War on Iraq

Discussion in 'Serious Chat' started by 1200techniques, Nov 4, 2004.

?

Do you think the war in Iraq was a good decision?

  1. Yes

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. No

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. #41
    linkin_sylph

    linkin_sylph Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2003
    Messages:
    157
    Likes Received:
    0



    Troops?! What else are they doing instead of "liberating" and killing thousands? OH WAIT! They're throwing bombs in public places. They are raping the women in the Iraqi/American camps, sexually abusing the prisoners of war, and shooting 'terrorists' when it's a fact that these people are innocent!
     
  2. #42
    Vampire

    Vampire Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,094
    Likes Received:
    0



    I'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'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're not helping them. You can't win everyone's approval on a subject like this. War isn'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're not doing a good enough job.

    Also want to add that we'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.
     
  3. #43
    Todd

    Todd FLǕGGȦ∂NKđ€ČHIŒβǾLʃÊN LPA Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2002
    Messages:
    1,061,051
    Likes Received:
    99



    So you're for genocide of innocent Iraqis and what's probably going to become a mini-holocaust?
     
  4. #44
    Mark

    Mark Canadian Beauty LPA Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2002
    Messages:
    24,862
    Likes Received:
    388



    Let me point two very evident things out to you;

    There was no Al Qaeda-Iraq link.
    Iraq didn'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'd be in Rwanda and Dafur, but of course there'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't go to war with Iraq, are we now your enemies? Russia didn'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're not coming along on your quest for middle-east controlism and oil, they're against you? That's the most fucked up logic I'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'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.
     
  5. #45
    Vampire

    Vampire Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,094
    Likes Received:
    0



    So you're for genocide of innocent Iraqis and what's probably going to become a mini-holocaust? [/b][/quote]
    You're asking if Im for Saddam? Nope.

    And to Mark: Saddam is a genocide maniac -- that'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.
     
  6. #46
    Mark

    Mark Canadian Beauty LPA Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2002
    Messages:
    24,862
    Likes Received:
    388



    You're asking if Im for Saddam? Nope.

    And to Mark: Saddam is a genocide maniac -- that'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! But you did say he was a threat to you. Now, I'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'd go in there. The reason the UN didn'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'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.
     
  7. #47
    Vampire

    Vampire Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,094
    Likes Received:
    0



    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).
     
  8. #48
    Mark

    Mark Canadian Beauty LPA Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2002
    Messages:
    24,862
    Likes Received:
    388



    You still won't answer my question! 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're so freaking brainwashed by the constant lies portrayed in the media that you're a blind slave to corrupt republican agendas.

    If a security risk was present (and it isn't) Clinton would've been there if the evidence was there. But there was no evidence. Thus, why no one attacked Iraq during the Clinton years.
     
  9. #49
    Vampire

    Vampire Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,094
    Likes Received:
    0



    Saddam = killed his own people. He was a tyrant. Didn't comply with UN. Yoohoo, I just answered your question for the 3rd time.

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

    And you're brainwashed by the Moore craze.
     
  10. #50
    Mark

    Mark Canadian Beauty LPA Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2002
    Messages:
    24,862
    Likes Received:
    388



    You are not an Iraqi! How would he have hurt you, the United States of America. You are an American. When I say you, I mean your country. It's a blatant and easy comprehension of basic English that you're missing.

    You're not next, because, again, there'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't.

    Bush wasn't going to find the answer out to anything. He wouldn'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'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'll outline it again; the USA. It's been blatantly proven otherwise. And now you'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.
     
  11. #51
    $pvcxGhxztCasey

    $pvcxGhxztCasey meanwhile... LPA Addicted VIP

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2003
    Messages:
    15,888
    Likes Received:
    26



    I don't think that's exactly answering Mark'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 'War On Terrorism'. We liberate Afghanistan. We search for Osama for a few months...



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

    I don'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's just me.

    And don't use that 'You're brainwashed by Moore' bullshit on me either. Everyone here knows I'm strongly against Michael Moore.
     
  12. #52
    Vampire

    Vampire Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,094
    Likes Received:
    0



    "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't done anything. He's a threat to us if he's a threat to his own people because we did have problems with him years ago in another war. What's to say that wasn'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's. I'm glad we're there, you're not. Why argue? That's like arguing over what ice cream flavor is better. It's our opinions.
     
  13. #53
    Mark

    Mark Canadian Beauty LPA Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2002
    Messages:
    24,862
    Likes Received:
    388



    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. :)
     
  14. #54
    Todd

    Todd FLǕGGȦ∂NKđ€ČHIŒβǾLʃÊN LPA Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2002
    Messages:
    1,061,051
    Likes Received:
    99



    Saddam was a murderous tyrant in Iraq. So is Bush, we replaced evil with evil. We should have left Iraq alone.
     
  15. #55
    $pvcxGhxztCasey

    $pvcxGhxztCasey meanwhile... LPA Addicted VIP

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2003
    Messages:
    15,888
    Likes Received:
    26



    While I don'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't want to discuss why I don't agree about the murderous tyrant part, either. I get creamed in these sort of things. :p
     
  16. #56
    Vampire

    Vampire Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,094
    Likes Received:
    0



    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'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's my opinion and I have backed it up with facts. The facts are: we had beef with Saddam in the past, he's still being a tyrant to his people, he didn't comply with the UN very well...[opinion:] giving us suspicions that he had WMD, 9/11 scared us shitless...so that's why we went in there. These are my views on it. Your views are different. It doesn't mean you shoot me down, Mark. I'm not here to fight with anyone -- such hostility. Every topic I post an opinion in, there you are to fight with me.
     
  17. #57
    Mark

    Mark Canadian Beauty LPA Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2002
    Messages:
    24,862
    Likes Received:
    388



    What'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's my opinion and I have backed it up with facts. The facts are: we had beef with Saddam in the past, he's still being a tyrant to his people, he didn't comply with the UN very well...[opinion:] giving us suspicions that he had WMD, 9/11 scared us shitless...so that's why we went in there. These are my views on it. Your views are different. It doesn't mean you shoot me down, Mark. I'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's because you'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't care about your opinions on going to war because there aren't any decent and plausible reasons for going into Iraq and killing over a hundred thousand people. You don'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're not a threat, you don't go in and slaughter them. That could've been handled by the UN, not the "must-save-the-world!" 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't reap oil benefits from that, so that's a no-no.

    Feel free to continue self-victimizing yourself because of your apparent dislike for smilies. They're available for you to use too, so I'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.
     
  18. #58
    Link04

    Link04 Ambient

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    1,024
    Likes Received:
    0



    Excuse me, Vampire, but I'd like you to answer my one question.


    Do you know what nation is in the violation of the most U.N. laws?
     
  19. #59
    Vampire

    Vampire Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,094
    Likes Received:
    0



    My opinion is my opinion. I'm not here to prove anything. I'm just contributing my opinion. I gave you my side and I got shot down horribly. I can'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't like them at all.
     
  20. #60
    Mark

    Mark Canadian Beauty LPA Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2002
    Messages:
    24,862
    Likes Received:
    388



    My opinion is my opinion. I'm not here to prove anything. I'm just contributing my opinion. I gave you my side and I got shot down horribly. I can'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'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's politically incorrect. I was merely pointing out the inaccuracies.
     

Share This Page