...medyo mabigat BUT kung patuloy ang ginagawa ng nokor ngayon ay baka magkaroon na ng dahilan ang us na umatake.Dapat may dahilan diba?May kulang pa ba?IRAN!nuke reactor pa lang pero may sanctions na yan lolo.BUT there are talks na BAKA inaatak ng israel ang iran.Basically israel is US right?May alam ka ba pang bansa na may wmd,aside dun sa alam mo na china at ussr?ikaw naman napaka war freak mo,sanctions muna bago war AT tinitimbang yan kung sino ang kaya.
 France pa pala,bakit nga pala hindi?baka dahil HINDI SILA THREAT SA US.

"not substantial amount" pero meron agree?may facilities to make.agree?have the know how?agree?cash?wala yata Problema mo lang ng us ay yung volume 

Did the US start afghanistan? If I remember correctly, 9/11 came first before the invasion of Afganinstan. The taliban regime harbors Al Qaeda. Thats why.

but but hindi sila nakikipag war ng dahil lang sa justice. .So kapag hindi sila ang nag umpisa ay for liberty na?PAKISAGOT NGA.

As for the other conflicts you mentioned. The UN actually mandated an intervention. Did the same goes for Iraq?

Pero malinaw yung sinabi mo na never for liberty eck eck diba?DIBA?

Do I need to explain everything to you? Its as if Im talking to a child

So lolo, yung tanong ko po ulit sa inyo.Kung alam na ng US beforehand na wala naman wmd ,ano balak nilang sabihin sa mundo ?Sasabihin nalang nila na wla eh.That s it?Wala silang gagawin?Tanga pala yung pres ng us kung ganun.Alam naman na walang ipapakita ay tumuloy pa rin.Pinasama pa niya ang kanyang record sa history ng mundo.Ganun ba nangyari?


Sa una ayaw ng UNSC pero sinuportahan din nila? RIGHT!!!!

"many of the governments that have aligned themselves with the US, despite strong opposition among their constituencies, have done so because of their owneconomic ties to the United States. The United States has used strong pressure and threats against other nations to attempt to coerce nations on the Security Council to support them."

"Although President Bush described nations supporting him as the "coalition of the willing", the report concludes that it is more accurately described as a "coalition of the coerced." According to the report, most nations supporting Bush "were recruited through coercion, bullying, and bribery."

Hindi ba norm yan sa mga politiko?hindi ba nangyayari talaga yan?secret natin yan
Nang galing yan sa link na ikaw mismo ang nag post. At ikaw na rin mismo ang nagsabi:

"yung oil companies na nasa iraq ngayon .Halos lahat sila meron kumpanya doon sa iraq."



plastik sila diba,sasabihin pinewersa pero ambilis mag setup ng refinaries dun.btw. mali bang buhayin yung mga refinaries after the war?papaano mabubuhay ang mga iraqis.


And Please lang sagutin mo ang tanong ko. Why was the US so eager to invade Iraq?wmd

Ano sagot mo sa tanong ko kid

[tigerwing]

@ Sino_one

Bakit kaya hindi mo nalang sagutin ang tanong ko sayo? Dami pa sinasabi eh. Sagot nalang! Why was the US so eager to invade IRAQ?

So Israel and Pakistan are allowed to have nukes because they are US allies?

Wag na nating isama pa yung Russia, China, UK at France. Under the UN these countries are actually allowed to have nukes. I dont understand why you even have to bring them up.

And why do we even have to discuss Afghanistan? YES its a valid US war. Happy now? But this is not about afghanistan is it? Its about Iraq. Did the US had a valid reason to Invade Iraq? Kung malinaw na valid yun eh di sana wala tayong pinag uusapan ngayon! 

"Pero malinaw yung sinabi mo na never for liberty eck eck diba?DIBA?"

Did I say "never"?  Masyado ka naman naapektohan sa sinabi ko. US FanBoy?

What I said was Intended for the war in Iraq! Ewan ko ba naman sayo at bigla mo sinali ang Kosovo, Afghanistan at Haiti. Kapareho ba ng Iraq yun?
 
