PDA

View Full Version : War on Iraq



1200techniques
11-04-2004, 01:10 AM
I am anti war of course
I'm curious to know what ppl think

$pvcxGhxztCasey
11-04-2004, 01:15 AM
It seems we have this poll/question ever 2 weeks now.

Unforgiver
11-04-2004, 01:22 AM
I voted "no".
Bush thought that Saddam had massive destruction weapons and he had some kinda links with Al-Qaeda, but there is no evidence. Maybe Bush was too nervous about what happened in 9/11/2001 and to prevent other terrorist attacks he had to anticipate Saddam's moves. But no one found true evidence about that.
But also the fact that Saddam was hiding from U.S. with guns and a lot of cash in his hands when he was found by U.S., tells that he was scared of something, something that he did, and if Saddam knew he was innocent, he shouldn't have hide from U.S.

Whimsicality
11-04-2004, 01:43 AM
Originally posted by Casey@Nov 3 2004, 09:15 PM
It seems we have this poll/question ever 2 weeks now.
More like every two hours. Sigh.

By the way, you're missing the "Unsure/Mixed Feelings" selection in your poll.

Shade
11-04-2004, 01:46 AM
Good god not another one. Besides I think I can speak safely for the debating crowd on the Kerry side that we're all too pissed off to debate right now.

Glenn
11-04-2004, 02:24 AM
The media is convincing us of everything. Of course troops are going to be killed during a war, it's just that the media is posting literally every American death over in Iraq. I used to be anti-war, but now I might be leaning slightly towards it. We have to realize that it isn't about oil this time, it's about bringing justice to Iraq. [run on sentence]People could argue that Iraqis hate America's guts, hate our principles and politics, and want us out, but us fighting this war will ensure more deeply that we don't have some lunatic like Saddam killing thousands of people. [/run-on sentence]
People easily rant and complain about the president's mistakes. Are we sure that Bush didn't know there were WMDs? Do you have proof? If you do, then you've convinced me.

One thing that I hate Bush for though is not getting Osama. We need him dead. He is threatening our country to the point that all people can do is fear and wait. Many people have already gotten used to the fact of "o, just another threat." Well, one of these threats could be real and that's why we need him dead.

Am i for the war? I dunno...

Link04
11-04-2004, 02:35 AM
Originally posted by Glenn@Nov 4 2004, 02:24 AM
The media is convincing us of everything. Of course troops are going to be killed during a war, it's just that the media is posting literally every American death over in Iraq. I used to be anti-war, but now I might be leaning slightly towards it. We have to realize that it isn't about oil this time, it's about bringing justice to Iraq. [run on sentence]People could argue that Iraqis hate America's guts, hate our principles and politics, and want us out, but us fighting this war will ensure more deeply that we don't have some lunatic like Saddam killing thousands of people. [/run-on sentence]
People easily rant and complain about the president's mistakes. Are we sure that Bush didn't know there were WMDs? Do you have proof? If you do, then you've convinced me.

One thing that I hate Bush for though is not getting Osama. We need him dead. He is threatening our country to the point that all people can do is fear and wait. Many people have already gotten used to the fact of "o, just another threat." Well, one of these threats could be real and that's why we need him dead.

Am i for the war? I dunno...
Bringing justice to Iraq?

Bull. Shit.

America has a history of not doing any "good" for anyone's benefit except themselves, and this situation's no different. Take a look at Sudan, who's genocidal death toll is above 75,000, and other African countries who have 'corrupt' governments of NO governments at all. We're looking the other way. Why? Simple; we don't benefit from "liberating" them. Fighting this war will only fuel hatred and terrorism. You're right, we don't have some lunatic like Saddam killing thousands of people any more. We've got Bush to take care of that for him.

Mark
11-04-2004, 02:41 AM
It's time for the War on Iraq scoreboard!

American soldiers killed by Iraqis: 1100+
Iraq civilians killed by coalition troops: 100,000+

America wins!

Glenn
11-04-2004, 04:08 AM
Originally posted by Link04@Nov 3 2004, 10:35 PM
We've got Bush to take care of that for him.
:lol:

Razan
11-04-2004, 04:49 AM
Bringing justice to Iraq?

Bull. Shit.

America has a history of not doing any "good" for anyone's benefit except themselves, and this situation's no different. Take a look at Sudan, who's genocidal death toll is above 75,000, and other African countries who have 'corrupt' governments of NO governments at all. We're looking the other way. Why? Simple; we don't benefit from "liberating" them. Fighting this war will only fuel hatred and terrorism. You're right, we don't have some lunatic like Saddam killing thousands of people any more. We've got Bush to take care of that for him.

Extremly well said but all of you forget something most americans belive Iraq has weapons of mass destruction so that is y they are pro Bush.Btw Iraq can't afford cherry bombs (which Bush senior gave them for free) how can they afford weapons of mass destruction??
Goes to show it's only for the oil. He acctually hurt more americans than saving them!

TeMpEsT
11-04-2004, 04:51 AM
Originally posted by Spiked@Nov 3 2004, 11:49 PM

Bringing justice to Iraq?

Bull. Shit.

America has a history of not doing any "good" for anyone's benefit except themselves, and this situation's no different. Take a look at Sudan, who's genocidal death toll is above 75,000, and other African countries who have 'corrupt' governments of NO governments at all. We're looking the other way. Why? Simple; we don't benefit from "liberating" them. Fighting this war will only fuel hatred and terrorism. You're right, we don't have some lunatic like Saddam killing thousands of people any more. We've got Bush to take care of that for him.

Extremly well said but all of you forget something most americans belive Iraq has weapons of mass destruction so that is y they are pro Bush.Btw Iraq can't afford cherry bombs (which Bush senior gave them for free) how can they afford weapons of mass destruction??
Goes to show it's only for the oil. He acctually hurt more americans than saving them!
That's right, Saddam Hussein teleported the weapons of mass destruction out of Iraq and onto the moon.


:rolleyes:

Razan
11-04-2004, 04:57 AM
That's right, Saddam Hussein teleported the weapons of mass destruction out of Iraq and onto the moon.

There were no weapons in the first place, he can't afford it.

Todd
11-04-2004, 05:13 AM
Anyone that still believes Iraq has WMDs and voted for bush because of that needs to be hung by their genetalia and beaten to death with a twig. Numerous reports have come out showing that there are no effin WMDs in Iraq and that bush lied to us.

Will
11-04-2004, 05:20 AM
Originally posted by Spiked@Nov 4 2004, 12:57 AM

That's right, Saddam Hussein teleported the weapons of mass destruction out of Iraq and onto the moon.

There were no weapons in the first place, he can't afford it.
LMFAO.

