no offense but when you say stuff like that you give these left wing nuts all the ammo to spread thier hate of the christian religion.
God has shown favor the jews for the most part at least thats my belief. But god does not hate the palistineans he doesnt want innocent children to die no matter what they worship. Obviously the terrorists are to blame for the problems there and these people wont see that because they hate jews but isreal has done some wrongs to especially sharon.
So to think that god would aprove of you walking down the streets of gaza with a shot gun taking target practice is not only obsurdly ignorant it hurts the christian movement.
Home
TheSinner.net
War With Iraq
georgewbush supporter you give christians a bad name
by Andy_Bayley on Tue Mar 04, 2003 9:06 am
-
Andy_Bayley
Re:
by RRankin on Tue Mar 04, 2003 8:31 pm
[s]Unregisted User drone wrote on 14:20, 2nd Mar 2003:
Because Americans are not a particular people from a particular place. They are the embodiment of the human spirit of freedom. Everyone who holds to that spirit, everywhere, is an American.
*vomits*
Oh and I hereby renounce my American Citizenship if I have one.
Because Americans are not a particular people from a particular place. They are the embodiment of the human spirit of freedom. Everyone who holds to that spirit, everywhere, is an American.
*vomits*
Oh and I hereby renounce my American Citizenship if I have one.
-
RRankin
- Posts: 101
- Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 8:50 pm
Re:
by Emma on Tue Mar 04, 2003 9:15 pm
[s]RRankin wrote on 20:31, 4th Mar 2003:
[s]Unregisted User drone wrote on 14:20, 2nd Mar 2003:[i]
Because Americans are not a particular people from a particular place. They are the embodiment of the human spirit of freedom. Everyone who holds to that spirit, everywhere, is an American.
*vomits*
Oh and I hereby renounce my American Citizenship if I have one.
[/i]
I've come quite close to officially renouncing mine recently, but concluded that dual citizenship is too useful to throw away because of Dubya. And anyway, the way things are going, most of the Arab world will soon hate the UK (my other nationality) as much as they hate Uncle Sam.
[hr]
'I used to rock and roll all night and party every day. Then it was every other day. Now I'm lucky if I can find half an hour a week in which to get funky'
[s]Unregisted User drone wrote on 14:20, 2nd Mar 2003:[i]
Because Americans are not a particular people from a particular place. They are the embodiment of the human spirit of freedom. Everyone who holds to that spirit, everywhere, is an American.
*vomits*
Oh and I hereby renounce my American Citizenship if I have one.
[/i]
I've come quite close to officially renouncing mine recently, but concluded that dual citizenship is too useful to throw away because of Dubya. And anyway, the way things are going, most of the Arab world will soon hate the UK (my other nationality) as much as they hate Uncle Sam.
[hr]
'I used to rock and roll all night and party every day. Then it was every other day. Now I'm lucky if I can find half an hour a week in which to get funky'
-
Emma
Re:
by kensson on Tue Mar 04, 2003 11:56 pm
[s]Unregisted User Andy_Bayley wrote on 16:42, 3rd Mar 2003:
this is to kenneson (sic)
Im (sic) not saying the US is perfect we have made some mistakes overs (sic) the past 50 years but to me it seems you anti war people confuse your dislike for america and whether this war is just.
I'm at great pains to stress that I'm not anti-American. I just think that killing people is something we should avoid if we can possibly help it. My point is that brute force has rarely worked in the past and we should perhaps take a little time to think about alternative ways of resolving conflicts.
You quoted people against the war. Nelson Mandella (sic) is anti american and for the most part anti white people. Jesse jackson just likes to have his name heard. Norman Swartzkoph (sic) was misquoted he said he would rather go to war with a large coalition then unilaterally. 10 million marchers out of 4 billion people.
... and Mandela's a convicted terrorist, too. I don't see any pro-war rallies at all, let alone on any comparable scale.
And how could you possibly find moral equivency (sic) between the torture and rape of iraqis and pressuring countries to vote our way.