Now lets bring things up to perspective. Lets compare countries
 
N. Korea: Confimed to have WMDs. Had 2 Nuclear Tests. Sunk a S. Korean warship and shelled a S. Korean Island. Did the US apply any military action to N. Korea? No! why? Because of China? Under this circumstances I dont think China will do a thing if N. Korea was bombed. The Chinese-N.Korean relationships is one of the Love-hate kind after all. Yes there will be strained relations between Washington and Beijing. But is US-China relations more important? I guess so. Mas beneficial nga naman yun! 

Iraq : In 2003, was accused of making WMD's. Was invaded because of that. Years after the war and still no proof that will justify the invasion. 

So what your saying is hindi pa sapat na dahilan yung mga gnagawa ng NoKor, not even for light military actions. Pero yung so called "development of WMD" ng Iraq is reason enough to be invaded. Galing mo kid!!!

Cge sabihin na nating meron ngang WMD sa Iraq in substantial amount (Kahit wala naman). So what? Meron din nyan ang pakistan, Israel, at N. Korea. Bakit kaya napaka special ng Iraq?

Teka anu pa nga bang pinag kaiba ng N. Korea sa Iraq. Isipin natin. Hmmm ang Iraq ay nasa Middle East at ang N. Korea nasa east asia. 

"Kung alam na ng US beforehand na wala naman wmd ,ano balak nilang sabihin sa mundo ?Sasabihin nalang nila na wla eh.That s it?Wala silang gagawin?Tanga pala yung pres ng us kung ganun.Alam naman na walang ipapakita ay tumuloy pa rin.Pinasama pa niya ang kanyang record sa history ng mundo.Ganun ba nangyari?"

Pwede ba ako tumawa? Seryoso ka? Hindi mo talaga naiintindihan? 
The US used WMD's as an excuse to attack iraq. Sa haba ng discussion dito eh hindi mo man lang na pick-up yan? Sabi ko nga the US made an INVESTMENT.

Anyway, If you want to believe that the War in Iraq was for Freedom, Peace and Justice then so be it. Opinion mo yan eh.
 

[dragonking57]

Ang lupet nyo! Parang ngbasa na ako ng Wikipedia a!
Tuloy nyo pa!   

[Bosleyawa]

Just ask yourself this question. Whaf if Iraq have WMD and the US did nothing? Naalala ko tuloy si  Captain Hindsight sa Southpark hehe.

[sino_one]

@ Sino_one

Bakit kaya hindi mo nalang sagutin ang tanong ko sayo? Dami pa sinasabi eh. Sagot nalang! Why was the US so eager to invade IRAQ?sinagot ko na yata,wmd sabi ko.

So Israel and Pakistan are allowed to have nukes because they are US allies? yes,may iba pa bang dahilan..pakisagot nga.


Wag na nating isama pa yung Russia, China, UK at France. Under the UN these countries are actually allowed to have nukes. I dont understand why you even have to bring them up. diba sabi some countries have nukes pero wala naman ginagawa ang US?kalimot ka na koya?

And why do we even have to discuss Afghanistan? YES its a valid US war. Happy now? But this is not about afghanistan is it? Its about Iraq. Did the US had a valid reason to Invade Iraq? Kung malinaw na valid yun eh di sana wala tayong pinag uusapan ngayon! 

thread s for NOKOR,sus limot limot na talaga o.
bakit kasama yung ibang bansa?dahil dito.."Seriously, some people believe the the US goes to war for the sake of "Freedom", "Peace" and "Justice"?


"Pero malinaw yung sinabi mo na never for liberty eck eck diba?DIBA?"

Did I say "never"?  Masyado ka naman naapektohan sa sinabi ko. US FanBoy?
"Seriously, some people believe the the US goes to war for the sake of "Freedom", "Peace" and "Justice"?
fanboy ba? dapat siguro agree ako dun sa statehood thread.

What I said was Intended for the war in Iraq! Ewan ko ba naman sayo at bigla mo sinali ang Kosovo, Afghanistan at Haiti. Kapareho ba ng Iraq yun?palusot,edit mo kung pwede para lusot.
 
Now lets bring things up to perspective. Lets compare countries
 
N. Korea: Confimed to have WMDs. Had 2 Nuclear Tests. Sunk a S. Korean warship and shelled a S. Korean Island. Did the US apply any military action to N. Korea? No! why? Because of China? Under this circumstances I dont think China will do a thing if N. Korea was bombed. The Chinese-N.Korean relationships is one of the Love-hate kind after all. Yes there will be strained relations between Washington and Beijing. But is US-China relations more important? I guess so. Mas beneficial nga naman yun! 
so papaano kung mag take ng military action ang US at gumamit ng nukes ang nokor?ano na?Sa mga incident na mention bakit kahit south korea ay hindi makaganti sa nokor?isipin mo nga yun iha.Klaro ba?