That's like saying the USSR never disbanded. :lol:

TeMpEsT
11-04-2004, 05:21 AM
Originally posted by Spiked@Nov 3 2004, 11:57 PM

That's right, Saddam Hussein teleported the weapons of mass destruction out of Iraq and onto the moon.

There were no weapons in the first place, he can't afford it.
Oh, he spent it all on the teleportation and astro-physics technology.

Kate
11-04-2004, 05:23 AM
Originally posted by Todd@Nov 3 2004, 11:13 PM
Anyone that still believes Iraq has WMDs and voted for bush because of that needs to be hung by their genetalia and beaten to death with a twig. Numerous reports have come out showing that there are no effin WMDs in Iraq and that bush lied to us.
A twig? How about a broom?

In all seriousness, though: Bush charged in without waiting for the reports to come out. Is it possible that he knew about the lack of WMDs and wanted to get in there before the reports were released because he knew that without WMDs, he'd never have viable reason to go to war?

Let's think about this one, kids.

Razan
11-04-2004, 05:31 AM
In all seriousness, though: Bush charged in without waiting for the reports to come out. Is it possible that he knew about the lack of WMDs and wanted to get in there before the reports were released because he knew that without WMDs, he'd never have viable reason to go to war?
He would have a reason but not a viable reason....OIL!

Link04
11-04-2004, 04:33 PM
Originally posted by Spiked@Nov 4 2004, 05:31 AM

In all seriousness, though: Bush charged in without waiting for the reports to come out. Is it possible that he knew about the lack of WMDs and wanted to get in there before the reports were released because he knew that without WMDs, he'd never have viable reason to go to war?
He would have a reason but not a viable reason....OIL!
I dunno, somehow I still think there's something more to it than oil. I can't put my finger on it though. I still think Bush had some other crazy ulterior motive to go in....

Razan
11-04-2004, 05:09 PM
He would have a reason but not a viable reason....OIL!

I dunno, somehow I still think there's something more to it than oil. I can't put my finger on it though. I still think Bush had some other crazy ulterior motive to go in....

Didn't say it was only that many other things too like get closer to other arab countries who have more oil to bomb, cause fear in america about WMD so they would support him...and more I probably don't know!

Ryan
11-04-2004, 10:06 PM
I think that this war was a very good war to do. But my biggest problem with it is how Bush went about it. First, he tried using the reason of WMD's in order to invade Iraq. Later we found that there were no WMD's in Iraq. Secondly, Bush didn't have anykind of a plan as to what he would do once the gov't of Iraq was overthrown. The very reason that kept his father from invading Iraq. This is also the reaosn why we are seeing such large cassualties and injuries form this war. But the crimes that Saddam committed on his people can can be comparable to what Hitler was doing in Germany. But why in the hell did Bush try convincing everyone there was WMD's in Iraq. Oh well Saddam is gone and the americans are left to deal with what they started.

Link04
11-05-2004, 02:44 AM
Originally posted by Ryan@Nov 4 2004, 10:06 PM
I think that this war was a very good war to do. But my biggest problem with it is how Bush went about it. First, he tried using the reason of WMD's in order to invade Iraq. Later we found that there were no WMD's in Iraq. Secondly, Bush didn't have anykind of a plan as to what he would do once the gov't of Iraq was overthrown. The very reason that kept his father from invading Iraq. This is also the reaosn why we are seeing such large cassualties and injuries form this war. But the crimes that Saddam committed on his people can can be comparable to what Hitler was doing in Germany. But why in the hell did Bush try convincing everyone there was WMD's in Iraq. Oh well Saddam is gone and the americans are left to deal with what they started.
But like I said, we're doing NOTHING in countries like Sudan who are having worse tragedies done to them. Why? We have nothing to gain from intervening. It sounds horrible, but historically, our nation has usually not acted unless our benefit was inevitable. The situation can loosely be compared to the very same instance you brought up. We condemned Hitler so much, the murderer of 12,000,000, yet we were allies with Stalin, murderer or 20,000,000. Iraq was our ally when a lot of these "tragedies" occured, because they were our only Middle Eastern anti-communist country (or one of them), and now that they're the enemy, we try to make them guilty for it, when we previously looked the other way. Now they are the enemy, and we're looking the other way while over 75,000 have been murdered in Sudan.

Ryan
11-05-2004, 03:58 AM
Yah true, but it's been seen throughout history that the americans have helped other countries one minute and the next theya re droppin bombs on them. Basically its all politics, something very evil, but something we all need in order to live.

Razan
11-05-2004, 05:01 AM
But like I said, we're doing NOTHING in countries like Sudan who are having worse tragedies done to them. Why? We have nothing to gain from intervening. It sounds horrible, but historically, our nation has usually not acted unless our benefit was inevitable. The situation can loosely be compared to the very same instance you brought up. We condemned Hitler so much, the murderer of 12,000,000, yet we were allies with Stalin, murderer or 20,000,000. Iraq was our ally when a lot of these "tragedies" occured, because they were our only Middle Eastern anti-communist country (or one of them), and now that they're the enemy, we try to make them guilty for it, when we previously looked the other way. Now they are the enemy, and we're looking the other way while over 75,000 have been murdered in Sudan.


America hated Iran and loved Iraq because they were an anti-communist country and because they were at war with Iran. Advantages:because they were close to th evil Iranians,oil, make them look good by being hero and saving Iran from the satan that rules over them.

Now they hate Iraq because they tried to take over Kuwait who had lots of oil!!! Evil Saddam Hussein we must be the heros and fight him and get oil from fighting them.

Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction because the only weapons they had were very badly maintained because they thought they had no need for them, Bush senior had to GIVE them bombs to fight Iran.

Link04
11-05-2004, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by Spiked@Nov 5 2004, 05:01 AM

But like I said, we're doing NOTHING in countries like Sudan who are having worse tragedies done to them. Why? We have nothing to gain from intervening. It sounds horrible, but historically, our nation has usually not acted unless our benefit was inevitable. The situation can loosely be compared to the very same instance you brought up. We condemned Hitler so much, the murderer of 12,000,000, yet we were allies with Stalin, murderer or 20,000,000. Iraq was our ally when a lot of these "tragedies" occured, because they were our only Middle Eastern anti-communist country (or one of them), and now that they're the enemy, we try to make them guilty for it, when we previously looked the other way. Now they are the enemy, and we're looking the other way while over 75,000 have been murdered in Sudan.


America hated Iran and loved Iraq because they were an anti-communist country and because they were at war with Iran. Advantages:because they were close to th evil Iranians,oil, make them look good by being hero and saving Iran from the satan that rules over them.

Now they hate Iraq because they tried to take over Kuwait who had lots of oil!!! Evil Saddam Hussein we must be the heros and fight him and get oil from fighting them.

Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction because the only weapons they had were very badly maintained because they thought they had no need for them, Bush senior had to GIVE them bombs to fight Iran.
^_^ I would have worded it differently, but yes.

Razan
11-06-2004, 05:54 AM
Yah true, but it's been seen throughout history that the americans have helped other countries one minute and the next theya re droppin bombs on them. Basically its all politics, something very evil, but something we all need in order to live.

:D Evil indeed it is.

Glenn
11-10-2004, 03:12 AM
Originally posted by Spiked@Nov 6 2004, 01:54 AM

Yah true, but it's been seen throughout history that the americans have helped other countries one minute and the next theya re droppin bombs on them. Basically its all politics, something very evil, but something we all need in order to live.

:D Evil indeed it is.
Amen

Razan
11-10-2004, 11:30 AM
I think that this war was a very good war to do.

How is any war good to do?
War is just killing and violence that brings no peace until either side have won or the stubborn mule who started it claimed peace/surrender.

War is never a good thing to do no matter "how you go about it".

Chris Luke
11-10-2004, 12:48 PM
The Cost Of War (http://www.costofwar.com/)
Bush stole a shit load of money that could have went to health care, finding the Cure for Aids, and more. Personally I say take out Bush instead of Sadam. This war was for nothing accept making Bush look good.

Razan
11-10-2004, 01:26 PM
I still don't get how this made Bush look good, I think everyone thinks of him as an idiot even more than before.

Link04
11-10-2004, 08:40 PM
That's what most people would expect to happen. But apparently, the majority of Americans pat him on the back for it. :argh:

x3r09
11-10-2004, 10:43 PM
no matter what you think about it...men and women are dying for freedom...so at least give your respect to the armed forces

salinameteora
11-11-2004, 02:05 AM
according to the american investigater (cant remember his name ) who was in charge of finding evidence of the supposed weapons and who resigned when the investigation into the investigations was starting. Bush decided within 3 days of his presidency that the u.s was going to war with Iraq! why? to finish what his father started with the first gulf war! The british investigater of the weapon search committed suicide when the public started asking questions as to the whereabouts of the weapons that had supposedly started the 2nd leg of the war. and when the public were questioning both governments more and more so that inside enquiries had to go ahead, what happens? Bush announces troops have killed saddams sons, so the fuss dies down for a while but when it started to rise again Bush pulls an even bigger rabbit out his hat by announcing saddam has been captured!!!! funny how coincidental it was that Bush was in Iraq only a few days earlier and one soldier had been stood exactly where the hole was in a previous search, i still find it puzzling how someone can be walking along on solid ground then walk and stand where a tunnel has been dug beneath him and not be able to tell the difference!!!!! STRANGE

Link04
11-11-2004, 02:21 AM
Originally posted by x3r09@Nov 10 2004, 10:43 PM
no matter what you think about it...men and women are dying for freedom...so at least give your respect to the armed forces
I support our troops by caring for their lives and possible unnecessary exploitation.

Furthermore, at what cost will Iraq gain freedom? Can we even call it freedom, or will they continue to be politcally and economically influenced by the United States?

We are not fighting for freedom, we are fighting for our own personal interest.

Mark
11-11-2004, 03:09 AM
Originally posted by Link04+Nov 10 2004, 10:51 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Link04 @ Nov 10 2004, 10:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--x3r09@Nov 10 2004, 10:43 PM
no matter what you think about it...men and women are dying for freedom...so at least give your respect to the armed forces
I support our troops by caring for their lives and possible unnecessary exploitation.

Furthermore, at what cost will Iraq gain freedom? Can we even call it freedom, or will they continue to be politcally and economically influenced by the United States?

We are not fighting for freedom, we are fighting for our own personal interest. [/b][/quote]
Exactly. Iraq is not free if it becomes an American imperialist country.

Boo
11-11-2004, 04:16 AM
why does kerry say "we&#39;re fighting the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time"? Doesn&#39;t he know what kind of talk that has on our troops fighting in Iraq. That shows them we don&#39;t think they&#39;re very important, when they are they REALLY are.
GO TROOPS

Razan
11-11-2004, 07:47 PM
Ok respect the troops for putting their lives at stake for what they belive is freedom.

But the troops do some extremly ugly things to the Iraqis how is that bringing them freedom?

Link04
11-12-2004, 11:23 PM
It&#39;s all murder to me, Spiked. Whether it&#39;s "justified" or not remains to be debated.

Razan
11-13-2004, 06:14 AM
It&#39;s all murder to me, Spiked. Whether it&#39;s "justified" or not remains to be debated.

Ok respect the troops for putting their lives at stake for what they belive is freedom.

But the troops do some extremly ugly things to the Iraqis how is that bringing them freedom?

I never justified anything I was asking how would the army bring freedom to the Iraqis.
I have no respect for the troops who put bags over Iraqis head and take pictures of them naked.
But I do have respect for the sane people who were forced to go there and are risking their lives for something they don&#39;t belive. (There are troops like that watch Fahrinhiet 9/11).

[Fool]
11-22-2004, 05:21 PM
i gotta admit i can see why they went 2 war with iraq but if you think about it logically it will just make things worse&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; :angry:

linkin_sylph
11-22-2004, 06:54 PM
Yes.. It is making things worse. Why not liberate Sudan, or other countries that pose a "threat" on you? Oh wait, you ARE the real threat. Next on their list: IRAN. Next on my list: United States of America. They&#39;re the biggest threat to the people, and the environment&#33;

linkin_sylph
11-22-2004, 06:57 PM
Troops?&#33; What else are they doing instead of "liberating" and killing thousands? OH WAIT&#33; They&#39;re throwing bombs in public places. They are raping the women in the Iraqi/American camps, sexually abusing the prisoners of war, and shooting &#39;terrorists&#39; when it&#39;s a fact that these people are innocent&#33;

Vampire
11-22-2004, 07:55 PM
I&#39;m for it. Saddam was a threat to his people and to us. Maybe not an immediate threat, but after 9/11, everyone is either our friend or against us, as Bush said. We weren&#39;t gonna sit around and let another 9/11 occur. What should we have done? Continue to sit around and let things get bad over there? Then people would bitch that we&#39;re not helping them. You can&#39;t win everyone&#39;s approval on a subject like this. War isn&#39;t butterflies and cupcakes -- people will die on both sides and the troops who joined our army knew that when they signed up to protect and serve our country. I had a friend pass away in Iraq and another one has volunteered to leave for Afganistan soon. I respect their hard work and the rest of our troops. Saying "bring our troops home" is like saying a customer filing a complaint at your job and saying you should be fired because you&#39;re not doing a good enough job.

