BlameThePixel!

let's discuss the issues, its a simple question. should the us got to war wit iraq? i think the answer is no. and ne1 who thinks otherwise will be machine-gunned until they're body is a bloody pulp.

you are a real pacifist i see

lol, but everyones with me. sack and kill bush has 4 votes and others have none

I have yet to hear your arguements against this war - all you say is that we shouldn't.

Personally I'm all for the war. Seems like a perfectly good reason to go to war really, evil dictator flaunting UN sanctions, happen to have plenty of oil, it's a win-win situation.

I mean think about it, why bother having an army if all they do is sit around using up resources. The planet is grossly overpopulated, thin it out a bit.

Nukes however, are a very bad idea because everyone has them and as soon as one country starts we all join in and whats left is total nuclear holocaust.

hmm, is it a good idea to have two options which say the same thing?

Well, no methinks it shouldn't happen yet, it's not like we're being attacked or threatened by him, there's probably as better way to work it out. A nice game of risk, maybe .
They should just play risk every time there's a war really.

looks like i know one person who has been brainwashed by bush > they were planning this invasion for months and months b4 they actually said yea um, we're going to go bomb iraq for some oil. they're going to kill thousands of innocent ppl just over a 1c per litre cut in oil prices!
to me thats not enough reason to go and bomb a country, that stuff about them having "weapons of mass destruction" is a load of crap, a third of the countrys in the world have more powerfuls bombs and weapons than them, the only ppl who have "weapons of mass destruction" are the U.S.A. they could blow up the world 8 times over,

ps: i was just using the "nukes" to get the point across.

no
simple answer isn't it?

it's a good thing we have a triggerhappy babboon like Bush making SH clear that his time is up if he continues like this
no, this does not mean I support Bush, just stating that this is about the first time in 12(!) years Hussein actually noticed he could lose his position and in turn co-operation is finally starting

Against war so far tho...
1) it's the wrong reason; there are lots of countries that have weapons of destruction, including the USA, and let's be honest... who here would trust Bush enough to even buy an apple from him? Rid Iraq from him cause he's cruel to his own ppl rather than this crap
2) he is NOT tied to Al Qaeda. I recall an interviewer hearing Osama bin Laden say that "Saddam is a bad muslim" (which is even worse than "american dog")
3) There are lots of countries that don't like or hate the USA because of it's "america first, and the rest doesn't matter" policy and having a war, which is clearly done for their own purpose will only make this worse
4) when freeing a country from one dictator, another will come in his place (most may think they did well for Afghanistan, but not much has changed for them)

Iraq is not allowed to have those weapons because they attacked kuwait. So basically Saddam broke the precious UN rules. But so far everything is working fine with diplomacy so no need to attack. And i guess the US should face sactions too for all the bombing they did without asking or getting approval of the UN first. But most of all, what is important is that people will die if a war occures. That's not a win-win situation to whoever claimed that, that's a big lose situation. By talking like that about other human beings shows the lack of respect you have for yourself. Gotta work on that

i agree... kind of, but ive got a feeling bush is looking for a reason to nuke/bomb/destroy iraq, with or without the approval of the UN, but taking sh's weapons and just chucking em' in the U.S's armory just helps the growing power of the U.S, currently the U.S have enough weapons approxamately to blow up the world 8 times over. im just saying that george bush should be stopped b4 he nukes us all to death, and wtf was blair doing? its none of our buisness. the U.S are the ones who are pissed off about it let them handle it

Ok, my answer is based on a rather uninformed view so bare (Bear?) with me.

Saddam is the bad guy because he attacked Iran? Correct?

Right, so technically the US is the bad guy for attacking North Vietnam based soley upon it's anti-communist beliefs? Installing a President in South Vietnam and enforcing his rule by arresting and detaining, without trial, those who were suspected of having communist beliefs?

By their own reasoning, which to me seems to be attacking Saddam for failing to comply with UN directives, the US, in direct contridiction to the Geneva Accords supported and instigated an attack on the communist North.

Does that mean we should've attacked a whole shitload of US military targets back in the 70's just after the Vietnam war came to a close?

Because the US continued making weapons...

No.

Why? because America are militarily untouchable. They are too large to even consider threatening.

So the global picture is basically a school playground. The US are the physically overdeveloped, mentally retarded bully whilst Iraq is the unpopular kid with lunch money that gets picked on by said Bully. Others stand back and watch 'cos they never really liked the kid in the first place. Britain, and by that I mean Blair, is the little fuck who wants to be the Bully's friend to look big too.


Do I think there should be a war? Nope.
Do I think Bush should ever have been allowed into power after that rigged election? Nope.
Do I think Blair should keep power after repeated decisions against the country's best interest? Nope.

As for the smart arse using the world's over-population as justification for going to war... How about instead we kill all the politicians (Liars each and every 1) and sterilise every single human on the planet. Make this the last generation, get rid of our damaging influence on this planet and give the other animals a chance.

That, at least, would be fair...



And 'No', I'm not a tree hugger.

there are about 40000 dictators that don't listen to what the un sanctions say, does that mean u have to kill hundreds of thousends of people just to get rid of 1 little gay dictator? and why only sadam? i can asure u there are far worse out there....

