How to end the damn war

[DD&BD]

So we are going into Iraq to help the people there and make our own nations safer, fair enough, but whats the next target? Iraq is not the only nations with chemical weps and nukes that could threaten the US and are not the only nations that are run by a evil shit. the can of worms has been opened, will the US be able/want to help all the other nations in need?

ok trinilim so the american news networks are anti war then? is it jsut the tv? because the NY times and Washintion post didnt seem very anti war when i had a look at them. Anyway it certainly doesnt seem the same in the UK where there were calls yesterday for a mp who spoke out against the war to "be hung for treason"*. admitidly the braodsheets are tending to give a better veiw of things, the times is not so bias but still very pro war, the guardian on the other hand is less pro war and a bit more sinical but is in no way anti war.

*Taken from 'The Scottish Sun' page 4

 

[VodkaFairy]

Yeah it's a nice discussion - it's just hard 'cos I can't see the news often due to exams and my english sucks

 

[Arnor]

Originally posted by kaod
Not doing so because last time they withdrew? (Which is what the UN told the coallition to do btw)

The reason the US withdrew was that they would rather have a weakened saddam ruling then an american-hostile-regime.


Not all Iraqi's live in total poverty. Shame on you for treating them all as idiots.

rofl, you are silly. No ofc not all iraqis live in poverty, but ALL Iraqi's live dominated by Saddam Husseins regime.


Who does have the right? The Iraqi "Government?", the people?
Some Iraqi people do in fact welcome the "Coallition", both those currently in Iraq, and those in asylum from the regime.

Is war ok if the UN says so?
lol, is war ok if the UN says NO and the US says yes? apparently






What qualifications does one need to be President then?

Did Bush start all this or was it started by Saddam in Kuwait, and he just danced his merry dance around the UN for 12 years?

I would also ask you (as Vesta seems to have left for the bandwagon) what difference does the war make to the US in terms of oil?

Ok, what qualifications one needs to be president? LOTS of money, oh and lies ofc. Bush didnt even have more votes then Gore ffs! He cheated his way to president, and you sheep just accept it.


U know who started this? Both Saddam and Donald Rumsfield&co, who sold Saddam biological and chemical wpns for Iraq to use on Iran and on the kurds. After a mass-genocide of kurds in iraq TO WHICH THE WORLD DID FUCK ALL. Saddam used chemical and biological weapons on ppl in Iran too, did the world know/care?
THEN saddam invaded Saudi-Arabia(if i remember correctly) AND THEN the US went in and invaded. both directly and indirectly killing millions of civillians. Just like they will this war. Do you have ANY IDEA how much money this war is gonna cost the world?
The UN has estimated that over 1.5million Iraqi's will be in need of immediate help with food/healthcare after the war.
Did you know that over 40tons of depleted uranium(used in ammo) were left in Iraq after the first war, and that cancer rates went up 700% as a result?

Or that the US has bombed Iraq on a regular basis the last 11 years?
That the UN sanctions on Iraq after the first war has cost some 1.5 million civillans their lives since 1999!, over 700000 children has died due to the sanctions since 1997.

In the period between December 1998 and September 1999, the US&UK dropped over 20 Million tons of explosives on iraq even though the war "ended" many years earlier.

And that after the first war, child death rates have increased with over 345%



Bush(jr&sr) is doing ALL this to rid the world of an evil dictator, is it really worth it?

The west has killed much more Iraqi's then saddam ever has. The US ARMED THE FUCKER FOR FUCKS SAKE!

 

[kaod]

Originally posted by DD&BD
So we are going into Iraq to help the people there and make our own nations safer, fair enough, but whats the next target? Iraq is not the only nations with chemical weps and nukes that could threaten the US and are not the only nations that are run by a evil shit. the can of worms has been opened, will the US be able/want to help all the other nations in need?

This is a very tired argument really.
Either people want the US to police the world or they don't.
You can't have it both ways.

If you get attacked by 3 people out on the street and manage to strike back at one, whether in the moment or after, should anyone have the right to ask why you didn't go after all 3?

There are plenty of other rogue states, tyranical regimes across the globe, instead of asking about the US can of worms, if you see that the others need dealing with, ask why France, Russia or Germany don't make a stand and do something.

Face it, US can't win either way.

Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

 

[old.Xarr]

Situations like these are a total pain. No matter what you do innocent people like the ones in the pictures will die. Saddam Hussein is responsible for the deaths of over a million people during the time his regime has reigned. He has actively been doing ethnic cleansing. He is also allegedly sitting on weapons of mass destruction. There is no way to remove him from power in a peaceful manner hence war. I don't like war, but I don't see alot of alternatives.

I just hope the dictator the US replaces Saddam with is not so cruel and suicidal.

 

[VodkaFairy]

It's a shame people like Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein exist - wouldn't it be a great world without without people like them?

The war has started, there's no way around it anymore, it's either Bush or Saddam now. I think most people go for Bush, including me, as he is at least more civil than Saddam. Either way innocent people will get killed, which is really frustrating.

But I'm just a kid that wants a world without war..

 

[kaod]

Originally posted by Arnor2
Ok, what qualifications one needs to be president? LOTS of money, oh and lies ofc. Bush didnt even have more votes then Gore ffs! He cheated his way to president, and you sheep just accept it.

Sorry no. It's just the system that they have in the US that goes by representation. If Bush cheated, why did Gore not pursue it further through the courts?
Because he would never have won.

Originally posted by Arnor2
U know who started this? Both Saddam and Donald Rumsfield&co, who sold Saddam biological and chemical wpns for Iraq to use on Iran and on the kurds. After a mass-genocide of kurds in iraq TO WHICH THE WORLD DID FUCK ALL. Saddam used chemical and biological weapons on ppl in Iran too, did the world know/care?[/B]

Well the US actually armed the Iranians at the same time if you want to get picky.
Maybe the world didn't care then, is that any reason not to care now? What kind of lame argument is that?
And if someone gives you a baseball bat to help you hurt someone, if you then use the same bat, and other bats you have created to hurt people 20 odd years down the line, who's fault is that? Who's holding and swinging the bat?
Again, an extremely weak argument of who armed who years ago, should we have hanged Hitlers mother for giving birth to him?

Originally posted by Arnor2
THEN saddam invaded Saudi-Arabia(if i remember correctly) AND THEN the US went in and invaded. both directly and indirectly killing millions of civillians. Just like they will this war. Do you have ANY IDEA how much money this war is gonna cost the world?
The UN has estimated that over 1.5million Iraqi's will be in need of immediate help with food/healthcare after the war.
Did you know that over 40tons of depleted uranium(used in ammo) were left in Iraq after the first war, and that cancer rates went up 700% as a result?[/B]

Yeah Bush is the idiot. It was Kuwait. And there was a UN resolution to get Iraqi forces out of Kuwait and the coallition that also included many arab nations were only sanctioned to drive the forces out. This is why they did not drive forward to Baghdad.
Kuwait is stull suffering from what the Iraqi forces did to the terrain, and people suffering from the rape and torture inflicted upon them.
UN sanctions told Saddam that as a condition of the ceasefire (UN NOT US) he had to disarm. He still hasnt proved that he done as such.
The UN sanctions imposed is based around the oil for food program.
The UN recieves approx 2% revenue from oil sales, and the Iraqi regime is supposed to use the money for food and medicine for the people. Instead they spend it to enrich their own lives.
It's a UN sanction, NOT US.

Originally posted by Arnor2
Or that the US has bombed Iraq on a regular basis the last 11 years?[/B]

Can you stop using the chain-email "facts?"
You'll find that the Northern and Southern no-fly zones are "bombed" by way of using precision missiles (which costs more than regular dumb bombs it should be said) to take out military targets in the zones. Especailly radar facilities that are locking onto US/UK aircrafy which is a show of aggresion.
Where else have the bombed on a regular basis over the last 11 years? Please provide some evidence.

Originally posted by Arnor2
That the UN sanctions on Iraq after the first war has cost some 1.5 million civillans their lives since 1999!, over 700000 children has died due to the sanctions since 1997.[/B]

Iraqi propoganda is strong in your mindset me thinks.
Who's fault are these deaths? Saddam and his regime for misuse of the money.
And remember it's an N not an S as you say.

Originally posted by Arnor2
In the period between December 1998 and September 1999, the US&UK dropped over 20 Million tons of explosives on iraq even though the war "ended" many years earlier.[/B]

And those regions are imposed by the UN only because if they weren't there, over million people would probably be dying from chemical or biological agents. Those no-fly zones have actually saved lives.

