Lieutenant_kettch Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 the double standard i see is that you will freely kill virii in self defense, but not kill humans in selfdefense(as i see it, taking down terrorist and dictators is a means of self defense, or a defense of others, which is more important than self-defense) and my comment about my WBCs was that they are not sentient, thus, i don't hold them responsible for killing virii and bacteria Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 Originally posted by Lieutenant_kettch the double standard i see is that you will freely kill virii in self defense, but not kill humans in selfdefense are you blind? noone here has ever said they are against self-defense. also self-defense is only a valid argument when presented with an iminent threat, not the thought of one, because peoples views on people can be distorted by prejudices. US Law baby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lieutenant_kettch Posted October 28, 2004 Author Share Posted October 28, 2004 Originally posted by InsaneSith are you blind? noone here has ever said they are against self-defense. also self-defense is only a valid argument when presented with an iminent threat, not the thought of one, because peoples views on people can be distorted by prejudices. US Law baby. alright, now ou are really ticking me off, don't take my comments out of context, read what i put in parenthesis, your belief that america should not have gone into iraq, etc, those kinds of things you have said in other threads, is what prompted that post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 no man, we went to iraq to remove Saddams wmd's. We said we knew where they were, we said we were going there because Saddam had wmd's and was a threat to America (he clearly wasn't). When no wmd's were found we changed it to removing a dictator and liberating the Iraqi's. See if that was the original reason I'd be all for it, but this constant bull****ting the american public and the rest of the world annoys me and makes me angry. Noone here has EVER said going to get the terrorists was a bad thing, infact I think we all agree (U)Osama bin Laden should be destroyed, and the terrorists responsible for 9/11 be punished in the strictest of standards. kthxbai. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lieutenant_kettch Posted October 28, 2004 Author Share Posted October 28, 2004 actually, saddam was a threat, and, when told by your advisors that someone may have WMDs, you go in and do what you gotta do, you don't want to risk being right, so, if advisors tell the president: hey, portugal has a nuclear warhead pointed at DC, we would go in and remove those in charge, and you seem to be one of the ones being BSed as you say, i completely understand why we are there, and why we were there in the first place. There is nothing BS about it, the blatant truth, just because you don'e agree doesn't mean it is BS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 They showed pictures of these WMD's, they said they knew exactly where they were. We got there, no WMD's to be found. Regardless of if it was bushes fault or not, it was Bull****. You can cling to your blind patriotism, I'd rather practice my right of dissent and find the truth. If we had constant observation on these weapons why could we never find them? why did we suddenly change to the reason of, Saddam was a dictator and we needed to give the Iraqi's freedom? because it was all bull****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lieutenant_kettch Posted October 28, 2004 Author Share Posted October 28, 2004 alright, im not going to argue WMDs with you, because we have nothing to go of of, so i will concede that point to you, it may have been BS however, i will have to disagree with your saying you would support the war if the current reason was the original reason you may not have supported it in the beginning, but you should support it now if you would have supported it if the current conditions were the original conditions(i don't know if that makes sense, if it doesn't, say so and i will try to clarify what i am saying) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 I wouldn't have supported the war even if we DID say we were going in to oust Saddam and liberate Iraq. why? Because not only is it very hypocritical to say that it's worth our time money and lives to liberate Iraq but not OTHER countries that are under worse oppression, but because we were ALREADY in a war that I DID support. A war against the people responsible for killing 3000 American civilians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 No, I don't have to support it because lots of men (my friends) died because of false allegations. My friends died and were injured not to help people, but just so Bush could satisfy himself with war. I support the troops with all my heart and I hope with every ounce in me that they live and come back home safe. But I will never support the war in Iraq because it started because from bull****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 [personal opinion] If someone is fully educated on the specifics and the facts, supporting the invasion of Iraq in the manner in which it was conducted is traitorous to the United States. We already had a war to fight, The War on Terrorism, which included the continued operations in Afgahnistan and the capture or elimination of Bin Laden as well as the destruction of his terror network. Instead, the Bush administration counted on the ignorance of the populace and deceived the citizens of a distraught and scared nation that Iraq=Al Qaeda. Over 1000 servicemen and women have been killed unnecessarily as well as over 7000 seriously injured. The casualties rival that of 9/11. The expenditure on this coflict, which the Bush administration had planned well before 9/11, is tremendous in money and lives. If that sort of effort had been put into defeating Al Qaeda and Bin Laden as well as rebuilding Afgahnistan, we would have a much better