Thoughts on the War with Iraq

[Genesis16]

I want to know what all your thoughts on the war are. I watch the t.v. and it seems like you watch one channel, and everyone they interveiw is against it, then you turn to another channel and they are all supporting it.

 

I would like to voice my opinion on the issue. I have heard alot of different reasons why we are at war with Iraq, like the fact that we are scared for our lives and we are defending who we think is the biggest threat to our freedom, and to our every day lives (just like what terrorist try to take away). If that is the case I will be honest with you...Iraq is DEFINENTLY NOT our biggest threat! In the case of this intrest, we should be looking towards North Korea, which in my opinion is MUCH more of a threat! I don't think this war will last long. I think it will pretty much play out like the last gulf war, where Saddams troops just gave up, just seeing how before the war even started like 200 Iraqi troops gave up.

 

Now I see terrorism as a much bigger threat on the U.S. then Iraq, but if there are connections then I support it.

 

Now I am going to say straight up, I support Bush, I support America, I support all my friends who are the the front lines, but I am not really a supporter of War. I believe there are other ways of solving this conflict, but I am also not afraid of War with Iraq, because I believe if this is the begining of World War 3, that it was inevitable, for it says so in the Bible, that War will be one of the ending things of the World, that is already played out. So one way or another it would happen. I also believe that I will go to heaven if I die, so that is comforting.

 

I am not going to try and make this, that long, but i have a couple more things to say. I definently believe that part of the reasons we are going to are war are that, Bush wants to finish what his dad started, also that I know alot of Iraqi's would like to see Saddam out of power, because of how he treats them. On the tapes i saw of some Iraqi troops surrendering, they were celebrating, if they believed in Saddam do you think they would be doing that? I just portrays how some Iraqi's feel in my opinion.

 

I do also fear that it might make more terrorist attacks start to happen, so it could go either way. I don't hate anyone in Iraq, even if they hate me, and I have love for all y'all and I hope it all goes smoothly.

 

Also, I am 18, and not in school. So I would be a most likely canidate if there was a draft, so I'm not just some 40 year old, who is saying "yeah send our troops in there and wipe them out" because I could be one of them. I also think that the government knows more than we do, and wouldn't just be risking our lives for no reason.

[legameboy]

good post, i think we should go to war and get rid if the terrorists, saddam tortures his own people he basically uses them as guine pigs

 

i know north korea is a threat but they havent done anything yet and we have no proof against them

 

i also think its good that gwb is finishing what his dad started because it was a war like vietnam and korea we went in and we didnt finish it, and it cost lives. thats what happened at 9/11 and so we're going back to iraq to finish the job

 

i believe what the bible says and i know we're nearing the end times and that a war is starting, this might not be a world war, but it could be the spark

 

thats all that i would like to say right now

[setsuko]

Originally posted by legameboy

good post, i think we should go to war and get rid if the terrorists, saddam tortures his own people he basically uses them as guine pigs[/Quote]

 

Who supplied Saddam with weapons, equipment for making chemical warfare and technology for weapons of mass destruction in 1982 and 1983? USA.

 

Who claimed that Saddam Husseins regime has no contacts whatsoever with terrorist networks like Al- Qaida, barring a governor of a small town, who is really no threat at all? The CIA.

 

Who watched Saddam Hussein use nerve gas (supplied by the mighty US of A, again) on the Kurds in northern Iraq in 1998, without lifting a finger? The whole world. Noone cared about the poor civilians then.

 

How many children does the UNICEF estimate died the period between the Gulf War and 2001, directly caused by coalition weapons or the sanctions that prevented trade of foods and medical supplies? 500? 5000? No. Half a million children. 500 000.

 

What organization used its own countries inhabitants, and soldiers, in tests of drugs and other stimulatia without telling them, to find out what the effects would be under stressful situations such as war? The NSA.

 

And MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL!, a little quiz:

 

What country has, for over 50 years, ruthlessly persecuted a minority culture, denied them their culture and language, has waged a bloody war against it, and again and again murdered their own civilians? Turkey (and their favourite punching bag mentioned in my example, the Kurds). What country lacks democraty, a working legal system, and any kind of stability? Turkey.

 

Turkey is very far from a democracy, and they repeatedly performs acts that are against all human rights.

 

Turkey is not attacked by the USA, Britain and Spain. Turkey is one of their allies. Turkey is a member of NATO. USA trusts Turkey to invade the north of Iraq, home of even more Kurds for them to slaughter.

 

This war is filled to the brim with a lack of morality that makes me ill. Physically. I'm not kidding you.

 

point being: nothing you wrote makes a war against Iraq legal. If it is, there is just as much reasons for Sweden to attack USA. Both has a regime that is not democratically elected, both has weapons of mass destruction, both has attacked other countries unprovoked, and both has a record of dismissing fair trials. Both also, against all human rights, have the death sentence. How about having some swedish Viggens dropping missiles on your backyard this Thanksgiving? Would you still consider it fair? (note that I mentioned Thanksgiving since USA dropped the first bombs on the persian new years eve, one of the main holidays in the middle east)

 

i know north korea is a threat but they havent done anything yet and we have no proof against them[/Quote]

 

There is no proofs against Iraq either. That's the problem. The UN weapons inspections were first drawn back by the USA (yes, the USA, they were not ousted by Saddam, as some believe), and this spring, their efforts to uncover whether a war was necessary or not, they were denied the time to fulfill the duties by USA, Great Britain and Spain. There is no proofs agains Saddam. If Hans Blix had gotten more time, there might be. But now, there isn't.

i also think its good that gwb is finishing what his dad started because it was a war like vietnam and korea we went in and we didnt finish it, and it cost lives. thats what happened at 9/11 and so we're going back to iraq to finish the job

 

Eh, 9/11 is linked to Vietnam in what way? Excuse me, but... I fail to understand. The first war cost 500 000 children. And now you'll go back and finish it? What, there's more children left? Forgot little Aimila at the last bombing run? And again, Saddam Hussein has nothing with 9/11 to do, CIA got a whole lot of money budgeted to attempt to prove it, but not even they could find evidence.

 

And don't forget, as an important footnote, that a serious attempt was made by several Iraqi resistance groups to oust Saddam in 1991, at the end of the Gulf war. These attempts were crushed by not Saddam, as expected, but US troops in february 28th. Bush senior didn't "not finish the job", he chose to not finish the job.

i believe what the bible says and i know we're nearing the end times and that a war is starting, this might not be a world war, but it could be the spark

 

thats all that i would like to say right now

 

And you think you prevent a world war by doing this?! What are you guys living in, Propagandaville? If it will do anything, it is destabilizing one of the biggest hotbeds in the world! If it does anything, it is to shout to the drummers of the Apocalypse "hurry up boys, if we get going, we can sink this world in misery and still be home for The Simpsons!"