Originally posted by Arnor2
And that after the first war, child death rates have increased with over 345%.[/B]

Mainly due to lack of medicinal care, and some areas not fitting in with Saddam's "Sunni Muslim" idealogies.
Who's fault? Saddams.

Originally posted by Arnor2
Bush(jr&sr) is doing ALL this to rid the world of an evil dictator, is it really worth it?[/B]

Yes. Plenty of countries seem to think so, which is why they are in the coallition.

Originally posted by Arnor2
The west has killed much more Iraqi's then saddam ever has. The US ARMED THE FUCKER FOR FUCKS SAKE! [/B]

[/B][/QUOTE]
Actually Saddam Hussain has killed more Arabs than anyone in present day.

And to be perfectly honest, your opinions and the way you express them make me sick.
Simple "email shot" soundbites that lean heavily against the west and don't stand up under scrutiny, criticism of attempts to make ammends for the wrongs of the past, and a narrow mindedness based on popular bandwagons.

You sir, wouldn't know an original thought if it fell on your head.

 

[Arthwyr]

Originally posted by VodkaFairy
You know why the Iraqi people hate the americans? Because you left them there to DIE and didn't give a shit.

Partialy true. They hate the west in general and the US is a symbol for the west. They hate it because they are raised in regime and entire corner of the world for that matter that brainwashes the ppl with anti western propaganda. The press is strictly censored and anything that makes the west look good is kept out of the news. If you grew up here and would nothing but false and bad stories about arabs day in day out you would eventualy buy into them aswell and you would walking in the streets firing your kalashnikov in the air instead of swinging around with peace signs. At the time of the war in Afghanistan some mosques here were closed for yelling pro islam propaganda over their speakers in the line of ... we shall color the streets with the blood of the infidels (not a joke) so you can imagine the things that are said in their home country. Could you imagine the priest in your church mouning speakers on his roof at the 11 september bombing and basicly calling you up to kill those who oppose you ... he would be locked away pretty fast.
Another interesting point you must have noticed in the news is that all the members of the governement are from his own party and most of the "elite" military and politicians are from the same region or even the same town Sadam was born in. Did you ever stop to think why that is ? The ppl overe there clinch very hard to their blooldlines and "tribes" since there ancestors were nomads fighting over camel trade routes. Some tribes get along well with eachother some have been at "war" for 100s of years and can't stand eachothers guts. Not to mention the different ethnic groups. Everything there is alot more complicated then it seems at first. Ah well, fact remains that sadam is no tooth fairy (or vodka fairy hehe) and that his removal is a step in the right direction no matter how its done. Better kill 200 000 iraqis this year then 2 more million in the next 15 years. Sad but true.

 

[Driwen]

think most has been said here. But about the UN sanctions:

Indeed children die way more than before '91 due to lack of medicines, because Iraq doesnt buy the medicines that are needed. Iraq could buy all the medicines that are needed, if they wouldnt spend that money to re arm themself or give the money to the few elite people.
Sadam is using the sanctions for his people to hate the west. As he is saying you cant get the medicines you need, because we have no money. However he could get the medicines needed, if he would spend the money right

about chemical weapons:

I have no idea if sadam has any chemical or biological weapons. I do know that he would have them, if he could. Besides making a gas that kills people isnt that hard. Making a weapon off it, is a little harder. But shouldnt be to hard for a country to do. I mean in WWI there were already chemical weapons..
Now I actually doubt Sadam would attack the west himself. However we do know that the iraqi people cant live in freedom and if they rize to oppose him, they will be killed and probably every other person in their village/neighbourhood aswell.


Now we know the sanctions arent actually working that well. It prevents Sadam however from getting alot of money he can spend on weapons or making chemical or biological weapons. Before he attacked kuwait, Iraq had an army that for size was within the top 10 of the world. All armed with weapons most dating from the sovjet period. He did that with the money he earned from the oil.
If the sanctions wouldnt be there, his army would be that size again and would be terrorizing more people than they are now or would even have attacked another country if it was political possible.

Sadam wants one thing and thats power. He wants to reign as large a country as is possible. We can off course keep him reasonable fangless with the sanctions and the inspections. Which off course hurt his people aswell, but without he will hurt many more. He has done it before and he will do that again, if given the opertunity. Removing him will be bloody and risky, but leaving him there is bloodier and riskier.

