Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
blike

To those against war on Iraq

Recommended Posts

Give me a simantic break right-wing mother!!!!!!!!!!!!???????????????

Get a life that has a meaning!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sayonara, you watching this? Even though I know nothing will be said or done about him. Atleast I think the poor guy is funny. :D

 

If that were me though, things would be quite different. :confused:

 

Have fun rebeldog, you are :zzz:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I missed all that, I was offline most of yesterday :mad:

 

Faf's banned him. Having read his posts in the holding area, I think you know really that had I been online he would have been squished very quickly ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are the americans aloud weapons of mass destruction then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Double standards. That doesn't mean it's wrong though.

 

The United States has never used WOMD on someone the whole world classified as unjustified. When you listen to what some leaders of certain countries say about their enemies, about people of a different religion it's easy to understand why it would not be a good idea to give them Nukes. It's as simple as that. Countries that have grown and shown progress over the last 50 years get nukes and a gold star, everyone else gets NOTHING. I love living in the USA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are you talking about?

 

Are you actually saying that countries only have WOMD if America hands them out?

 

I guess you must also just be leaving out the fact that the USA's napalming and carpet bombing of Vietnam was internationally condemned.

 

And I would hardly call the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with nuclear weapons acts that "the whole world classified as justified". In case you hadn't noticed the debate still rages on that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm more interested to know what Saddam Hussain did to get the Silver Star and chemical WOMD given to him by the US.

 

It's no real suprise that the US didn't trust the UN reports that there were no WOMD in Iraq considering the amount they gave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is exactly why we knew damn well they had the weapons. They didn't come up with any record of destroying them, so they must have still had them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, except for the fact he didn't have them anymore. Which was a bugger for the PR job. Perhaps with the plethora of US military hardware around they just kind of blended in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well to be honest I forgot to consider napalm as a WOMD. I mean I think when someone says WOMD they're thinking nuclear or bio. You're right about that though, so thanks. But the U.S. has changed, really, we have.

 

I didn't mean in any way that the United States has any control over who gets to own nuclear weapons.

 

Does everyone really need to keep talking about the fact that the U.S. gave Iraq those weapons back in that time? I mean it's old news. What was done at that specific time was what needed to be done at that time and only at that time. Now it's this time and there's a new agenda. What more can you really do about it? Say it's bad. Okay. Does that stop it? Not likely. Yes, the U.S. is hypocritical. I think that might be the result of the structure of our government. A new guy with new feelings every 4 years? Okay. That's it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
matter said in post #311 :

 

Does everyone really need to keep talking about the fact that the U.S. gave Iraq those weapons back in that time?

 

Those who do not learn from history, are doomed to repeat it.

George Santayana

 

That's about the most direct way I can think of expressing to you that ignoring mistakes is a path to repeating them. That's the point of having history lessons at school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I'm not trying to ignore history, I have accepted history. I have acknowledged that the old Bush administration gave Iraq weapons. However I personally don't feel I should hold animosity towards the country or the current policies. The U.S. has manipulated many a country and people. One of my relatives experienced this as a young adult, when she supported a political party in South America that was actually orchestrated by the CIA. Now while I think this is deceptive I still support the country I live in. As for learning from history, I have. Has the the U.S. government? Maybe or maybe not. Most likely not. The U.S. citizen has no control over the governments policies, so it's not fair to blame the public. We have the power to elect officials and maybe impeach officials but in between we don't have much power. That is one reason why it is logical to accept the history and try to work forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wanted too clear some things up regarding the chemical weapons in Iraq. I will try to make this short and quick.

 

First we backed Iran in the 1970's when Iraq was governed by the Arab nationalist regime of Major General Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr, who sought to unite and strengthen the Arab world and reject Western influence. But then around 1979, Khomeini declared and established an Islamic republic in Iran and took American hostages in November 1979. In 1980 Iraq-Iran war started and at this point Saddam was currently the ruler of Iraq. Iraq relied heavily on the USSR for military supplies, and around this time the US helped Iraq with WMD.