Let me tell you how. By tying UN votes to aid - in, for instance, Angola - the US can use the lives of several million people as a bargaining chip. In my book of morality, that's pretty reprehensible.
also I agree its scary that what will saddam do when he has nothing else to lose but thats the whole reason to go in not to avoid the situation. I remember reading an article of an interview of a defecter who knew him well, cant remember the article but it said Saddam sees himself as the second coming of Nebuchanezzer and doesnt see the need for a world after hes gone. Whats to say hes on his death bed in ten years except now he has nukes and he decides to just start blowing up countries.
(I started putting (sic) in that but got bored after the first half-dozen mistakes.)
All of the analysis I've seen has said Saddam Hussein is unlikely to attack anyone unless provoked. My preferred course of action is to let the inspectors do their job and disarm Iraq at their pace. I find it unhelpful for UK and US politicians to say 'Saddam must disarm! (or else we'll invade)' and then dismiss any disarmament that does take place as games and trickery.
The question is who will not be better off without saddam hussien?
the only answer i can think of is france.
I don't deny that the world would be a better place without Saddam Hussein in charge of Iraq. It would also be better if the governments of Pakistan, Burma, Kuwait, North Korea, Israel, Turkey and Saudi Arabia (to name a few) were replaced by ones respecting human rights. That doesn't mean we should blunder in and try to change them. I don't have the right to change the American government; Syria doesn't have the right to change the Israeli government; the USA doesn't have the right to force regime change in any other country, no matter how evil that regime, unless - perhaps - it is under direct threat.
Iraq poses no such threat now.
[hr]
My policy towards the USA remains one of regime change
this is to kenneson (sic)
Im (sic) not saying the US is perfect we have made some mistakes overs (sic) the past 50 years but to me it seems you anti war people confuse your dislike for america and whether this war is just.
I'm at great pains to stress that I'm not anti-American. I just think that killing people is something we should avoid if we can possibly help it. My point is that brute force has rarely worked in the past and we should perhaps take a little time to think about alternative ways of resolving conflicts.
You quoted people against the war. Nelson Mandella (sic) is anti american and for the most part anti white people. Jesse jackson just likes to have his name heard. Norman Swartzkoph (sic) was misquoted he said he would rather go to war with a large coalition then unilaterally. 10 million marchers out of 4 billion people.
... and Mandela's a convicted terrorist, too. I don't see any pro-war rallies at all, let alone on any comparable scale.
And how could you possibly find moral equivency (sic) between the torture and rape of iraqis and pressuring countries to vote our way.
Let me tell you how. By tying UN votes to aid - in, for instance, Angola - the US can use the lives of several million people as a bargaining chip. In my book of morality, that's pretty reprehensible.
also I agree its scary that what will saddam do when he has nothing else to lose but thats the whole reason to go in not to avoid the situation. I remember reading an article of an interview of a defecter who knew him well, cant remember the article but it said Saddam sees himself as the second coming of Nebuchanezzer and doesnt see the need for a world after hes gone. Whats to say hes on his death bed in ten years except now he has nukes and he decides to just start blowing up countries.
(I started putting (sic) in that but got bored after the first half-dozen mistakes.)
All of the analysis I've seen has said Saddam Hussein is unlikely to attack anyone unless provoked. My preferred course of action is to let the inspectors do their job and disarm Iraq at their pace. I find it unhelpful for UK and US politicians to say 'Saddam must disarm! (or else we'll invade)' and then dismiss any disarmament that does take place as games and trickery.
The question is who will not be better off without saddam hussien?
the only answer i can think of is france.
I don't deny that the world would be a better place without Saddam Hussein in charge of Iraq. It would also be better if the governments of Pakistan, Burma, Kuwait, North Korea, Israel, Turkey and Saudi Arabia (to name a few) were replaced by ones respecting human rights. That doesn't mean we should blunder in and try to change them. I don't have the right to change the American government; Syria doesn't have the right to change the Israeli government; the USA doesn't have the right to force regime change in any other country, no matter how evil that regime, unless - perhaps - it is under direct threat.
