It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Anti Bush, Anti War

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:
wwk

posted on Mar, 21 2003 @ 05:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by joehayner
I don't mean to get personal, but what country are you from wwk?


I dont want to make you hav prejudices toward people I belong to. However, at the latest time I was living in USA.



Why do you hate America badly enought to MAKE UP LIES about us.


No, I dont hate US. This is a beautiful and rich country with a good laws.
What I am seriously concerned about is foreign policy of US. Why should we spend lives of our soldier? To cease tortures on foreigners? But why should we concern? To fight terrorists? Then, maybe we should abstain from the unfair and dirty practices of creating them?

And then, what are the proofs that Saddam has threatened us? I asked, you have not shared this information -- what else could I think of this?



Most every word I see, that you have typed, has been an insult to America. You call us 'terrorist supporters', you say that we follow a tyrant. And yet I've seen no proof in any of your accusations. I think you have been horribly misled.



Man, this is PURELY your rsychological problems that you perceive this as an insult. (BTW Remember, there is a right of freedom of speech in our Constitutuion?)

Terror is made horrible only in latest times, by media. Earlier, the same taliban were fighters against commies and they fought for the freedom -- for our freedom as well. And Al Quaeda was planned and created by US. Yes, for the terror. I dont accuse nor blame US -- this was in past, so we cannot change what was done. In war terms, terror is an effective weapon, and WMD is nice thing to use against both civilians and military when needed.

Tyrant? No, USA has democratic government, and it is us the people who decided and supported Iraqi war, now and 10 years before, and 20 years before. How can I deny democracy and lawful elections of Mr.Bush?



If you have any questions or doubts about the US or the war the I support, ask them one at a time, and I (or any other poster) will try to answer them for you to the best of my knowledge. Ask away, I want to understand you better.


Thank you.
1. You are talking that Saddam threatened US to use WMD. I really want to know the way his threats can be implemented. We are to prevent or be prepared for this case, right? So how Saddam can strike us?

2. How Saddam could prove that he has destroyed everything? Has he such opportunity, after he started destroying something?

3. Why USA should fear foreign countries? Nobody earlier hated us, and has not threatened, and has not attacked. Why everything has changed now, so we have to fought?

Please help me.



skm

posted on Mar, 21 2003 @ 05:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by joehayner
I don't mean to get personal, but what country are you from wwk? Why do you hate America badly enought to MAKE UP LIES about us.


It doesn't matter where's wwk from, people dislike America all over the world. Furthermore, he said about US nothing worse than Americans used to say about Iraq - can't you see, wwk was just mirroring your own speeches back.



Originally posted by joehaynerMost every word I see, that you have typed, has been an insult to America. You call us 'terrorist supporters', you say that we follow a tyrant. And yet I've seen no proof in any of your accusations.


I see. When things like this applies to you, they're illegal, right? But Americans accusing Saddam of having WMD - it's ok, despite UN inspectors didn't find any and there's no other proof.



Originally posted by joehaynerI think you have been horribly misled.


Just the same applies to you, doesn't it? You don't think you are immune to misleading information, do you?


Originally posted by joehaynerIf you have any questions or doubts about the US or the war the I support, ask them one at a time, and I (or any other poster) will try to answer them for you to the best of my knowledge. Ask away, I want to understand you better.


Thank you.



posted on Mar, 21 2003 @ 09:25 AM
link   
WWK, we kill convicted murderers, Saddam kills people for tearing up his picture or making a joke about him.

Hitler was a nut, if you use him as a defense, you also nuts.

He supports terrorism, USA doesn't, don't know where that came from.

How he hit USA? A passanger on a airplane takes control and crashes it into a building.

Any questions? And WWK, comparing a murderer being killed by the US and Saddam killing a comedian
isn't going to work. He killed people just for spitting on a picture of him!

Saddam is insane, England isn't. Saddam is a nut case that wants to kill everyone who isn't him.
England isn't. England says they have WMD's and promise not to use them. Saddam says he doesn't
even though he does and threatens to use them.


wwk

posted on Mar, 21 2003 @ 10:28 AM
link   
People, if you are easily opressed just like guy above, dont read later. This is nasty thing that just shows how we are perceived by foreigners.

