RicardoLuigi... Posted March 22, 2003 Share Posted March 22, 2003 no need to really post here, u can do that in the bush, blair, and howard can kiss my arse thread. just vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C Shutt Posted March 22, 2003 Share Posted March 22, 2003 Am I against war, or am I against this war? Because while I certainly wouldn't consider myself in favour of war, I do realise it's sometimes necessary. This war, however, I am against. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kjølen Posted March 22, 2003 Share Posted March 22, 2003 Definatly against, no matter what anyone says inocent people most likely will be killed. And "Calateral Damage" or whatever wouldn't suit me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NiKo Posted March 22, 2003 Share Posted March 22, 2003 I'm against war..as i wrote in one of my songs: "you can bomb the world to pieces, but you cant' bomb the world to peace" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skate Boy Posted March 22, 2003 Share Posted March 22, 2003 I'm against it. I think it's stupid and Bush just wants the Oil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deadmeat_X Posted March 22, 2003 Share Posted March 22, 2003 I'm against war. All war. I just saw a list with quotes from anti-war activists...one of the most striking..."If war is the answer, we're asking the wrong question". Think about that. This is not the mark of Meksilon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshi Posted March 22, 2003 Share Posted March 22, 2003 i agree with K-jo, innocent people are dieing when we only want to kill hussain. in extremly good and skilled assasin can do that, but no, lets just blow the bastard to bit and kill everyone else while we're at it. that'll show them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RicardoLuigi... Posted March 22, 2003 Author Share Posted March 22, 2003 exactly! no, no, i'm kidding, although that wasn't very funny... well, here's what i think. killing innocent people is bad (duh), only a crazed maniac (such as saddam) would think it is good. however, getting rid of saddam is a good thing. there's pros and cons (pro: killing saddam, con: killing civilians), but i'm still pro-war. call me naive, little kid, whatever, i'll still think what i'm gonna. the only solution IN THIS CASE is to go to war. there is no peaceful solution this time. that's almost like saying that appeasement is the perfect solution or that there was a peaceful solution in ww2. that's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scabb Posted March 22, 2003 Share Posted March 22, 2003 Oh, so now it's "right" to kill Hussein? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshi Posted March 22, 2003 Share Posted March 22, 2003 Not entirely, it's "right" to stop Hussein from basically taking control of other countries as well as aggressing his own people. It is not right to kill Hussein for the purpose of gaining oil. but you have to remember that twelve years ago we had him, but never finished it off and now we're paying for it with more innocent lives when it all could have been spared if Hussein was maybe detained in his country or had his political status taken away. But now we he has grown too powerful and so his death is the only answer. This still doesn’t not make it any better, I am not justifying his destruction, but it does seem to be the most effective solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mercatfat Posted March 23, 2003 Share Posted March 23, 2003 You do realize that Sadaam has killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people, usually his own, through repeated violations of sanctions placed on him, right? The bottom line is that while some civilian lives may be lost by our hands, it's way less than what would happen if Sadaam were still in power for another month or two. The bottom line is that while the killing may seem unjustified to you, the fact is our liberating Iraq will make it a better place and less people will end up having to die through time as a result. We're not taking over the country, we're simply giving it a regime change like we did in Afghanistan. Also, the Blood for Oil thing is total bullshit rhetoric. Do you realize how much oil we get from the OPEC countries? 15-20%. That's it. We're fine and dandy off of the other 80-85%, produced mostly in Alaska, Texas and Venezuala, so why the hell would we just take Iraq for more oil? Think about it. I won't deny that the oil will be a nice plus as an outcome of the war and it's certainly something we're looking forward to, but it's certainly not the only point of the war. I don't necessarily support war, but I'm informed enough by history to know that sometimes peace can only be attained through force. It's not like we haven't tried to negotiate with Iraq, and even if we did, how can we trust them? They declared they had no SCUDs or Al-Samud 2 missiles, but what do you know, they do. Chances are they have chemical weapons also that we'll find later, but they can't use them or else France and likely many other countries will cave in and support us. It is nothing short of fact that the world will be better without Iraq as it currently stands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scabb Posted March 23, 2003 Share Posted March 23, 2003 Hurray! Lets all skip work to wave signs about, like we give a shit! That will surely force Saddam to surrender and Bush to be impeached, whilst allowing you to add "stopping the ills of society and saving mankind" to your social CV. And then the anti-war people turn pro-war, like the media. If I can't see it happening, how do I know that it exists? And other such offensive phrases bundled together in an incohesive and rambled manner, please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabez Posted March 23, 2003 Share Posted March 23, 2003 I support our troops (I’m British), but I don’t support the war. Saddam deserves to be exiled, but not through war and death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mercatfat Posted March 23, 2003 Share Posted March 23, 2003 Then how the hell is he going to leave? Sadaam is a martyr. He knows that he can't possibly expect to win this war and we offered him exile for his safety and amaze, he refused to budge. History has shown that when he makes up his mind about something, he makes up his mind, period. If he thinks he doesnt have to be exiled, as he obviously does, it'll never happen. On top of that, exiling him would mean having to actually find him and removing him forcefully. We'd also have to take his sons, lest they take the throne and we end up going right back to war. If we can't find them either, and believe me it would be difficult then there's no way in hell we can exile. Let's not even bring up the issue of Sadaam's doubles. Now, then someone cries that we can do it diplomatically, however that is false. The