 

Am I saying what was done was the right thing? No, I am not. But there are reasons why we do things and I just wanted to shed some light on the subject. What happened in the Iraq-Iran war was horrible. But the US did not start the war. That war lasted 8 years and yes Saddam did use chemical weapons but Iran sent massive numbers of older men, children, and sometimes women as human “waves” against Iraq’s better-equipped forces. Although thousands upon thousands of these poorly armed forces were slaughtered with each assault, the Iranian government continued to send them to the front.

 

There is allot more but I tried to make this short, basically I just want to say this is history and we did learn from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it illeagle to make your own napalm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's legal, mostly because it's absurdly easy to create. However you require a permit to produce, own, store or dispose of Napalm and the permit requires criteria to be met.

 

Unless you live in the US, that is. Technically the only law in the US that puts a bar in the way are the Environmental laws governing disposal, and that would be very hard to apply to an individual as it's designed for corporations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just been skimming through the thread and i found pogo's 'god bless america' attitude kind of funny. "American reality" aswell; great material, i gotta write this stuff down.

 

The thing is, I was never threatened by sadam. I diont think anyone was. To me he was just a dictator. Fair enough he was an asshole but just because he has weapons, that doesn't mean he is gonna randomly attack america. He's not stupid.

 

Pogo said that there is nothing wrong with defending your country but wasn't saddam doing that anyway. Stop whining!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where are all these WOMD then?

 

Weren't we supposed to have found them by now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you suggest they should fight it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These military convoys are too small, and I don't think theres enough soldiers in the country. If soldiers are going to move together, there should be a large number of them, at all times. The Iraqi's know when soldiers are moving because they have plain clothed men or women who must provide intelligence. They can ambush easily. The only way to fight an enemy who ambushes, is to decieve them. To me it doesn't seem like the military is using any good tactics. It just looks like they're drawing fire and waiting for militants to attack them. Maybe pull back all operations and let the cities try to survive on their own for a week or two. The military should choose a few strong points, reinforce them and then wait for the militants. While this is happening, helicopters and soldeirs should escort tankers and supplies. There needs to be more deception. Iraqi militants use deception every day by dressing in plain clothes, so the U.S. should use deception too. We need soldiers disguised as journalist, who spot militants and kill them. How many times have I seen video or photographs of militants, militants who kill U.S. soldiers, right there in front of the camera? A ripe time for death if you ask me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
By continuing to attack American troops' date=' helicopters, vehicles, (etc) they will stop the American presence in Iraq ever really achieving anything. After so long the US will withdraw all its forces from the region, exactly what the Iraqis in question want. Guerilla tactics will result in (what the militant iraqis preceive as) ultimate victory. the same people who bombed civilians' houses, hospitals and schools will be expelled from the 'motherland'.

 

After so many months and absolutely no WMD found, political pressure SHOULD be mounting on both UK and US governments. neither country's public cares any more. the issue has passed. as per usual, human lives abraod are worth nothing as back home our economy is recovering!!!!!!!!! roll on ther good times and expensive consumer goods!!!!![/quote']

Lookee here, at what that there Greg did gone done predict last year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
These military convoys are too small, and I don't think theres enough soldiers in the country. If soldiers are going to move together, there should be a large number of them, at all times.

 

A large convoy is just asking to be attacked. Remember, a lot of these militant fighters show little regard for their own life - if you've got a huge convoy of troops going around, and then some guy with a pretty powerful bomb strapped to his back comes along and blows himself up, you're going to kill/maim a lot more of the soldiers.

 

Maybe pull back all operations and let the cities try to survive on their own for a week or two. The military should choose a few strong points, reinforce them and then wait for the militants.

 

What happens when the public find out about this, and sees pictures of firstly a load of Iraqis getting slaughtered by these militants, and then the US army mowing them down? There'll be an outcry. Remember, this is a politically biased war, more than anything else, and public opinion plays a majorly large role in what's going on out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.