 

First, if you really believed in the bible, I think you can guess that Jesus would oppose continuing a war that killed 500 000 children. He's just that kind of guy. And, additionally, if you are catholic, the Pope has declared the war a sin.

 

Read the bible again. How many did Jesus kill? A bodycount guess? 500 000? Not even a couple of thousand? None? Wow, after being told that, I have a hard time to understand how the bible says that wars are ok... but then, I might not be as educated as you are.

 

And don't you think there'll be more crazed terrorists after a aggression war, not backed up by the UN?

 

Don't get me wrong, I don't hate you americans on this board or the american people, but if I lived there this day, and saw what my government did in my name, I would riot.

 

 

I can write several more pages of argumentations if someone on this forum is foolish enough to believe the warmongering words of snakes such as GW Bush. Feel free to debate. Because if I can make even one of you see the foolishness of this, then this year has not been in vane for me. Oh, and I can back up my claims with facts, if you question me. But until the day your kids lies dead in the sanddunes, don't you come and tell me this war is righteous. I'll stop now, before my adrenaline rush makes me do something nasty.

[setsuko]

Oh, I noticed I wasn't fair and didn't answer Genesis' posts. I'll do that now.

 

Originally posted by Genesis16

I want to know what all your thoughts on the war are. I watch the t.v. and it seems like you watch one channel, and everyone they interveiw is against it, then you turn to another channel and they are all supporting it.

[/Quote]

 

9 out of 10 experts on international law all over the world proclaimed this morning that the attack isagainst international law. That is my viewpoint too. I was out protesting today. And I will continue every day, until this illegal war is ended. I owe that to all the potential casualties.

 

I would like to voice my opinion on the issue. I have heard alot of different reasons why we are at war with Iraq, like the fact that we are scared for our lives and we are defending who we think is the biggest threat to our freedom, and to our every day lives (just like what terrorist try to take away). If that is the case I will be honest with you...Iraq is DEFINENTLY NOT our biggest threat! In the case of this intrest, we should be looking towards North Korea, which in my opinion is MUCH more of a threat! I don't think this war will last long. I think it will pretty much play out like the last gulf war, where Saddams troops just gave up, just seeing how before the war even started like 200 Iraqi troops gave up.

[/Quote]

 

You are indeed right that Iraq does not threaten the USA, if you don't count that he threatens the supply of cheap oil, since the rest of the worlds oil fields will last approximately 40 years. But after all, this war is mostly about oil, so that doesn't count, does it? And what the hell do you think North Korea threatens the USA with? The country is not on the brink of starvation, they ARE in starvation! So what, they can make nukes? But so can a lot of countries. Sure, they are all talk, but are they likely to take over the world? Don't. Think. So. How many Korean suicide bombers detonated in New York last year? Oh, zero?

 

 

Big ****ing threat, man!

 

Just pause for a minute. Breath. Count to three. And after that, name the Korean aggressions on other countries the last 50 years (an aggression is an attack that is not based on the other country attacking yours). Oh, not that many? The USA has 101 accounted for.

 

Now I see terrorism as a much bigger threat on the U.S. then Iraq, but if there are connections then I support it.

[/Quote]

 

I might not have made myself clear. Saddam is an *******, a dictator, and a butcher. But he is no terrorist. Actually, he is described as one of the leaders in the middle east that hates terrorists the mosts. And he has killed more muslims than Israel, simply because he hates the idea of religion having more power than him. The CIA failed to find a connection (Even though former CIA director James Woolsey really, really tried. Not even the chief of Israels military intelligence, Amos Alka (sworn enemy of Saddam) could link Saddam and Bin Ladin.

 

The only remote evidence was that one of the hijackers, Mohammed Atta, was supposed to have been in Czech Republic in 2001, where he were to have met an Iraqi diplomat named Ahmad Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani. This, however, proved to be a fraud: the only Mohammed Atta who went to the Czech Republic that year proved to be an entirely different fella, and after this fiasco, CIA failed to dig up any more 'evidence'.

 

Now I am going to say straight up, I support Bush, I support America, I support all my friends who are the the front lines, but I am not really a supporter of War. I believe there are other ways of solving this conflict, but I am also not afraid of War with Iraq, because I believe if this is the begining of World War 3, that it was inevitable, for it says so in the Bible, that War will be one of the ending things of the World, that is already played out. So one way or another it would happen. I also believe that I will go to heaven if I die, so that is comforting.

[/Quote]

 

If you are a devote christian, again, you should know that killing other people is a bad thing. Did unc'a Jesus kill people? No? Ok, now we got them bible-toters settled. Religion has nothing to do with this: bad diplomatic skills, an urge to fight wars, and the quest for oil has to do with it.

 

And if this is the beginning of the third world war, then why should we thoughlessly march into its jaws? Are we that stupid? Hell no! Let's fight oblivion to the last drop of blood, if it comes to it, but bombing civilians is not a clever way to do it. There was a process of a peacefully disarm Iraq going on, marshalled by the UN. And it was hindered as much by the USA as by Saddam. That was the way to go, not Tomahawk Missiles.

 

Bush breakes international law. How you can support him is hard to me to understand. But hey, Slobodan Milosevic had supporters too.

 

I am not going to try and make this, that long, but i have a couple more things to say. I definently believe that part of the reasons we are going to are war are that, Bush wants to finish what his dad started, also that I know alot of Iraqi's would like to see Saddam out of power, because of how he treats them. On the tapes i saw of some Iraqi troops surrendering, they were celebrating, if they believed in Saddam do you think they would be doing that? I just portrays how some Iraqi's feel in my opinion.

[/Quote]

 

The Iraqi army, with militia troops, accounts to several 100 000 troops. How many surrendered today, the first day of the attack? 12. Way to go, Uncle Sam! By this rate, you've won in... aw, heck! It's too much to count!

 

Again, there was a rebellion going on in 1991, which was deemed to fail due to the US army's action in february 28 (when it let the Republican Guard escape and attack the rebels), and in mars 2001, when the US air force let Iraqi attack helicopters attack Iraqi rebel troops.

