|
Pro-War rallies? (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| montie |
just think about it a PRO-war rally.....
why would you ever march and encourage your government to send people to go kill others and draft your people into the military to go kill and be killed?
even if the war was a necesary evil, as was said before, people should somberly chose to fight, not rally for it. |
|
|
| Cyrus King |
| quote: | Originally posted by JM
aaaah this is so pointless. its like black and white. and all the liberal, tree-hugging, socialist, democrat, hippie, activist anti-war movement freaks argue with these totally off the wall statements. hell, i'll blend in and use one myself here --> why dont you all just get the up and move over to afganistan, iraq or palestine . you all might as well be terrorists.
shame on the americans in these boards that talk about the USA. move to sweden or canada or something, you'll probably fit into their social(ist) or communist system much more better than you do here in the USA.
i really hope this forum gets closed...hell suspend my account permanently if you want
lots of love:rolleyes:
>JM< |
Ignorant american!!!! SHAME ON YOU!!!! |
|
|
| JM |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cyrus King
Ignorant american!!!! SHAME ON YOU!!!! |
i'm not an American, yet ;)
>JM< |
|
|
| LiquidX |
| Iraq began destroying missils, and US still wants to attack, not its really showing agression .. |
|
|
| Orbax |
| if im pointing a gun at your head and take 1 bullet out is the gun no longer a threat? |
|
|
| Orbax |
| quote: | | just think about it a PRO-war rally..... |
i think there is a misperception about what pro-war is. actually, if you are against the term itself you shouldnt be fighting because youd get your people killed, so in a way its kind of a social-darwinistic protecting you from society/society from you kind of thing. should America not have had pro-war sentiments during WW2? |
|
|
| occrider |
| Let me remind everybody this is NOT just about how much of a threat Saddam is at the current moment. Or which is a greater threat N. Korea or Iraq? This whole thing is about abiding by the terms dictated in the truce agreement. Look at this as a contract. The truce was, we will stop kicking your ass if you comply UNCONDITIONALLY and FULLY with UN monitored disarmament. You will NOT have any non sacntioned weapons, and you will NOT have any chemical, biological, nuclear weapons. Iraq has FAILED to account for their stock of Anthrax and VX Gas they had in 1998. They have FAILED to destroy all weapons that are prohibited by the UN. Failure to comply with ANY of the above statements will result in a resumption of an ass kicking. We are STILL in a state of war with Iraq. We have been for the past decade. Just because we were in elementary school when this conflict first initiated doesn't mean we should discount the reasons that have led up to what's going on today. People say we haven't given diplomacy enough time .... diplomacy has been tried for over a decade without any obvious success!!! When do we say enough is enough??? |
|
|
| LiquidX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Orbax
if im pointing a gun at your head and take 1 bullet out is the gun no longer a threat? |
Is that gun really pointed to someone? |
|
|
| LiquidX |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Let me remind everybody this is NOT just about how much of a threat Saddam is at the current moment. Or which is a greater threat N. Korea or Iraq? This whole thing is about abiding by the terms dictated in the truce agreement. Look at this as a contract. The truce was, we will stop kicking your ass if you comply UNCONDITIONALLY and FULLY with UN monitored disarmament. You will NOT have any non sacntioned weapons, and you will NOT have any chemical, biological, nuclear weapons. Iraq has FAILED to account for their stock of Anthrax and VX Gas they had in 1998. They have FAILED to destroy all weapons that are prohibited by the UN. Failure to comply with ANY of the above statements will result in a resumption of an ass kicking. We are STILL in a state of war with Iraq. We have been for the past decade. Just because we were in elementary school when this conflict first initiated doesn't mean we should discount the reasons that have led up to what's going on today. People say we haven't given diplomacy enough time .... diplomacy has been tried for over a decade without any obvious success!!! When do we say enough is enough??? |
- This is when the following question arises. We have Fiedel Castro right next to the US, whom has probobaly done more damage to his country then Saddam himself. Yet, the US is not commenting the same about Fidel then Saddam.. why? .. maybe you guys could be smart enough to answer that. Also, what has Saddam done to the US in order for us to go kick their ass? If we are talking about the chemical weapons and so on.. come on, every country has them, the US itself has them, and WE cant even deal with the people in our own country and find the suspects of Anthrax, and we are to find that Saddam has them in Iraq .. with no CONCRETE proof that he has them.. if he has them on lets SAY .. Warehouse 142- in your face kind of proof, then the most resonable thing is to go and destroy that, and punish Iraq in some other form for violatiing such and such and such.. but not kill inoccent people from either sides. Its tireless to keep on talking and talking about the same again and again.. on this discussions we've probably said the same about 1000 times.. all I can say now that Saddam has destroyed and is on the proccess of destroying the Al Samud 2 missils.... let UN go to Cuba and do the same.. I bet you everything that the same will happen if so. Its common sense that the purpose of Bush's administration is way more then the free Iraq and security. Why dont Al Quaeda suspects criminals have linked Iraq on anything. We have found a key suspect of Al Quaeda, probably the brain.. go ask the guy and compensate him to release some info if Iraq does indeed helpe them.. but no, there's nothing of that kind. Just assumptions by Mr. Bush. And do you really think that Iraq wants to really deal with the US for a democratic country ? ? Bull.. I doubt that people that have had their family members die because of US attacks.. would like to have that same country establish and help them out. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by LiquidX
- This is when the following question arises. We have Fiedel Castro right next to the US, whom has probobaly done more damage to his country then Saddam himself. Yet, the US is not commenting the same about Fidel then Saddam.. why? .. maybe you guys could be smart enough to answer that.