 

[Arnor]

Kaod: Bottom line of my argument is that war is NEVER the solution. There are too many casualties, both human and economic.
The reason Iraq COULD invade Kuwait was because of the weapons they bought from the US.
The US isnt much better then any "rogue" nation, they have so many skeletons in their closet you wouldnt believe it.
There are LOTS of other ways to counter the "threat" in iraq.
Oh, you thought they were there to "liberate" iraq?
Bush himself has said that Saddam needs to be removed because he is a "threat to the world peace"
THEN after the invasion, and right before he said they went in to liberate the Iraqi ppl.

And to what vodka said, I would rather choose neither of the three, they are all equally bastards in my eyes.


And to using info from a named source, is that any WORSE then using the "info" you see on cnn&fox?

 

[kaod]

Originally posted by Arnor2
Kaod: Bottom line of my argument is that war is NEVER the solution. There are too many casualties, both human and economic.

So what should have happened in 1939? Diplomacy and negotiation only works if boths sides are willing to cooperate.

Originally posted by Arnor2
The reason Iraq COULD invade Kuwait was because of the weapons they bought from the US. [/B]

Russian made.
After buying a gun from a gunstore it's up to you whether you defend yourself with it, or abuse your right to it and abuse others.

Originally posted by Arnor2
The US isnt much better then any "rogue" nation, they have so many skeletons in their closet you wouldnt believe it.[/B]

I bet I would. It's just that I prefer the lesser of two evils in all cases.
I don't pretend that any nation, let alone the US has a halo above it.

Originally posted by Arnor2
There are LOTS of other ways to counter the "threat" in iraq.[/B]

Name them.

Originally posted by Arnor2
Oh, you thought they were there to "liberate" iraq?

Nope. It's a by-product and a way to sway public opinion.

Originally posted by Arnor2
Bush himself has said that Saddam needs to be removed because he is a "threat to the world peace"

Yep. And also because he's still in material breach of numerous UN resolutions.
Plus he was likely to fire off all kinds of stuff at Israel, which would lead to no end of problems in that region.

Originally posted by Arnor2
THEN after the invasion, and right before he said they went in to liberate the Iraqi ppl.

If I was being oppresed I wouldn't give a damn why people freed me as long as I was free.
Your use of the fate of the Iraqi people as a tool for your argument is almost as shameful as the US usage.
Yet as a secondary consideration at least they will be doing them some good, you are seemingly wanting to leave them hanging out to dry.
Yours is the bigger crime in this instance.

Originally posted by Arnor2
And to what vodka said, I would rather choose neither of the three, they are all equally bastards in my eyes.

Well then, just close the curtains and stay under that blanket cos there's a real world going on outside.

Originally posted by Arnor2
And to using info from a named source, is that any WORSE then using the "info" you see on cnn&fox? [/B]

Which named source is that? There are plenty of "names" out there that put out all manner of crap, all for their own agenda.
Do you really think that the United Nations would all agree to a sanction that allowed the Iraqi people to starve?

CNN and Fox are in (albeit slight) opposition to the current conflict, and no I don't glean all my information from CNN & Fox.

If you REALLY think you are right, then answer the points I made to your previous "facts" instead of ignoring them.

 

[Karam_gruul]

Originally posted by Trinilim
THE USA DOES NOT WANT TO KILL THESE PEOPLE


I CANNOT stress that fact enough!

Some will be killed, but asking for no casualties in war is like asking an ice-cream man for a pancake.

We want to remove Saddam Hussein from order by death, because he has not only gone full-stop against the UN's laws against chemical weapons, but he has also threatened to use such weapons against the United States and any other countries that oppose him.

He is ANTI-AMERICAN and wants america

WIPED

OFF

THE

MAP

WE ARE NOT TRYING TO KILL IRAQ.

We are trying to kill Saddam Hussein and his regime.

LOL that kid looks like a complete gommo. and yes i still want to nuke them, infact i want to nuke them more so now..

 

[kaod]

Originally posted by Karam_gruul
LOL that kid looks like a complete gommo. and yes i still want to nuke them, infact i want to nuke them more so now..

Karam_gruul: Finally, a good advert for sterilisation.

 

[Karam_gruul]

Originally posted by kaod
Karam_gruul: Finally, a good advert for sterilisation.

i just showed the pic of that grotty kid to my m8s, they laughed lol. its funnnnyyyy

i reckon we should make a master race of clones from my DNA, that'd pwn. so eleet.