 

I do also fear that it might make more terrorist attacks start to happen, so it could go either way. I don't hate anyone in Iraq, even if they hate me, and I have love for all y'all and I hope it all goes smoothly.

[/Quote]

 

Oh, can killing their natives, bombing their houses, taking their oil and proudly proclaim you are doing it "in the name of God" make them angry and want to avenge themselves? Geeez, now that was something I've never thought of! Can unprovoked attacks, combined with a really unenlighten attitude to the Israel/Palestinia conflict produce more terrorists?! Give this man a cookie, he's going to get A+ in 'basic logic'! Ok, no need to be rude, but this whole thing is like a propaganda movie for Al-Qaida, and it also made, and make, USA lose its allies all across the globe. This is bad, since it destabilizes not only the Middle East, but the entire global agenda.

 

Also, I am 18, and not in school. So I would be a most likely canidate if there was a draft, so I'm not just some 40 year old, who is saying "yeah send our troops in there and wipe them out" because I could be one of them. I also think that the government knows more than we do, and wouldn't just be risking our lives for no reason.

 

ROFLMAO! My god! You're killing me!

 

You trust a government that is not democratically elected?

 

You trust George Bush, that said this (the quote is translated, so it might not be the actual quote, but it is not hard to find):

 

"It's increadible that I won. I went to the election with a program that was against peace, prosperity, and the sitting president!"

 

(G W Bush, June 14 2001, to the swedish prime minister, spoken when he thought all the TV cameras were turned off. They were, off course, not!)

 

You trust an administration that is so deeply involved in recent economical scandals, that might be outright criminal, such as Enron.

 

You trust an administration that has cut back an incredible amount of the budget posts for health care, education and environmental care, and gave it to the military. The US military has half the accounted budget of ALL militaries in the world. Enjoy your tanks when your children can't read at the age 14.

 

Oh, and quoted by Mihael Moore, from an open letter to ol' Bushie:

 

"Of the 535 members of Congress, only ONE (Sen. Johnson of South Dakota) has an enlisted son or daughter in the armed forces! If you really want to stand up for America, please send your twin daughters over to Kuwait right now and let them don their chemical warfare suits. And let's see every member of Congress with a child of military age also

sacrifice their kids for this war effort. What's that you say? You don't

THINK so? Well, hey, guess what - we don't think so either!"

 

So go on, trust all that you won't. It doesn't help the fact that you are getting royally screwed by Cheney & co that fights an illegal war that will accumulate them a lot of oil money. Congratulations. Hope you'll enjoy the ride.

[RocketPack Jack]

......em....i believe those are the sounds of Set hitting a nail on the head, and every1 wanting the war quietly exiting out the back door. I couldn't agree with Set more and would also like to mention that my best friend is also a very visible protestor to the war, having helped stop traffic in the middle of glasgow at the weekend by lying in the middle of the road to protest. I voted b above, 4 ur interest. Don't like the idea of war, but if its going to happen then i wish my countrymen all the best.

[setsuko]

Originally posted by RocketPack Jack

......em....i believe those are the sounds of Set hitting a nail on the head, and every1 wanting the war quietly exiting out the back door.

 

My god, when I read that... you're a poet, duuude!

 

Keep up the demonstrations, together we'll bring 'The Empire' down!

[Repta]

http://www.spikeyworld.com/politics/pwndhippie.mp3

 

Not saying I agree, either way. I know a lot less than I should about the happenings of this world, so I'm not going to make some rash decision in case someone might take note of it and sway their thoughts with false knowledge. Granted, no one probably will, but wouldn't want to fool myself now, would I?

 

Alright, just to add. This is probably a one-sided link. Just realise that she isn't the most educated woman in the world.

[Jackrabbit]

You go Set! Always the revolutionary…I love it. Keep preaching the good word; I’m behind you all the way.

 

 

[setsuko]

Always the rebel, Jackrabbit *wink wink*.

[legameboy]

hmm, the more i think about it, why do we need to go to war, the american people pay billions of dollars in taxes and how does the government use it?...

 

SET THANK YOU for your enlightnment, I now know what I should know. NO WAR

 

thnk u thnk u

[Boba Rhett]

I support the war and even if you don't, I think you should still support our men and women who are over there.

[Thew Rydur]

Yeah, me too.

[legameboy]

i support them, they are brave and have true courage as long as they are over there im not going to forget about the war, i hereby support the war and im not changing my mind:atat:

[setsuko]

Please, if you do support the war, write why. Because as long as you support things that you cant argue for, there is need for you to reconsider.

 

And no, no matter of 'courage' can make an illegal war legal. Becoming a suicide bomber can also be described as 'curageous', but it doesn't make it less wrong. And again, the civilians that will die in this war doesn't bother if it was a curageous soldier who pressed that button, 800 miles away on a cruiser, so that a tomahawk missile hit their home.

 

And however, how is that courage? Is it courage to force your thoughts and agenda on another people by force? Because then, a lot of scary people out there are courageous too. And I don't like that thought.

[Boba Rhett]

How exactly will leaving Saddam in power promote peace and justice in Iraq?

 

Yes, there will be civillian deaths. Yes innocent people will die. Yes if we remove him from power there will be some civialian deaths for a short time.

 

But I will tell you this. Here is a certainty. Here is a certainty. You are gauranteed to have civialians die for years to come if you leave them under Saddam.

 

Saddam is an *******, a dictator, and a butcher. But he is no terrorist.

 

Oh, ok, just a butcher? I guess we should pack up and leave then! la la la la la....

 

Forcing our, "views" on them? Peace you mean? You mean the people of Iraq want to be kept under a cruel dictator who could care less if he kills his own people? They prefer having no personal rights as a human being? Should we just leave Iraq alone because, after all, he's only killing his own people?

 

What type of country would we be if we didn't defend the rights and freedoms of others, not because they're Americans, but how about just because they're human?

 

I've said my piece as you've requested. I've thought my view out. It will not change. That is the last this thread will hear from me.

[GreenJediGrinch]

Who supplied Saddam with weapons, equipment for making chemical warfare and technology for weapons of mass destruction in 1982 and 1983? USA.

 

Was Saddam thought to be a threat then? No.

 

Who claimed that Saddam Husseins regime has no contacts whatsoever with terrorist networks like Al- Qaida, barring a governor of a small town, who is really no threat at all?

 

Show me your Government badge that assures me that you have access to confidential documents by the CIA.

 

Who watched Saddam Hussein use nerve gas (supplied by the mighty US of A, again) on the Kurds in northern Iraq in 1998, without lifting a finger? The whole world. Noone cared about the poor civilians then.

