Jump to content

Home

Are you for or against War in Iraq?


Snafu7
 Share

For or Against War  

19 members have voted

  1. 1. For or Against War

    • For It
      9
    • Against It
      9
    • Not Sure
      1


Recommended Posts

Against it. They have no right to go to war, and all their "evidence" that Iraq has WoMDs are based only on indications and assuminations, wich later on has been proven to be wrong. Bush has already shown that he only care about regime change in Iraq instead of disarming them. It is likely that they'll just install a new, USA-friendly dictator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn

And Saddam used it to end the rebellion. Pretty much the same.

 

Well, considering the rebellion wasn't threatening the fate of the world, i'd say it was a lot different. Japan was not going to give up, and many many Americans and Japanese would have died in an invasion. Of course, i guess you're too anti-American to be able to make even a simple distinction like that, because there isn't any other explanation for that view.

 

Honestly, i don't mind you voicing an anti-war opinion as long as you put forth valid arguments, but you're blatent anti-americanism is getting offensive, and it's completely uneccessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn

And Saddam used it to end the rebellion. Pretty much the same.

 

Oh my god are you serious?! You've got to be kidding me...

Ending a rebellion of some beaten down, oppressed people compares to us using nukes to end WW2? Nice analogy... [/sarcasm] Buy a clue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by JEDI_MASTA

And yes, i do agree... Qui gon's anti americanism is getting slightly annoying

 

Gee! You think we aren't annoyed with your BS either! :rolleyes: JM only tells the truth for the most part, but there are some things I might disagree with aswell.

 

Disarmament dosent work, but its ok to try ;)

 

I'm for this war, there are no bad points to this war when all things are weighed out.

 

We shall see soon enough.... :snear:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Billy Shears

isn't it funny how we're basically saying, "Everyone, get rid of your weapons! ......well, except us, that is, it's ok for us to have them."

 

I mean, WTF???

 

We aren't saying everyone get rid of your weapons....

we're telling a dictator, who's already agreed to disarm many years ago, to get rid of the crap he's hiding (which he alleges he doesn't have but has proven he does have. eg: the scuds he's recently used.).

Blix has even said Saddam lied about those by saying he didn't have them.

We also don't attack Mexico and Canada... Saddam attacks his neighbors... we're trying to prevent that from happening again.

There's a reason there are no-fly zones in northern and southern iraq....

Soon enough we'll see if he's hiding weapons of mass destruction, though most experts don't think he'll use chemical weapons even if he has them for the sake of his credibility. If he has them, we're validated... if he doesn't... well... that's another story. Let's find out first.*

We're clearly not attacking civilians, and [sARCASM] that death toll is skyrocketing to that 2 million mark, eagle... [/sARCASM]. We're letting people surrender peacefully, it's about the regime, not the people of iraq.

 

*They think Saddam is either already dead or seriously injured... but won't risk saying he's dead as a credibility issue without sufficient proof (dna tests).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tie Guy and Jedi_Masta: I am not anti-American. I critizise its foreign politics because I think they're wrong. I take "anti-american" offensive, so do not call me that.

 

And who hands out the "rights" to go to war?

 

The UN Security Council. Thought everyone knew that.

 

Oh my god are you serious?! You've got to be kidding me...

Ending a rebellion of some beaten down, oppressed people compares to us using nukes to end WW2? Nice analogy... [/sarcasm] Buy a clue.

 

I am very suprised on how little 150,000 innocent lives counts. I'll guess the next would be you supporting the bombing of Dresden. Or perhaps 300,000 innocents doesn't matter as long as their German?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by swgbking

They didn't kill them to TEST it, they used it to end WWII

 

That's not true.

 

They partly used the nukes on civilian population centers to test the effects it had on humans.

 

Of course, they also used them to establish American world dominance and end WW2.

 

If they cared only for Japan's capitulation, they could have dropped them off the shore or on military bases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn

The UN Security Council. Thought everyone knew that.

 

Membership of the UN and other organizations as such are moral bindings, not hard and fast obligations. There's such a thing as not obeying. And when that happens, what's the UN going to do? Attack the USA? No. And that's because it was a moral bond. The USA pledged their membership, and now, essentially, they are going against it, and that was their choice.

 

As the USA has shown no one hands out the rights to go to war. Be that a good thing or a bad thing, ask me not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by C'jais

That's not true.

 

They partly used the nukes on civilian population centers to test the effects it had on humans.

 

Of course, they also used them to establish American world dominance and end WW2.

 

If they cared only for Japan's capitulation, they could have dropped them off the shore or on military bases.

 

True, it was partly as a show of force, as it was also getting to be the start of the cold war, but it's called "killing two birds with one stone." Perhaps it was partly out of the extreme anger felt from Pearl Harbor. You may never know, because I'm assuming you weren't alive then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by krkode

True, it was partly as a show of force, as it was also getting to be the start of the cold war, but it's called "killing two birds with one stone."

 

Make that three birds with one stone.

 

I'm assuming you can clearly see they wanted to test their new toys by choosing a population center instead of Mount Fiji or a miliary compound.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note: all of the following posts below are copied from the Senate Chambers. I didn't want to make it one big post as it'd confuse people as they're seperate replies. But they do sum up my points.

 

Originally posted by Andy867

I must disagree with you there, Echuu. What the US is doing is preventing a WWIII by taking out a tyrant before Saddam becomes the next Hitler.

 

FYI, WW3 has already started.

 

Now, Saddam is not capable of becoming a new Hitler. He has no-fly zones in the north and south (where the oil is), he has several sanctions against him, and if he should ever pull a stunt like he did in the 80's, he'd be gangraped into submission. Add to that, that your country has bombed Iraq over the past ten years, and his military is a mere shadow of its former glory - Iraq is simply not capable of invading anything anymore. And no, his little rockets cannot even reach Europe, and definately not USA.

