To everyone against the Iraq War

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Qwazzy
GEtting rid of Saddam was a mistake. It poses more harm than good.


You're kidding right ???

I suppose you don't know what Sodamn Insane was all about then do ya ???

Here read this all the way through, and then think about it...

www.husseinandterror.com...

Just a little quote from that site...



Litle is not alone in that distinction. Between the time Saddam Hussein boosted his bonus payments to the families of Palestinian terrorists and the March 20, 2003 launch of Operation Iraqi Freedom, 28 homicide bombers injured 1,209 people and killed 223 more, including at least eight Americans. These bonus checks were handed out at ceremonies where banners proclaimed the friendship of the PLO’s Yasser Arafat and Saddam Hussein.


*sigh*

You people amaze me...



[edit on 19-6-2005 by Jedi_Master]




posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 01:00 AM
link   
... i dont think we would of needed to but iraq in a situation where TRUST came into it..
Sure restrict restrictions, but maybe start bringing saddam in?
Working together to lift sanctions while simutaneoulsy foreseeing no offensive material, no factories begin.

not nessecarily that EASY, but Saddam clearly wasnt Pursuing weapons, he wasnt making them, he was just livingo ut his days..
i mean hes pretty old.

But surely, u cant say that invasion was reasonable in terms of your throughts on saddam?



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 01:02 AM
link   
Jedi Master,

Saddam's NOT the only one funding terrorists..
Saddam's wasnt the only one slaughtering his own people..



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 01:15 AM
link   
*sigh*

But he was funding terrorists was he not ???

And who else was killing poeple in Iraq during his reign ???

*sigh*

You people amaze me...



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 01:24 AM
link   
The whole S. Hussein terrorist/his own people/so evil propaganda is obsolete and unfactual. S. Hussein did not finance any terrorist groups, unlike Pentagon propaganda wants you to believe.

-S. Hussein supported families of palestinian freedom fighters who died in their liberation struggle against the illegal israeli occupation. That is not supporting terror, it's supporting the palestinian right to self-determination and return to their homeland.

-He crushed a CIA-fostered insurgency ? So what ? He was more legitimate in crushing that meddling of foreign liars in his country than the us is in it's attempts to thwart the iraqi liberation movement nowadays.

-S. Hussein had a couple of thousand political prisoners ? So what, doesnt the us have tens of thousand of political prisoners nowadays that are being tortured in Abu Ghraib and around the world?

-Unlike you seem to believe, Iraqi soldiers did not rape kuwaiti babies. That movie was produced in London.






[edit on 19-6-2005 by Moretti]



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 01:25 AM
link   


but saddam clearly wasn't pursuing weapons


While it is definately true Saddam wasn't in possesion of an active wmd program he clearly harbored the intent and the means to reconstitute his wmd programs and I truly believe that with sanction lifted there not have been the will among the security council to continue any type of inspections regime with sanctions lifted. Here's a link to back up my statement on Saddam's WMD intentions.

wmd report



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by danwild6


but saddam clearly wasn't pursuing weapons


While it is definately true Saddam wasn't in possesion of an active wmd program he clearly harbored the intent and the means to reconstitute his wmd programs and I truly believe that with sanction lifted there not have been the will among the security council to continue any type of inspections regime with sanctions lifted. Here's a link to back up my statement on Saddam's WMD intentions.


That a halfways technologically advanced country possesses the means to produce wmd is no surprise, as every chemist can do that, using freely available chemicals. The only way of preventing countries from acquiring dual-use technologies is bombing them to stone age every ten years. Is that the future you fathom for any country that denies drilling rights to US companies, and prefers to keep the oil profits for it's own developement ?

As for the "intent" of having WMD, firstly i see no problem with a nation regularly threatened by the us having that intent, and secondly i fail to see the relevancy of the shady concept of "intent", as well as the serious evidence pointing towards it.


[edit on 19-6-2005 by Moretti]



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Memorialday1999
It appeared to me that the Iraqi people (not all of course) were happy to be rid of Sadam and really only begin to get irratated with us the longer we hung out. I still do not think going there was a mistake, only staying there.


Just going in, removing Sadam and jetting would not have worked either. The Iraqi people have never been free, so they don't have the slightest clue how to govern themselves or protect themselves. It would have been total chaos. Like now, but without us there to help.
Basically, it's a lose/lose situation.



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 01:49 AM
link   
Ya know Moretti...

You folks really need to get your stories straight, ya know it's kinda confusing...

Some of you say he was supporting it and some of you say he wasn't...

*sigh*

You people amaze me...

Please get together, and discuss your theorys, and opinions with each other before posting...



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 01:52 AM
link   
*sigh*

Yoda, can you just remain factual and cut the slander ? That could improve the level of conversation.