Iraq poses no such threat now.
[hr]
My policy towards the USA remains one of regime change
-
kensson
Re:
by Andy_Bayley on Wed Mar 05, 2003 8:47 am
"I don't deny that the world would be a better place without Saddam Hussein in charge of Iraq. It would also be better if the governments of Pakistan, Burma, Kuwait, North Korea, Israel, Turkey and Saudi Arabia (to name a few) were replaced by ones respecting human rights. That doesn't mean we should blunder in and try to change them. I don't have the right to change the American government; Syria doesn't have the right to change the Israeli government; the USA doesn't have the right to force regime change in any other country, no matter how evil that regime, unless - perhaps - it is under direct threat.
Iraq poses no such threat now. "
i dont feel like arguing the whole thing let me just first point out i dont bother with typos when posting on message board i have a spell checker and if im writing a thesus i will edit it other wise i see no need.
Saddam is without a doubt a threat. He's invaded two countries during his tenure. Fired on Isreal who had not attacked him recently. And tried to assassinate George Bush(to assaassinate a president and not expect a massive retaliation would be crazy) at the end of the first Gulf War. The scary thing is now that he doesnt have a large army anymore, so now his only option of attack is unconventional methods.
Let me just say i agree on all those regemes needing to go but isreal, im really picking up on the anti semitism on this board, anyway lets start somewhere with one of the worst, Iraq. We can then move on to North Korea, ect ect. The thing about regime change is it has to be wanted by the people. Pakistan for example has the support according to recent polls(Zogby and Gallup) I've seen has 55 percent of the country supporting him. Invading a country is the last option but in the case of Iraq he has such a tight grip on the people that an invasion is the only outcome in the near future that will work.
Also you mentioned tying foriegn aid with UN votes being the same as rape and torture. I think you ask a victim if they think its the same. Its just tough bargaining.
Hell the only reason any one is voting against the war is because they want something. Look at the 3 permanent members against the war.
France has sweet oil deals 22percent of its oil comes from saddam at below market value.
China sells Iraq the majority of its arms.
Russia has billions of dollars in loans that the Iraqis owe them being paid off by oil also at below market value. Not to mention the oil exploratory rights they have.
The only sincere disbelievers in the war in my opinion is Germany. The rest can all be bought
Iraq poses no such threat now. "
i dont feel like arguing the whole thing let me just first point out i dont bother with typos when posting on message board i have a spell checker and if im writing a thesus i will edit it other wise i see no need.
Saddam is without a doubt a threat. He's invaded two countries during his tenure. Fired on Isreal who had not attacked him recently. And tried to assassinate George Bush(to assaassinate a president and not expect a massive retaliation would be crazy) at the end of the first Gulf War. The scary thing is now that he doesnt have a large army anymore, so now his only option of attack is unconventional methods.
Let me just say i agree on all those regemes needing to go but isreal, im really picking up on the anti semitism on this board, anyway lets start somewhere with one of the worst, Iraq. We can then move on to North Korea, ect ect. The thing about regime change is it has to be wanted by the people. Pakistan for example has the support according to recent polls(Zogby and Gallup) I've seen has 55 percent of the country supporting him. Invading a country is the last option but in the case of Iraq he has such a tight grip on the people that an invasion is the only outcome in the near future that will work.
Also you mentioned tying foriegn aid with UN votes being the same as rape and torture. I think you ask a victim if they think its the same. Its just tough bargaining.
Hell the only reason any one is voting against the war is because they want something. Look at the 3 permanent members against the war.
France has sweet oil deals 22percent of its oil comes from saddam at below market value.
China sells Iraq the majority of its arms.
Russia has billions of dollars in loans that the Iraqis owe them being paid off by oil also at below market value. Not to mention the oil exploratory rights they have.