 

Who was president in 98? Bill "I did not have sexual relations" Clinton, who was too busy getting his knob slobbed, and trying to explain who he lied under oath, and to the American people.

 

How many children does the UNICEF estimate died the period between the Gulf War and 2001, directly caused by coalition weapons or the sanctions that prevented trade of foods and medical supplies? 500? 5000? No. Half a million children. 500 000.

 

Again, prove your accusations.

 

What organization used its own countries inhabitants, and soldiers, in tests of drugs and other stimulatia without telling them, to find out what the effects would be under stressful situations such as war? The NSA.

 

Proof?

 

What country has, for over 50 years, ruthlessly persecuted a minority culture, denied them their culture and language, has waged a bloody war against it, and again and again murdered their own civilians? Turkey (and their favourite punching bag mentioned in my example, the Kurds). What country lacks democraty, a working legal system, and any kind of stability? Turkey.

 

No country is a eutopia. But there is a difference in Turkey at least moving in the right direction, and trying to be a democracy...and a dictator ship in Iraq who has already used weapons he claimed he didn't have.

 

nothing you wrote makes a war against Iraq legal. If it is, there is just as much reasons for Sweden to attack USA

 

HAHA!!

 

Both has a regime that is not democratically elected

 

How was Pres. Bush not democratically elected? He didn't recieve the popular vote? Oh, I'm sorry that we have something called the Electoral College.

 

both has weapons of mass destruction

 

Your point is? UK has WPD. France, Germany, Japan, Spain, Canada, Russia, ect. also have WPD. Your point is moot.

 

both has attacked other countries unprovoked

 

Name one country we attacked unprovoked.

 

and both has a record of dismissing fair trials

 

Proof?

 

attacked other countries unprovoked, and both has a record of dismissing fair trials. Both also, against all human rights, have the death sentence.

 

The difference is our death sentence is for CONVICTED felons (murders, ect.) Saddams death sentence is for any one who brings him bad news, or tells him something he doesnt' want to hear. Let your family get tortured, and murdered while the screamed and suffered by a madman and then you come tell me that a death sentence is against human rights.

 

How about having some swedish Viggens dropping missiles on your backyard this Thanksgiving? Would you still consider it fair? (note that I mentioned Thanksgiving since USA dropped the first bombs on the persian new years eve, one of the main holidays in the middle east)

 

I'm really sorry that terrorist flew planes into our buildings, and mudered over 3,000 civilians. Do you want me to give you a cookie?

 

There is no proofs against Iraq either. That's the problem. The UN weapons inspections were first drawn back by the USA (yes, the USA, they were not ousted by Saddam, as some believe), and this spring, their efforts to uncover whether a war was necessary or not, they were denied the time to fulfill the duties by USA, Great Britain and Spain. There is no proofs agains Saddam. If Hans Blix had gotten more time, there might be. But now, there isn't.

 

Ah yes, thank you World Leader Setsuko, who gets briefed by the greatest information collection agency in the world. I can sleep in peace now knowing that you have access to hundreds of classified documents by information collection agencies world wide.

 

The first war cost 500 000 children. And now you'll go back and finish it? What, there's more children left? Forgot little Aimila at the last bombing run?

 

There are civilian casualties in every conflict, like it or not. It is a nessasary evil in order to make life better for a future Iraq. BTW...you haven't proved that 500,000 children died in the first war....Proof?

 

And again, Saddam Hussein has nothing with 9/11 to do, CIA got a whole lot of money budgeted to attempt to prove it, but not even they could find evidence.

 

Ah, once again World Leader Setsuko is at it again with access to classified information from the greatest information collection agencies world wide.

 

And don't forget, as an important footnote, that a serious attempt was made by several Iraqi resistance groups to oust Saddam in 1991, at the end of the Gulf war. These attempts were crushed by not Saddam, as expected, but US troops in february 28th. Bush senior didn't "not finish the job", he chose to not finish the job.

 

Proof? And BTW, the first Persian Gulf war to to oust Saddam out of Kuwait, not to remove him from power. Get your facts straight...or at least the ones you claim to know.

 

And you think you prevent a world war by doing this?! What are you guys living in, Propagandaville?

 

No, but apparently you are.

 

First, if you really believed in the bible, I think you can guess that Jesus would oppose continuing a war that killed 500 000 children. He's just that kind of guy. And, additionally, if you are catholic, the Pope has declared the war a sin.

 

Jesus would also be apposed to Saddam using chemical weapons against his own people....why don't you ask him, and see if he'll tell you his view before you claim to know it. I can't speak for the thread originator, but I am not Catolic, I do believe in the Bible, and the Pope doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. He must be at the same meeting as you are where he has access to all of the aformentioned classified documents, also.

 

Read the bible again. How many did Jesus kill? A bodycount guess? 500 000? Not even a couple of thousand? None? Wow, after being told that, I have a hard time to understand how the bible says that wars are ok... but then, I might not be as educated as you are.

 

And how many people is Jesus going to send to hell for not obeying the Bible? How long are they goign to suffer? Eternity? Wow. But then again, I may not be as educated as you are.

 

And don't you think there'll be more crazed terrorists after a aggression war, not backed up by the UN?

 

Maybe, maybe not. We'll wait and see.

 

 

I can write several more pages of argumentations if someone on this forum is foolish enough to believe the warmongering words of snakes such as GW Bush.

 

HAHA!

 

Feel free to debate.

 

I am.

 

Oh, and I can back up my claims with facts,

 

You haven't yet, why start now?

 

But until the day your kids lies dead in the sanddunes, don't you come and tell me this war is righteous.

 

I won't. Because this war is RIGHT, and Bush is RIGHT. I would morn my child, but the fight must continue to preserve world peace. Peace through Strength.

 

9 out of 10 experts on international law all over the world proclaimed this morning that the attack isagainst international law.

 

Name these so called "experts" and explain how they are experts. Degrees, ect. And as far as international law is concerned, the US reports to it self. Not Britain, not Germany, not France, and not some ghost international law.

 

That is my viewpoint too. I was out protesting today. And I will continue every day, until this illegal war is ended. I owe that to all the potential casualties.

 

Good. Protest. That is called freedom of speech. I think it is great that people protesting the war, and prople who suport the war can hold a rally and show their support or disapproval.

 

You are indeed right that Iraq does not threaten the USA

 

Iraq indirectly threatens the US. It has the potential to create WPD's, and sell them to radical Islamist groups who could use them in attacks against us, or other countries.

