Iraq war wasn't justified, UN weapons inspectors say

again you have to understand they are expressing their opinion... I was strongly against the war in iraq and I am rather disappointed in many areas of the reconstruction of Iraq however I know as well as most on this board that pulling out of iraq is the worst thing that could happen...

except expressing the opposite opinion causes you to be labeled a conservative or a neocon. They are not simply spouting an opinion in their eyes. They demonize their opposition just as they suggest war mongers do.

I personally was for the war in Iraq as i could see no other solution had been posed that would work. Had we removed Saddam years ago we could have prevented thousands of deaths within his country. We have prevent future ones. It is simply sad to see countries resorting to 12 years of sanctions which did nothing but hurt the populace of the country. Economic sanctions on autocratic countries are near pointless in many cases as the first people to suffer seem to be the citizens.
 
Well, that convinces me!

Much like your comments were ment to convince John his argument was fraudulent?

According to you. You haven't set standards as to what defines "adequate". I would define the situation in Iraq currently as being far from "adequate".

Removing the dictator is key in reestablishing Iraq. 12 years of sanctions have not achieved this nor have they helped the citizens.

A reconstructions plan will take a several years to complete no doubt. Still far better then 12 years of increasing poverty under the rule of an oppressive tyrant.

You may not view them as adequate but i would say the current condition is far better then it was in the past under Saddam.

Pile upon pile of horseshit. Doesn't this ever get tiring for you, Legion?

The only horseshit here is the complete inadequacy of peaceniks and their ideologies. THey can not and do not pose working solutions. They are for peace at any cost. Peace to them is keeping the status quo as it is rather obvious there wasn't peace before the war in Iraq. They are as historically myopic as they have always been. Peaceniks are the penicle of hypocrisy who's beliefs of the world is formed from their limited perspective.
 
They are for peace at any cost.
Thats a pretty broad stroke, there.

Not all peaceniks are for peace at any cost. The marchers at the recent protests seem to be, though.

Pulling out now is ludicrous, though it appears there's a few hundred thousand people in the world that don't get that.
 
Legion said:
again you have to understand they are expressing their opinion... I was strongly against the war in iraq and I am rather disappointed in many areas of the reconstruction of Iraq however I know as well as most on this board that pulling out of iraq is the worst thing that could happen...

except expressing the opposite opinion causes you to be labeled a conservative or a neocon. They are not simply spouting an opinion in their eyes. They demonize their opposition just as they suggest war mongers do.

I personally was for the war in Iraq as i could see no other solution had been posed that would work. Had we removed Saddam years ago we could have prevented thousands of deaths within his country. We have prevent future ones. It is simply sad to see countries resorting to 12 years of sanctions which did nothing but hurt the populace of the country. Economic sanctions on autocratic countries are near pointless in many cases as the first people to suffer seem to be the citizens.

I think I would rather be called conservative or neo-con than unpatriotic and unamerican...

personally I have nothing against saddam's removal but I would much rather the war on TERROR have been carried out against TERRORISTS rather than a soverign nation that posed no threat...

it is absolutely shocking to see that an administration can use the sympathies of people to pursue an agenda that has NOTHING to do with terror while @ the same time routinely touting the war on terror as being a success... if that was the case why are we having continued attacks worldwide? is this not a global war on terror or is it only called that to suit a political agenda...

attacking iraq was a retarded move and the security of our nation has not benefitted from it...
 
RussSchultz said:
They are for peace at any cost.
Thats a pretty broad stroke, there.

Not all peaceniks are for peace at any cost. The marchers at the recent protests seem to be, though.

Pulling out now is ludicrous, though it appears there's a few hundred thousand people in the world that don't get that.


I think there is a misunderstanding of what i mean when i say peaceniks. I am not lumping all peace protestors together. I am lumping the hippies mentalities together.

WHere were any of these people to protest what had happened in the Balkans, the situations in africa, turkish rule in turkey, illegal occupation of golan/gaza/west bank by syria/egypt/jordan, China, the SU, etc etc? I find it so hypocritical the bulk of protestors get involved only when the matter directly involves their person or has become a popular thing to protest. Honoi Fonda anyone?
 
an agenda that has NOTHING to do with terror
I disagree, or at least I disagree that the people pushing the agenda believe that.

Democratizing Iraq should have an expanding sphere of 'goodness' in the middle east that should result in other countries coming to their senses and ending their despotic regimes.

Whether or not you agree with it, or with the means chosen to enact the democratization, it is an arguable point that the 'neocons' are engaging in long term investment in peace in the middle east.
 
Whether or not you agree with it, or with the means chosen to enact the democratization, it is an arguable point that the 'neocons' are engaging in long term investment in peace in the middle east.

Agreed.
 
Sazar said:
Attacking iraq was a retarded move and the security of our nation has not benefitted from it...

Wow, people still believe this drivel? I thought it went out of fashion with Howard Dean and his merry band of lunies. One day in the future your kids, living in a safer world and America, will understand this whole situation and explain it to you.
 
Vince said:
Sazar said:
Attacking iraq was a retarded move and the security of our nation has not benefitted from it...

Wow, people still believe this drivel? I thought it went out of fashion with Howard Dean and his merry band of lunies. One day in the future your kids, living in a safer world and America, will understand this whole situation and explain it to you.

Hopefully by that day some orphan from this war will not detonate an AQ nuke in your city - so you'll be able to explain the 'good' that has been done.

i.e. there are orphans in every war, but this was an unnecessary one that will just prove the terrorists right in the eyes of their audience.This war was unprovoked, and wrong on many points iuncluding the deception of the voters and bullyining every nation in the world to follow the administrative 'gut' ignoring standard institutions like CIA, FBI and international ones like UN, provoked alienation of allies trough bullying and spying, and now adds significantly to US deficit in an attempt to rebuild the country that is on a verge of splitting up, diverting attention and resources from the real threat which is the terrorists - yes very good indeed.

:rolleyes:
 
Back
Top