The only sincere disbelievers in the war in my opinion is Germany. The rest can all be bought
-
Andy_Bayley
Re:
by kensson on Wed Mar 05, 2003 10:59 am
[s]Unregisted User Andy_Bayley wrote on 01:30, 5th Mar 2003:
i dont feel like arguing the whole thing let me just first point out i dont bother with typos when posting on message board i have a spell checker and if im writing a thesus i will edit it other wise i see no need.
In deference to anyone who reads what I write, I generally take a short moment to make sure what I've written is clear and correct after posting it (which is why my last post was edited.) If I have to work out whether someone means 'it's' or 'its' then the post takes that much longer to read and I'm that much less convinced of the writer's intelligence.
Saddam is without a doubt a threat. He's invaded two countries during his tenure. Fired on Isreal who had not attacked him recently. And tried to assassinate George Bush(to assaassinate a president and not expect a massive retaliation would be crazy) at the end of the first Gulf War. The scary thing is now that he doesnt have a large army anymore, so now his only option of attack is unconventional methods.
I repeat that Saddam Hussein has no reason to attack anyone, knowing that this would precipitate his downfall. He is a secular leader despised by fundamentalists (on all sides) and it seems ludicrous that he'd give WMDs to anyone he didn't control.
As for his past transgressions, you come up with nothing in the last decade. Since 1968 (when the Ba'ath party was encouraged into power by, um, America), the USA has bombed the following countries:
Laos (1964-73), Vietnam (1961-73),
Cambodia (1969-70), Guatemala (1967-69), Grenada (1983), Libya (1986), El Salvador (1980s), Nicaragua (1980s), Panama (1989), Iraq (1991-date), Sudan (1998), Afghanistan (1998), and Yugoslavia (1999), as well as backing a number of anti-democratic coups in South America. As far as I recall, none of those countries had attacked the USA... ever. Saddam was armed by the USA and encouraged to invade Iran - I don't mean to exonerate him from those actions, but America deserves at least some of the blame for that one too. Who else did the USA arm in the 80s? Oh yeah, the Afghan resistance... al-Qa'eda, I think they were called.
It's also been involved in a number of assassination attempts - Castro, repeatedly, to begin with, and I'm sure I could come up with others if I could be bothered to look.
Let me just say i agree on all those regemes needing to go but isreal, im really picking up on the anti semitism on this board, anyway lets start somewhere with one of the worst, Iraq. We can then move on to North Korea, ect ect. The thing about regime change is it has to be wanted by the people. Pakistan for example has the support according to recent polls(Zogby and Gallup) I've seen has 55 percent of the country supporting him. Invading a country is the last option but in the case of Iraq he has such a tight grip on the people that an invasion is the only outcome in the near future that will work.
Just as there's a difference between being anti-Bush and anti-American, there's a difference between being anti-Sharon and anti-Semitic. I base my opposition to Sharon on his basic disrespect for human rights, and his involvement in the killing of several thousand people in the 1980s at Shabra and Shatila.
If Gallup carried out a poll in Iraq, what do you think the result would be? Pakistan is a military dictatorship which ousted a democracy. Surely that's a bad thing?
And if war is the last resort, why aren't we pursuing all of our diplomatic options?
Lastly on this paragraph, I didn't say 'these regimes should be changed', I said 'these are bad regimes we'd be better off without.' There is a difference.
Also you mentioned tying foriegn aid with UN votes being the same as rape and torture. I think you ask a victim if they think its the same. Its just tough bargaining.
No, it's threatening to kill - indirectly - tens or hundreds of thousands of people. Ask an Angolan dying of starvation if it's the same thing.
Hell the only reason any one is voting against the war is because they want something. Look at the 3 permanent members against the war.
Um, it's just about possible that they don't want a war because war is bad. It could also be argued that the two permanent members who do want a war only want it for what they can get - the US tapping into one of the largest remaining oil supplies, and the UK... actually, I've no idea what Mr. Blair's playing at. Maybe he wants to be in George's gang or something.
China sells Iraq the majority of its arms.
... I don't think the USA is exactly squeaky clean on that one, either.