 

But after all, this war is mostly about oil, so that doesn't count, does it?

 

It's about oil for France, Russia, and China...NOT America.

 

Frances largest oil company has negotiated a deal to develope the Manjnoon field in Western Iraq. That field reportably contains 30 BILLION barrels of oil.

 

Russia holds a 23 year, $4,000,000,000 to develope a 15 BILLION barrel oil field.

 

China is in the process of negotiating a 22 year contract for oil from Iraq, the same as France and Russia.

 

So you're right...this is about oil......for France, Russia, and China.

 

And what the hell do you think North Korea threatens the USA with? The country is not on the brink of starvation, they ARE in starvation! So what, they can make nukes? But so can a lot of countries. Sure, they are all talk, but are they likely to take over the world?

 

This is a scare tactic to get more money from the international community. As soon as they get their money, the reactor will be shut down again, and they will wait until they need more money then they'll do the same thing again.

 

Just pause for a minute. Breath. Count to three. And after that, name the Korean aggressions on other countries the last 50 years (an aggression is an attack that is not based on the other country attacking yours). Oh, not that many? The USA has 101 accounted for.

 

Where does this 101 number come from? Name some. How about a good round number....say, name me 50 acts of aggression upon other countries by the US.

 

I might not have made myself clear. Saddam is an *******, a dictator, and a butcher. But he is no terrorist. Actually, he is described as one of the leaders in the middle east that hates terrorists the mosts.

 

Described as that by who? The Iraqi newspaper which is son runs....wow.

 

The only remote evidence was that one of the hijackers, Mohammed Atta, was supposed to have been in Czech Republic in 2001, where he were to have met an Iraqi diplomat named Ahmad Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani. This, however, proved to be a fraud: the only Mohammed Atta who went to the Czech Republic that year proved to be an entirely different fella, and after this fiasco, CIA failed to dig up any more 'evidence'.

 

Ah been digging through those classified dicuments again?

 

 

If you are a devote christian, again, you should know that killing other people is a bad thing.

 

Only in a certain context.

 

Did unc'a Jesus kill people? No? Ok, now we got them bible-toters settled.

 

Once again, how many people are going to go to hell and suffer for all eternity? Alot? Wow! And I thought he didnt' kill any one, according to you.

 

Religion has nothing to do with this: bad diplomatic skills, an urge to fight wars, and the quest for oil has to do with it.

 

I have already dispelled all of those.

 

There was a process of a peacefully disarm Iraq going on, marshalled by the UN.

 

Oh yea, great job Hans Blix. So now why are the illegal weapons that Saddam said he didn't have, and Hans Bilx didn't find being hurled at Coilition troops?

 

Again, there was a rebellion going on in 1991, which was deemed to fail due to the US army's action in february 28 (when it let the Republican Guard escape and attack the rebels), and in mars 2001, when the US air force let Iraqi attack helicopters attack Iraqi rebel troops.

 

THE POINT OF THE FIRST PERSIAN GULF WAS WAS TO LIBERATE KUWAIT.....Do you understand that now??

 

You trust a government that is not democratically elected?

 

It was democratically elected, and yes I do trust them.

 

You trust George Bush, that said this (the quote is translated, so it might not be the actual quote, but it is not hard to find): "It's increadible that I won. I went to the election with a program that was against peace, prosperity, and the sitting president!"

 

HAHA!! Can we say "urban myth?"

 

You trust an administration that is so deeply involved in recent economical scandals, that might be outright criminal, such as Enron.

 

Oh yea! I forgot, you have access to confidential papers! You must know all this!

 

How about proving your accusations?

 

You trust an administration that has cut back an incredible amount of the budget posts for health care, education and environmental care, and gave it to the military. The US military has half the accounted budget of ALL militaries in the world. Enjoy your tanks when your children can't read at the age 14.

 

Yes. It's nothing but politics. Bill Clinton cut the funding to the militatary to pay for health care, education, and to make the "tree-huggers" happy. George Bush is putting the money where HE thinks it should go, just as Bill Clinton did.

 

LMAO @ children can't read at age 14. According to the CIA world fact book, 97% of all Americans can read and write over the age of 15. So once again, your argument is moot.

 

only ONE (Sen. Johnson of South Dakota) has an enlisted son or daughter in the armed forces!

 

Joining the military is completely voluntary. If the other congress members children dont' want to serve in the military, thats their right and who are you to condemn them for it?

 

 

 

Most of your argument is based on accusations. Until you provide adequate FACT, like you claim you have, you will continue to be proven wrong.

 

Try harder next time.

 

Grinch

[Jackrabbit]

Ok, I admit my post isn’t going to be as intelligent as the previous ones, but I found it interesting, and thought I should post it.

 

Last night I was flipping through the channels, looking for something to watch besides Baghdad, and I ended up on MTV. Well, they had this little interview with some kids from Iraq, asking them what they did when they hung out, what music they listened too, etc. At one point, they asked them what they thought about America, and they said (taking this from memory) something along the lines of “Why can’t America just leave us alone? We’ve done nothing to them, why are they doing all these things to us?” Now, he wasn’t talking about Saddam and the government, he was talking about the civilians. They want America to stay out of their country and leave them alone.

 

The next thing MTV asked was “What do you think about what happened on 9/11?” The kids said, “Well, a lot of people were celebrating and happy, and thought that America got what they deserved.” When asked again, what they thought, the kids said “Yes, I believe America got what they deserved.”

 

Like I said, I know this isn’t as intelligent as the last couple posts, but I think I should post it, nonetheless. We are forcing ourselves on the Iraqi people, and they want us to leave them alone.

 

 

[GreenJediGrinch]

A couple of kids want us to leave them alone. I doubt they speak for the entire population, and doubt they have the maturity to know what is happening.

[setsuko]

First, if my posts seems too long to read (and I do understand you!), dear reader, just watch this comic and I think you'll understand what I think about the war.

 

Originally posted by GreenJediGrinch

Was Saddam thought to be a threat then? No.[/Quote]

 

This is scaring me. Was Saddam thought to be a threat? Off course! But also, there was a war going on (1980-1988), where Iraq attacked Iran. Here, Saddam was the aggressor, and had already begun to prey on his own people. Sure, USA provided Iran with weapons to defend themselves, but they also supplied Iraq with weapons. Saddam was a threat, yet he got support. This later lead to the Iran Contra deal. As you asked for proofs (since you provided nothing either), here's a link to a review of a New York Times article about the fact that the US government, already in the early 1980's knew about Saddams fondness of nerve gas (see, I'm not only using 'evil european propaganda )

 

Show me your Government badge that assures me that you have access to confidential documents by the CIA.

