Your opinion about war on Iraq? - Page 8




 
--
Boots
 
January 30th, 2005  
SHERMAN
 
 
I just think it's stupid to have to ask the UN premission, and no one dose it anyways. War is a very bad thing, but sometimes the conflict between 2 nations is simply impossible to solve in any other way. And I dont really see any nation giving up on surprise to get premission from mom
January 30th, 2005  
A Can of Man
 
 
This is the way I see it: The more rules there are, the more difficult things becomes for the good guys.
January 30th, 2005  
CPrime
 
Quote:
War is a very bad thing, but sometimes the conflict between 2 nations is simply impossible to solve in any other way.
War isn't fun, but sometimes it is nessecary.

Listen to some of the most wise and greatest men in history:

Publius Statius
The cruelty of war makes for peace

Aristotle
We make war that we may live in peace

Latin proverb
Arms keep peace
--
Boots
January 30th, 2005  
gingerbeard
 

Topic: Re: opinin on war in iraq


Quote:
Originally Posted by Chocobo_Blitzer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snauhi
Quote:
Originally Posted by pcfab
To irIonface: i'm often disgusted by liberal weakminded people like you. Sadaam's regime was brutal and oppressive to his people.
Our people stepped in and gave the Iraqies freedom, not to mention lower gas prices in our country. In my opinion, we're doing nothing wrong. To h**l with the U.N. We are the strongest nation in the world If we say its a legal war its legal!
Because of your attudude many people hate USA.You dint people give Iraqis a ****, they are diying everyday because of that. Its like a good quote from this page(cant find it) "Its better to die on while standing up rather then to live the hole life on your knees." If USA is so strong why not show the power at the more powerful nation.... like North Korea.
That guy does have an attitude problem, but no, the Iraqis are dieing everyday because of Islamic fascist and the old bathist regime elements. Before they were dieing under an infinite dictator, now they're dieing for a freedom that will eventually come- hopefully.


And Chewie, you didn't answer me.
iraqis werent "dying" under saddam, iraq had US support in the 80s. it was only after teh embargo in 1991 after the gulf war that made iraq a 3rd world country.

saddam only tests weapons on separatists, separatists of a country never live well in any country, northern ireland, chenchya etc..... US only pick on countries that is weak, i mean russia bomb the hell out of chenchya, hey why dun US shout at russia? what did US do?!?! nothing. simply russia isnt a country to be messed with and there is no benefit the US could take.

it was US encourgaement in the 80s that made saddam thinking US would not declare war on iraq, remember, if US wanted to remove dictators, it could removed it in the 80s, it shows US' spreading democracy, its an excuse. in fact people in the US are just as brain washed as any other country. people in the US have been bombarded by their own media of thinking US is doing it for human kind. remember, US media is written by its own US people, the US people are being to have a perspective the country wanted to be, therefore the chain cycle works. i do admire how US could control its people.

in a democracy, the country's education is a propaganda tool, they are taught in thinking US has the right ot save people. people in the US are kind and care about the world, but because of this nature, the US gov can use this reason to blind people's real motive of the country.

the US wanted to be the supremacy over the world, why did u think us didnt sign the disarmament treaty? they need the weapons thats why. in fact it is the US who cause the world to arm themselves with WMD. US made USSR and China, USSR made england and france, then middle east because of US. its unfair, u have have weapons of mass destruction but other people cant? why?!?! does that make sense to u?

each country's gov, even UK and US, have a degree of control over the media, hiding war losses is an example.

Iraq was being invaded because of oil, right, i have save the world of WMD by destroying a 3rd world defenceless people.
why the iraqi is still bombing oil pipelines if the US said the oil is for the benefit only for the iraqi people. why would they bomb it if they are using the oil to build its own country rather than US? funny eh?

it is wrong in the first place to go into someone homeland, kill its people and saying they are spreading democracy. that's wrong, killing its people is wrong enough, what do US think they are? god? world police? leave them to solve their own country. hey tibet has a slave like system too, its brutal towards it people before china took over, if u think china is unjust, then us is unjust too.
January 30th, 2005  
CPrime
 
gingerbeard,

I wont say what I am thinking right, or I will be banned. It is as simple as this: your story is .

Quote:
iraqis werent "dying" under saddam, iraq had US support in the 80s. it was only after teh embargo in 1991 after the gulf war that made iraq a 3rd world country.
Only a few milion dead people, thats all.

Quote:
saddam only tests weapons on separatists, separatists of a country never live well in any country, northern ireland, chenchya etc..... US only pick on countries that is weak, i mean russia bomb the h**l out of chenchya, hey why dun US shout at russia? what did US do?!?! nothing. simply russia isnt a country to be messed with and there is no benefit the US could take.
Exuse me!!! What do you mean, thay were just some seperatists? These are human lives were talking about. Those seperatists are an supresed people. The people itself didnt do anyone any harm.
You probally dont know anything about the history between the US and Russia.