Also want to add that we&#39;ve been trying to go to war with Iraq since the Clinton days. Of course, nothing happened there until Bush came in and took action.

Todd
11-22-2004, 09:11 PM
Originally posted by Vampire@Nov 22 2004, 01:55 PM
I&#39;m for it.
So you&#39;re for genocide of innocent Iraqis and what&#39;s probably going to become a mini-holocaust?

Mark
11-22-2004, 09:13 PM
Originally posted by Vampire@Nov 22 2004, 04:25 PM
I&#39;m for it. Saddam was a threat to his people and to us. Maybe not an immediate threat, but after 9/11, everyone is either our friend or against us, as Bush said. We weren&#39;t gonna sit around and let another 9/11 occur. What should we have done? Continue to sit around and let things get bad over there? Then people would bitch that we&#39;re not helping them. You can&#39;t win everyone&#39;s approval on a subject like this. War isn&#39;t butterflies and cupcakes -- people will die on both sides and the troops who joined our army knew that when they signed up to protect and serve our country. I had a friend pass away in Iraq and another one has volunteered to leave for Afganistan soon. I respect their hard work and the rest of our troops. Saying "bring our troops home" is like saying a customer filing a complaint at your job and saying you should be fired because you&#39;re not doing a good enough job.

Also want to add that we&#39;ve been trying to go to war with Iraq since the Clinton days. Of course, nothing happened there until Bush came in and took action.
Let me point two very evident things out to you;

There was no Al Qaeda-Iraq link.
Iraq didn&#39;t have WMDs.

How the hell else would Iraq have been a threat? This was purely for oil. If they really wanted to stop terrorism in other countries, they&#39;d be in Rwanda and Dafur, but of course there&#39;s nothing to benefit from in those places, so Iraq is somehow a "logical choice".

The whole "with us or against us" stuff is pure bullshit. Canada didn&#39;t go to war with Iraq, are we now your enemies? Russia didn&#39;t, are they? Germany? France? No. These countries are smart. They think about the consequences of invading a country with absolutely no proof or evidence before going to war under false pretenses. All of those countries (except Germany) had your backs in previous wars and all of a sudden because they&#39;re not coming along on your quest for middle-east controlism and oil, they&#39;re against you? That&#39;s the most fucked up logic I&#39;ve heard.

People join the army to protect their country, not to go to a foreign country that is absolutely no threat to the country they&#39;re protecting and die for a pointless war. I feel very badly for all of the soldiers who are being used as chess pieces in a selfish, unsensible plot like this.

Vampire
11-22-2004, 09:18 PM
Originally posted by Todd+Nov 22 2004, 01:11 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Todd @ Nov 22 2004, 01:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Vampire@Nov 22 2004, 01:55 PM
I&#39;m for it.
So you&#39;re for genocide of innocent Iraqis and what&#39;s probably going to become a mini-holocaust? [/b][/quote]
You&#39;re asking if Im for Saddam? Nope.

And to Mark: Saddam is a genocide maniac -- that&#39;s good enough logic to go in there and get him and try to fix things if you ask me. I never said there were ties to Al-Queida nor did I bring up WMD.

Mark
11-22-2004, 09:27 PM
Originally posted by Vampire+Nov 22 2004, 05:48 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Vampire @ Nov 22 2004, 05:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -Todd@Nov 22 2004, 01:11 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Vampire@Nov 22 2004, 01:55 PM
I&#39;m for it.
So you&#39;re for genocide of innocent Iraqis and what&#39;s probably going to become a mini-holocaust?
You&#39;re asking if Im for Saddam? Nope.

And to Mark: Saddam is a genocide maniac -- that&#39;s good enough logic to go in there and get him and try to fix things if you ask me. I never said there were ties to Al-Queida nor did I bring up WMD. [/b][/quote]
Aha&#33; But you did say he was a threat to you. Now, I&#39;ll repeat my question; "How the hell else would Iraq have been a threat?"
How could he of hurt you without ties to terrorism or WMDs? There is no evidence to support this war.

The UN is who deals with things like genocide. If they found evidence of genocide, they&#39;d go in there. The reason the UN didn&#39;t go in there was because of the weapons inspections which yielded no finding of WMDs. If genocide was present, the UN would be in there. Alas, it was not.

In fear of missing an opportunity at salvaging oil from an enemy country, the US forms their "coalition of the willing", or as I&#39;d like to call them the "coalition of the coersed and bribed", and invents intelligence on how Saddam is a threat to national security. Of course, these claims were extremely false and had no factual backup.

Vampire
11-22-2004, 09:37 PM
Saddam Hussein was a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of his country and his neighbors as well as anyone who he had connections with. After 9/11, Bush wanted to take out suspicious tyrants that could harm us. Since the Clinton administration, there were talks about going after Saddam -- he was just finishing what that administration wanted (and Bush wanted).

Mark
11-22-2004, 09:41 PM
Originally posted by Vampire@Nov 22 2004, 06:07 PM
Saddam Hussein was a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of his country and his neighbors as well as anyone who he had connections with. After 9/11, Bush wanted to take out suspicious tyrants that could harm us. Since the Clinton administration, there were talks about going after Saddam -- he was just finishing what that administration wanted (and Bush wanted).
You still won&#39;t answer my question&#33; If he had no means to hurt your country (no terrorist link, no WMDs), how would he have hurt you? I want a straight answer that disproves my claims.

You&#39;re so freaking brainwashed by the constant lies portrayed in the media that you&#39;re a blind slave to corrupt republican agendas.

If a security risk was present (and it isn&#39;t) Clinton would&#39;ve been there if the evidence was there. But there was no evidence. Thus, why no one attacked Iraq during the Clinton years.

Vampire
11-22-2004, 09:44 PM
Saddam = killed his own people. He was a tyrant. Didn&#39;t comply with UN. Yoohoo, I just answered your question for the 3rd time.

What&#39;s to say we&#39;re not next? Bush wasn&#39;t going to find out the answer to that. He took action and we went in and got him ourselves.

And you&#39;re brainwashed by the Moore craze.

Mark
11-22-2004, 09:53 PM
Originally posted by Vampire@Nov 22 2004, 06:14 PM
Saddam = killed his own people. He was a tyrant. Didn&#39;t comply with UN. Yoohoo, I just answered your question for the 3rd time.

What&#39;s to say we&#39;re not next? Bush wasn&#39;t going to find out the answer to that. He took action and we went in and got him ourselves.

And you&#39;re brainwashed by the Moore craze.
You are not an Iraqi&#33; How would he have hurt you, the United States of America. You are an American. When I say you, I mean your country. It&#39;s a blatant and easy comprehension of basic English that you&#39;re missing.