The only sincere disbelievers in the war in my opinion is Germany. The rest can all be bought
You seem to be reinforcing my point - if the war was just, votes wouldn't need to be bought. It certainly doesn't need to happen right now (unless... well... isn't there an election in the US in a couple of years? To wait any longer to be a war hero would look desperate, wouldn't it? And crikey, the economy's looking a bit ropey too. Perhaps a war would take people's minds off of that.)
i dont feel like arguing the whole thing let me just first point out i dont bother with typos when posting on message board i have a spell checker and if im writing a thesus i will edit it other wise i see no need.
In deference to anyone who reads what I write, I generally take a short moment to make sure what I've written is clear and correct after posting it (which is why my last post was edited.) If I have to work out whether someone means 'it's' or 'its' then the post takes that much longer to read and I'm that much less convinced of the writer's intelligence.
Saddam is without a doubt a threat. He's invaded two countries during his tenure. Fired on Isreal who had not attacked him recently. And tried to assassinate George Bush(to assaassinate a president and not expect a massive retaliation would be crazy) at the end of the first Gulf War. The scary thing is now that he doesnt have a large army anymore, so now his only option of attack is unconventional methods.
I repeat that Saddam Hussein has no reason to attack anyone, knowing that this would precipitate his downfall. He is a secular leader despised by fundamentalists (on all sides) and it seems ludicrous that he'd give WMDs to anyone he didn't control.
As for his past transgressions, you come up with nothing in the last decade. Since 1968 (when the Ba'ath party was encouraged into power by, um, America), the USA has bombed the following countries:
Laos (1964-73), Vietnam (1961-73),
Cambodia (1969-70), Guatemala (1967-69), Grenada (1983), Libya (1986), El Salvador (1980s), Nicaragua (1980s), Panama (1989), Iraq (1991-date), Sudan (1998), Afghanistan (1998), and Yugoslavia (1999), as well as backing a number of anti-democratic coups in South America. As far as I recall, none of those countries had attacked the USA... ever. Saddam was armed by the USA and encouraged to invade Iran - I don't mean to exonerate him from those actions, but America deserves at least some of the blame for that one too. Who else did the USA arm in the 80s? Oh yeah, the Afghan resistance... al-Qa'eda, I think they were called.
It's also been involved in a number of assassination attempts - Castro, repeatedly, to begin with, and I'm sure I could come up with others if I could be bothered to look.
Let me just say i agree on all those regemes needing to go but isreal, im really picking up on the anti semitism on this board, anyway lets start somewhere with one of the worst, Iraq. We can then move on to North Korea, ect ect. The thing about regime change is it has to be wanted by the people. Pakistan for example has the support according to recent polls(Zogby and Gallup) I've seen has 55 percent of the country supporting him. Invading a country is the last option but in the case of Iraq he has such a tight grip on the people that an invasion is the only outcome in the near future that will work.
Just as there's a difference between being anti-Bush and anti-American, there's a difference between being anti-Sharon and anti-Semitic. I base my opposition to Sharon on his basic disrespect for human rights, and his involvement in the killing of several thousand people in the 1980s at Shabra and Shatila.
If Gallup carried out a poll in Iraq, what do you think the result would be? Pakistan is a military dictatorship which ousted a democracy. Surely that's a bad thing?
And if war is the last resort, why aren't we pursuing all of our diplomatic options?
Lastly on this paragraph, I didn't say 'these regimes should be changed', I said 'these are bad regimes we'd be better off without.' There is a difference.
Also you mentioned tying foriegn aid with UN votes being the same as rape and torture. I think you ask a victim if they think its the same. Its just tough bargaining.
No, it's threatening to kill - indirectly - tens or hundreds of thousands of people. Ask an Angolan dying of starvation if it's the same thing.
Hell the only reason any one is voting against the war is because they want something. Look at the 3 permanent members against the war.
