I bet alot of the motivation for the CIA giving the Mujahedeen (sp???) Stingers was a "F*ck-you very much!" to the Russians after Vietnam.
A letter to Bush
- Thread starter Burb
- Start date
I'm not Pro-War, I'm Pro-Peace!!!
Firstly, i support action against Iraq. Just one word, Halabja. Do you know that? Thats the Kurdish village Saddam used chemical weapons on. 5000 dead!!!
Secondly, granted, the US are looking at Smallpox and others, but their primary reason is to get antidotes. If the US don't create them first, they'll be defenceless if someone attacks.
Thirdly, the US people, your right, no American wants to kill Iraqi's. But have you asked them if they want to liberate an oppresed people?
Fourth, so the Pope sais somethin's, who cares. After all, he is just an average bloke. Prove he's a messenger from God, that's all i ask.
Fifth, are you saying that only those who will have to fight should decide if we go to war or not? If so, we'd be living in a regime such as the one in Iraq. Would you like that???
Sixth, ask yourself, how much of the Hardware in Iraq has Made in France stamped on the side? Your looking at good stuff from decades ago. Look now fool!
Seventh, before Saddam came to power, Iraq was a rich nation. It's only Saddam spending all his money on arm's that made it a third world country.
Finally, most of Michael Mooron, i mean Moore, most of his post is too opinionated. Where are the facts, where is the evidence to back up your argument's. US sais Saddam has Weapons Of Mass Destruction, look at Halabja. There's your proof. They say Iraq's don't like Saddam, look at pictures from liberated city's. Just ask the Iraqi's what they want!!! Your argument is flawed!!!
Firstly, i support action against Iraq. Just one word, Halabja. Do you know that? Thats the Kurdish village Saddam used chemical weapons on. 5000 dead!!!
Secondly, granted, the US are looking at Smallpox and others, but their primary reason is to get antidotes. If the US don't create them first, they'll be defenceless if someone attacks.
Thirdly, the US people, your right, no American wants to kill Iraqi's. But have you asked them if they want to liberate an oppresed people?
Fourth, so the Pope sais somethin's, who cares. After all, he is just an average bloke. Prove he's a messenger from God, that's all i ask.
Fifth, are you saying that only those who will have to fight should decide if we go to war or not? If so, we'd be living in a regime such as the one in Iraq. Would you like that???
Sixth, ask yourself, how much of the Hardware in Iraq has Made in France stamped on the side? Your looking at good stuff from decades ago. Look now fool!
Seventh, before Saddam came to power, Iraq was a rich nation. It's only Saddam spending all his money on arm's that made it a third world country.
Finally, most of Michael Mooron, i mean Moore, most of his post is too opinionated. Where are the facts, where is the evidence to back up your argument's. US sais Saddam has Weapons Of Mass Destruction, look at Halabja. There's your proof. They say Iraq's don't like Saddam, look at pictures from liberated city's. Just ask the Iraqi's what they want!!! Your argument is flawed!!!
Looks like chem. weapons found, and Iraqi civilians are cheering their liberation from Saddam's neo-Stalinist regime of terror. Should be confirmed by Wednesday whether or not the chem. weapons are actually chem weapons. So, it looks like the anti-war brigade will be blown out the water. Again. Just like they were in WW2.
Also, the primary motivation is weapons of mass destruction. The humanitarian aspect is purely to defend the primary motivation from an anti-war counter-attack based on philosophy and ethics. It is purely to show that ethical considerations support, instead of oppose, the political and security imperitives motivating this war.
Also, the primary motivation is weapons of mass destruction. The humanitarian aspect is purely to defend the primary motivation from an anti-war counter-attack based on philosophy and ethics. It is purely to show that ethical considerations support, instead of oppose, the political and security imperitives motivating this war.
So are you saying that we should ignore our obligation to defend those who can't defend themselves??? Just leave the US to carry the burden of World Police Force(cus let's face it, the UN just can't cut it)
"Firstly, i support action against Iraq. Just one word, Halabja. Do you know that? Thats the Kurdish village Saddam used chemical weapons on. 5000 dead!!!"
Remember this word? Hiroshima? How many dead there?
Remember this word? Hiroshima? How many dead there?
D
duffistuta
Guest
>>>So, it looks like the anti-war brigade will be blown out the water. Again. Just like they were in WW2.<<<
With respect, you're talking ****e.
With respect, you're talking ****e.
isn't the anti war 'brigade' like that coz a few of them don't like the goverment and the majority of them don't like the fact of civilian casualties?!?!
I don't understand your point here. You're saying to ignore the reasons, but then you focus on one.
I believe liberation is a noble cause, but it's not the reason. Disarming Iraq is numero uno. It is those who are opposed to war that sight the civilian casualties that will result, and unfortunately have resulted. Only then does the issue of liberation become a theme by Bush and Blair.
Are they producing WMD and have ties to terrorist organizations seeking to do harm to the US or UK? Where is the vaunted UN in all of this? Where is France, Russia, and Germany? Innocent people are dying in the Congo, and they are more concerned about the innocent people being liberated in Iraq? Congo does have untapped oil and mineral deposits, with the blood for oil theory, you'd think Bush would be there quicker than a fly on ****. I guess there is a problem with that theory.
Sure France and Germany are considered Western nations, but it looks like Russia was a bigger player in arming Saddam, with Syria as a point of entry. I'll be interested in the records the coalition finds once they have a chance to look. I hope they release that information, rather than use it as a political bargaining chip by keeping it from the press.
Oh sure, in your effort to compare these apples with those oranges, you dis the Nagasaki folks in the process!Originally posted by P*O*P*E
Remember this word? Hiroshima? How many dead there?
In the US it has been documented that many of the anti-war protests were organized by socialist and communist groups who dislike ANYTHING that the US government does, and to a greater extent the liberal-democratic ideologies of the participants simply hate anything a conservative president chooses to do. To simply hide behind the banner of civilian casualties as a moral argument makes little sense when presented with the logic of Saddam Hussein remaining in power, especially since his regime has accounted for far more civilian casualties than the coalition.
This attempt to use the people of Iraq as a moral platform in their quest to oppose the liberation of Iraq, puts more innocent people in jeopardy as witnessed by the Hussein regime's use of human shields, soldiers wearing civilian clothes, Iraqis shooting from mosques, hospitals, and just recently the Palestine hotel.
And if they didn't use a nuke, the estimate loss of US armed forces was around the 1 million mark. Add that on top of the entire Japanise population willing to die for the emperor. Wouldn't you say it's a dam site better to lose a few hundred thousand lives than millions? However tragic it may be to lose that much life.
Well, that's a well formulated, articulate argument that's really put me in my place. So you don't think the anti-war coilition is just a tad undermined, considering the turnout to their last rally in London was about 2% of the size of their million strong demonstration before the war. In a similar way, before WW2, 12 million British citizens presented parliament with a petition demanding that Britain not go to war, yet in hindsight Britain's decision to declare war on Germany is widely considered to have been both just and necessary, and very few people remember, let alone agree with, the discredited anti-war movement.
The Iraqi reaction to liberation has undermined the anti-war coilition, and if weapons of mass destruction are found, the credibility of the anti-war coilition will probably never recover, especially if, like after the first Gulf War, victory is accompanied by a peaceful, although perhaps not permanent, resolution of the Israel-Palestine problem.
So, with respect, I'm not talking ****e. But if you can't accept that, I'm not surprised, as the anti-war brigade always has had a hard time facing reality.