IRAQ vs USA/UK

[hellsy0x]

http://www.krg.org/docs/articles/anfal-campaign.asp

more information.

hes as bad as hitler imo!

 

[Embattle]

Originally posted by maxi--
yeah, but so is Bush, so then he shouldnt have them either?

répéter rhétorique

 

[nath]

Originally posted by Grandadwrinkle
Thing is Nath you can bang on your hippy shit till your blue in the face

Originally posted by Grandadwrinkle
I think its hilarious that you replied to my previous post by personaly attacking my intelligence and character, something which typifies somone who is angry and frustrated bacause they cant find any other way to express themselves

Excusé moi?

Originally posted by mr.Blacky
You don't think that has anything to do with the fact that France said they would veto any resolution that would allow a war with the backing of the UN?

Actually, it'd never have got that far. We'd not even have "the moral majority". France (although did shove its foot right in its gob) is just being used as a scapegoat.

 

[GDW]

Nath... do you know the difference between crtisising someones views...i.e your hippy shit political views, and a personal attack on an individuals character......obviously not

 

[maxi--]

Originally posted by Grandadwrinkle
Nath... do you know the difference between crtisising someones views...i.e your hippy shit political views, and a personal attack on an individuals character......obviously not

irony overload

 

[GDW]

enlighten me

 

[nath]

Originally posted by Grandadwrinkle
i.e your hippy shit political views

Oh no, that's not a personal attack at all!

 

[maxi--]

Originally posted by Tom[SHOTTEH]
Explain how Bush is a nutcase.

Apologies, a pointelss post really, Whislt not being on the scale of headcases as Saddam. He and the US Govt(especially in the past) have proven not to care for human life. (and be just as unwortthy to poses WOMD, if we go by THEIR definition, i spose)

Im REALLY tiring of saying the same thing over and over now, I dont think ill 'turn' anyone, vice versa, i do hope that some people have a slightly broader view of the situation now though.

 

[nath]

Yeah, I was never intending to turn anyone. The forum was here, it's an open debate: I was airing my hippy views.

 

[GDW]

No its a critism of your political outlook. We are all entitled to have one , and we are all entiltled to comment on anothers. What I did not do was start name calling ....subtle difference, obviously too subtle for you. Shame really as you were debating quite well untill that point.

Its typical of people with views similar to your own to get angry and frustrated whenever they are critisied

 

[bigfoot]

It is debatable whether there is a great deal of difference between calling someone a hippy shit and saying their views are that of a hippy shit. So kiss and make up and on with the discussion.

 

[nath]

Originally posted by Grandadwrinkle
Its typical of people with views similar to your own to get angry and frustrated whenever they are critisied

You're entirely right about the last part. It is typical, I was getting frustrated because I feel that you're so wrong and refuse to accept anything I'm saying. Granted, that's my own problem :- it doesnt mean my opinions are any less valid.

As for you stating the subtle difference between critisizing someone's political views, and a personal attack. Political views are a very personal thing, attacking them: dismissing them as hippy shit, will produce a response from me. Well done: you hit a nerve. It's not a decent arguement to dismiss my views. It's a statement intended to belittle my views without actually tackling them by arguing a point. Don't try and take the moral high ground by saying there's a difference between a personal attack and attacking someones views. There isn't.

And if you think there is, well I was calling you a dense moron because of your views. Hence I was really only attacking them. It's still quite personal though isn't it?

 

[Ulysses777]

I have a hypothetical question for everyone here.

People are saying that if we didn't go to war, Iraq would eventually attack a neighouring country (or perhaps somewhere further afield).

Now, if that did happen, and Saddam attacked another country with chemical and boilogical weapons, what do you think would happen to Iraq?

 

[nath]

We'd probably bomb the shit out of them. Much like we are now.

The main difference is, this war is based on speculation. What *could* happen.

Anyone seen minority report?

 

[Ulysses777]

We'd probably bomb the shit out of them. Much like we are now.

Do you think Iraq would know this?

 

[nath]

I think they would very much know this. Which is why I think that, though saddam is clearly insane, he's proven that he's very intelligent. Thus attacking a neighbouring country would be very very unwise.

 

[Ulysses777]

Originally posted by nath
though saddam is clearly insane, he's proven that he's very intelligent.

Especially when it comes to hanging on to power.

Which is why there was no fucking chance that Iraq was going to attack anyone.

 

[Ulysses777]

And if Iraq did attack someone, I'm pretty sure there wouldn't be anywhere near as much opposition to the war as there is now.

 

[Embattle]

Same old crap stale views....nevermind

 

[bigfoot]

Don't know if anyone else has seen an average film called "Deterrence", has an interesting "what if" scenario in it which is pertinent to this discussion.
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0158583

 

[nath]

They're stale: because we've held on to them. Because they're correct?

Are we supposed to keep changing our views despite the fact that no one has suggested any reason that it's wrong?

 

[dysfunction]

US/UK troops are experiencing quite a lot of resistance (mortar fire incl) approaching major towns. Quite a few soldiers have been severly injured.

Why dont the troops hold back and get air support to blow up this resistance? I dont know why they are risking men like this when they could be using artillary or missiles or something...they have done it before.

 

[amobea]

Iraq probably wouldn't have invaded another country.
True.
It didn't necessarily need to, Saddam didn't necesarily have to invade to take power... see people get scared, and the weapons Saddam has are scary. He would have been quit capable of influencing/threatening small countries nearby, until his was able to assume control with out actually "invading".

Waiting till he had another couple of countries under his rule would have been a bad idea as far as i'm concerned.

 

[Daffeh]

i guess they dont want to risk any more civi casulties

 

[nath]

Originally posted by amobea
Iraq probably wouldn't have invaded another country.
True.
It didn't necessarily need to, Saddam didn't necesarily have to invade to take power... see people get scared, and the weapons Saddam has are scary. He would have been quit capable of influencing/threatening small countries nearby, until his was able to assume control with out actually "invading".

Waiting till he had another couple of countries under his rule would have been a bad idea as far as i'm concerned.

I very much doubt that would happen. But are you happy to go to war, just on the off chance that might happen?

I don't think many people realise (from viewing footage on tele) how horrific war is.

 

[old.UKTwister]

I'm not too clued up on Saddam, You say he killed thoasands of people in his own country.. for what reason?

 

[Gumbo]

mis -

Originally not posted by nath


I don't think many people realise (from viewing footage on tele) how horrific Saddam is.

 

[PR.]

Testing weapons,
Disagreeing with him,
Didn't like their name,
They looked at him shiftely.

 

[Embattle]

Originally posted by nath
They're stale: because we've held on to them. Because they're correct?

Are we supposed to keep changing our views despite the fact that no one has suggested any reason that it's wrong?

In your eyes.....and you believe it no matter what. The fact also is that when some one does try to suggest a reason why you're wrong you lot come up with the same crap stale views/beliefs which are mainly based around avoidance, often used by other people with your views

I realise even the above is a futile statement and tbh I'm not too bothered because to me you all seem to be the 'Liitle Girl' from the radio interview and thus not really worth my time to list and explain all the pro and cons of the current situation..........you have the right to criticize the government etc openly, aren't you lucky.

 

[nath]

Right, but you realise that's exactly the way you seem to me. Totally unwilling to accept any other arguement.

The difference is, I started out sitting on the fence on this arguement. Then read up a lot of stuff about this and picked a side. I wasn't ever anti war "because it's mean".