Message was sent: Shooter (dhcp-client-25.telcom.se)
Date: Fri Mar 21 5:03:49pm 2003

AMERICANS: We must force Iraqi to disarm! They threat to the whole world, and in general, evil axis begins where Saddams prick ends!
IRAQI PEOPLE: Why us?
AMERICANS: Cause you have a lot of tasty petrol to be used!
IRAQI PEOPLE: So what?
AMERICANS: Nothing! [whisper] We want it, too. [aloud] Because you should not create the weapon of armageddon!
IRAQI PEOPLE: But we dont have such weapon!
AMERICANS: You do, we know exactly.
IRAQI PEOPLE: So lets seek it.
AMERICANS: We know this beforehand.
UN INSPECTORS: Well... according to the law this should be checked...
IRAQI PEOPLE: Yes, yes.
AMERICANS: OK then, you seek this.
UN INSPECTORS: Nope!
IRAQI PEOPLE: We just told this!
AMERICANS: Seek better.
UN INSPECTORS: Really nothing!
AMERICANS:Bad work, really bad. WHAT? WHAT IS THIS?!
IRAQI PEOPLE: This is an old airplane, it does not fly, drone actually... made of cardboard.
AMERICANS: Good, now we write this down, they have unconventional weapon, of horribly big striking force!
WORLDS PUBLIC OPINION: F*** war! F*** war! *** war!
AMERICANS: Shut up you.
UN INSPECTORS: Here, we were there and found nothing.
ÉՋ Չ: So, time to kick asses!
IRAQI PEOPLE: But the law...
UN: Law is over all!
AMERICANS: F*** the law, time to kick asses, our handsre itching.
WORLDS PUBLIC OPINION: F*** war! F*** war! *** war!
UN: No, we will not allow.
AMERICANS: [angry] Who asks you!
IRAQI PEOPLE: We will die for Hussein! He is our Batman and Superman in the pack!
AMERICANS: Exactly, iraqi people is tormented under this monster.
IRAQI PEOPLE: We are not tormented!
AMERICANS: [more angrily] Who asks your opinion, altogether!
UN: No way for the war to pass security council.
AMERICANS: So why the ###k should one ask you after that???? Why you are needed at all??? What is the reason for UN?
UN: Well... that, how its called, to control international laws and relations...
AMERICANS: ***! Your mission is to speak "YES SIR!", loudly and sharply.
UN: ?
AMERICANS: Now, everybody! Shut up everyboy! We are giving last chance to Iraqi! Saddam Hussein is to emigrate away from this country, after having formed controlled government that will give us whole petrol. We guarantee him safety just like to Milisevic, for example.
IRAQI PEOPLE: So what the point?
AMERICANS: He will never go away, so what the difference what the point is.
IRAQI PEOPLE: But why he have to go away from his country?
AMERICANS: Because... *****... We want kick somebody asses BADLY!!! [languishing] We have moved the troops alrady... you know, we have a huge military budget, we cannot live without an enemy!
IRAQI PEOPLE: We agreed to disarm!
AMERICANS: This does not care anybody, you have just three days left to live.
UN: Not a good! [reproachingly shaking head]
AMERICANS: OK! Now, attack!
IRAQI PEOPLE: For what?!
AMERICANS: No matter, we will find this out later!


wwk

posted on Mar, 21 2003 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
WWK, we kill convicted murderers, Saddam kills people for tearing up his picture or making a joke about him.


OK. You regard life of a man as a highest value, and arabs seemingly consider honor as a highest. Dishonor is punished stricter. Yes, rather strange custom. But is it true that at mormons states, they jail homosexuals?

Or, for example, high treason. Long term of imprisonment are not intended to fix up bad guy, but just to punish him. PUNISH, the same as tortures. Why do we consider high treason as subject to such penalty? Because civilians want to live in peace. So why dont you think that in arab's world, one way to keep peace for a people is to punish for 'personal' insult?
How about death for the blasphemy? Can it be allowed, or should be prohibited for everybody at the planet?



Hitler was a nut, if you use him as a defense, you also nuts.


8-) No, I dont use him. I just want to make you think, using examples and precedents. May I, Your Majesty?

I reference to Hitler's sample to show you that you dont understand much about dictatorship. They are evil, and bring much suffering to their people. But, sometimes this is excused by circumstances.

Why you are measuring totally different society from your point of view? Why they cannot? Are we really chosen by the G-d to judge?



He supports terrorism, USA doesn't, don't know where that came from.


I was just surfing the net for the another opinions that CNN. Look:
www.thememoryhole.org...
www.twin-towers.net...
www.geocities.com...
www.geocities.com...