Iraq : In 2003, was accused of making WMD's. Was invaded because of that. Years after the war and still no proof that will justify the invasion. 

So what your saying is hindi pa sapat na dahilan yung mga gnagawa ng NoKor, not even for light military actions. Pero yung so called "development of WMD" ng Iraq is reason enough to be invaded. Galing mo kid!!!

nukes ulit iho.

Cge sabihin na nating meron ngang WMD sa Iraq in substantial amount (Kahit wala naman). So what? Meron din nyan ang pakistan, Israel, at N. Korea. Bakit kaya napaka special ng Iraq?

yung iba kasi friend eh.Any of those countries used their wmd s before or pang threat lang?

Teka anu pa nga bang pinag kaiba ng N. Korea sa Iraq. Isipin natin. Hmmm ang Iraq ay nasa Middle East at ang N. Korea nasa east asia. 

oo nga noh,maybe yun din ang dahilan kaya sila nilusob   location ,location ,location.
But ,seriously hindi ba dapat different approach sa different type of enemies?

"Kung alam na ng US beforehand na wala naman wmd ,ano balak nilang sabihin sa mundo ?Sasabihin nalang nila na wla eh.That s it?Wala silang gagawin?Tanga pala yung pres ng us kung ganun.Alam naman na walang ipapakita ay tumuloy pa rin.Pinasama pa niya ang kanyang record sa history ng mundo.Ganun ba nangyari?"

Pwede ba ako tumawa? Seryoso ka? Hindi mo talaga naiintindihan? 
The US used WMD's as an excuse to attack iraq. Sa haba ng discussion dito eh hindi mo man lang na pick-up yan? Sabi ko nga the US made an INVESTMENT.

pero hindi mo masagot. palusot! asan yung dahilan mo na wala pera,facilities and know how?
dude ,yung quote na yun ay para dun sa tao na sabi wala naman wmd ang iraq,im just giving him a scenario.Kaso tagal na namin pinag uusapan ay hindi pa gets yun. smoking::Kung gagamit rin lang sila (US) ng excuse ay dapat kumpleto diba?excuse nila eh para sa umpisa lang at wala para dulo.Para doon yung scenario ko...susmaryosep.

Anyway, If you want to believe that the War in Iraq was for Freedom, Peace and Justice then so be it. Opinion mo yan eh.

byeee 
 

[sphinxavior]

ignorance is bliss..

ot
discovery science?

[Idiot]

walanghiya na late ako na addict ako sa saijoo no meii at Dota

hahahhahahha

hanggang ngayon naniniwala pa den sya na di totoo na walang pera sa gyera

ang gyera ang pinaka-profitable sa lahat e

mula food supplies, medical supplies, vehicles, ore, fuel, ammunition, concrete, uniform lahat lahat na

kausap namin toddler kaya dapat detailed

So walang nakitang WMD,hindi ba maging believable ang istorya ng evil american empire kung mag plant nalang sila sa iraq ng wmd?Hindi ba mas magiging justified ang iraq invasion?bakit hindi nila ginawa yun?

ha ha haha pang-bata ang iniisip mo FYI pag analyze ng isang warhead alam nila kung saan galing e therefore di basta-basta sila mag plant ng bomba

What about previous world wars

lahat ng previous war e conquest

WW1- kumikita america
ww2 - kumita paden america
 Korean war - kumita pa den america
Israeli war - kumita pa den america
Vietnam war - nagkamali sila ng marketing plan dito sumali kase china

di mo pa den gets e talagang batang isip ka

na lugi sila kase nag manufactured sila ng mga gamit na pangdigma na di naman nagagamit for the past years or wala naman bumibili e di lugi sila. para ma onset yung lugi e gamitan natin to at mag-invest sa oil e di kikita ako

nagpagawa ako ng apartment para bumalik yung investment kailangan may tumira kung di mo paden kuha bahala ka

[tigerwing]

@Sino_one

So WMD ba kamo? Eh gumawa na nga ng WMD ang N.Korea. Bakit walang ginawa ang US? Kung security lang tlaga ang issue dapat hindi na nila hinayaang makapag develop ng NUKES ang N.Korea!!! 