core of diplomacy is trust, but obviously we can't ever trust Iraq to give us a straight answer. He wouldn't to Clinton and he wouldn't to either Bush. A recent example is how they declared they had no missiles that went longer than a range of 150 km (as enforced by UN Resolution 1441), but they lied. We can't just give countries like Iraq second, third, fourth chances. That's bad foreign policy and would most certainly bring about our downfall as a country. It certainly would have in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al-back from the BigWhoop Posted March 23, 2003 Share Posted March 23, 2003 Originally posted by Suuri Yksl well, here's what i think. killing innocent people is bad (duh), only a crazed maniac (such as saddam) would think it is good. however, getting rid of saddam is a good thing. there's pros and cons (pro: killing saddam, con: killing civilians), but i'm still pro-war. call me naive, little kid, whatever, i'll still think what i'm gonna. how naive can some1 be??!?!?! really, no offence, but how can u see this as pro: killing sadam, con: killing civilians. How would u like to be one of the civilians killed? sure saddam killed all those ppl, no1 said he's innocent. but if the UN was a tiny bit powerfull, it could easily find a peacefull solution to get saddam and reconstruct and reorganize Iraq. or is any1 here still doubting the US is gonna take charge of Iraq and put another lunatic dictatorship? its the same old story, just like the US did to Chile, Afghanistan, Philipines, and many other countries, including Iraq. Also including Brazil, and i should know, since i know hundreds of ppl who were killed/tortured by the dictatorship the US planted here. Luckly Brazil and Chile managed to get rid of the dictatorship without any1's help, otherwise we would be just like Afghanistan or Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshi Posted March 23, 2003 Share Posted March 23, 2003 i know, how bout we just nuke iraq, we'd be sure to get hussain then. i do not believe in this, but Bush's basic idea here is that it doesn't matter if a few innocent people get killed as long as they get Hussain. frankly, if they want to kuill hussain with a minimal body count, send in two or three skilled assasins of the state to dop the business. get them to find out his location and blow that up, don't bloody blow up the entire capital in a hope to get him, should he be there. hussain right now is probably miles from Baghdad, it's only logical. whatever has happend recently, Hussain's been one step ahead, it's like a game of chess and hussain seems to know his game better than bush, despite bush having twice as many pieces. i really can't say that anything can justify killing people, who are we to judge who lives and who dies? but if there is only one way to stop hussain, then so be it. frankly, stoping the war isn't going to do any good, i'm guessing that although it's hurting and kiling them, the majority of iraq want this war so they can finally have peace and freedom for their children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RicardoLuigi... Posted March 23, 2003 Author Share Posted March 23, 2003 thank you mercatfat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kjølen Posted March 23, 2003 Share Posted March 23, 2003 Originally posted by Neil Joshi send in two or three skilled assasins of the state to dop the business. Assasination, apparently is illegal in the US for any reason from what I've heard, and that basically defeats the entire purpose of war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mercatfat Posted March 23, 2003 Share Posted March 23, 2003 As Colin Powell replied to the question of why we don't just assassinate him: "That would assume that we know where he is" End of discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshi Posted March 23, 2003 Share Posted March 23, 2003 not really, a good skilled assasin wouldn't just go in there and kill him within a few hours, they'd spend a good few days or even weeks tracking him down first and then killing him. a hit man would probably even get to know Hussain and find out his routine as well as hiding places before doing the deed, sort of like a spy (although i don't want to go too james bond on you all, as that woudl just be stupid, and yes i am aware that what i am saying now is already rather stupid, but doable if done right and planned correctly). and now, a poem by David Grossman Cappuccino Conflict The coffee shop has come to life As though with juicy gossip Of someone's cousin's dentist's wife And the plumber's eager faucet This is how we speak of war Abstract, distant, absentee Like the glad-I'm-not-one poor Where-whoever they might be A distant, dusty, oily place Machines, technicians, great expense Lobbing rockets just in case Preemptive is the best defense The drama is Joe Millionaire The outcome seems ordained Triumph of the Just and Fair Illusion of safety maintained "I heard he bought her lingerie" "These crackers go better with Brie" "Where do you think we'll bomb today?" "One more double latte, please" i thought it would be appropriate at a time like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brief Posted March 24, 2003 Share Posted March 24, 2003 Originally posted by Kjølen Assasination, apparently is illegal in the US for any reason from what I've heard, and that basically defeats the entire purpose of war. Killing an enemy in war does not fall under the "definition" of assassination, so US soldiers can kill Sadam if they do find him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huz Posted March 26, 2003 Share Posted March 26, 2003 War has never been so much fun! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshi Posted March 26, 2003 Share Posted March 26, 2003 say that when we're dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brief Posted March 26, 2003 Share Posted March 26, 2003 Like it or not, a war with a Saddam-ruled Iraq was inevitable. And Bush, Jr. is not the one who's being trigger-happy. I've heard plenty of news correspondants state that, prior to 911, the Bush Administration's main focus was domestic affairs (the economy, for instance)--very little was paid towards foreign affairs, much less war. Many people knew that Saddam was dangerous. Back in 1998, while he was still president of the United States, Bill Clinton said, "What if he [saddam] fails to comply [with disarmament] and we fail to act? He will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then go right on building up his arsenal. Someday, someway, I guarantee you, he'll use that arsenal." And guess what? We failed to act. The United Nations did nothing to get Saddam to disarm. After years of waiting for him to disarm and the UN to enforce their resolutions, it was Bush who finally had the gumption to do something about it. Source: Fox News Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.