Not by an auhoritative journalist, but from people who lived there. Yes, rather skew views -- but how can we adjust our own media skew?



How he hit USA? A passanger on a airplane takes control and crashes it into a building.


Man, dont talk rubbish, we are not so dumb to allow this to repeat.
Such measures of security at the airports... and in the end, we can have pilot cabine completely encased in iron just like in some european countries. Just no way.



Saddam is insane, England isn't. Saddam is a nut case that wants to kill everyone who isn't him.


Have you heard a concept that mentally insane people should be healed, not tortured or injured?

Again, I never saw a man who wanted murders sake the murders. Maniacs, you know. But why Saddam was allowed to go to the power and stay there? Do you really believe that guards would obey to a mad man? That he can rule without people sharing his intentions?

No, every healthy human has a reasons for his/her behaviour, and Saddam, too. He has a policies, and leaders there agree with it. Yes, casual man feel poverty. But isn't this poverty caused by economics blocade?



Saddam says he doesn't even though he does and threatens to use them.


May I please read the message at CNN? I somehow missed this, and thus I am misled.


wwk

posted on Mar, 21 2003 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
WWK, we kill convicted murderers, Saddam kills people for tearing up his picture or making a joke about him.


OK. You regard life of a man as a highest value, and arabs seemingly consider honor as a highest. Dishonor is punished stricter. Yes, rather strange custom. But is it true that at mormons states, they jail homosexuals?

Or, for example, high treason. Long term of imprisonment are not intended to fix up bad guy, but just to punish him. PUNISH, the same as tortures. Why do we consider high treason as subject to such penalty? Because civilians want to live in peace. So why dont you think that in arab's world, one way to keep peace for a people is to punish for 'personal' insult?
How about death for the blasphemy? Can it be allowed, or should be prohibited for everybody at the planet?



Hitler was a nut, if you use him as a defense, you also nuts.


8-) No, I dont use him. I just want to make you think, using examples and precedents. May I, Your Majesty?

I reference to Hitler's sample to show you that you dont understand much about dictatorship. They are evil, and bring much suffering to their people. But, sometimes this is excused by circumstances.

Why you are measuring totally different society from your point of view? Why they cannot? Are we really chosen by the G-d to judge?



He supports terrorism, USA doesn't, don't know where that came from.


I was just surfing the net for the another opinions that CNN. Look:
www.thememoryhole.org...
www.twin-towers.net...
www.geocities.com...
www.geocities.com...

Not by an auhoritative journalist, but from people who lived there. Yes, rather skew views -- but how can we adjust our own media skew?



How he hit USA? A passanger on a airplane takes control and crashes it into a building.


Man, dont talk rubbish, we are not so dumb to allow this to repeat.
Such measures of security at the airports... and in the end, we can have pilot cabine completely encased in iron just like in some european countries. Just no way.



Saddam is insane, England isn't. Saddam is a nut case that wants to kill everyone who isn't him.


Have you heard a concept that mentally insane people should be healed, not tortured or injured?

Again, I never saw a man who wanted murders sake the murders. Maniacs, you know. But why Saddam was allowed to go to the power and stay there? Do you really believe that guards would obey to a mad man? That he can rule without people sharing his intentions?

No, every healthy human has a reasons for his/her behaviour, and Saddam, too. He has a policies, and leaders there agree with it. Yes, casual man feel poverty. But isn't this poverty caused by economics blocade?



Saddam says he doesn't even though he does and threatens to use them.


May I please read the message at CNN? I somehow missed this, and thus I am misled.



posted on Mar, 21 2003 @ 12:22 PM
link   

wwk
No, I dont hate US. This is a beautiful and rich country with a good laws.


Yet in your little 'skit' above, you used the word AMERICANS. If you do not hate or dislike Americans, then quit insulting them.

Also, Saddam does have Al Samoud(sp?) missiles, the illegal ones.(the ones he agreed to destroy)

We don't hate the Iraqi people. We want to give them a new leader, one that will comply with the UN.

Saddam agreed to disarm unconditionally, yet he is lobbing missiles at us right now. Not all those missiles were SCUD missiles, some were the illeagal Al Samoud missiles. So it is pointless to argue that he hasn't disarmed. All countries in the UN agreed to the resolution that stated Iraq must disarm, he hasn't, so we are enforcing the resolution, what's wrong with that?