Um, it's just about possible that they don't want a war because war is bad. It could also be argued that the two permanent members who do want a war only want it for what they can get - the US tapping into one of the largest remaining oil supplies, and the UK... actually, I've no idea what Mr. Blair's playing at. Maybe he wants to be in George's gang or something.
China sells Iraq the majority of its arms.
... I don't think the USA is exactly squeaky clean on that one, either.
The only sincere disbelievers in the war in my opinion is Germany. The rest can all be bought
You seem to be reinforcing my point - if the war was just, votes wouldn't need to be bought. It certainly doesn't need to happen right now (unless... well... isn't there an election in the US in a couple of years? To wait any longer to be a war hero would look desperate, wouldn't it? And crikey, the economy's looking a bit ropey too. Perhaps a war would take people's minds off of that.)
-
kensson
Re:
by Cattet on Wed Mar 05, 2003 12:31 pm
Kennson, whether or not you like Americans, please don't insult us by saying stuff like a war will take our minds off of the economy. That's just insipid. You try living off of less than $15,000 a year and going to university. The economy is strangling me and plenty of others, and no amount of war could make that fact go away.
-
Cattet
Re:
by Cain on Wed Mar 05, 2003 1:38 pm
you probably shouldn't read this then
http://www.theonion.com/onion3908/bush_ ... ayers.html
[hr]
whoever kills Cain will suffer a sevenfold vengeance
http://www.theonion.com/onion3908/bush_ ... ayers.html
[hr]
whoever kills Cain will suffer a sevenfold vengeance
I hold an element of surprise
-
Cain
- Posts: 4439
- Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2003 8:31 am
Re:
by Andy_Bayley on Wed Mar 05, 2003 5:04 pm
Im in between classes so ill make this quick.
Rather or not the United States has supported Iraq in the past does not matter. He is a tyrant we are doing the world a favor.
Foriegn aid is not something we have to give it's something we choose to give. My point was anyone voting against the war wants something except Germany.
We do not currently sell arms to Iraq and will not be losing out on any arms deals in this.
Anti Sharon is one thing but I've gotten the opinion of a lot of people on this board do not believe there should be an Isreal.
Rather or not the United States has supported Iraq in the past does not matter. He is a tyrant we are doing the world a favor.
Foriegn aid is not something we have to give it's something we choose to give. My point was anyone voting against the war wants something except Germany.
We do not currently sell arms to Iraq and will not be losing out on any arms deals in this.
Anti Sharon is one thing but I've gotten the opinion of a lot of people on this board do not believe there should be an Isreal.
-
Andy_Bayley
Re:
by The_Farwall on Wed Mar 05, 2003 6:05 pm
[s]Unregisted User Andy_Bayley wrote on 16:23, 5th Mar 2003:He is a tyrant we are doing the world a favor.
Which ever 'we' you're referring to there, there are no favours being done for the world. a)A vast proportion of the world doesn't want it too happen and b)Which ever 'we' you are referring to is surely part of the world, not some etherial superior being gifting some of his precious time to give us plebs a hand.
The only favours being done here is the Bush administration helping themselves to a few more foreign heads to display on the campaign trail.
[hr][s]I forget what my friends look like
and they forget why they like me
but that's old hat, I'm so happy,
how do you write about that?[/s]
Which ever 'we' you're referring to there, there are no favours being done for the world. a)A vast proportion of the world doesn't want it too happen and b)Which ever 'we' you are referring to is surely part of the world, not some etherial superior being gifting some of his precious time to give us plebs a hand.
The only favours being done here is the Bush administration helping themselves to a few more foreign heads to display on the campaign trail.
[hr][s]I forget what my friends look like
and they forget why they like me
but that's old hat, I'm so happy,
how do you write about that?[/s]
[s]Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way.[/s]
-
The_Farwall
- Posts: 1628
- Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am
Re:
by Andy_Bayley on Thu Mar 06, 2003 10:09 am
"Which ever 'we' you're referring to there, there are no favours being done for the world. a)A vast proportion of the world doesn't want it too happen and b)Which ever 'we' you are referring to is surely part of the world, not some etherial superior being gifting some of his precious time to give us plebs a hand.