[/Quote]

 

Doesn't need it, since a lot of these reports are official. After all, they were to be used to prove to the world that Saddam is Bin Ladins best buddy, right? Also, most major US newspaper ran these stories. If you doubt me, and think that there is a connection, I can give you a lot of references, but the final dismissal of the evidence can be found here!. No need for badges, you just have to read the news.

 

Who was president in 98? Bill "I did not have sexual relations" Clinton, who was too busy getting his knob slobbed, and trying to explain who he lied under oath, and to the American people.[/Quote]

Oooh, you do the easy one, blame it on Clinton. Doesn't it bother you that the ones starting this mess, the old Bush administration, is more or less the same staff that makes up Bush juniors administration? Anyway, this has gone on since 1980, Clinton has little to do with it. Sure, he ****ed a lot of things up, but at least he was one of the main actors for a peaceful solution of the middle east situation. Too bad Bush, with the help of Sharon and Arafat, threw everything out of the window last year.

 

 

Again, prove your accusations.

[/Quote]

 

You can find a short description of the UN report that 500 000 iraqi children were killed here and you'll find a lot more details, charts and statistics here. Mind you, we are talking only about the number of children under the age 5 that was killed here, if we check all children under the age 18, it will be a lot more. Again, read the news. This is nothing secret that I make up, it is a UN report. I get quite upset when people doubt facts, yet have nothing to meet them with themselves. I've proven my accusation, now prove your standpoint.

 

 

Proof?

[/Quote]

 

A short list can be found

here. More detailed info on MK ULTRA can be found here and here.

 

No country is a eutopia. But there is a difference in Turkey at least moving in the right direction, and trying to be a democracy...and a dictator ship in Iraq who has already used weapons he claimed he didn't have. [/Quote]

 

On the contrary, Turkey is being dragged kicking and screaming into democracy, since they want to join the European Union. However, they still persecute the minorities living in the country, and their legal system is just as rotten as it always has been. Doubt me?

 

"Although the conditions set out in December 1999 for accepting Turkey as a candidate for membership of the European Union (EU) included an improvement in the country's human rights record, no substantive reforms or improvements were recorded in 2000" - The International Amnesty report 2001.

 

Enough proofs? Need more? I can keep going, while you've not even begun. I'll continue, though. No need to lose my head start.

 

 

HAHA!!

 

Yes, the idea is absurd, but swapping the seats makes you see how absurd this war is in the first place.

 

How was Pres. Bush not democratically elected? He didn't recieve the popular vote? Oh, I'm sorry that we have something called the Electoral College.

[/Quote]

 

Al Gore had 539 898 more votes in the election. If we are to hold on to the spirit of democracy, that means he is the rightful winner, right? Oh, and I need not mention the riggings of the election in Florida. EDIT: since I started to add more links and references, you'll find a good summary of why the election was not legal in Michael Moores Stupid White Men... and other excuses for the State of the Nation. Starts on page 19.

 

Your point is? UK has WPD. France, Germany, Japan, Spain, Canada, Russia, ect. also have WPD. Your point is moot.

 

And this is a good thing? Oh, and Japan has no weapons of mass destruction, since the peace charter from WWII denies them that. Again, read up. It's not that hard.

 

 

Name one country we attacked unprovoked.

 

You asked for it. Since I have several books about the subject, I'll just give you some brief info. If you are interested, there's hundreds of books on the subject. I recommend starting with Noam Chomsky's Rogue States. Since an attack is not only a physical invasion, but also when you overthrow a government (and especially a democratically elected one), here's a few favourite examples:

 

1953: U.S. overthrows Prime Minister Mossadeq of Iran, installs Shah as dictator.

1954: U.S. overthrows democratically elected President Arbenz of Guatemala. 200 000 civilians dead when U.S.backed regime takes over.

1963: U.S. backs assassination of South Vietnamese President Diem.

1963-1975: American military kills 4 million people in Southeast Asia.

September 11, 1973: U.S. stages coup in Chile. Democratically elected President Salvador Allende is assassinated. Dictator Augusto Pinochet, one of the most coldhearted dictators ever, is installed. 5 000 chileans murdered, 35 000 flees.

1977: U.S. backs military rulers of El Salvador. 70 000 civilians are killed.

1980's: U.S. trains Osama Bin Ladin and fellow terrorist to kill Sovjets. CIA supplies them with $3 billion.

1981: Reagan administration trains and funds 'contras' in Nicaragua, criminal warbands. 30 000 nicaraguans killed, and the slaughter continues to this day.

1982: U.S. provides billions of dollars in aid to Saddam Hussein for weapons to attack Iran.

1983: White House secretly gives weapons to Iran.

1989: CIA agent Manuel Noriega, also president of Panama, disobeys orders from Washington. U.S. invades Panama and removes Noriega, 3 000 civilian casualties.

1990: Iraq invades Kuwait with U.S. weapons. U.S counterattacks, Bush senior reinstates dictator in Kuwait.

1998: Clinton bombs "weapons factory" in Sudan. It turns out to be a factory, all right, but it was making aspirin.

1991-present: U.S. bombed Iraq on a weekly basis. These bombings, the sanctions and the total destruction of water supplies caused an estimated 500 000 children victims.

2000-2001: U.S. gives Taliban-ruled Afghanistan $245 millions, money used for weapons purchases.

 

Proof?

Again, Amnesty can rack up some 1200. And they've got more things to boot. Read it and weep.

 

The difference is our death sentence is for CONVICTED felons (murders, ect.) Saddams death sentence is for any one who brings him bad news, or tells him something he doesnt' want to hear. Let your family get tortured, and murdered while the screamed and suffered by a madman and then you come tell me that a death sentence is against human rights.

[/Quote]

 

It doesn't matter how righteous you believe your death sentence is, since it is a violation of human rights. And if you read that Amnesty report, you'll find out that people are tortured in american prison too.

 

Also, read this. Since 70 persons the last 20 years, sentenced to death, were deemed innocent, often within hours of the execution, you'd start to wonder how many innocents has been executed. Also, the US are one of the few nations that breaks international law by executing felons that were under 18 when they commited their crime. Also, USA has executed 30 mentally ill persons since 1994. Oh, and a black man commiting the same crime as a white man is 15 times more likely to be sentenced to death. A very fair system, I must say.