You&#39;re not next, because, again, there&#39;s were no means for Iraq/Saddam to hurt your country. You cannot deny that. No way. No evidence. No proof. He was not going to attack the US. He couldn&#39;t.

Bush wasn&#39;t going to find the answer out to anything. He wouldn&#39;t find out the answer if Iraq was a threat. So he went into a country and killed over a hundred thosuand people for no reason except for unfounded paranoia.

And I find my sources from alot more than a Moore movie/book. There&#39;s this beautiful commission called the "9/11 Commission" that established these facts that Iraq was no threat to your country in any way.

Repeating yourself over and over despite the proven facts is pointless. Two wrong things, three wrong things, or more will not cancel out each other and make your point true. You have no evidence or back-up to support the fact that Iraq was a threat to your country, and I&#39;ll outline it again; the USA. It&#39;s been blatantly proven otherwise. And now you&#39;re making me repeat the honest facts over and over again in an effort to pound them into your stubborn, unyielding, and incredibly underinformed cranium.

$pvcxGhxztCasey
11-22-2004, 09:54 PM
Originally posted by Vampire@Nov 22 2004, 03:44 PM
Saddam = killed his own people. He was a tyrant. Didn&#39;t comply with UN. Yoohoo, I just answered your question for the 3rd time.

What&#39;s to say we&#39;re not next? Bush wasn&#39;t going to find out the answer to that. He took action and we went in and got him ourselves.

And you&#39;re brainwashed by the Moore craze.
I don&#39;t think that&#39;s exactly answering Mark&#39;s question. Okay, so he killed his own people and was a Tyrant... and?

Osama led a group of terrorists that crashed planes in the WTCs. We go to &#39;War On Terrorism&#39;. We liberate Afghanistan. We search for Osama for a few months...



...and then we go after Saddam, who has no WMDs. :wth:

I don&#39;t think him killing his own people was a threat to us. Seemed to me he was perfectly content killing his own people instead of us.

But that&#39;s just me.

And don&#39;t use that &#39;You&#39;re brainwashed by Moore&#39; bullshit on me either. Everyone here knows I&#39;m strongly against Michael Moore.

Vampire
11-22-2004, 09:58 PM
"So he went into a country and killed over a hundred thosuand people..."
Fact.

"...for no reason except for unfounded paranoia."
Opinion.

"Saddam Hussein was a tyrant to his people."
Fact.

"People would have complained if we hadn&#39;t done anything. He&#39;s a threat to us if he&#39;s a threat to his own people because we did have problems with him years ago in another war. What&#39;s to say that wasn&#39;t going to stir up again, especially after 9/11?"
Opinion.

It all comes down to how people view things. Some people view it differently -- it makes them wrong in your book and right in someone else&#39;s. I&#39;m glad we&#39;re there, you&#39;re not. Why argue? That&#39;s like arguing over what ice cream flavor is better. It&#39;s our opinions.

Mark
11-22-2004, 10:05 PM
Originally posted by Vampire@Nov 22 2004, 06:28 PM
"So he went into a country and killed over a hundred thosuand people..."
Fact.

"...for no reason except for unfounded paranoia."
Opinion.

"Saddam Hussein was a tyrant to his people."
Fact.

"People would have complained if we hadn&#39;t done anything. He&#39;s a threat to us if he&#39;s a threat to his own people because we did have problems with him years ago in another war. What&#39;s to say that wasn&#39;t going to stir up again, especially after 9/11?"
Opinion.

It all comes down to how people view things. Some people view it differently -- it makes them wrong in your book and right in someone else&#39;s. I&#39;m glad we&#39;re there, you&#39;re not. Why argue? That&#39;s like arguing over what ice cream flavor is better. It&#39;s our opinions.
You still deny to acknowledge that Iraq was not a threat to your secuity. You constantly refuse to give me any proof that they were. Please, I would like to have some.

In addition, please give me a valid reason why the US went to war with Iraq.

Nothing about Saddam being a tyrant to his own citizens. Just pure facts showing two things; how Iraq was a threat to your country, and a valid reason for invading to Iraq.

I anticipate your response. :)

Todd
11-22-2004, 10:15 PM
Saddam was a murderous tyrant in Iraq. So is Bush, we replaced evil with evil. We should have left Iraq alone.

$pvcxGhxztCasey
11-22-2004, 10:17 PM
While I don&#39;t agree with Bush being a murderous tyrant (but he has caused ALOT of un-needed deaths in the past 4 years), I do agree we should have stayed far, far away from Iraq.

I don&#39;t want to discuss why I don&#39;t agree about the murderous tyrant part, either. I get creamed in these sort of things. :P

Vampire
11-22-2004, 10:40 PM
Originally posted by Mark+Nov 22 2004, 02:05 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mark @ Nov 22 2004, 02:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Vampire@Nov 22 2004, 06:28 PM
"So he went into a country and killed over a hundred thosuand people..."
Fact.

"...for no reason except for unfounded paranoia."
Opinion.

"Saddam Hussein was a tyrant to his people."
Fact.

"People would have complained if we hadn&#39;t done anything. He&#39;s a threat to us if he&#39;s a threat to his own people because we did have problems with him years ago in another war. What&#39;s to say that wasn&#39;t going to stir up again, especially after 9/11?"
Opinion.

It all comes down to how people view things. Some people view it differently -- it makes them wrong in your book and right in someone else&#39;s. I&#39;m glad we&#39;re there, you&#39;re not. Why argue? That&#39;s like arguing over what ice cream flavor is better. It&#39;s our opinions.
You still deny to acknowledge that Iraq was not a threat to your secuity. You constantly refuse to give me any proof that they were. Please, I would like to have some.

In addition, please give me a valid reason why the US went to war with Iraq.

Nothing about Saddam being a tyrant to his own citizens. Just pure facts showing two things; how Iraq was a threat to your country, and a valid reason for invading to Iraq.

I anticipate your response. :) [/b][/quote]
What&#39;s the point? Anything I try to tell you will be refuted with your cute little emoticons of power. I already told you why I feel we should be in Iraq. It&#39;s my opinion and I have backed it up with facts. The facts are: we had beef with Saddam in the past, he&#39;s still being a tyrant to his people, he didn&#39;t comply with the UN very well...[opinion:] giving us suspicions that he had WMD, 9/11 scared us shitless...so that&#39;s why we went in there. These are my views on it. Your views are different. It doesn&#39;t mean you shoot me down, Mark. I&#39;m not here to fight with anyone -- such hostility. Every topic I post an opinion in, there you are to fight with me.