*sigh*

Why should anyone opposed to your views have the same opinion about everything ? Diversity is strength


*sigh* *sigh*

[edit on 19-6-2005 by Moretti]



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jedi_Master
Please get together, and discuss your theorys, and opinions with each other before posting...


If I can't post a theory or an opinion there is no point in coming here!!!



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 02:00 AM
link   
For whatever reason one wants to believe that we went into Iraq so be it but don't go thinking by doing so we are stopping terrorism or terrorists, No, our treatment of those people are creating new ones. We are locking a lot of people up for months maybe years in prison without any right to a trial. Sometimes there is absolutely no evidence but they were near an incident so they got locked up. Case after case of abuse toward Iraqi prisoners, then throw in civilians getting caught in the crossfire not understanding the rules and driving through checkpoints and getting killed or wounded. And I can tell you those children who have seen their parents killed in front of them, seen family members mistreated and you can bet we are going to be at the top of a list of people they hate. We are not stopping terrorists we are creating them. Had we freed them and left or brought the UN in to assist, perhaps we might still be seen as liberators but no more we are seen as occupiers.

You know originally our goals were to put Saddam out of power and to find and destroy the weapons of mass destruction and we are still there; reports are that we will be there for 5-7 years. Wake up people we have done what we went there for and still we are there. So what else was the objective? Lets not forget that one of Bush's warnings to the people of Iraq, just days before we went in, and that was not to destroy oil wells. Pretty revealing, the speech is on the white house website.


[edit on 19-6-2005 by goose]



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 02:00 AM
link   
No...

I can't because that's the same avenue that you type of people take ( ya know fight fire with fire, and that sort )...

As for your second comment...don't really understand it, it makes no sense...



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 02:01 AM
link   
If in march, a world body put together a list of the most violent, offensive nation on the country, saddam and iraq prolly would of rated... number 7?

He just wasnt a threat.

There was no cause for invasion..

Well who else is killing people in Sudan? South Africa? China?
Intentions.. pssht.

If I walked up to a kid in the street, and blantanly murdered him on the spot, i dont have a defense If I say he had the INTENT to find a weapon and harm me.

NK Has the Intent, the means and the desire.. and hey look the finished product too.

.. there are too many ' conincidences ' to many arguable points, and too many ' jee's we just got it wrong ' in the case of the IRAQI war for it to be correct and legal.

Where there's SMOKE theres FIRE
And there's a hell of a lot of smoke coming from the CIA's chimneys!



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 02:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by KhieuSamphan

Originally posted by Jedi_Master
Please get together, and discuss your theorys, and opinions with each other before posting...


If I can't post a theory or an opinion there is no point in coming here!!!


Ya but they should at least agree, don't ya think ???

*sigh*

You people amaze me...



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 02:14 AM
link   
*sigh*

But GD you haven't answered my questions have ya ???

But he was funding terrorists was he not ???

And who else was killing poeple in Iraq during his reign ???

Answer them if you will...



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 02:18 AM
link   
[

Originally posted by Jedi_Master
Ya but they should at least agree, don't ya think ???

Variety is the spice of life...besides, if everyone agreed with one another, how boring would that be. Me and my partner would never speak!!!!

Oh, and apparently Saddam didn't sponsor terrorists. I say apparently because, of course, like most other things, the answer you get depends upon who you ask.


[edit on 19-6-2005 by KhieuSamphan]



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 02:21 AM
link   
Jedi Master,

Although i respect your mastery of the force and the black arts, i feel nonetheless entitled to initiate you to the mystery of freedom :

Different people have different opinions, for reasons known alone to them

Some ppl are pro-Bush because they love his psychotic grin, others because they believe his lies. Still others because they feel on some kind of "mission from god". Just as diverse as that fauna are the people who oppose his megalomaniac policies. Some do it on moral, others on pragmatic, and still others on purely legal grounds, and they are all entitled to their opinion



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by KhieuSamphan
[

Originally posted by Jedi_Master
Ya but they should at least agree, don't ya think ???

Variety is the spice of life...besides, if everyone agreed with one another, how boring would that be. Me and my partner would never speak!!!!


Who cares about variety...I'm talking about people looseing their lives...

What are you talking about ??



Oh, and apparently Saddam didn't sponsor terrorists. I say apparently because, of course, like most other things, the answer you get depends upon who you ask.



He didn't ???

Could've fool'd me...

But I agree on the part on who you ask. Folks on the Internet can make you belive anything they want...



posted on Jun, 19 2005 @ 02:44 AM
link   
Oh and Moretti...

Listen when I tell you this...

I didn't vote for Bush the first time around, I thought he was like his dad and didn't have the balls to do what was needed to be done ( see what I'm saying here ? )...

After Sodamn Insane was removed, yes I voted for him...

His dad...didn't have the balls to do it, but he did...





top topics
 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join