 

I'm really sorry that terrorist flew planes into our buildings, and mudered over 3,000 civilians. Do you want me to give you a cookie?

Again, Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. Read the reports. Think.

 

Ah yes, thank you World Leader Setsuko, who gets briefed by the greatest information collection agency in the world. I can sleep in peace now knowing that you have access to hundreds of classified documents by information collection agencies world wide.

[/Quote]

 

Hm. I read the newspaper. I watch TV news every day, perhaps more than 1 hour per day. I also check up the independent media. And since I like to know a lot about everything, I've read a couple of books about the situation in the Middle East. No, I don't claim to have access to secret reports, it's just that I've read a lot of those that are not secret. Sure, go ahead and attack me on a personal level, but this far, you haven't put forward one decent argument. Please, try at least.

 

There are civilian casualties in every conflict, like it or not. It is a nessasary evil in order to make life better for a future Iraq. BTW...you haven't proved that 500,000 children died in the first war....Proof?

[/Quote]

 

Again, read the reports. I can't stress this enough: Reading will make you smarter. It is not just a fairy tale!

 

Ah, once again World Leader Setsuko is at it again with access to classified information from the greatest information collection agencies world wide.

[/Quote]

This, I already answered. Read the reports. Watch the media. Read some more. Maybe even a book or two. You'd be amazed how many books there are on this subject, I only have some 6-7, but I borrow books too. At a library.

 

Proof? And BTW, the first Persian Gulf war to to oust Saddam out of Kuwait, not to remove him from power. Get your facts straight...or at least the ones you claim to know.

 

If the war was about ousting Saddam out of Kuwait, then the war would have stopped after just a few weeks. The war was not only about Kuwait.

 

You want proofs about US stopping the rebellion? Read War Plan Iraq by Milan Rai, a brittish peace researcher. It has a delightful chapter about US acts against the Iraqi rebellion.

 

 

There, you asked for fact, I gave you them. Read it, flyboy. Now it is your turn, you supplied exactly zero facts, I would like to see them now. EDIT: Now I also supplied a lot of references. I'll like to see what references you base your views on.

 

EDIT: I must also post a worried note about your blatant dismissal of international law. If you dismiss it now, then don't come complaining if Korea actually do nuke you. Because that is also restricted by international law. To dismiss international law whenever it suits you is very dangerous, since if the US can do it, what is there to stop, for example China and Russia from doing it too? If your goal is international anarchy, you've come a long way, baby.

[Zendjir]

Geez, these are the longest posts in ages; I don't have the time to read em all But, whatever you say, keep it a friendly discussion, even though you have different opinions.

 

I have an opinion on the war also, I'll try to keep it brief;

 

Saddam is a bad man + he's sitting on top of a huuuge supply of oil= America sees it's intrests (sp?) endangered; what would happen to america's economy without oil? *poof*.

 

And bush his ...ermm "business friends", the ones that sponsored his campaign say; do something! So bush goes to war under false allegations of Saddam having WMD and links with Al-Quida. There has been no proof to support those allegations yet.

 

If bush was such a people's friend, and if he wanted everyone in the world to live in peace he would have invaded alot of African countries ages ago.

 

I'm getting really pissed about the way America sees the world as a place where only america's intrests count. As the most powerfull country in the world they should act more morally.

 

I support the troops however, because I don't wanna see them returning home in body-bags

[legameboy]

Setsuko, if you think war is wrong in the Bible read the old testament, you can have all the blood and guts you want, from people getting hanged by their hair from having a nail driven into their forehead, wars not a sin if you have a good reason, and the USA's reason is to save the civilians and get the oil before saddam waists billions of dollars of it and so the USA can give it to countries, if civilians die, thats a part of life and people must make sacrifices

[setsuko]

Originally posted by legameboy

Setsuko, if you think war is wrong in the Bible read the old testament, you can have all the blood and guts you want, from people getting hanged by their hair from having a nail driven into their forehead, wars not a sin if you have a good reason,[/Quote]

 

If you had studied christianity for just a while, you should know that Jesus Christ issued a sacrament upon his death that made the Old Testament sort out 'out of sync'. Yes, the old testament is strange and weird and full of war, but the modern christian church doesn't base their beliefs on it. If they did, they would not eat pork.

 

and the USA's reason is to save the civilians and get the oil before saddam waists billions of dollars of it and so the USA can give it to countries, if civilians die, thats a part of life and people must make sacrifices

 

Again, If you followed up on current events, you'd know there's an embargo, issued 12 years ago, that prevents Saddam from selling his oil. That makes your argument null and void.

 

And your view of civilian lives frightens me, have you all lost your sense of humanity? It's not like this war had to be fought, there were serious attempts for a peaceful solution. And if civilian casualties are such a small thing, how come you are riled at all by 9/11? I mean, 3000 adult civilians is horrible, yes. But that doesn't make 500 000 kids less horrible. I don't think you've thought about how many that is. And how beautiful it is for you to talk about how noble the sacrifice of civilians are, when it is some country 1000's of miles away that will suffer them. Land of the brave, indeed.

[RocketPack Jack]

Not being a religious person myself, i cant much about any religions beliefs, but can say that the Pope himself has declared the war a sin.

 

To quote legameboy:"get the oil before saddam waists billions of dollars of it and so the USA can give it to countries". -why would the US give IRAQ'S OIL to OTHER COUNTRIES??? It is iraq's oil. Kind of retarded that when u think about it: "here u r new mister president of iraq, we've freed ur country but we're taking all ur oil and giving it 2 other countries." The US would most likely secure most of the oil for themselves, if they were supposedly giving it to other countries.

[GreenJediGrinch]

This is scaring me. Was Saddam thought to be a threat? Off course! But also, there was a war going on (1980-1988), where Iraq attacked Iran. Here, Saddam was the aggressor, and had already begun to prey on his own people. Sure, USA provided Iran with weapons to defend themselves, but they also supplied Iraq with weapons. Saddam was a threat, yet he got support.

 

I don't see how he was a threat. He was certainly a threat to Iran, but seeing as he was given weapons (both countries actually) from the US government, he couldn't have been thought of as viable a threat then (if any) as he could be today.

 

This later lead to the Iran Contra deal

 

Interesting read, but I'm not fond of using sites who admit their are holes in their theory, and missing dates, as evidence of fact.

 

As you asked for proofs (since you provided nothing either)

 

I wasn't the one who made wild accusations either.