Mark
11-22-2004, 11:16 PM
Originally posted by Vampire+Nov 22 2004, 07:10 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Vampire @ Nov 22 2004, 07:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -Mark@Nov 22 2004, 02:05 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Vampire@Nov 22 2004, 06:28 PM
"So he went into a country and killed over a hundred thosuand people..."
Fact.

"...for no reason except for unfounded paranoia."
Opinion.

"Saddam Hussein was a tyrant to his people."
Fact.

"People would have complained if we hadn&#39;t done anything. He&#39;s a threat to us if he&#39;s a threat to his own people because we did have problems with him years ago in another war. What&#39;s to say that wasn&#39;t going to stir up again, especially after 9/11?"
Opinion.

It all comes down to how people view things. Some people view it differently -- it makes them wrong in your book and right in someone else&#39;s. I&#39;m glad we&#39;re there, you&#39;re not. Why argue? That&#39;s like arguing over what ice cream flavor is better. It&#39;s our opinions.
You still deny to acknowledge that Iraq was not a threat to your secuity. You constantly refuse to give me any proof that they were. Please, I would like to have some.

In addition, please give me a valid reason why the US went to war with Iraq.

Nothing about Saddam being a tyrant to his own citizens. Just pure facts showing two things; how Iraq was a threat to your country, and a valid reason for invading to Iraq.

I anticipate your response. :)
What&#39;s the point? Anything I try to tell you will be refuted with your cute little emoticons of power. I already told you why I feel we should be in Iraq. It&#39;s my opinion and I have backed it up with facts. The facts are: we had beef with Saddam in the past, he&#39;s still being a tyrant to his people, he didn&#39;t comply with the UN very well...[opinion:] giving us suspicions that he had WMD, 9/11 scared us shitless...so that&#39;s why we went in there. These are my views on it. Your views are different. It doesn&#39;t mean you shoot me down, Mark. I&#39;m not here to fight with anyone -- such hostility. Every topic I post an opinion in, there you are to fight with me. [/b][/quote]
That&#39;s because you&#39;re incredibly confrontational and have a problem with everything, minor or major. I just tend to disagree.

The point is to have you finally acknowledge that this war was based largely on paranoia (per your "9/11 scared us shitless" statement). There was no threat to your national security and helping the Iraqis could have been done through the UN, not by brute force and arrogance, in which you pissed off well over a hundred other countries.

I really couldn&#39;t care about your opinions on going to war because there aren&#39;t any decent and plausible reasons for going into Iraq and killing over a hundred thousand people. You don&#39;t give any. You say he gave you suspicions he had WMDs, when in fact these suspicions (based primarily on paranoia), were completely false and flawed, as proven by the UN weapons inspectors and 9/11 commission.

Not complying with the UN is not a reason to go in and kill a good portion of their population either. If they&#39;re not a threat, you don&#39;t go in and slaughter them. That could&#39;ve been handled by the UN, not the "must-save-the-world&#33;" United States of America. Being a tyrant could have also been handled by the UN by a UN-led coalition, but of course the US wouldn&#39;t reap oil benefits from that, so that&#39;s a no-no.

Feel free to continue self-victimizing yourself because of your apparent dislike for smilies. They&#39;re available for you to use too, so I&#39;d suggest you try them. You are not a victim here, you are merely being out-debated and shown the error of your "facts". Time to fess up.

Link04
11-22-2004, 11:17 PM
Originally posted by Vampire@Nov 22 2004, 09:44 PM
Saddam = killed his own people. He was a tyrant. Didn&#39;t comply with UN. Yoohoo, I just answered your question for the 3rd time.

What&#39;s to say we&#39;re not next? Bush wasn&#39;t going to find out the answer to that. He took action and we went in and got him ourselves.

And you&#39;re brainwashed by the Moore craze.
Excuse me, Vampire, but I&#39;d like you to answer my one question.


Do you know what nation is in the violation of the most U.N. laws?

Vampire
11-22-2004, 11:23 PM
Originally posted by Mark@Nov 22 2004, 03:16 PM
I really couldn&#39;t care about your opinions on going to war because there aren&#39;t any decent and plausible reasons for going into Iraq and killing over a hundred thousand people.
My opinion is my opinion. I&#39;m not here to prove anything. I&#39;m just contributing my opinion. I gave you my side and I got shot down horribly. I can&#39;t wait for the next topic we do this in.

To Link04: We both know the answer to that one. But the UN has proved itself completely worthless to me after 9/11. I was never much of a fan of it anyway, but after 9/11, I officially didn&#39;t like them at all.

Mark
11-22-2004, 11:29 PM
Originally posted by Vampire+Nov 22 2004, 07:53 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Vampire @ Nov 22 2004, 07:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Mark@Nov 22 2004, 03:16 PM
I really couldn&#39;t care about your opinions on going to war because there aren&#39;t any decent and plausible reasons for going into Iraq and killing over a hundred thousand people.
My opinion is my opinion. I&#39;m not here to prove anything. I&#39;m just contributing my opinion. I gave you my side and I got shot down horribly. I can&#39;t wait for the next topic we do this in.

To Link04: We both know the answer to that one. But the UN has proved itself completely worthless to me after 9/11. I was never much of a fan of it anyway, but after 9/11, I officially didn&#39;t like them at all. [/b][/quote]
An opinion can be incorrect, you know. Opinions can be wrong if based upon wrong information, in which yours was. Of course, how you feel on something is perfectly fine, but when you spread false information around, it&#39;s politically incorrect. I was merely pointing out the inaccuracies.

Link04
11-22-2004, 11:35 PM
Originally posted by Vampire+Nov 22 2004, 11:23 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Vampire @ Nov 22 2004, 11:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Mark@Nov 22 2004, 03:16 PM
I really couldn&#39;t care about your opinions on going to war because there aren&#39;t any decent and plausible reasons for going into Iraq and killing over a hundred thousand people.
My opinion is my opinion. I&#39;m not here to prove anything. I&#39;m just contributing my opinion. I gave you my side and I got shot down horribly. I can&#39;t wait for the next topic we do this in.

To Link04: We both know the answer to that one. But the UN has proved itself completely worthless to me after 9/11. I was never much of a fan of it anyway, but after 9/11, I officially didn&#39;t like them at all. [/b][/quote]
That&#39;s fine. I&#39;m just saying, don&#39;t you think it&#39;s somewhat hypocritical for the United States to condemn Iraq on this premice while
1. The United States is in the violation of the most U.N. laws out of any other country in the world (if not, they&#39;re certainly up there).
and
2. The U.N. didn&#39;t back the military operation to invade Iraq.