If you live in the USA(which I doubt), then support our troops.

wwk
Do you really believe that guards would obey to a mad man?

Yes, It has happened hundreds of times throught history.

wwk
Long term of imprisonment are not intended to fix up bad guy, but just to punish him. PUNISH, the same as tortures.

Most of our prisoners are in for rehabilitation. True, some are there for punishment(life in prison), but it doesn't even rank close to torture. Some of the prisoners live better than common citizens. They have cable, internet access, gyms, exercise equipment, and many other things that the common citizen does not have.

Please re-think your arguments wwk.




1. You are talking that Saddam threatened US to use WMD. I really want to know the way his threats can be implemented. We are to prevent or be prepared for this case, right? So how Saddam can strike us?

That's just one argument. Saddam agreed to disarm 12 years ago. The entire UN agreed that he should disarm. He hasn't, and we are now going to enforce our resolution.


2. How Saddam could prove that he has destroyed everything? Has he such opportunity, after he started destroying something?

He would have destroyed it right in front of the inspectors, so that there was no question to whether he did it or not. This is what he also agreed to do.


3. Why USA should fear foreign countries? Nobody earlier hated us, and has not threatened, and has not attacked. Why everything has changed now, so we have to fought?

We do not fear other foreign countries. See my arguments for questions 2 and 3.

You're welcome.



posted on Mar, 22 2003 @ 05:01 PM
link   
This war is not called for. We have heard it was because of terroisim, that didnt wash, so now its humanitarium, now its Liberation.

This Administration has changed its reasons , just as the wind changes direction.

The Regime change that is now so touted out loud, could have very easily been done, SURIGCALLY.

Is it not strange, how upon 1st day they say they hit Saddam and his leaders? I believe they could have done this anytime they wished. But for a reason we shall never know, it was decided to militarily take the country.

I have no problem with a fight, if the fight has merit.

" There is nothing in that damn land worth 1 American or Brithish life!"

PS> And Im tired of hearing it is to protect American Freedom. Saddam couldnt threaten our freedom in any stretch of imagination, But Bush and his new laws can and Do


wwk

posted on Mar, 25 2003 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by joehayner

Yet in your little 'skit' above, you used the word AMERICANS. If you do not hate or dislike Americans, then quit insulting them.


Oh, I am very sorry, but this is NOT my text, so I cannot change a word without author's consent. BTW, how you would prefer to call the nation?


We don't hate the Iraqi people. We want to give them a new leader, one that will comply with the UN.


How would you like for Germany wanting "to give us a new leader, one that will comply with the UN" ?

Bush does not comply, and election results were rather jammed up than cleaned. I would consider such move as a rude violation. So do they.


Saddam agreed to disarm unconditionally, yet he is lobbing missiles at us right now.


I already told that this "agreement" was not of free will.


All countries in the UN agreed to the resolution that stated Iraq must disarm, he hasn't, so we are enforcing the resolution, what's wrong with that?


That this enforcement was not approved. And the way we do is not comparable with Iraqi actions. It is just like nuclear bombing for unlawful elections. Forcing? Sure! Smart? Hell no!




wwk
Do you really believe that guards would obey to a mad man?

Yes, It has happened hundreds of times throught history.



I would be glad to learn examples.

All odious persons I know (Chenghiz-Khan, Napolean, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc) were very shrewd and supported by PEOPLE with the reasons. Yes, that's bad, but inhumanity does not mean madness.



True, some are there for punishment(life in prison), but it doesn't even rank close to torture. Some of the prisoners live better than common citizens.


I agree absolutely. But look. We punish people by imprisonment, and for those loving freedom, this is comparable with torture of physical body. We have money to have decent prisons.
But how Iraqi, with children dying from hunger, can allow prisoners to live in conditions comparable with ours? I suspect that prisons there are very harsh, and tortures are adjusted substitutes for those prisons.

I mean, that you are comparing tortures at their country with prisons at ours. And suggest that they would better have prisons like ours and their people feel like ours. (Do you believe, BTW, that Finns feel pain at lower level that we do?) But this is not the case.

So I cannot understand why tortures in Iraqi (also not so widespread) are heavy enough reason to start war (killing comparable quantity of people).


He would have destroyed it right in front of the inspectors, so that there was no question to whether he did it or not.


Have you seen broadcast with UN inspectors standing near with missiles destroying? They were shown March, 18.



posted on Mar, 25 2003 @ 10:54 AM
link   


Oh, I am very sorry, but this is NOT my text, so I cannot change a word without author's consent. BTW, how you would prefer to call the nation?

