Advertisement

by Valyrian Freeholds » Mon Dec 28, 2015 7:39 am

by Neon Trotsky » Mon Dec 28, 2015 11:11 am

by United Kingdom of Kent » Mon Dec 28, 2015 11:34 am

by GreatestBanks » Mon Dec 28, 2015 11:35 am
Baltenstein wrote:The OP´s sig and entry post lead me to the deduction that this is going to be one of NSG´s most balanced and moderate topics ever.

by The Jaclean Empire » Mon Dec 28, 2015 11:38 am
Frank Zipper wrote:As oil runs out it becomes of more strategic value. I really find it hard to believe that the Iraq war was anything other than part of a strategy to ensure control of oil. It was done with utter ineptness, creating many problems.

by Bachata republic » Mon Dec 28, 2015 11:39 am
by Aggicificicerous » Mon Dec 28, 2015 11:40 am
Soviet Catalonia wrote:America and Britain invaded iraq in 2003 because they said that iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Kt was later found out that no such weapons existed. In other words a million lives wasted in vain.
However, like i said iraq was invaded by two countries that if you combi ed their weapons could destroy the world two hundred times.
So why was iraq invaded for having no nuclear weapoms when america and Britain did?

by Washington Resistance Army » Mon Dec 28, 2015 11:47 am
The 502nd SS wrote:We invaded partially due to WMDs- yes
Were they nukes- no
The WMDs we found were chemical, old weapons, but still chemical weapons. I'm on my phone right now so I can't get the CIA(?) report until later.


by Reploid Productions » Mon Dec 28, 2015 11:54 am
[violet] wrote:Maybe we could power our new search engine from the sexual tension between you two.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Aggicificicerous, Beyaz Toros, Calption, Cannot think of a name, Celritannia, Corporate Collective Salvation, Duvniask, Eurocom, Fartsniffage, Kenmoria, Lotha Demokratische-Republique, New Temecula, Peacetime, Port Caverton, Shrillland, Snowish Republic, Subi Bumeen, The Everfree, The Jamesian Republic, Thermodolia, Tinhampton
Advertisement