Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Disorder

Do you want a war on Iraq?

Do you want a war on Iraq?  

67 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you want a war on Iraq?

    • Yes.
      11
    • No.
      47
    • I have not decided.
      9


Recommended Posts

pritch said:

It amuses me when people talk about this 'war' being about oil.

You can either have the present system (French and Russian interests paying and protected by a tyranical regime which harms its own and neighbouring peoples) or you could have the other option (American and other interests contributing to a UN trust fund that ensures Iraqi people actually receive the benefits from oil sales when combined with UN-administered regime change). In any case, Iraqi oil is only a small percentage of American and other oil interests.
[/b]
Complete bullshit. The US never pursued any options like this when they recieved oil from Saddam for twenty years. The US was only hostile to Saddam AFTER he banned us from oil. The US wants control of PRICES, NOT ACCESS.

I am disappointed the UN hasn't advocated a second resolution, but it is hardly surprising when its authority has been undermined by the French and the Russians. I assure you they do not care any more about the Iraqi people than the British/Americans.

more bullshit. The UN is responsible for all real aid and REAL investigations, the have done much more to halt weapons of mass destruction than bombing did. You are correct about Russia and France, but that really doesnt mena much coming from an american.

A Greenpeace MEP was on Breakfast with Frost this morning moaning about sanctions, actually using that as a reason not to go to war. What? War will result in regime change (which was NOT the purpose of the last Gulf War) which in turn will spell the end for the need of economic sanctions.

No the opposite is true. The sanctions have killed millions already and how will devastating hospitals, daycare centers, farms etc. help the situation?
[b]
Hussein is a danger to himself, to the Iraqi people, to Anglo-Arab relations, and to the world. Even if teh motives were as dubious as some would have us believe (which they are not) I would still support his removal from power.

Fine. Then lets remove all the dictators from power, and lets start with the DANGEROUS ones, like Siddhato, Bush, Blair, Jong, and so on

Share this post


Link to post
ravage said:

My question is, what would Clinton do in this situation? o_O


what he did when he was in power - bomb poison water supplies, genocide etc. Bill clinton also authorized the destruction of the Pharmecutical plant in North AFrica that held HALF THE MEDICAL SUPPLIES OF SUDAN, indirectly killing thousands and increasing the AIDS epidemic.

remmeber that even though the plan to destroy Iraq was designed by Bush the I, Clinton actally applied it. And despite the spin that all these protestors are "anti-bush" the *very same people* called this an atrocity and demanded he follow the UN Charter (whic BARS ALL NATIONS FROM STARTING WARS by the way)

All 3 of the past American presidents should be tried for war crimes in this case

When Bush was running for governor he clamed that his favorite philosopher was jesus Christ... ???

Would Jesus have asked him to look in the mirror before judging others? "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone?

Also wouldnt a preemptive strike be a direct violation of the gospels? i.e. turn the other cheek

Forgive me b/c im not a christian, but i seem to remember stuff the media doesnt...

Share this post


Link to post
Wobbo said:

more bullshit. The UN is responsible for all real aid and REAL investigations, the have done much more to halt weapons of mass destruction than bombing did. You are correct about Russia and France, but that really doesnt mena much coming from an american.

[/b]
I'm British. Shows how well you source your information.

Fine. Then lets remove all the dictators from power, and lets start with the DANGEROUS ones, like Siddhato, Bush, Blair, Jong, and so on

I quite agree. The sooner I rule the world the better.

I love it when people term what you say as 'bullshit' because you happen to be on the other side of the argument to them. It says it all really doesn't it.

Share this post


Link to post

Do you think you'd want to give your gun to a guy who's got a gun to your head and his eyes on your cash/gold/black gold...

Share this post


Link to post
pritch said:

[/b]
I'm British. Shows how well you source your information.

Wow, thats even worse, the British government was in support of Saddam thropuhgout the 80's, for even longer than we were. You look in the mirror befopre you judge others.

pritch said:

I love it when people term what you say as 'bullshit' because you happen to be on the other side of the argument to them. It says it all really doesn't it.

I love when people would rather talk about how you stated your argument rather than actually debating the facts

Share this post


Link to post
Wobbo said:

Wow, thats even worse, the British government was in support of Saddam thropuhgout the 80's, for even longer than we were. You look in the mirror befopre you judge others.

I love when people would rather talk about how you stated your argument rather than actually debating the facts


yes, you are a perfect example of what pritch was talking about. thank you for volunteering to take the stand of the village idiot.

Share this post


Link to post
sargebaldy said:

thank you for volunteering to take the stand of the village idiot.


Don't call him that, or he could end up in the White House.

Share this post


Link to post

[QUOTE]Ralphis said:
[B]Well the whole "war on terrorism" thing sort of failed, so now he needs a "war on Iraq" to distract people from all the rest of the crap he's causing.

I wouldn't say that the war on terrorism failed really. It's not like we've stopped looking and FINDING lead terrorists, along with other countries. It only seems as though it failed because the media has decided to move on to other things.

If american news is right but we do nothing about it lets flash forward 100 years. North korea made nuclear wepons and sells them to every contie on the market for nickels and dimes. Iraq has nuclears missles and they attack america starting a nuclear war.
one year later its the sontage again. If other contries news are right fast forward 100 years. North korea china and cuba make an allience china sends 250,00 soldiers to cuba demanding that america disarm. North korea launches nuke at America
one year later, stone age.

either way i think were all screwed.


In 100 years alot of the governments will change and all of the current leaders will be dead. Cuba will most likely become a capitalist country after Castro dies. If I rememeber correctly China and North Korea aren't exactly buddies. In conclusion, I don't think we're all screwed, but maybe your spelling is.