Call it the American Government. Not all the people are pro-war. In fact, many are still protesting and blocking streets, stores, ect...


How would you like for Germany wanting "to give us a new leader, one that will comply with the UN" ?

Bush does not comply, and election results were rather jammed up than cleaned. I would consider such move as a rude violation. So do they.

Iraq is not part of the UN. Besides, the UN has proved its uselessness over and over. Why would you make a resolution, then not enforce it?


I already told that this "agreement" was not of free will.

Still they agreed. If I convinced you to take a thousand dollars as a lone, but you really didn't want to, would you still have to pay me back?(remember, papers were signed)
Or if I borrowed some money from you, and didn't feel like paying you back.


That this enforcement was not approved. And the way we do is not comparable with Iraqi actions. It is just like nuclear bombing for unlawful elections. Forcing? Sure! Smart? Hell no!

Are we supposed to sit by idly, and let saddam do what ever he wants, eventhough he agreed to do somthing else?


So I cannot understand why tortures in Iraqi (also not so widespread) are heavy enough reason to start war (killing comparable quantity of people).

Tortures are only one reason. There is also; aiding terrorists, promoting terrorism, non-compliance with a UN resolution, humanitarian violations (not including torture), and violations with the Geneeva(sp?) convention.


I mean, that you are comparing tortures at their country with prisons at ours. And suggest that they would better have prisons like ours and their people feel like ours. (Do you believe, BTW, that Finns feel pain at lower level that we do?) But this is not the case.

No, you brought up our prisons. I just corrected you by saying that they are not forms of torture.


Have you seen broadcast with UN inspectors standing near with missiles destroying? They were shown March, 18.

Nope, what year was it? What missiles were being destroyed? Do you think that those were all the missiles he had left?

Another question is, why are the Iraqi troops using guerrilla tactics? Do they want their civilians to die?


wwk

posted on Mar, 26 2003 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by joehayner


wwk

No, you are wrong. Hussein had elections ro poll recently, he has support of 95%.

Pfft! Those last five percent were not very smart to vote against Saddam, eventhough it's a miniscule number, their probably already dead, imprisoned, or being tortured. Anyway, I never even hear he had a poll.



I just talking about this. You don't know details, you support war. Is this a way to build smart living?

Saddams elections:
www.odci.gov...
See Executive branch, election results. "A Dictator".


wwk

posted on Mar, 26 2003 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by joehayner


Oh, I am very sorry, but this is NOT my text, so I cannot change a word without author's consent. BTW, how you would prefer to call the nation?

Call it the American Government.


Of course, and I would add more precise names etc.
However, for european nations, nation and its government is the same thing. Just like Hitler (who was not German) was reason to blame Germans and Stalin (who was not Russian) to talk about Russians. So... I understand your protests, but text I posted was not 'official' and correct description, this is how we are perceived by foreigners.


Originally posted by joehayner


How would you like for Germany wanting "to give us a new leader, one that will comply with the UN" ?

Bush does not comply, and election results were rather jammed up than cleaned. I would consider such move as a rude violation. So do they.

Iraq is not part of the UN. Besides, the UN has proved its uselessness over and over. Why would you make a resolution, then not enforce it?


Membership in UN or not, it changes nothing in attitude. Do you think that USA are enforcing UN decisions? I think not, because USA were not authorized to. It is just like if me or you would execute the murderer sentenced to death. It's illegal.


Originally posted by joehayner


I already told that this "agreement" was not of free will.

Still they agreed. If I convinced you to take a thousand dollars as a lone, but you really didn't want to, would you still have to pay me back?(remember, papers were signed)
Or if I borrowed some money from you, and didn't feel like paying you back.


I would compare it as if I would take a knife and threaten you to sign me a check. Police would call it a robbery, my friend.





That this enforcement was not approved. And the way we do is not comparable with Iraqi actions. It is just like nuclear bombing for unlawful elections. Forcing? Sure! Smart? Hell no!

Are we supposed to sit by idly, and let saddam do what ever he wants, eventhough he agreed to do somthing else?


I would suppose we do sit until real threat appeared. And continue to insist on UN approval.



There is also; aiding terrorists, promoting terrorism, non-compliance with a UN resolution, humanitarian violations (not including torture), and violations with the Geneeva(sp?) convention.