position in the world today. I would even have voted for Bush on Tuesday next week. If the nation wants to support the troops, they'll vote for a President that cares about them. They'll vote for John Kerry and end the traitorous regime of George W. Bush. [/personal opinion] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted October 29, 2004 Share Posted October 29, 2004 where did this come from? Still, good a place as any to post this: Revealed: War has cost 100,000 Iraqi lives The first scientific study of the human cost of the Iraq war suggests that at least 100,000 Iraqis have lost their lives since their country was invaded in March 2003. More than half of those who died were women and children killed in air strikes, researchers say. Previous estimates have put the Iraqi death toll at around 10,000 - ten times the 1,000 members of the British, American and multi-national forces who have died so far. But the study, published in The Lancet, suggested that Iraqi casualties could be as much as 100 times the coalition losses. It was also savagely critical of the failure by coalition forces to count Iraqi casualties. http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=577151 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue15 Posted October 30, 2004 Share Posted October 30, 2004 you all make it seem like not finding wmds is a bad thing... 100,000 people dead. not invading that damn country would've prevented this...saddam would still be in power, and it still would be unknown if he had WMDs or not, and those 100,000 people would still be under a dictator and probably trying to make the best of it. some of you really should watch those beheading videos...and **** that saddam's sons did to those people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Druid Bremen Posted October 30, 2004 Share Posted October 30, 2004 Originally posted by Rogue15 you all make it seem like not finding wmds is a bad thing... 100,000 people dead. not invading that damn country would've prevented this...saddam would still be in power, and it still would be unknown if he had WMDs or not, and those 100,000 people would still be under a dictator and probably trying to make the best of it. some of you really should watch those beheading videos...and **** that saddam's sons did to those people. An analogy: You suspect that a person stole one of your things. Without verifying it, you go and beat him up. This in my opinion is a good analogy of what Bush did to Iraq. Bush suspected him of WMDs, and invaded his country because of it. "Oh, even if he didn't have WMDs, we're doing Iraqis a big favor by ousting Saddam." you cry. I say, "You do not invade a country just because you don't like the way its run." Bush went into the country, saying that he would find WMDs. When he could not find any, he turned the people's heads from his failure by changing the intent to ousting Saddam as he was a dictator. Saying this, I would definitely vote for Kerry, not a liar, if I were an American. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue15 Posted October 30, 2004 Share Posted October 30, 2004 everybody's gotta die someday. and they are both liars. who cares. bill clinton lied and nobody ****ing cared, did they. "You do not invade a country just because you don't like the way its run." saddam ruled through terror, that was more than reason to invade. Half of you are probably the same type of people that were all happy and cheerful watching us take out those statues of saddam, raid the palaces, kill his sons....and then u go and bitch about the ****ing death toll, why we were there in the first place, etc. live for the moment get your heads out of your assholes and stop bitching about what's already been done. I get sick of hearing the same ****ing bull**** 'OMG WE NEED "WORLD" PEACE OMG OMG OMG' when Flame removed don't believe in FIGHTING FOR IT. god why i even go to this ****ing forum at 3 am....raises my blood pressure... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shok_Tinoktin Posted October 30, 2004 Share Posted October 30, 2004 Originally posted by Druid Bremen An analogy: You suspect that a person stole one of your things. Without verifying it, you go and beat him up. Another analogy: You are told by your friends that a bully stole one of your things. Your so sick of this guy, and this pushes you over the edge, so you go stand up to him. I think that is a little closer to what Bush did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Druid Bremen Posted October 30, 2004 Share Posted October 30, 2004 Originally posted by Shok_Tinoktin Another analogy: You are told by your friends that a bully stole one of your things. Your so sick of this guy, and this pushes you over the edge, so you go stand up to him. I think that is a little closer to what Bush did. It is just as bad, because you did not verify the theft. Originally posted by Rogue15 everybody's gotta die someday. and they are both liars. who cares. bill clinton lied and nobody ****ing cared, did they. saddam ruled through terror, that was more than reason to invade. Half of you are probably the same type of people that were all happy and cheerful watching us take out those statues of saddam, raid the palaces, kill his sons....and then u go and bitch about the ****ing death toll, why we were there in the first place, etc. live for the moment get your heads out of your assholes and stop bitching about what's already been done. I get sick of hearing the same ****ing bull**** 'OMG WE NEED "WORLD" PEACE OMG OMG OMG' when Flame Removed don't believe in FIGHTING FOR IT. god why i even go to this ****ing forum at 3 am....raises my blood pressure... Ruled through terror? I'm not sure what you mean. If you mean that he got some WMDs etc etc, then you're wrong. I think you mean that he ruled his country through dictatorship. If that's your meaning: Just because a person rules a country badly, or is a dictator, doesn't mean that anybody could invade him without a moment's notice. In fact, Bush went in for the WMDs, found none, cast