 

New York Times article about the fact that the US government, already in the early 1980's knew about Saddams fondness of nerve gas

 

From what I read in that article, Bush senior obviously didn't think Iraq was a viable threat. If he signed an order to help rebuild the Iraqi economy, how much of a threat could he have been? And yes, I agree he is fond of nerve gas (he's probably been sniffing it a little himself).

 

Doesn't need it, since a lot of these reports are official. After all, they were to be used to prove to the world that Saddam is Bin Ladins best buddy, right? Also, most major US newspaper ran these stories. If you doubt me, and think that there is a connection, I can give you a lot of references, but the final dismissal of the evidence can be found here!. No need for badges, you just have to read the news.

 

I read news, but that doesn't mean it's always correct. The media tells the people what it recieves from the government. THat doesn't always mean that the government always tells the media the truth. The can be ulterior motives for saying what they say.

 

As far as proving bin Laden in Saddams buddy, the only 2 people who know that for sure are Saddam and bin Laden, and I don't think you'll get a straight answer from either.

 

Oooh, you do the easy one, blame it on Clinton.

 

Doesn't everyone?

 

Doesn't it bother you that the ones starting this mess, the old Bush administration, is more or less the same staff that makes up Bush juniors administration?

 

No.

 

 

You can find a short description of the UN report that 500 000 iraqi children were killedhere and you'll find a lot more details, charts and statistics here. Again, read the news. This is nothing secret that I make up, it is a UN report. I get quite upset when people doubt facts

 

Haha! This is far from fact. In the 2nd link you provided I found the following "together with the Government of Iraq." Surely the government of Iraq wouldn't lie would they, seeing as banned weapons they say they didn't have are being used.

 

On the contrary, Turkey is being dragged kicking and screaming into democracy, since they want to join the European Union. However, they still persecute the minorities living in the country, and their legal system is just as rotten as it always has been.

 

At least it is still a step in the right direction. Interesting read, BTW.

 

Enough proofs? Need more? I can keep going, while you've not even begun. I'll continue, though. No need to lose my head start.

 

Very arroant. I never made wild accusations without evidence to back them up. THat is why I called you into question.

 

Yes, the idea is absurd, but swapping the seats makes you see how absurd this war is in the first place.

 

Not really.

 

Al Gore had 539 898 more votes in the election. If we are to hold on to the spirit of democracy, that means he is the rightful winner, right?

 

He had the popular vote, I didn't dispute that. But we have somethign here called the Electoral COllege, and in the spirit of democracy we use what was set up by our fore fathers.

 

Oh, and I need not mention the riggings of the election in Florida.

 

lol Absurd.

 

And this is a good thing?

 

Every country deserves a defense. I never said it was good, don't put words in my mouth.

 

Oh, and Japan has no weapons of mass destruction, since the peace charter from WWII denies them that.

 

My mistake.

 

Again, read up. It's not that hard.

 

Don't patronize me.

 

Since an attack is not only a physical invasion, but also when you overthrow a government (and especially a democratically elected one),

 

Wrong. And attack is defined as a an assault, or to bombard. Not to overthrow a government.

 

Out of the 15 you supplied, 3 fit the bill.

 

Again, Amnesty can rack up some 1200. And they've got more things to boot. Read it and weep.

 

I did, and I didn't. The fair trials thing...I am assumuing you are talking about the people that were arrested in connection with terrorism charges? They are bypassing the US court system for non-American citizens for security reasons, and because they don't deserve the same treatment recieved by American citizens (IF they are terrorist). If they aren't, then I trust the government enough to make the right decision.

 

It doesn't matter how righteous you believe your death sentence is, since it is a violation of human rights.

 

Do murderers violate human rights when they murder people? They deserve the same treatment they gave their victims.

 

And if you read that Amnesty report, you'll find out that people are tortured in american prison too.

 

I believe you are also pointing that at people detained as suspected terrorists? If they are terrorists they get what they deserved. If they aren't, then they get an apology from me, and then they move on.

 

Also, read this. Since 70 persons the last 20 years, sentenced to death, were deemed innocent, often within hours of the execution, you'd start to wonder how many innocents has been executed.

 

Yea, I do actually. Call me cold blooded, but if 70 innocent people have to die by the death penalty in order to stop 1,000 people from commiting a crime for fear of the death penalty, then so be it.

 

Also, executing people who were less than 18 years of age when they commited their crime is correct. A magical age of 18 doesn't mean that the offender was in complete control of their actions, and knew exactly what they were doing when they commit their crime.

 

This report puts mentally ill, and disabled people in the same catagory when they shouldn't be. Executing a disabled person (and when I say disabled I mean a physical disability) is the right thing to do. Executing mentally ill people is wrong, IMO. And I think you are correct in that aspect.

 

Oh, and a black man commiting the same crime as a white man is 15 times more likely to be sentenced to death. A very fair system, I must say.

 

No system is perfect, and there is prejudice everywhere.

 

Again, Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. Read the reports. Think.

 

I never said he did.

 

Now I also supplied a lot of references. I'll like to see what references you base your views on.

 

http://www.cato.org/

 

http://www.heritage.org/

 

http://www.worldnetdaily.com./

 

http://www.mrc.org/

 

http://www.mises.org/

 

http://www.ncpa.org/

 

http://www.self-gov.org/

 

http://www.townhall.com

 

http://www.academia.org/

 

http://www.hannity.com/?do=home.page

 

http://www.drudgereport.com/

 

http://www.foxnews.com

 

http://www.weeklystandard.com/

 

http://www.insightmag.com/

[setsuko]

GreenJediGrinch: after reading your post, I realize we have nothing to say to each other in this issue, since our views of humanity and humanitary rights are totally different.

 

If you believe it is right for people to die for something that they haven't done, and they cannot affect, then the attack on Iraq is totally rational for you. Just like killing Kurds are rational for Saddam. It is the same basic views of what a human life if worth. To you, it is very, very little.

 

To me, it is not. Every single innocent life is one too many. I think that is the main difference. You are becoming what you fight, your visage is slowly merging with your imagined enemies'. I pity you, noone should live like that. Have a fun life in your gated community.

 

But I'll continue fighting for international law, and for the hope that one day, cold hearted killers won't be the ones who dictates the global agenda.

 

And I have a hard time to figure out why you don't trust a UN report (especially made by UNICEF, one of the most credited and independent part of UN), when you refer to sites that churns out Republican propaganda daily. If we are to stoop down to that level, then I'm outta here.