THE THREAT OF WMDs. Another US Propaganda..

Seriously, you think Saddam or any other national leaders would recklessly use WMD's against another country? 

USING WMDs IS A DEATH SENTENCE! Unless you have enough of them to threaten the whole world. Clearly, Iraq doesnt.

Give WMD's to terrorist? Yes this is very possible and a credible threat. But N.Korea can do it too. And there are questions about the security of Pakistan's WMD's as well. If the threat of WMD's falling to the wrong hands is the reason to invade Iraq, why didnt the US disarm N.Korea and Pakistan as well? 

You think Iraq has the Facilities, Know How and Money? Then tell me.. NASAN YUNG MGA WMD's na ginawa nila? If Iraq was as capable as you think, tingin mo Saddam would hold back production? AGAIN Konting IQ naman dyan!!!

Hindi mo parin gets kung bakit ka engotan yung iniisip mo na sana eh nag plant nlng ng WMD's ang US. What if they did and later on the rest of the world found out that Iraq was indeed not capable of making such things? Pano na? Eh di mas lumaki pa ung Issue!!

Why didnt the S.Korea respond sa mga gngwa ng N.Korea? SIMPLE, they have no interest in fighting N. Korea. Sabi ko nga "unless invaded, the S.korean wont go to war". What would a military conflict with the north do for the south? Sakit lang ng ulo yun. Mas mabuti pang wag na lang pansinin.

[sino_one]

walanghiya na late ako na addict ako sa saijoo no meii at Dota

hahahhahahha

hanggang ngayon naniniwala pa den sya na di totoo na walang pera sa gyera

ang gyera ang pinaka-profitable sa lahat e

mula food supplies, medical supplies, vehicles, ore, fuel, ammunition, concrete, uniform lahat lahat na

kausap namin toddler kaya dapat detailed

ha ha haha pang-bata ang iniisip mo FYI pag analyze ng isang warhead alam nila kung saan galing e therefore di basta-basta sila mag plant ng bomba

lahat ng previous war e conquest

WW1- kumikita america
ww2 - kumita paden america
 Korean war - kumita pa den america
Israeli war - kumita pa den america
Vietnam war - nagkamali sila ng marketing plan dito sumali kase china

di mo pa den gets e talagang batang isip ka

na lugi sila kase nag manufactured sila ng mga gamit na pangdigma na di naman nagagamit for the past years or wala naman bumibili e di lugi sila. para ma onset yung lugi e gamitan natin to at mag-invest sa oil e di kikita ako

nagpagawa ako ng apartment para bumalik yung investment kailangan may tumira kung di mo paden kuha bahala ka

hohummm,another kwento ni lolo or kwento ni kapitbahay?ala pa rin source no?

[Zornhau]

Di ko gaano nabasa lahat ng pinag debatihan ninyo.. Pero dito sa last reply ni Sino_One. Susuporta ako sa kanya. Post your infos regarding the matter. Madali mag sabi na ganito o ganyan..

Mabuti na yan para maging mas informative ang usapan.

And also..

Iraq did have WMDs in the form of Mustard Gas. although not as grand in scale compared to the damage a Nuclear bomb can do. Iraq used this against Iran and also against the Kurds.

[sino_one]

@Sino_one

So WMD ba kamo? Eh gumawa na nga ng WMD ang N.Korea. Bakit walang ginawa ang US? Kung security lang tlaga ang issue dapat hindi na nila hinayaang makapag develop ng NUKES ang N.Korea!!! 

so,every crisis should be treated by the US similarly?One master plan for all crisis?

THE THREAT OF WMDs. Another US Propaganda..

Seriously, you think Saddam or any other national leaders would recklessly use WMD's against another country? 

You dont need to use it nga.But very effective na pang intimidate.Look at sokor,ilang beses na tinira pero hindi pa rin maka porma.

USING WMDs IS A DEATH SENTENCE! Unless you have enough of them to threaten the whole world. Clearly, Iraq doesnt.

Give WMD's to terrorist? Yes this is very possible and a credible threat. But N.Korea can do it too. And there are questions about the security of Pakistan's WMD's as well. If the threat of WMD's falling to the wrong hands is the reason to invade Iraq, why didnt the US disarm N.Korea and Pakistan as well? 

