Damn those American and British warmongers-Kill them all, now
- Thread starter Gonz
- Start date
Squiggy
ThunderDick
Gonz, what you're missing would be our right to make a descision based on honest information. If W had asked for permission to spend a trillion dollars and risk American lives to liberate Iraq, do you think he would get support? Instead he is claiming facts he hasn't proven and sold you on it.
Professur
Well-Known Member
I can't believe it. Some buttmunch from Not in our Name actually had the gall to e-mail me links to a bunch of songs supported by Not in our Name.
Anyone wanting copies of it, to either encourage or disuade these retards, let me know and I'll forward it. He may not like the reply I sent him, but that's his lookout for bringing himself to my attention.
Anyone wanting copies of it, to either encourage or disuade these retards, let me know and I'll forward it. He may not like the reply I sent him, but that's his lookout for bringing himself to my attention.
Professur
Well-Known Member
This topic, as usual, is just circling the main issue.
Saddam is a murdering sadist. Correct? Is there anyone doubting this? No. Good. So we can stop discussing this part of it. His military is what keeps him in power. Any doubters? Didn't think so. He defrauded his nation by falsifing the last election results. No dispute there?
So what's left? Ah, yes. Bush's right to go to war. Well somehow he managed to move millions of tons of hardware and manpower, which I doubt He'd have been able to do illegally. And Blair managed to do the same, under a different legal system no less. I doubt both managed to get away with it against their nation's laws. That leaves international law to contend with. Well, I haven't heard a UN resolution against what their doing, have you? Didn't think so. Did I miss anything?
Saddam is a murdering sadist. Correct? Is there anyone doubting this? No. Good. So we can stop discussing this part of it. His military is what keeps him in power. Any doubters? Didn't think so. He defrauded his nation by falsifing the last election results. No dispute there?
So what's left? Ah, yes. Bush's right to go to war. Well somehow he managed to move millions of tons of hardware and manpower, which I doubt He'd have been able to do illegally. And Blair managed to do the same, under a different legal system no less. I doubt both managed to get away with it against their nation's laws. That leaves international law to contend with. Well, I haven't heard a UN resolution against what their doing, have you? Didn't think so. Did I miss anything?
Squiggy said:
To who? The general public? Intel is not public information until it's usefulness is history. I had no reason to doubt that Clinton missiled Iraq for reason. I have no doubt Bush took us to war for reason. Since we're at war, it's irrelevent now. Afterwards we can see if it was just & legal.
AlladinSane
Well-Known Member
There are soo many nations in the world needing food and freedom. George chosen to "help" Iraq out of his heart. Right.Gonz said:
Sorry, not going to happen.Gonz said:
Professur
Well-Known Member
So, you're arguing his choice of targets? As opposed to his right to attack?
Ok, let's look at it from that point of view. Other nations needing food. Would someone care to quote how much money the US gives in foreign aid right now? Any details on how much of that goes to food and infrastructure?
Other nations needing freedom. Well, how many other nations have leaders that have used poison gas on their own population? That have not only permitted, but encouraged and participated in the rape of wives and children in front of their husbands and fathers?
I'm not gonna blow smoke up anyone's ass. Oil was probably a major factor in targetting Iraq. But it was far from the only one. I'd lay more weight on the fact that Saddam tried to assasinate Bush Sr. The present president's daddy. I dunno about you, but if someone tried to cap my father, I'd not forget it in a hurry. That Saddam was encouraging anti-west hatred, fueling terrorists probably added a push too. And that there was already good infrastructure to attack Iraq, thereby reducing the cost of attack, and helping reduce the risks to the soldiers. That there was already loads of paperwork at the UN against Iraq.
Oil? If Bush wanted, or needed more oil, an appeal to OPEC to up production would get that. Iraq won't be pipelining the US oil anyways. Oil will continue to flow through OPEC and volumes will continue to be managed by them. Any attempt to break that stranglehold would cut off all oil shipments.
Ok, let's look at it from that point of view. Other nations needing food. Would someone care to quote how much money the US gives in foreign aid right now? Any details on how much of that goes to food and infrastructure?
Other nations needing freedom. Well, how many other nations have leaders that have used poison gas on their own population? That have not only permitted, but encouraged and participated in the rape of wives and children in front of their husbands and fathers?
I'm not gonna blow smoke up anyone's ass. Oil was probably a major factor in targetting Iraq. But it was far from the only one. I'd lay more weight on the fact that Saddam tried to assasinate Bush Sr. The present president's daddy. I dunno about you, but if someone tried to cap my father, I'd not forget it in a hurry. That Saddam was encouraging anti-west hatred, fueling terrorists probably added a push too. And that there was already good infrastructure to attack Iraq, thereby reducing the cost of attack, and helping reduce the risks to the soldiers. That there was already loads of paperwork at the UN against Iraq.
Oil? If Bush wanted, or needed more oil, an appeal to OPEC to up production would get that. Iraq won't be pipelining the US oil anyways. Oil will continue to flow through OPEC and volumes will continue to be managed by them. Any attempt to break that stranglehold would cut off all oil shipments.
unclehobart
New Member
They would sure as hell notice if we shut of the faucet of food and medicine... and hate us all the more of course.
AlladinSane
Well-Known Member
So
I wouldn't either, but I would think 1000 times before using my people to solve a personal matter. It's not about oil itself. It's about damn economics and politics. Do you know that Saddam had transfered his reserves from Dollar to Euros. And that Venezuela was threatening to only negotiate their oil in Euros? Do you realize what would happen if all OPEC did the same? Saddam had to be tought a lesson. If he used gas against his people why he did receive support in middle 80's? I'm sure there are much more terrorists in Pakistan than in Iraq, and despite that Pakistan is treated like an ally. Read it: everything is allowed as long as you're on our side. Wars are all about politics. Always were always will be. Don't fool yourself to think otherwise. If you say "Let's blow the bastards because they're stepping in our toes" it's OK for me. But if you want to say "we're going to war because it's just and is our divine right do to what is right" don't waste your words with me.Professur said:
AlladinSane
Well-Known Member
No you forgot that we pay more than that to YOUR country every year, just because the dictactorship your country supported for 20 years under the excuse to fight communism raised our debts 30 timesGonz said:
Am I the only one that finds it Ironic that the very thing the protestors are doing is allowed because of the military, and because of the rights that we have here. And, that we are trying to get the people of Iraq to have the same freedoms?
Can you imagine what would have happened to a crowd of Saddam protestors in Baghdad a month ago?
Can you imagine what would have happened to a crowd of Saddam protestors in Baghdad a month ago?
Good point, I don't wish the protesters death or even for them to stop, of course I can't say that their protesting has affected me personally. If I lived in a big city where they were shutting down streets, I'd probably feel differently.
I guess it's hard to make your point in a demonstration without doing things that are illegal, but I have to wonder about people that cause disturbances rather than protests.
I guess it's hard to make your point in a demonstration without doing things that are illegal, but I have to wonder about people that cause disturbances rather than protests.
Squiggy
ThunderDick
I don't get passionate enough to protest anymore. I haven't for quite a while. I guess once you realise that a tie goes to the current administration, you know better than to waste your time....Things do depress me though. And unlike most others, finding myself in a position to say "I told you so" makes me angry. Not happy...