Quote:
it was US encourgaement in the 80s that made saddam thinking US would not declare war on iraq, remember, if US wanted to remove dictators, it could removed it in the 80s, it shows US' spreading democracy, its an excuse. in fact people in the US are just as brain washed as any other country. people in the US have been bombarded by their own media of thinking US is doing it for human kind. remember, US media is written by its own US people, the US people are being to have a perspective the country wanted to be, therefore the chain cycle works. i do admire how US could control its people.
Somehow it makes me think that you are talking about China or N-Korea.

Quote:
in a democracy, the country's education is a propaganda tool, they are taught in thinking US has the right ot save people. people in the US are kind and care about the world, but because of this nature, the US gov can use this reason to blind people's real motive of the country.
So what is this motive you keep talking about. That is the one thing i keep on missing in your lovely stories. If you accuse someone of commiting a crime, then it is quite handy to have some proof.

Quote:
the US wanted to be the supremacy over the world, why did u think us didnt sign the disarmament treaty? they need the weapons thats why. in fact it is the US who cause the world to arm themselves with WMD. US made USSR and China, USSR made england and france, then middle east because of US. again like the tibet issue, its unfair, u have have weapons of mass destruction but other people cant? why?!?! does that make sense to u?
The US is THE worldpower. For a worldpower it is quite easy to be well armed, because an worldpower has a lot of enemies. What do you mean the US made the USSR? USSR made France and England?
What is that all about? And where is the proof?
You want to know why the may have WMD and others cant? Because the US isnt treathning to use them for a bad cause. The US isnt using them at all. The US keeps them as a (back-up) defence, as a message to its enemies to watch out. So yeah, it does make sence.

Quote:
each country's gov, even UK and US, have a degree of control over the media, hiding war losses is an example.
You call that control? I am not telling you about my private live. So I am controlling you now.

Quote:
Iraq was being invaded because of oil, right, i have save the world of WMD by destroying a 3rd world defenceless people.
why the iraqi is still bombing oil pipelines if the US said the oil is for the benefit only for the iraqi people.
You havent read the previous post havent you? Its all explained by me, an EUROPEAN.
Why are they bombing the pipelines? I have one for you. Why are they bombing innocent Iraqi"s?

Quote:
why would they bomb it if they are using the oil to build its own country rather than US? funny eh?
Because the much smaller group of terrorists want Iraq back like the way it whas. A country lead by a cruel dictator that supresses its people. Because of POWER.

Quote:
it is wrong in the first place to go into someone homeland, kill its people and saying they are spreading democracy. that's wrong, killing its people is wrong enough, what do US think they are? god? world police? leave them to solve their own country. hey tibet has a slave like system too, its brutal towards it people before china took over, if u think china is unjust, then us is unjust too.
Your right, that is wrong. But that isnt the case. It are the terrorists that arekilling the people, not the US.
The US IS a worldpower that uses its power to create a better world. A world that the UN WANTS to create. A world that the US IS creating. The US is fighting unjustice in the world. By doing that, the US is showing its goodness. What the UN wants to (unsuccesfully) solve with words, is what the US solves with deeds.
Tell me more about that Tibet thing of yours. How brutely where they abusing there own people. How many men died at tibetian hands?
January 30th, 2005  
chewie_nz
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chocobo_Blitzer
Quote:
Originally Posted by chewie_nz
he wants us all there...our lives on the line for US "protection"
I can see your skepticism when talking about the breakout of war, but do you really apply that to the current situation? Do you honestly believe this is not for the United State's protection?

Or maybe you typed that relaxed to zing that guy?
sorry for the late reply (thought you were being rhetorical!). i find it very hard to believe that attacking iraq has made the US any safer, in fact, i believe that it has made the US an even bigger target. if i was in Bush's boots i would've made sure the whole world saw me finish the job on the taliban, made sure i got osama, before starting to "clean house" on a global scale. this has destabilised the entire middle east....syria and iran are looking over their shoulders thinkin"are we next", so why wouldn't the consider sending fighters to iraq, might as well get some hits in first right (by the way that is hypothetical on my part). even the saudi Govt is having problems with al quida now. i can't actually think of one middle eastern country that is better off now, than before the US invaded... maybe libiya, but thats a stretch

if bush was really serious about regime change, it would be North Korea you would be fighting.
January 30th, 2005  
battery
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by chewie_nz
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chocobo_Blitzer
Quote:
Originally Posted by chewie_nz
he wants us all there...our lives on the line for US "protection"
I can see your skepticism when talking about the breakout of war, but do you really apply that to the current situation? Do you honestly believe this is not for the United State's protection?