 

As far as the argument that "he can always use terrorists!" goes - no, there's been no connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda. You can always use the argument that "But they can just use terrorists to hit us!" to support a "preventive" war. Why not attack Iran as well - they hate you too, and they could also just use terrorists to hit you. Or maybe Russia - they're commies FFS and have several terror connections. Or how about every f'king arab country? See how that argument goes nowhere?

 

Facts on the table people - Saddam is not threatening you. That guy knows that if he so much as takes one step over the Kuwait border, the UN will have a legit reason to castrate him once and for all.

 

This all comes down to whether the US has the right to make a pre-emptive strike against a country they've got no proof are threatening another. The UN says (and I agree) "No, you cannot". This pathetic argument cannot support anything, as you can use it to justify attacking France as well - they hate you too, no? They have nuclear weapons!

 

What's even more funny, is that the US feels this rule should only apply to them. Iraq cannot, for example, make a pre-emptive strike against something they feel threatens their nation (the US, fx). Oh no, only USA is on the moral high ground here (despite their seeming lack of interest for human rights and peacekeeping missions).

 

Look at what you're doing: Your cassus belli is that Saddam has WMDs, but you have not found evidence of this so far. If he had WMDs, he'd not be able to store them any longer, as they require big ass facilities to keep maintained. You're making up evidence of his connections with terror groups and of his nuclear capabilities. It's f*cking frightening that you're forced to forge evidence, and it's even scarier that the press lets you get away with it - "it's nothing serious". :rolleyes:. And finally, Bush has the nerve to use such claims that Saddam is a threat to your country!

 

In short, if you've failed to get it: You have no legal basis for this war, apart from a far-fetched hunch that "that guy is up to no good, let's remove him". You're not capable of seeing what this needless war will lead to: More terror. More destabilization in the middle east. More hatred towards the West.

 

The Gulf war in 1991 was legit (even though USA practically persuaded Iraq into attacking). Your frenzy against Afghanistan was also UN backed (though only because of the goodwill from 9/11). And now here we are - the US pissing on the UN, abusing its military power to justify their actions and generally wasting whatever goodwill you had left. Your press acts as the president's lapdogs and have no critical sense left (they brushed off all the forged evidence as "accidents" and decided not to make a fuss about the US spying on UN members and their torturing of two prisoners to death). And you can throw this into the mix as well: When the US needs to "extract" information from prisoners, they ship them over to Egypt and tell them to get whatever information they can with whatever means necessary. After that's done, they're shipped back to the US and your country has gotten the information. What happens if someone questions your methods? You just point at Egypt and say "They did it! Not us!"

 

Al Jazeera are gonna have a feast on your little crusade here.

 

One last thing: If I hear one more baseless claim towards France, I'm gonna go vetoed UN resolutions all over Israel's ass.

 

-C'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/index.html

 

"Intelligence documents that U.S. and British governments said were strong evidence that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons have been dismissed as forgeries by U.N. weapons inspector"

 

So, what new evidence to justify the war will be "digged up"?

 

And here are some very interesting facts:

 

1. Iraq is the most poked, prodded, infeltrated, photagraphed, x-rayed, and spyed upon country on the planet, and yet inspectors have found nothing that really smacks of WoMD. Funny how that is.

 

2. Most of the 'evidence' is turning out to be pretty much frabricated BS. If the U.S had actual evidence, they should have found something by now. Hitch up your pants, America; your credibility gap is showing.

 

3. The U.S. has bombed Iraq on almost a weekly basis for the las 12 years, and in doing so has pounded most of that country into ruin, and killed over half a million people. The facilities for creating weapons are mostly destroyed.

 

4. Much like nukes (of which he has none), Saddam's bio and chemical weapons have a short shelf life, and must be monitered and maintained. Facilities used to store bio weapons in particular are difficult to hide.

 

Finally, America shouldn't throw stones, when they are terrorists themselves. Here's a short but infamous list of attrocities of which America is responsible for:

 

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

1954: U.S. overthrows democratically-elected President Arbenz of Guatemala. 200,000 civilians killed.

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

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

September 11, 1973: U.S. stages coup in Chile. Democratically elected president Salvador Allende assassinated. Dictator Augusto Pinochet installed. 5,000 Chileans murdered.

1977: U.S. backs military rulers of El Salvador. 70,000 Salvadorans and four American nuns killed.

1980's: U.S. trains Osama bin Laden and fellow terrorists to kill Soviets. CIA gives them $3 billion.

1981: Reagan administration trains and funds "contras". 30,000 Nicaraguans die.

1982: U.S. provides billions in aid to Saddam Hussein for weapons to kill Iranians.

1983: White House secretly gives Iran weapons to help them kill Iraqis.

1989: CIA agent Manuel Noriega (also serving as President of Panama) disobeys orders from Washington. U.S. invades Panama and removes Noriega. 3,000 Panamanian civilian casualties

1990: Iraq invades Kuwait with weapons from U.S.

1991: U.S. enters Iraq. Bush reinstates dictator of Kuwait.

1998: Clinton bombs "weapons factory" in Sudan. Factory turns out to be making aspirin.

1991 to present: American planes bomb Iraq on a weekly basis. U.N. estimates 500,000 Iraqi children die from bombing and sanctions.

2000-01: U.S. gives Taliban-ruled Afghanistan $245 million in "aid".

September 11, 2001: Osama Bin Laden uses his expert CIA training to murder 3,000 people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...