Vampire
11-22-2004, 11:37 PM
Originally posted by Mark+Nov 22 2004, 03:29 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mark @ Nov 22 2004, 03:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -Vampire@Nov 22 2004, 07:53 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Mark@Nov 22 2004, 03:16 PM
I really couldn&#39;t care about your opinions on going to war because there aren&#39;t any decent and plausible reasons for going into Iraq and killing over a hundred thousand people.
My opinion is my opinion. I&#39;m not here to prove anything. I&#39;m just contributing my opinion. I gave you my side and I got shot down horribly. I can&#39;t wait for the next topic we do this in.

To Link04: We both know the answer to that one. But the UN has proved itself completely worthless to me after 9/11. I was never much of a fan of it anyway, but after 9/11, I officially didn&#39;t like them at all.
An opinion can be incorrect, you know. Opinions can be wrong if based upon wrong information, in which yours was. Of course, how you feel on something is perfectly fine, but when you spread false information around, it&#39;s politically incorrect. I was merely pointing out the inaccuracies. [/b][/quote]
Yes, opinions can be false. But in this case, I was just voicing how I feel on something. I wasn&#39;t saying it&#39;s either my view or no way. I didn&#39;t say your view was wrong. But I guess people have a right to feel how they want to and deal with it more aggressively than others.

Link04: it is hypocritcial indeed. I don&#39;t feel we had any other choice.

Link04
11-23-2004, 12:04 AM
Fair enough, now let me just point one more thing out. You said:


"Saddam Hussein was a tyrant to his people."
Fact.


This isn&#39;t just because you said it, but it&#39;s been said before, so I just wanted to bring something up. What makes a person a tryant? Is a tryant an absolute term? Well, it depends on your defenition of tyrant. Two of the most common definitions are:
1. A ruler who exercises power in a harsh, cruel manner.
2. An oppressive, harsh, arbitrary person.

Words like "harsh", "oppressive", and "cruel", are, again, opinoins. Does that make Saddam a tryant? No, it does not, because someone else may think he&#39;s not a tyrant. Also, these terms are not absolute, they are relative, or based on morals. "Harsh" compared to what/who? Compared to Stalin, Hitler&#39;s not so bad, and compared to Hitler, neither is Saddam. This is just one way to look at it.

Secondly, what makes him a tyrant in your eyes? What atrocities has he commited? He has killed his own people, yes, but in reality, many of these claims against Saddam (especially the "mass grave" incident) where carried out when Iraq was one of the only anti-communist allies in the Middle East to the United States. Back then we turned the other way. Now that we&#39;re on the other side of the fence with them, we condemn them for it. In actuality, Saddam and his regime in modern times are only a ghost of the might and power they were in the Persian Gulf War. It&#39;s my opinion that the ends of this operation have not justified it&#39;s means.

Vampire
11-23-2004, 12:18 AM
Originally posted by Link04@Nov 22 2004, 04:04 PM
Fair enough, now let me just point one more thing out. You said:


"Saddam Hussein was a tyrant to his people."
Fact.


This isn&#39;t just because you said it, but it&#39;s been said before, so I just wanted to bring something up. What makes a person a tryant? Is a tryant an absolute term? Well, it depends on your defenition of tyrant. Two of the most common definitions are:
1. A ruler who exercises power in a harsh, cruel manner.
2. An oppressive, harsh, arbitrary person.

Words like "harsh", "oppressive", and "cruel", are, again, opinoins. Does that make Saddam a tryant? No, it does not, because someone else may think he&#39;s not a tyrant. Also, these terms are not absolute, they are relative, or based on morals. "Harsh" compared to what/who? Compared to Stalin, Hitler&#39;s not so bad, and compared to Hitler, neither is Saddam. This is just one way to look at it.

Secondly, what makes him a tyrant in your eyes? What atrocities has he commited? He has killed his own people, yes, but in reality, many of these claims against Saddam (especially the "mass grave" incident) where carried out when Iraq was one of the only anti-communist allies in the Middle East to the United States. Back then we turned the other way. Now that we&#39;re on the other side of the fence with them, we condemn them for it. In actuality, Saddam and his regime in modern times are only a ghost of the might and power they were in the Persian Gulf War. It&#39;s my opinion that the ends of this operation have not justified it&#39;s means.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/reasons.html

This defines a tyrant for me. Hope it helps. It also gives lots of my reasons as to why I feel we should be in Iraq.

Link04
11-23-2004, 12:55 AM
Beautiful&#33;&#33; Thanks for the link&#33; Now I can rip apart what it says ;) . Nothing against you, just the illogical thinking that goes into biased media.

"1. Iraq’s government openly praised the September 11th attacks on America

* In the aftermath of the attacks on America that killed thousands of innocents from 80 countries, Saddam Hussein said, “America is reaping the thorns planted by its rulers in the world."

This is completely irrelevant. There is no logic behind it. It is simply a ploy to demonize the enemy. A country, much less a government, is ALLOWED to have opinions that are diverse from that of our own. Maybe they actually take offense to our acts of imperialism around the world. To try to ostracize and eliminate opposing opinions is reminiscent of an authoritarian government, which is completely contrary to what Amerika supposedly stands for.

"2. Iraq shelters and supports terrorist organizations

* Iraq shelters and supports terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments.
* Al Qaeda terrorists escaped from Afghanistan and are known to be in Iraq.
* In 1993, Iraq attempted to assassinate the Emir of Kuwait and a former U.S. President."

This is a common case of generalizing. Clearly not all of Iraq shelters and supports terrorists. We have found very very little documentation to tie any link between the Iraqi regime and Al-Qaeda. Ok, let&#39;s take this bullet by bullet. The point that there are terrorists in Iraq is indeed a fact. However, I am willing to stake my life on the claim that there are terrorists in Ireland (IRA), Spain (Etna), Jordan, and our own nation who have "anti-west" ideals, a.k.a. different opinions. They are demonized as terrorists and guerillas. And what do you suppose the English crown called the Sons of Liberty, and other American Revolutionary groups? The victors get to write history, and simply, they are hardly different from the aforementioned groups, they are nothing more than revolutionaries. Second bullet: Under that logic, if I dodged the draft, and escaped to Canada, you could declare war and invade Canada. Illogical. Third bullet: Did Iraq really do those things? No, individuals did. Under U.N. law, you cannot hold an entire nation responsible for the acts of a few. These individuals do not necessarily represent the ideals/policies of the entire country.

"3.Saddam Hussein has an appetite for nuclear weapons

* In 1995, after four years of deception, Iraq finally admitted it had a crash nuclear weapons program prior to the Gulf War.
* Were it not for that war, the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993.
* Iraq still employs capable nuclear scientists and technicians and retains physical infrastructure needed to build a nuclear weapon
* Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon."