Or maybe you typed that relaxed to zing that guy?
sorry for the late reply (thought you were being rhetorical!). i find it very hard to believe that attacking iraq has made the US any safer, in fact, i believe that it has made the US an even bigger target. if i was in Bush's boots i would've made sure the whole world saw me finish the job on the taliban, made sure i got osama, before starting to "clean house" on a global scale. this has destabilised the entire middle east....syria and iran are looking over their shoulders thinkin"are we next", so why wouldn't the consider sending fighters to iraq, might as well get some hits in first right (by the way that is hypothetical on my part). even the saudi Govt is having problems with al quida now. i can't actually think of one middle eastern country that is better off now, than before the US invaded... maybe libiya, but thats a stretch

if bush was really serious about regime change, it would be North Korea you would be fighting.

I dont think so... Kim is all talk, Saddam has history of actually attacking...
January 30th, 2005  
Chocobo_Blitzer
 
Gingerbread: The amount of false information and belligerent anti-american comments in that post are far too dense for me to possibly wage through seriously, thus, I will say two things:

The bathist regime in Iraq was actively murdering, torturing, and raping it's citizens, if you deny this, you will not be taken seriously here.

We didn't do it just so the Iraqis could be free, no way, we did it so the bathist regime could not pose a threat to us, or aid our enemies. If you had any slightest knowledge on economics you'd know the oil theory is complete nonesense. Now you could say Americans, even some in leadership positions may have profiteered off the war, that's a fair debate. But the thesis that the USA started a war to merely secure oil is absurd, the loss far outweighs the gains, wise up.


One last thing, towards the topic in general: I read lots of "well why don't you go attack..."insert bad nation here"

I'll tell you the reason why Iraq was deemed more of a threat, it was because of Islamic fascism, you know the guarilla sabotage factions as "terrorist". Should terrorist aquire WMD, they could cause tremendous damage. Not only that, but by securing a place like Iraq as a peaceful, free loving society it could better ward off fundamentalist factions. As freedom would hopefully spread throughout the middle-east, thus causing a tolerant, free, prosperous region. Islamic fascism would die.

We're not only hunting a man, or a group- we're hunting an idealogy of hate.
January 30th, 2005  
chewie_nz
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chocobo_Blitzer
Gingerbread: The amount of false information and belligerent anti-american comments in that post are far too dense for me to possibly wage through seriously, thus, I will say two things:

The bathist regime in Iraq was actively murdering, torturing, and raping it's citizens, if you deny this, you will not be taken seriously here.

We didn't do it just so the Iraqis could be free, no way, we did it so the bathist regime could not pose a threat to us, or aid our enemies. If you had any slightest knowledge on economics you'd know the oil theory is complete nonesense. Now you could say Americans, even some in leadership positions may have profiteered off the war, that's a fair debate. But the thesis that the USA started a war to merely secure oil is absurd, the loss far outweighs the gains, wise up.


One last thing, towards the topic in general: I read lots of "well why don't you go attack..."insert bad nation here"

I'll tell you the reason why Iraq was deemed more of a threat, it was because of Islamic fascism, you know the guarilla sabotage factions as "terrorist". Should terrorist aquire WMD, they could cause tremendous damage. Not only that, but by securing a place like Iraq as a peaceful, free loving society it could better ward off fundamentalist factions. As freedom would hopefully spread throughout the middle-east, thus causing a tolerant, free, prosperous region. Islamic fascism would die.

We're not only hunting a man, or a group- we're hunting an idealogy of hate.
iraq was more of a secular nation....in fact al quida had a big problem with saddam because of it. and as far as fighting "an idealogy of hate" how is that being achieved so far?

the reason i mentioned that osama hasn't been captured is....he is what started this whole thing. it's a natural progression. the iraq thing has been proved to have no connection to 9/11, and yet here we are, with US forces tied up in a war they shouldn't be fighting.
crush al quida and the world will be grateful, but at this point in time osama just seems to be an all too convieniant boogie man
i mentioned north korea because it is more of a threat, actually HAS WMD's ( remember, that is why you went to iraq) and is doing almost exactly the same things saddam was guilty of...just seems to be a double standard. through out the 1990s iraq was well in hand, now it has turned into a quagmire that has no end in site.
January 30th, 2005  
Charge 7
 
 
"as far as fighting "an idealogy of hate" how is that being achieved so far?"

Not mentioning anything else, by the first free elections held in Iraq in 50 years. They are going quite well too.

You can keep going on with your mantra about the link between Saddam and 9/11 not being proven all you want. It's simply not so. The link between Saddam's scamming the "Oil for Food" program to fund terrorists _has_ been proven.

"through out the 1990s iraq was well in hand"

Yeah an iron hand that strangled its own people.