 

[Arnor]

In 1939 the world was at WAR, there was nothing else to do then but fight back.


"
Russian made.
After buying a gun from a gunstore it's up to you whether you defend yourself with it, or abuse your right to it and abuse others.

"

Im guessing you are pro-NRA?
And buying chemical/biological weapons DOES NOT AT ALL compare to buying a gun from a gunstore.


"I bet I would. It's just that I prefer the lesser of two evils in all cases.
I don't pretend that any nation, let alone the US has a halo above it."

How you know the US is the lesser of the two evils?
Watch the clip from bowling for columbine when lois armstrong sings what a wonderful world.

As for counters to saddams regime:
The weaponinspectors for instance.
Sanctions dont work, it just affects the wrong ppl, which the world has failed to see yet, after millions dead...
Take out Saddam like they took out the leaders in Kosovo/Bosnia(assassins)




He was breaking several UN resolutions? So is Israel, they have over 400 nuclear warheads, they are at the moment engaged in a genocide against the palestinian terrorists/civillians, only reason they do what they want is because they are in coalition with the US.


If you were being oppressed, you wouldnt mind that some country invades yours, kills the oppressors and a shitload of civillians, AND indirectly kills millions of civillians by imposing sanctions that dont do shit against the oppressors?
Yes the average Iraqi is living under a dictatorship, but most of them manage very nicely (now after saddam killed all the kurds)
I would have to have it pretty shitty to welcome any invaders in my country killing lots of people.

Have the US even ONCE tried an assasination against saddam?


To the previous points:
It has been proven, the iraqi army(which was pretty shitty until the love-load from the US in the eighties) was reduced in capacity by over 90% after the war.(numbers from the UN)


About the sanctions. The UN sanctions are primarily on imports/exports. Who do you think will suffer first? Its naive NOT to see what MIGHT be going on here, seing saddam fat as ever and iraqi's starving and thinking "yeah, those sanctions are really doing good here"
And ofcourse BOTH are to blame here, UN for imposing silly sanctions, and saddam for taking the little they get for himself.


You think that child deaths suddenly went up after the war was of NO fault to the US/UN? crap dude, get a grip. open your eyes and see the connection.



PLENTY of countries? now thats pushing it a BIT isnt it?
I seem to remember US/UK being rather alone on that side of the fence up until they invaded, when some jumped the bandwagon to be on the winning side.


YOUR pro-war attitude is sickening, to which an extent does the goal sanctify the means?

If you could stop all war in the world forever by killing 1 person. would you do it?
how about 100?
how about 5million people?
How about 1billion people?
How about if you didnt have to see em yourself, just push a button?
WHERE does the limit go for you in such a hypothetic dilemma?
My bet on you is pretty high here :\





edit: one thing, you said here that " Diplomacy and negotiation only works if boths sides are willing to cooperate." well, answer me this then. Has Saddam refused to let the UN inspect his armories?( I think he did it at one point though, but he folded pretty fast there)
The weapon-inspectors have found NO chemical/biological weapons in iraq, not to mention that those weapons have a shelflife of MAX 5years, which in turn means that the ones they had are expired and nearly harmless atm. THere are NO proof that saddam has the facilities to make any of these.

 

[Karam_gruul]

Originally posted by Arnor2
In 1939 the world was at WAR, there was nothing else to do then but fight back.


"
Russian made.
After buying a gun from a gunstore it's up to you whether you defend yourself with it, or abuse your right to it and abuse others.

"

Im guessing you are pro-NRA?
And buying chemical/biological weapons DOES NOT AT ALL compare to buying a gun from a gunstore.


"I bet I would. It's just that I prefer the lesser of two evils in all cases.
I don't pretend that any nation, let alone the US has a halo above it."

How you know the US is the lesser of the two evils?
Watch the clip from bowling for columbine when lois armstrong sings what a wonderful world.

As for counters to saddams regime:
The weaponinspectors for instance.
Sanctions dont work, it just affects the wrong ppl, which the world has failed to see yet, after millions dead...
Take out Saddam like they took out the leaders in Kosovo/Bosnia(assassins)




He was breaking several UN resolutions? So is Israel, they have over 400 nuclear warheads, they are at the moment engaged in a genocide against the palestinian terrorists/civillians, only reason they do what they want is because they are in coalition with the US.