Hypocritical. The U.S. has an appetite for nukes. The first bullet is pertaining to a past event. The second bullet is pure speculation; completely irrelevant. Under the third bullet&#39;s logic, I could arrest you for having money and a functioning right index finger, because you have the capabilities to go out, buy a gun, and shoot someone. Fourth bullet, uranium enrichment is also used for atomic energy, not necessarily nuclear weapons.

"4. Saddam likely possesses biological and chemical weapons

* United Nations&#39; inspections revealed that Iraq likely maintains stockpiles of VX, mustard and other chemical agents, and that the regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical weapons.
* On at least 10 occasions, Saddam Hussein’s military forces have attacked Iranian and Kurdish targets with combinations of mustard gas and nerve agents through the use of aerial bombs, 122-millimeter rockets, and conventional artillery shells.
* Iraq has admitted to producing tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents for use with Scud warheads, aerial bombs, and aircraft spray tanks.
* U.N. inspectors believe Iraq has produced two to four times the amount of biological agents it declared, and has failed to account for more than three metric tons of material that could be used to produce biological weapons.
* Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

The title is pure speculation. To date, there has been no proof of mass chemical weapons, nor "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq. Bush has even said so. The U.S. Weapons inspector leader, also concluded this before he resigned. Saying "we were wrong." The "last ten occasions" generally occured, again, when Iraq was an ally with the United States. We did nothing about it when it first occured.

"5. Saddam’s repression of the Iraqi people

* In the late 1980’s Saddam Hussein launched a large-scale chemical weapons attack against Iraq’s Kurdish population killing thousands.
* Former UN Human Rights Special Rapporteur Max Van der Stoel’s report in April 1998 stated that Iraq had executed at least 1,500 people during the previous year for political reasons.
* Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating and burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape.
* Wives are tortured in front of their husbands, children in the presence of their parents.
* Saddam blames the suffering of Iraq&#39;s people on the U.N., even as he uses his oil wealth to build lavish palaces for himself, and buy arms for his country."

In the 80&#39;s, again, Iraq was considered an ally. We did nothing about it at the time. These accounts of brutality occur all over the world, yet the United States has done NOTHING about other countries with the same issue. I cannot accept this as proper justification for the war. If so, we&#39;d better be "liberating" half the other countries in Africa and the Middle East also. Saddam has also purchased weapons from the United States and it&#39;s allies.

I&#39;m running out of time, so I&#39;ll start to summarize:

6-8 are common issues around the world, and again, we have turned our attention to no other country where this goes on. We can&#39;t pick and choose who we&#39;re going to liberate, shouldn&#39;t it be all or none?
9. The United States possesses prohibited missles. Furthermore, we expect other nations to disarm while we only build our nuclear programs. Hypocrisy.
10. http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/Mi...PostWar/WMD.asp (http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/MiddleEast/Iraq/PostWar/WMD.asp)
Read what David Kay, leader of the US weapons inspections, had to say.

Internation law is explained here: http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/Mi.../Sep11Law.asp#1 (http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/MiddleEast/TerrorInUSA/faq/Sep11Law.asp#1)

Vampire
11-23-2004, 01:43 AM
Ay yi, that was a long post. Interesting response but I still hold strongly to my views. Not saying you were trying to convince me of anything.

Link04
11-23-2004, 01:48 AM
Oh, no, I wouldn&#39;t have posted if I wasn&#39;t trying to convince you of something. There&#39;s certainly no harm in an honest debate, as long as ideas, and not people, are being attacked/countered. Honestly though, did you think the White House&#39;s official website wouldn&#39;t be a tad biased? Of course they&#39;re not going to bring up what I brought up, they choose the most subtle and easiest form of propaganda; omission.

Vampire
11-23-2004, 02:24 AM
Originally posted by Link04@Nov 22 2004, 05:48 PM
Oh, no, I wouldn&#39;t have posted if I wasn&#39;t trying to convince you of something. There&#39;s certainly no harm in an honest debate, as long as ideas, and not people, are being attacked/countered. Honestly though, did you think the White House&#39;s official website wouldn&#39;t be a tad biased? Of course they&#39;re not going to bring up what I brought up, they choose the most subtle and easiest form of propaganda; omission.
Of course it&#39;ll be biased -- it&#39;s the government&#33; Didn&#39;t we have this discussion before -- about everyone being biased? ^_^

Odaton
11-23-2004, 02:28 AM
You didn&#39;t mention Link, that any biological/chemical weapons that might have been possessed by Iraq would have been supplied by the US during the Cold War.

And nobody mentions that the US supplied the WMDs that allowed Saddam to gas to death 100 000 Kurds.

Thats irresponsible if you ask me...

Vampire
11-23-2004, 02:43 AM
Originally posted by Odaton@Nov 22 2004, 06:28 PM
You didn&#39;t mention Link, that any biological/chemical weapons that might have been possessed by Iraq would have been supplied by the US during the Cold War.

And nobody mentions that the US supplied the WMDs that allowed Saddam to gas to death 100 000 Kurds.

Thats irresponsible if you ask me...
Have you ever seen that episode of Dave Chappelle where they had Paul Mooney do "Negrodamus?" A woman asks him "why is President Bush so sure Iraq has weapons of mass destruction?" and he answers with, "because he has the receipt." Priceless&#33;

salinameteora
11-23-2004, 08:58 PM
sadaam a tyrant? certainly&#33; i would say having your soldiers shoot the babies in the family if the sons of the family who is of age to join his army refuse qualifies him as a tyrant&#33;

iraq housing terrorists? havnt america been doing this for years as well as at one time being the main funding for a terrorist operation i.e The I.R.A who directed violence against british, irish and many others

as for u.n law,-definition of terrorism as adopted by section 1 of terrorism act is ; the threat or use of any actionwhich involves serious violence against persons or property, endangerslife, creates a serious risk to public health or safety, in order to advance a political,religious or idealogical cause. And this is fact as i study law part time, and according to this definition that would also make president Bush guilty of terrorism against the innocent iraqi people

Link04
11-23-2004, 09:05 PM
Originally posted by salinameteora@Nov 23 2004, 08:58 PM
according to this definition that would also make president Bush guilty of terrorism against the innocent iraqi people
Amen.

linkin_sylph
11-24-2004, 05:19 PM
Originally posted by Link04+Nov 23 2004, 01:05 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Link04 @ Nov 23 2004, 01:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--salinameteora@Nov 23 2004, 08:58 PM
according to this definition that would also make president Bush guilty of terrorism against the innocent iraqi people
Amen. [/b][/quote]
Yes, amen to that.

Bush is guilty of Terrorism. He should be charged for an illegal invasion and the massmurder of 100 000 of Iraqis, and counting. This is not acceptable. It is NEVER acceptable.