You think Iraq has the Facilities, Know How and Money? Then tell me.. NASAN YUNG MGA WMD's na ginawa nila? If Iraq was as capable as you think, tingin mo Saddam would hold back production? AGAIN Konting IQ naman dyan!!!

May facilities diba?may know how,may pera.So meron na si saddam ng lahat pero hindi pa siya gagawa ng wmd?
gumamit na siya against kurds at during iran iraq war.San galing yun?ano tawag mo dun?pepper spray?

Hindi mo parin gets kung bakit ka engotan yung iniisip mo na sana eh nag plant nlng ng WMD's ang US. What if they did and later on the rest of the world found out that Iraq was indeed not capable of making such things? Pano na? Eh di mas lumaki pa ung Issue!!

off all the people dapat ikaw ang may alam nyan.Na US does many non legal things para makuha ang gusto nila.
Seriously,madami ng ginawang masama ang us sa tingin mo ba iniisip nila na hwag nalang at baka mahuli?

Why didnt the S.Korea respond sa mga gngwa ng N.Korea? SIMPLE, they have no interest in fighting N. Korea. Sabi ko nga "unless invaded, the S.korean wont go to war". What would a military conflict with the north do for the south? Sakit lang ng ulo yun. Mas mabuti pang wag na lang pansinin.

No interest?sakit lang ng ulo?more than sakit ng ulo yung nukes ng nokor.And thats what keeping sokor and us from retaliating.

Finally,please refrain from name calling,mas prefer ko kung sinasabihan ako ng ganyan ng harapan.

[Idiot]

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

@Tiger

US fanatic si sino bulag sa mga nakikita nya

toddler talaga si sino

san na evidence

kapag may binigay hirit ulit saan na evidence

Inter Press Service
Analysis

Why Did the U.S. Invade Iraq?
Analysis by Jim Lobe*

WASHINGTON, Mar 18, 2008 (IPS) - So why, exactly, did the U.S. invade Iraq five years ago this week?

The official reasons - the threat posed to the U.S. and its allies by Saddam Hussein's alleged programmes of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and the possibility that he would pass along those arms to al Qaeda - have long since been discarded by the overwhelming weight of the evidence, or, more precisely, the lack of evidence that such a threat ever existed.

Liberating Iraq from the tyranny of Hussein's particularly unforgiving and bloodthirsty version of Ba'athism and thus setting an irresistible precedent that would spread throughout the Arab world - a theme pushed by the administration of President George W. Bush mostly after the invasion, as it became clear that the officials reasons could not be justified - appears to have been the guiding obsession of really only one member of the Bush team, and not a particularly influential one at that: Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz.

Then there's the theory that Bush - whose enigmatic psychology, particularly his relationship to his father, has already provided grist for several book-publishing mills - wanted to show up his dad for failing to take Baghdad in 1991. Or he sought to "finish the job" that his dad had begun in 1991; and/or avenge his dad for Hussein's alleged (but highly questionable) assassination attempt against Bush I in Kuwait after the war.

Because Bush was the ultimate "Decider", as he himself has put it, and because no one who ever served at top levels in the administration has ever been able to say precisely when (let alone why) the decision was made to invade Iraq, this explanation cannot be entirely dismissed as an answer.

Then there is the question of oil. Was the administration acting on behalf of an oil industry desperate to get its hands on Mesopotamian oil that had long been denied it as a result of U.N. and unilateral sanctions prohibiting business between U.S. companies and Hussein?

Given both Bush's and Vice President Dick Cheney's long-standing ties to the industry and former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan's assertion in his recent memoir that "The Iraq war is largely about oil," this theory has definite appeal - particularly to those on the left who made "No Blood for Oil" a favourite mantra at anti-war protests in the run-up to the invasion, just as they did - with much greater plausibility - before the 1991 Gulf War.

The problem, however, is that there is little or no evidence that Big Oil, an extremely cautious beast in the global corporate menagerie, favoured a war, particularly one carried out in a way (unilaterally) that risked destabilising the world's most oil-rich region, especially Saudi Arabia and the emirates.

On the contrary, the Rice University Institute that bears the name of former Secretary of State James Baker - a man who has both represented and embodied Big Oil throughout his long legal career - publicly warned early on that if Bush absolutely, positively had to invade Iraq for whatever reason, he should not even consider it unless two conditions were met: 1) that the action was authorised by the U.N. Security Council; and 2) that nothing whatever be done after the invasion to suggest that the motivation had to do with the acquisition by U.S. oil companies of Iraq's oil resources.