about for a new target to confuse the people, found Saddam, then he changed the intent of the invasion. If you don't want to come at 3 am, then just don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted October 30, 2004 Share Posted October 30, 2004 Originally posted by Rogue15 I get sick of hearing the same ****ing bull**** 'OMG WE NEED "WORLD" PEACE OMG OMG OMG' when Flame removed don't believe in FIGHTING FOR IT. I shall repeat something that's been said a million times and never loses the truth. "Fighting for peace is like ******* for virginity." I can't believe you can seem to be so non-chalant about 100,000 dead Iraqi Civilians when 3,000 dead American civilians was enough to justify TWO separate wars. Doesn't Iraq have the right to turn around and invade America now? Or are our lives just THAT much more important than any other nations? Another analogy: You are told by your friends that a bully stole one of your things. Your so sick of this guy, and this pushes you over the edge, so you go stand up to him. I'm with Bremen on this one. If your friends told you that it was a bully that took your stuff, and you just go beat the crap out of him without verifying if he did indeed take your stuff, then you're no better than the bully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue15 Posted October 30, 2004 Share Posted October 30, 2004 ah whatever. i'm still voting for bush. whether he was right or wrong about invading i don't care what was done is done. there's just something about kerry that doesn't seem right, and that scares me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kain Posted October 30, 2004 Share Posted October 30, 2004 Originally posted by Rogue15 ah whatever. i'm still voting for bush. whether he was right or wrong about invading i don't care what was done is done. there's just something about kerry that doesn't seem right, and that scares me. To each his own, right. I'm voting for Kerry, but not because I like Kerry. I don't like Kerry, and I hate Bush...so I guess its the lesser of 2 evils. My friend put it in this way, which I agree with: Given the choice between Bush or, say...common household sponge, I'd vote for the sponge. But only because then you could see the hands controlling it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipperthefrog Posted October 30, 2004 Share Posted October 30, 2004 Consider the following: -Bu$h didn't get Bin Laden, dispite the large army, technoligy, and satilite servailence he had! -Then he turned on Saddam! We saw on the news there was NO connection between Saddam and Al Quida! -Long ago, i saw Bu$h say on the news that he didn't have WMDs, after September 11, Bu$h said "He's got them" and invaded Iraq!, only to find he doesn't! Bu$h KNEW he didn't have WMDs! - US troops are ordered to guard the oil fields it have workers drill from them! the Iraqis see thats ALL we were interested in! -Bu$h has shares in oil! You see, Bu$h didn't care about Bin Laden! He used 9-11 as an excuse to invade Iraq, send our boys to die, loose their legs, to help oil companies get more profit! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kain Posted October 30, 2004 Share Posted October 30, 2004 Very nice kipper, using $ instead of s. Kudos, to you sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Druid Bremen Posted October 30, 2004 Share Posted October 30, 2004 Originally posted by ET Warrior I shall repeat something that's been said a million times and never loses the truth. "Fighting for peace is like ******* for virginity." I can't believe you can seem to be so non-chalant about 100,000 dead Iraqi Civilians when 3,000 dead American civilians was enough to justify TWO separate wars. Doesn't Iraq have the right to turn around and invade America now? Or are our lives just THAT much more important than any other nations? I'm with Bremen on this one. If your friends told you that it was a bully that took your stuff, and you just go beat the crap out of him without verifying if he did indeed take your stuff, then you're no better than the bully. Indeed. Iraq has an even more legitimate reason to strike back at America, and I would support it, say, more wholeheartedly than anything else. I think some people are just too egoistical. They think 3000 lives of their "kind" is better than 100,000 lives of Iraqis. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Fact is, everyone is born equal. So what if one was born in a developing country? So what if you were born in a developed country? I can say that some people are just completely biased, perhaps even with a tinge of racism. I don't know why Iraq hasn't been fighting back. I think it better, or its going to lose its most precious resources to some greedy Americans. Some common Americans seem to have more foresight than Bush though; maybe Kerry. Seeing the rubbish that Bush has been spouting; I'm going to support Kerry on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MennoniteHobbit Posted October 31, 2004 Share Posted October 31, 2004 I shall repeat something that's been said a million times and never loses the truth. "Fighting for peace is like ******* for virginity." And I shall repeat that virginity is a one time thing, while peace can be obtained after fighting the threat that threatens peace. i'm still voting for bush. Kudos to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Druid Bremen Posted October 31, 2004 Share Posted October 31, 2004 If you fight, peace can only be obtained after a long hard slog to reinstate the economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 If the US wants to be world police they should follow police procedures, if they were the police and Iraq was a criminal suspect, the case would be thrown out because of illegal search and unlawful use of force. We only had unfounded "evidence" and no probable cause. The "evidence" we had to invade Iraq wouldn't get police a warrant, instead it'd get them an angry judge yelling for them to leave their chambers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.