|
We have economic sanctions against Cuba since the 60's. We've ALWAYS spoken out against Cuba and demanded Castro out of power. We've even tried to use force to get him out of power which was a huge public embarrasement. Trust me we don't have buddy buddy relations with Cuba. As for why we don't invade it ... I don't understand you guys you say we SHOULDN'T get involved in Iraq, now you're saying we SHOULD be involved in all these other countries?? Weeelllll maybe we WOULD be threatening Cuba if they had lost a war of aggression 12 years ago, SIGNED a truce agreement, and is now not fulfilling the obligations laid out for it in that truce!
| quote: |
Also, what has Saddam done to the US in order for us to go kick their ass? If we are talking about the chemical weapons and so on.. come on, every country has them, the US itself has them, and WE cant even deal with the people in our own country and find the suspects of Anthrax, and we are to find that Saddam has them in Iraq .. with no CONCRETE proof that he has them.. if he has them on lets SAY .. Warehouse 142- in your face kind of proof, then the most resonable thing is to go and destroy that, and punish Iraq in some other form for violatiing such and such and such.. but not kill inoccent people from either sides. |
The underlying theory of a truce agreement is that if that truce agreement is violated there is a resumption of a state of war. It doesn't MATTER if he poses no direct threat at the present. It was never stipulated in the truce agreement that the only way the US would be able resume hostilities is if Iraq poses a direct threat to the US.
| quote: |
And do you really think that Iraq wants to really deal with the US for a democratic country ? ? Bull.. I doubt that people that have had their family members die because of US attacks.. would like to have that same country establish and help them out. |
Ok so if the US government wrongs me in a significant way I'm going to go out and support an uprising led by a dictator who's going to torture me nad restrict my civil liberties. I'm so pissed off at the US government that I have no desire for all my freedoms anymore ... riiiiggghht. |
|
|
| LiquidX |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
We have economic sanctions against Cuba since the 60's. We've ALWAYS spoken out against Cuba and demanded Castro out of power. We've even tried to use force to get him out of power which was a huge public embarrasement. Trust me we don't have buddy buddy relations with Cuba. As for why we don't invade it ... I don't understand you guys you say we SHOULDN'T get involved in Iraq, now you're saying we SHOULD be involved in all these other countries?? Weeelllll maybe we WOULD be threatening Cuba if they had lost a war of aggression 12 years ago, SIGNED a truce agreement, and is now not fulfilling the obligations laid out for it in that truce! |
And Iraq has had the same sanctions basically.. And abouy invading, I was just saying that why invade Iraq if we heavent done the same with Cuba where Castro has been on power longer, aand has done more damage to its people then what Saddam has done. Also, about the US trying to invade Cuba or whatever, well, that must have been the Bay of Pigs case where the US sented exiled cubans to attack Castro, where later on the US government gave their back to them.. leaving them trapped,and die or got arrested. That I dont really call an invasion, just a big FAILED mission. Im not saying to go out and attack Cuba, but why Iraq then. .. and yeah yeah yeah.. you will say this is the 21st century, and after 9/11 nothing is the same, and he got chemical weapons that will be given to Al Quaeda for a led US attack. All that is just a dammed assumption. Im more and more believing on Conspiracy. The US almost sold that group on North Iraq out to just get the Turkey support.. but well, that didnt happen. Also, what did US offer Spain for its VOTE in those close doors. And US giving financial help for the AIDS situation in Africa, where those country have their people cheering for the US and whereas they now SUPPORT the US for a war. And now the US is tapping and spying on those undecided countries on the UN. WTF ! |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by LiquidX
And Iraq has had the same sanctions basically.. And abouy invading, I was just saying that why invade Iraq if we heavent done the same with Cuba where Castro has been on power longer, aand has done more damage to its people then what Saddam has done. Also, about the US trying to invade Cuba or whatever, well, that must have been the Bay of Pigs case where the US sented exiled cubans to attack Castro, where later on the US government gave their back to them.. leaving them trapped,and die or got arrested. That I dont really call an invasion, just a big FAILED mission. Im not saying to go out and attack Cuba, but why Iraq then. .. and yeah yeah yeah.. you will say this is the 21st century, and after 9/11 nothing is the same, and he got chemical weapons that will be given to Al Quaeda for a led US attack. All that is just a dammed assumption. Im more and more believing on Conspiracy. The US almost sold that group on North Iraq out to just get the Turkey support.. but well, that didnt happen. Also, what did US offer Spain for its VOTE in those close doors. And US giving financial help for the AIDS situation in Africa, where those country have their people cheering for the US and whereas they now SUPPORT the US for a war. And now the US is tapping and spying on those undecided countries on the UN. WTF ! |
What's your proof regarding the tapping on and spying on undecidded coutnries in the UN? Also the same with the Africa thing. And the same with the Turkey thing.
Finally I'm not saying anything with regards to 9/11 and Iraq. I'm not even saying we should invade them so that they won't give chemical weapons to terrorists. I'm arguing from a purely political and military standpoint. We told them the conditions that they would need to satisfy to stop the war. They agreed to those conditions then. They have not and are not abiding by those conditions. Therefore the US is not obligated to uphold it's end of the bargain ... namely a truce. We've warned them over the years to get their together and they've been dicking us around. It's plain and simple. Man ... don't you wish we had just accepting nothing less than an unconditional surrender back then. I hate talking about this issue. |
|
|
|
|