If you were being oppressed, you wouldnt mind that some country invades yours, kills the oppressors and a shitload of civillians, AND indirectly kills millions of civillians by imposing sanctions that dont do shit against the oppressors?
Yes the average Iraqi is living under a dictatorship, but most of them manage very nicely (now after saddam killed all the kurds)
I would have to have it pretty shitty to welcome any invaders in my country killing lots of people.

Have the US even ONCE tried an assasination against saddam?


To the previous points:
It has been proven, the iraqi army(which was pretty shitty until the love-load from the US in the eighties) was reduced in capacity by over 90% after the war.(numbers from the UN)


About the sanctions. The UN sanctions are primarily on imports/exports. Who do you think will suffer first? Its naive NOT to see what MIGHT be going on here, seing saddam fat as ever and iraqi's starving and thinking "yeah, those sanctions are really doing good here"
And ofcourse BOTH are to blame here, UN for imposing silly sanctions, and saddam for taking the little they get for himself.


You think that child deaths suddenly went up after the war was of NO fault to the US/UN? crap dude, get a grip. open your eyes and see the connection.



PLENTY of countries? now thats pushing it a BIT isnt it?
I seem to remember US/UK being rather alone on that side of the fence up until they invaded, when some jumped the bandwagon to be on the winning side.


YOUR pro-war attitude is sickening, to which an extent does the goal sanctify the means?

If you could stop all war in the world forever by killing 1 person. would you do it?
how about 100?
how about 5million people?
How about 1billion people?
How about if you didnt have to see em yourself, just push a button?
WHERE does the limit go for you in such a hypothetic dilemma?
My bet on you is pretty high here :\





edit: one thing, you said here that " Diplomacy and negotiation only works if boths sides are willing to cooperate." well, answer me this then. Has Saddam refused to let the UN inspect his armories?( I think he did it at one point though, but he folded pretty fast there)
The weapon-inspectors have found NO chemical/biological weapons in iraq, not to mention that those weapons have a shelflife of MAX 5years, which in turn means that the ones they had are expired and nearly harmless atm. THere are NO proof that saddam has the facilities to make any of these.

bollocks

i dont care what people get up to in they're own countries, i dont care about liberating the people of iraq, i dont care about freeing them and making they're country safe, i care about my own country and 'most' of the people in it. and if that means we have to go to war and kill some scum bags to eliminate a possible supplier of weapons of mass destruction to wankers like al quieda then so be it.

what gives you the right to say MY pro war attitude sickens you? your lefty poof attitude sickens me far more.

if someone said to me, i could press a button and kill 5mill people and end all wars on the planet forever, i wouldnt... i dont mind war, gives us something to do, its good for the countries moral.

anti-war protesters make me sick. can you imagine how it makes the brave soldiers out in raggy land feel when they hear of wankers protesting AGAINST them while they're risking they're lives to keep these cunts safe.

as someone said before, if your fucking anti war, go out to iraq and become a fucking human shield. prefferably strap yourself to a dazy cutter.

nuff has been said, k?

 

[Cadire]

Nothing wrong with a healthy debate, but personal attacks is a no-no.

 

[Trinilim]

Originally posted by VodkaFairy
It's a shame people like Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein exist - wouldn't it be a great world without without people like them?

The war has started, there's no way around it anymore, it's either Bush or Saddam now. I think most people go for Bush, including me, as he is at least more civil than Saddam. Either way innocent people will get killed, which is really frustrating.

But I'm just a kid that wants a world without war..

if only

 

[Trinilim]

Is it just me or does this kid look like he's planning something..

http://umns.umc.org/photos/03/0338.jpg

far right, middle, is lit by the sun

 

[Tasans]

Originally posted by Trinilim
Is it just me or does this kid look like he's planning something..

http://umns.umc.org/photos/03/0338.jpg

far right, middle, is lit by the sun

OMG OMG its a terrorist!!11 quick send a cruise up his ass!!1

 

[-Nuked-]

Originally posted by Trinilim
Is it just me or does this kid look like he's planning something..

http://umns.umc.org/photos/03/0338.jpg

far right, middle, is lit by the sun

naa check out the kid infront of him

bottom right hand corner .. £5 says he has a bomb tied to his waste

or the kid in the back row in the middle ... black jacket! /scared

ok back to the topic .. how to end this damn war, hibs vs Mids Vs albs right? give hibs all relics .. see everyone wins!

