![GI Team Colors](https://i.imgur.com/St7FKkA.gif)
Originally posted by JoseDominguez
been a while mate.
Couldn't argue with you over the war thing (bit too serious once the body count started).
![]()
You almost had me baited with one of your other posts but the dull comment one was too good to pass up
Originally posted by JoseDominguez
been a while mate.
Couldn't argue with you over the war thing (bit too serious once the body count started).
![]()
While admittedly the anti-war coilition is very broad, after attending various anti-war coilition meeting and quizzing Tony Ben and various other characters on their views, there seems to be a widely held idea amongst the people I've spoken to that all disputes can be solved peacefully. This is a fallacy, although it would be impossible for me to explain why in a sort message. If you really want to know, read Waltz's 'Man, the State, and War', a well respected postgrad level analysis of the causes of war, and the illusions of various liberalist approaches to war.Originally posted by duffistut
>>>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.
More ****e.
My post http://www.p8ntballer-forums.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17259&perpage=15&pagenumber=2 explains the 'talking ****e' comment Sam.![]()
Be patient, you'll have plenty of time to disbelieve the proof of WMD when they're finally presented.Originally posted by Burb
If we are there for removing the WMD - which we are sure they have, why havent we found them yet?
What would the cost of life be to the Iraqi people had Saddam stayed in power? Why do you require proof that Iraq had WMD, but are sure that the US government (not to mention the political careers of Bush, Blair, Howard, and Aznar) would begin a war on an assumption?Originally posted by Burb
Its a very expensive cost in life for "assuming" they have WMD.
Why? We just went to war without UN and a good portion of world approval, what is that compared to your assertion of the immediacy to show cause after the fact?Originally posted by Burb
Basically you havent proven your case that Iraq own weapons of WMD - you still need to proove this to the UN, and the rest of the world.
No, I'm not saying that at all. You are saying that to try and lampoon what the US hopes to achieve with regime change in Iraq. It's rather petty actually, but typical.Originally posted by Burb
Your saying by removing these WMD your going save the world from terrorist attacks?
Is not our foreign policy different now than it was before 9/11? See, we learn from our mistakes.Originally posted by Burb
Failing to realise that America's foriegn policy's are probabbly the main cause to the hate the eastern world has towards us, forgive me if im wrong but was the horrific 9/11 caused by a Weapon of Mass Destruction?
I don't know what media outlet you've been watching, but I've seen a lot of reporting slanted towards the negative. CNN withholding reports in an attempt to curry favors for an interview with Saddam, Dan Rather and Peter Arnett knowing full well that any interview would have to be approved by Saddam's propagandists, but going through with them regardless. And who can forget that tearful farewell between the Iraqi ambassador to the UN and that CNN reporter? Pretty much every report from Baghdad before the coalition arrived required approval/spin from the Iraqi minders. If a reporter's job is to find and report the truth what was all this about?Originally posted by Burb
This is why i said it was for Liberation, and until you find WMD the Media will constantly show pictures of Liberated Iraqi's to cover the fact you havent found WMD yet.
Did you have another country to invade in mind? Wasn't Afghanistan first?Originally posted by Burb
So Why Iraq first?