... hmm, any1 else smell the oil here?

and the reason u haven't heard any objections yet is cos the only thing that's on tv there is propaganda.

Personally i think it's insane to do this, throughout history not once has there been a war to destroy the gouverment of another country, never ever. It has always been about personal gain, like land, slaves, and oil. Trust me, if there was no prifit in it a captialistic country like the US would not be in for it. And don't come with the crap that they have weapons of mass destruction and might use it because that's total bullshit, EVERY country has them.

In fact, the reason iraq got there weapons is because the USA gave those to them in the first place, to fight off the communists. It's stupid to think that Iraq won't try to deffend them selves by using weapons against the USA, well guess what, THAT'S WHAT WAR IS ABOUT, KILL AND BE KILLED.

Man, i'm glad i live in a neutral country :-\

ok, so maybe win-win was a bit of over exaggeration.

But to get one thing straight - i have not been brainwashed by Bush, i'm English for a start.

Imagine if you will, that it is 1937, the Nazi's are beginning to gather their strenght and build their armies, in an attempt to better the might of the British empire. Now think how much better things would have been if the allies had struck first, instead of being caught off guard and spending about 3 years on the back foot before we could really launch a proper attack, imagine all the lives that would have been saved.

Now imagine we sit here and watch Saddam flaunt the UN sanctions, we take notes as he builds an arsenal of Mass Destrucion to use on both his own people and others. Sooner or Later he will decide that Iraq just isn;t quite big enough for him and will use this arsenal to invade another country - forcing the UN to act. The allies gather together but this time Saddam has the element of surprise and before he can be stopped thousand of people have been killed.

There is a much bigger price to pay for inaction than and toll that a war could cause.

Besides, we can debate the pros and cons of this all day, but it wont do anything to help. The war is planned for March 17th and will be finished by April 9th in time for the budget.

Imagine if you will, that ReadMe wasn't paranoid
the reason why SH won't attack another country is because he knows most UN countries have had it with him
he can't win a war against all of them (or even the US alone) which means he will lose his precious power if he DOES start a war
the fact that the Iraqi are co-operating more than they used to is proof that SH hasn't lost all his sanity (yet)

and another thing... european countries like Germany and France and England have nice armies too.... perhaps America should destroy the english forces before they try to take over Ireland! Blair IS looking at a kind of suspicious way... same goes for Schröder, so perhaps Germany should be destroyed too! you never know when they're going to start a fourth Reich. And I never trusted the french, so get rid of their army too, please. Chirac COULD be the next Napoleon
You picked one incident in the past when somebody was re-arming himself to attack others, but there are many countries that build weapons for a different purpose (the US used to be like that)

If I were leading a country (thankfully, I'm not) I'd start with solving my own problems before "helping" other countries by tearing it apart with war

Don't get me wrong, putting some pressure on SH has certainly made some progress on disarming him (even tho he will probably make those weapons again after them being destroyed)

and about the oil part... last time you freed Kuwait aka your oil machine, the Iraqi forces set them on fire, rendering them useless. I think they will do the same again, just to bother the "american pigs"

[/quote]
EvliBunny said:
there are about 40000 dictators that don't listen to what the un sanctions say, does that mean u have to kill hundreds of thousends of people just to get rid of 1 little gay dictator? and why only sadam? i can asure u there are far worse out there....

... hmm, any1 else smell the oil here?

and the reason u haven't heard any objections yet is cos the only thing that's on tv there is propaganda.

Personally i think it's insane to do this, throughout history not once has there been a war to destroy the gouverment of another country, never ever. It has always been about personal gain, like land, slaves, and oil. Trust me, if there was no prifit in it a captialistic country like the US would not be in for it. And don't come with the crap that they have weapons of mass destruction and might use it because that's total bullshit, EVERY country has them.

In fact, the reason iraq got there weapons is because the USA gave those to them in the first place, to fight off the communists. It's stupid to think that Iraq won't try to deffend them selves by using weapons against the USA, well guess what, THAT'S WHAT WAR IS ABOUT, KILL AND BE KILLED.

Man, i'm glad i live in a neutral country :-\
[/quote]


i could'nt have put it better myself, well i'll try anyway.

ReadMe u could'nt be more wrong my brainwashed friend, and you're right darkone the US is prob gonna start "picking" on other countries soon too, (i particularly liked the metaphor about the playground) that stuff about "weapons of mass destruction" is just a reason for them to go invade iraq and nick some oil, i mean, the US has enough explosives to say "right we're taking over the world, anyone who wants to stop us will get nuked." the US (and a lot of other countrys') have more than enough explosives to destroy the world! stop defending them readme, and plz plz plz turn off CNN.

You appear to be missing my point completely, the fact is that the world is full of senseless pacifists who will stop at nothing to avoid a war, eg. the 'human shields' who came home for fear of their own safety.




Why is that such a bad thing? back in the days where development was thriving and countries were beginning to become industrialised, war was the only reason this happened. Had the british not created an empire that spanned almost a quarter of the world, the industrial age would have only happened in a small area of europe. Back in th old days war was about power, and that is all it is ever about.