So what your saying is that the complete political system of Cuba will crumble and turn capitalist but the opinions between Korea and China will never change. Interesting.

"In conclusion, I don't think we're all screwed, but maybe your spelling is."

I'd like to also state you showed complete disrespect and ignorance in some vain attempt to make me sink to your level of child like insults.


oo by the way i have a new "how it ends" list
somone comes straight out of South Africa with the ebola virus
2 months later 350 milleon Americans are dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Black Hand said:

oo by the way i have a new "how it ends" list
somone comes straight out of South Africa with the ebola virus
2 months later 350 milleon Americans are dead.

Um...I don't even think there are that many Americans. Unless you count Canadians and South Americans too.

Share this post


Link to post

There's a little more than 250 million, but if the ebola virus did spread like that, then the US will definitely not be the only country affected. 2 months later, 350 million people around the world might die.

Share this post


Link to post

From the beginning of time, men have fought over resources, land, power, etc. Nothing has changed. The only way to stop wars is to destroy the world.

It sickens me how people (some, not all) are protesting war because of the possibilty of a draft. I don't agree with everything my country does, and there are things I don't like about it. But I'm not a fucking coward. I'll pay the price of my leisure.

Share this post


Link to post
m0l0t0v said:

Castro is extremely popular amongst the Cuban people; if there were to be a democratic election, he would easily win it. I do not believe Cuba is the hell it is said to be. Sure people have sober lifes there, which to us spoiled westerners seems unacceptable, but it is not like they are not dying on the streets...


I never said he wasn't popular, I know he is. I'm simply saying after he passes I don't feel communism will stay in Cuba much long afterwords.

Share this post


Link to post
Ralphis said:

I never said he wasn't popular, I know he is. I'm simply saying after he passes I don't feel communism will stay in Cuba much long afterwords.


yeah i doubt it as well. seems unlikely to me that someone else will step in to take his shoes.. when castro's dead and gone, cubans will probably be replaced by a less strong leader and probably eventually resort to capitalism.

Share this post


Link to post

Well I think Bush's warning to Iraq "Do not destroy the oil wells" nails the lie to the statements that "It's not about oil" :)

Share this post


Link to post
Ralphis said:

Maybe he doesn't want a catastrophic environmental disaster?

Nah, he would have signed up to the Kyoto Protocol if he had any consideration for environmental issues. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Arioch said:

You're saying this as if there isn't still a hunt going on in Afghanistan and Pakistan and elsewhere? Do you truly believe two different parts of the armed forces can't all be doing things on their own?


Oh, I see. Well that's something I never thought about. I guess that's just one of the many things happening right now in the government, behind the scenes... So to speak. :/

Share this post


Link to post
fodders said:

Nah, he would have signed up to the Kyoto Protocol if he had any consideration for environmental issues. :P


the united states HAS signed the kyoto protocol. it just hasn't ratified it yet. get your facts straight fodz

Share this post


Link to post

I didn't say he had not signed it, it was not Bush, I meant that by refusing to ratify it Bush has not signed up to it.:P

Share this post


Link to post

Bush is going to attack Iraq without approval of the U.N. Security Council. Which basicly means he think this council is a joke.
An attack on Iraq is in conflict with international law.
Ask yourself: "Is it ok for America to launch a preventive attack on another country, whenever it feels like it?"
If so, then what can't other countries like China and Israel do so in the future?

The whole point of the UN; the reason it was started was to prevent countries from attacking others whenever they wanted. If america attacks without approval then what is the purpose of the U.N. Security Council? Really I'd like to know. We'd might as well end the UN and let the strongest nations decide what the world should look like.
Attacking Iraq without approval of the UN will undermine everything the UN stands for.

• An Arab League ambassador said, "It's a very grave day. This is the day that international law has been shoveled away. War will not solve this problem. Unfortunately those who are going to war will find it will be very difficult to get out of it."

• U.N. Security Council members France, Russia, China and Germany are among the nations that insist Iraq can be disarmed peacefully. French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin, speaking to Europe 1 radio, said: "One country can win a war, but it takes more than one country to win peace." (Full story) Russian President Vladimir Putin said a possible war in Iraq would be "a mistake fraught with the gravest consequences which may result in casualties and destabilize the international situation in general." Li Zhaoxing, the Chinese foreign minister, said, "We appeal for a political settlement to the Iraq question within the framework of the United Nations and urge all efforts to avoid war."

• John Negroponte, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said he thought the Security Council vote "would have been close" and said France's threatened veto was the reason it was not brought to a vote. "We regret that in the face of an explicit threat to veto, the vote-counting became a secondary consideration," Negroponte said. French Ambassador Jean-Marc de La Sabliere said: "The majority of the council confirmed they do not want a use of force."
-cnn

Share this post


Link to post
Scientist said:

An attack on Iraq is in conflict with international law.


saddam is already violating international law, the UN just isn't enforcing it... the US is just trying to do what the UN won't

Share this post


Link to post
sargebaldy said:

saddam is already violating international law, the UN just isn't enforcing it... the US is just trying to do what the UN won't


So from now on, countries can attack other countries because they think (without any substantial proof) that that country is a possible threat for them. Now China, Russia and any other country can invade whomever they like, or is this a US only thing.

The UN was trying to do something (weapon inspectors, remember?) and was trying to let the inspectors (!) judge whether Iraq was complying or not. The inspectors said they needed more time!

Offcourse the thread of armed force helped the inspectors, and I'm not opposed of a war, as long as it is supported by the UN.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×