That is not to say that oil was irrelevant to the administration's calculations, but perhaps in a different sense than that meant by the "No Blood for Oil" slogan. After all, oil is an absolutely indispensable requirement for running modern economies and militaries. And the invasion was a forceful - indeed, a shock- and awe-some - demonstration to the rest of the world, especially potential strategic rivals like China, Russia, or even the European Union, of Washington's ability to quickly and effectively conquer and control an oil-rich nation in the heart of the energy-rich Middle East/Gulf region any time it wishes, perhaps persuading those lesser powers that challenging the U.S. could well prove counter-productive to long-term interests, if not their supply of energy in the short term.

Indeed, a demonstration of such power could well be the fastest way to formalise a new international order based on the overwhelming military power of the United States, unequalled at least since the Roman Empire. It would be a "unipolar world" of the kind envisaged by the 1992 draft Defence Planning Guidance (DPG) commissioned by then-Pentagon chief Dick Cheney, overseen by Wolfowitz and Cheney's future chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, and contributed to by future ambassador to "liberated" Afghanistan and Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad and Bush's deputy national security adviser, J.D. Crouch.

It was that same vision that formed the inspiration for the 27 charter signatories - a coalition of aggressive nationalists, neo-conservatives, and Christian Right leaders that included Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Libby, Khalilzad, and several other future senior Bush administration national-security officials - of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) in 1997. It was the same project that began calling for "regime change" in Iraq in 1998 and that, nine days after the 9/11 attack on New York and the Pentagon, publicly warned that any "war on terror" that excluded Hussein's elimination would necessarily be incomplete.

In retrospect, it seems clear that Iraq had long been seen by this group, which became empowered first by Bush's election and then super-charged by 9/11, as the first, easiest and most available step toward achieving a "Pax Americana" that would not only establish the U.S. once and for all as the dominant power in the region, but whose geo-strategic implications for aspiring "peer competitors" would be global in scope.

For the neo-conservative and the Christian Right members of this group, who were its most eager and ubiquitous war boosters, Israel would also be a major beneficiary of an invasion.

According to a 1996 paper drafted by prominent hard-line neo-conservatives - including some, like Douglas Feith and David Wurmser, who would later serve in senior posts in Cheney's office and the Pentagon in the run-up to the invasion - ousting Hussein and installing a pro-Western leader was the key to destabilising Israel's Arab enemies and/or bending them to its will. This would permit the Jewish state not only to escape the Oslo peace process, but also to secure as much of the occupied Palestinian (and Syrian) territories as it wished.

Indeed, getting rid of Hussein and occupying Iraq would not only tighten Israel's hold on Arab territories, in this view; it could also threaten the survival of the Arab and Islamic worlds' most formidable weapon against Israel - OPEC - by flooding the world market with Iraqi oil and forcing the commodity's price down to historic lows.

That's how it looked five years ago anyway.

(*Jim Lobe's blog on U.S. foreign policy, and particularly the neo-conservative influence in the Bush administration, can be read at http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/.) (END)

basahin mo na lang

Iraq did have WMDs in the form of Mustard Gas.

alam mo ba tol kung paano kadaling iwasan yan at kontrolin

gas mask lang katapat yan so paano magiging weapon of mass destruction

Ginamit yan tol noon WW1 ganyan katanda yan Mustard gas na yan so ppano magiging WMD yan e suot ka lang gas mask mabubuhay ka

unlike Nuke e isang bagsak lang patay lahat ang mga buhay

Sagutin mo muna

BAkit ang Pakistan at Nokor At Iran hinayan lang na mag-research  sa NUKes noon nasa initial phase pa lang sila bakit di sila nilusob ng US?? Pakisagot lang po unlike sa IRAq na sinabi ni ZORN na ang WMD ay mustard gas (napaka lame ng WMD na ito) e intake kahit na wala naman nakita pakisagot lang po pakisagot lang po


sabihin na natin wala kaming evidence pero bakit inatake ang Iraq pakisagot lang po

[Zornhau]