So, let's call it, US Govt has 'penalty points system' and counts every bad deed as worthy some points, then when some limit is over, it starts warfare. But hey, where a country can see its points? How can they feel that they are close to a limit of patience or not yet?

"violations with the Geneeva(sp?) convention" -- no, you are mistaken, boy. Geneve conventions concerns war rules, and it were not violated until war begin. Just like driving rules cannot be violated until you have a car.

Humanitarian violations? But do you remember who made a trade embargo upon Iraqi? We made. So, Iraqi suffering from poverty is really not wholly Saddam's guilt.



Another question is, why are the Iraqi troops using guerrilla tactics? Do they want their civilians to die?



Because it is natural, and we were warned much before the war. Guerilla tactics is the usual thing when prevailing foreign troops are occupying the country. For example, if Mexica would try to occupy US, what would you do -- would you surrender and give up the States, or be a guerilla?

Civilians... Have you noticed that I told that not every people on the Earth consider life as a basic value? Or even (and especially) life of other? Why care about civilians if they life is not worth to protect?
This is harsh point of view, but this is how they think.



posted on Mar, 26 2003 @ 10:58 AM
link   


Of course, and I would add more precise names etc. However, for european nations, nation and its government is the same thing. Just like Hitler (who was not German) was reason to blame Germans and Stalin (who was not Russian) to talk about Russians. So... I understand your protests, but text I posted was not 'official' and correct description, this is how we are perceived by foreigners.

But do we blame the Iraqis?


Membership in UN or not, it changes nothing in attitude. Do you think that USA are enforcing UN decisions? I think not, because USA were not authorized to. It is just like if me or you would execute the murderer sentenced to death. It's illegal.

I see what you mean. It doesn't look good, but somebody has to carry out the resolution. If nobody does anything, then the UN means nothing, they're useless.


I would compare it as if I would take a knife and threaten you to sign me a check. Police would call it a robbery, my friend.

So what we did was not illegal. We didn't hold a gun to Saddams head and say "sign this". After a war, the loosing side complies with the winning side, or they face more warring.


I would suppose we do sit until real threat appeared. And continue to insist on UN approval.

This is a pacifist argument. We sat and waited in WW1 and WW2, look what happened. If we would have gone in before, millions of people would have been spared.


So, let's call it, US Govt has 'penalty points system' and counts every bad deed as worthy some points, then when some limit is over, it starts warfare. But hey, where a country can see its points? How can they feel that they are close to a limit of patience or not yet?

"violations with the Geneeva(sp?) convention" -- no, you are mistaken, boy. Geneve conventions concerns war rules, and it were not violated until war begin. Just like driving rules cannot be violated until you have a car.

Humanitarian violations? But do you remember who made a trade embargo upon Iraqi? We made. So, Iraqi suffering from poverty is really not wholly Saddam's guilt.

Please don't call me "boy", you don't know my age.

We don't have a points system. All the things I listed are things that Iraq had done, and reasons to take Saddam out of power. We don't want his country, just a new leader.

They have violated the geneve convention. They are using guerrilla tactics, this endangers civilians and we want to minimize civilian deaths in Iraq.

The poverty in Iraq is mosly Saddams fault, considering that he and his regime have more money than the rest of the population combined. And are we not selling them plenty of food now?


Because it is natural, and we were warned much before the war. Guerilla tactics is the usual thing when prevailing foreign troops are occupying the country. For example, if Mexica would try to occupy US, what would you do -- would you surrender and give up the States, or be a guerilla?

Civilians... Have you noticed that I told that not every people on the Earth consider life as a basic value? Or even (and especially) life of other? Why care about civilians if they life is not worth to protect?
This is harsh point of view, but this is how they think.

As I said before, Guerrilla tactics go against the geneve convention. They endanger their own people (the ones you think they're fighting to protect). If Mexico invaded the United States, they wouldn't stand a chance. We wouldn't use Guerrilla tactics, because our regular troops can win a war without using such immoral ways.

How can you say that an Iraqi civilian is not worth protecting? I hold all people to be worth the same. Just because you are part of a government organization, does not mean you are worth more.

If they hold honor higher than life, fine, but gassing your own people? That's just wrong. I'll bet that half of the people Saddam has been responsible for dying were innocent of any crime in Iraq.

I would love to see Iraq liberated, and end up being a world superpower. Do you want them to be a prosperous country? Or would you rather them be under the tyranical rule of Saddam?




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join