The only favours being done here is the Bush administration helping themselves to a few more foreign heads to display on the campaign trail."
The We im referring to is the coalition to take out Saddam. This is a brittish website right? The We is My government as well as yours.
A) A vast portion of the world is wrong or simply doesnt care about the suffering of Iraqis.
B) The We I refer to are those of us blessed enough to be born in a democratic country. It is our duty to the world to give them what we have, freedom.
I ask this question to every anti war person, and I have never seen it answered very well.
Who will not be better off without Saddam gone?
Iraqis know the answer thats why an overwelming majority of Iraqi refugees support the war.
The only favours being done here is the Bush administration helping themselves to a few more foreign heads to display on the campaign trail."
The We im referring to is the coalition to take out Saddam. This is a brittish website right? The We is My government as well as yours.
A) A vast portion of the world is wrong or simply doesnt care about the suffering of Iraqis.
B) The We I refer to are those of us blessed enough to be born in a democratic country. It is our duty to the world to give them what we have, freedom.
I ask this question to every anti war person, and I have never seen it answered very well.
Who will not be better off without Saddam gone?
Iraqis know the answer thats why an overwelming majority of Iraqi refugees support the war.
-
Andy_Bayley
Re:
by harmless loony on Thu Mar 06, 2003 12:46 pm
the iraqis have been in this bad state for well over 10 yrs now - why now have britain and america decided to do them a favour? Where were they before??
-
harmless loony
- Posts: 1115
- Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2003 10:42 pm
Re:
by The_Farwall on Thu Mar 06, 2003 3:34 pm
[s]Unregisted User Andy_Bayley wrote on 19:48, 5th Mar 2003:
I ask this question to every anti war person, and I have never seen it answered very well.
Who will not be better off without Saddam gone?
The thousands of inocent Iraqi civilians killed during the inevitable carpet bombing by the invading forces and in the running ground battles as forces press towards Bagdad once again.
Y'know, the people you're trying to set free.
[hr][s]I forget what my friends look like
and they forget why they like me
but that's old hat, I'm so happy,
how do you write about that?[/s]
I ask this question to every anti war person, and I have never seen it answered very well.
Who will not be better off without Saddam gone?
The thousands of inocent Iraqi civilians killed during the inevitable carpet bombing by the invading forces and in the running ground battles as forces press towards Bagdad once again.
Y'know, the people you're trying to set free.
[hr][s]I forget what my friends look like
and they forget why they like me
but that's old hat, I'm so happy,
how do you write about that?[/s]
[s]Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way.[/s]
-
The_Farwall
- Posts: 1628
- Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am
Re:
by Andy_Bayley on Thu Mar 06, 2003 3:37 pm
"the iraqis have been in this bad state for well over 10 yrs now - why now have britain and america decided to do them a favour? Where were they before?? "
Appeasing their leader, the time has changed though and we will make up for our mistake of not getting rid of saddam in the first war.
Appeasing their leader, the time has changed though and we will make up for our mistake of not getting rid of saddam in the first war.
-
Andy_Bayley
Re:
by Cain on Thu Mar 06, 2003 4:35 pm
[s]kensson wrote on 15:46, 6th Mar 2003:
You see, I always thought appeasement was not doing anything about invasions by powerful states. Apparently it now means exactly the opposite.
appeasing is the pursual, through diplomatic channels that exclude military engagement, of any things that can be done to prevent a war.
[hr]
whoever kills Cain will suffer a sevenfold vengeance
You see, I always thought appeasement was not doing anything about invasions by powerful states. Apparently it now means exactly the opposite.
appeasing is the pursual, through diplomatic channels that exclude military engagement, of any things that can be done to prevent a war.
[hr]
whoever kills Cain will suffer a sevenfold vengeance
I hold an element of surprise
-
Cain
- Posts: 4439
- Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2003 8:31 am
Return to The Sinner's Main Board
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 69 guests