english/americans vs saddam ....give all the oil to the english .. once again everyone wins, we get oil .. they get to live .. not a nice way to put it, but hey .. america would probibly stop the war if they did give it up! well thats if this really is a war for oil

 

[optical-]

Originally posted by Trinilim
Is it just me or does this kid look like he's planning something..

http://umns.umc.org/photos/03/0338.jpg

far right, middle, is lit by the sun

hes a suicide bomber imo

 

[Arnor]

Originally posted by Karam_gruul
bollocks

i dont care what people get up to in they're own countries, i dont care about liberating the people of iraq, i dont care about freeing them and making they're country safe, i care about my own country and 'most' of the people in it. and if that means we have to go to war and kill some scum bags to eliminate a possible supplier of weapons of mass destruction to wankers like al quieda then so be it.

what gives you the right to say MY pro war attitude sickens you? your lefty poof attitude sickens me far more.

if someone said to me, i could press a button and kill 5mill people and end all wars on the planet forever, i wouldnt... i dont mind war, gives us something to do, its good for the countries moral.

anti-war protesters make me sick. can you imagine how it makes the brave soldiers out in raggy land feel when they hear of wankers protesting AGAINST them while they're risking they're lives to keep these cunts safe.

as someone said before, if your fucking anti war, go out to iraq and become a fucking human shield. prefferably strap yourself to a dazy cutter.

nuff has been said, k?

lol, you attentionwhore I wasnt talking about you you little whimp



edit: this was actually too good not to bring up:

anti-war protesters make me sick. can you imagine how it makes the brave soldiers out in raggy land feel when they hear of wankers protesting AGAINST them while they're risking they're lives to keep these cunts safe.

Ok, first off, in what way are they making MY life safe here? (using karam logic here) by killing iraqi soldiers and civillians?
Yeah, thanks alot I feel a whole lot fucking safer now.

Oh yeah, they must feel VERY bad since they are killing other ppl and we dont say "Go get em tiger, go on lad nick yerself some towelheads"

 

[old.shotgunstow]

Originally posted by Arnor2
lol, you attentionwhore I wasnt talking about you you little whimp



edit: this was actually too good not to bring up:


Ok, first off, in what way are they making MY life safe here? (using karam logic here) by killing iraqi soldiers and civillians?
Yeah, thanks alot I feel a whole lot fucking safer now.

Oh yeah, they must feel VERY bad since they are killing other ppl and we dont say "Go get em tiger, go on lad nick yerself some towelheads"

................

 

[Karam_gruul]

Originally posted by Arnor2


Ok, first off, in what way are they making MY life safe here? (using karam logic here) by killing iraqi soldiers and civillians?
Yeah, thanks alot I feel a whole lot fucking safer now.

Oh yeah, they must feel VERY bad since they are killing other ppl and we dont say "Go get em tiger, go on lad nick yerself some towelheads"

we arent in iraq JUST to kill iraqies, thats just a bonus, we're there to get rid of saddams regime, and his weaps of mass destruction, by doing that (as i said in my last post) we're eliminating one of the major suppliers of weapons of mass destruction to scum like al queida.

nuff said

 

[VodkaFairy]

anti-war protesters make me sick. can you imagine how it makes the brave soldiers out in raggy land feel when they hear of wankers protesting AGAINST them while they're risking they're lives to keep these cunts safe.

You're making me sick Karam. Learn to tolerate the opinions of other people, and until you do, bugger off you sick little twat. And yes Cadire this is a fucking personal attack on Karam. uke:

Omg you're such a hypocrit. Why do you think there are anti-war protests? Because they're against the war. They don't WANT you to make the world a "safer place". They don't WANT the "brave soldiers" in Iraq. You have unleashed the holy war for the Muslims that has already ruined the atmosphere where I live. It's us, the dutch people, against them. The immigrants from Marocco. I never asked for that, you and you other war mongers forced it upon us.

<-- angry

Oh and to everyone making jokes about the pictures: you're making me bloody sick. What is wrong with the world today.. omfg..

 

[Sol-]

Yog has a spasticated eye twitch tbh.

 

[Cadire]

OK, I think everyone's made their feelings/positions clear on this issue. Further debate looks like descending into a slanging match.