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

@Tiger

US fanatic si sino bulag sa mga nakikita nya

toddler talaga si sino

san na evidence

kapag may binigay hirit ulit saan na evidence

Inter Press Service
Analysis

basahin mo na lang


alam mo ba tol kung paano kadaling iwasan yan at kontrolin

gas mask lang katapat yan so paano magiging weapon of mass destruction

Ginamit yan tol noon WW1 ganyan katanda yan Mustard gas na yan so ppano magiging WMD yan e suot ka lang gas mask mabubuhay ka

unlike Nuke e isang bagsak lang patay lahat ang mga buhay

Sagutin mo muna

BAkit ang Pakistan at Nokor At Iran hinayan lang na mag-research  sa NUKes noon nasa initial phase pa lang sila bakit di sila nilusob ng US?? Pakisagot lang po unlike sa IRAq na sinabi ni ZORN na ang WMD ay mustard gas (napaka lame ng WMD na ito) e intake kahit na wala naman nakita pakisagot lang po pakisagot lang po


sabihin na natin wala kaming evidence pero bakit inatake ang Iraq pakisagot lang po

Umm..

AFAIK, Gas masks do not work against Mustard gas. And also Mustard gas will cause blisters and burns on your skin, eyes or any part of your body it makes contact with. Same effects on internal organs inside your body if inhaled. A few canisters will kill hundreds if not thousands depending on the concentration of live targets in the area. Although many have survived Mustard gas attacks in the past. All of them suffered terrible damage from the gas exposure. No, this weapon is not lame.

I'm no expert with this matter but, let's not compare Iran, NoKor, and Pakistan to Iraq. Magkakaiba ang sitwasyon nila, politically. At hindi naman pwedeng babanggain lahat ng US sabay sabay ang gagawa ng nukes ng walang paalam sa mga ibang bansa.

I'd give a guess. Siguro mas pinagtuunan ng pansin ng US government ang Iraq noon dahil mas agresibo makipag gyera ang Iraq compare sa mga ibang bansang nabanggit. Diba dalawang beses na nag gyera ang US at si Saddam? And also.. I just want to add. Iraq had nuclear plants way back in the past that were used for enriching.. "Uranium'? ba yun.  O_O
They got those nuke enriching tech from France. Around 1980s ata yun.

[beaverjohn2006]

nood kayo nito,bakit like ng u.s tirahin ang iraq at kung ano ba ang meron sa iraq....... hik!hik!hik!
download niyo at panoorin niyo...


http://rapidshare.com/files/409970093/Illuminati.Vol.1.part01.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/409970160/Illuminati.Vol.1.part02.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/409970157/Illuminati.Vol.1.part03.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/409970861/Illuminati.Vol.1.part04.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/409970868/Illuminati.Vol.1.part05.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/409971406/Illuminati.Vol.1.part06.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/409971499/Illuminati.Vol.1.part07.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/409971522/Illuminati.Vol.1.part08.rar

[raven]

wow....sana mgka WW3 nah...

sir baka di mo alam consequences ng sinasabi mo..... peace bro

[sino_one]

you posted a blog.....

Well anyway,How much did the US earned?Sa previous world wars magkano kinita ng apartment ng US?
Did the US sold all those war materials that you ve mentioned during those wars?Like for example dito sa pilipinas,magkano
binayad ng pilipinas sa US?

I can give you a rough estimate of how much ww 2 cost .But i doubt you can provide me data on how much the US earned on those two wars.Tama ,mali?

nagpagawa ako ng apartment para bumalik yung investment kailangan may tumira kung di mo paden kuha bahala ka

but that not s your original statement diba?Hiniram mo pa yung "investment" ko. 

[Zornhau]

nood kayo nito,bakit like ng u.s tirahin ang iraq at kung ano ba ang meron sa iraq....... hik!hik!hik!
download niyo at panoorin niyo...


http://rapidshare.com/files/409970093/Illuminati.Vol.1.part01.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/409970160/Illuminati.Vol.1.part02.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/409970157/Illuminati.Vol.1.part03.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/409970861/Illuminati.Vol.1.part04.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/409970868/Illuminati.Vol.1.part05.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/409971406/Illuminati.Vol.1.part06.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/409971499/Illuminati.Vol.1.part07.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/409971522/Illuminati.Vol.1.part08.rar

Hehe, used to read David Icke. Kakilabot. 

[bobotnaman]

diba iraq was funding al qaeda?