Anti-war Iraq? Why were you?

refer to one of the other 5000 Iraq threads/

Reply 2

oldthrashbarg

7

Rag Head

I think our country should try to eliminate any nation that poses a threat to our security (for whatever reason).

I am definitely against the American attack on Iraq.

1. The war was illegal under international law.

2. There was no reason to consider Iraq an immediate threat.

3. Even if it had been a threat, does this mean that anyone is allowed to attack a country which poses a threat? Should China or North Korea be allowed to attack the US?

4. You say that the attack was made in order to remove an oppressive regime. Who is to decide when a regime is oprressive? Does this mean that a communist nation would be within its rights if it attacked a capitalist nation for oppresing its workers?

5. What has the death of the American contractors to do with anything? When the Americans occupy another country, they can't just expect that everyone will applaud them.

Reply 3

oldthrashbarg

7

Rag Head

The war would been fought with nuclear, chemical and biological weaponry. The coalition forces could then divide the resources (such as oil) amongst themselves. Which would be well deserved.

The majority of the Iraqi people are savages. They do not deserve the land they walk on. They are brutally disgusting animals that commit heinous crimes against what we, as civilised people, call humanity.

We have removed the oppressive regime FOR THEM. Yet, they continue to kill those that are doing their upmost to 'liberate them'.

Ignorant idiot.

Reply 4

ben2111

oldthrashbarg

Ignorant idiot.

Don´t waste your energy... probably just another vienna/howard wannabe. sad these people

Reply 5

ben2111

sad these people

the wannabees?

Reply 6

oldthrashbarg

I am definitely against the American attack on Iraq.

1. The war was illegal under international law.

no, its legality is well documented.

2. There was no reason to consider Iraq an immediate threat.

in what sense? and what does this matter?

3. Even if it had been a threat, does this mean that anyone is allowed to attack a country which poses a threat? Should China or North Korea be allowed to attack the US?

thats their prerogative..

4. You say that the attack was made in order to remove an oppressive regime. Who is to decide when a regime is oprressive? Does this mean that a communist nation would be within its rights if it attacked a capitalist nation for oppresing its workers?

saddam was removed for a variety of reasons...and whats your obsession with rights?

5. What has the death of the American contractors to do with anything? When the Americans occupy another country, they can't just expect that everyone will applaud them.

no, but they can still be shocked by the behaviour of barbaric animals..

Reply 7

yawn1

vienna95

no, its legality is well documented.

in what sense? and what does this matter

thats their prerogative..

saddam was removed for a variety of reasons...and whats your obsession with rights?

no, but they can still be shocked by the behaviour of barbaric animals..

I see you haven't 'upped' the quality of your contributions to the forum.

Same old same. :rolleyes:

Reply 8

]{ingnik

1

vienna you are outwardly dismissive of arguments you oppose, perhaps you could add to 'what does this matter?' as the answer is pretty clear. it matters because several thousand innocents died.

Reply 9

*claps for I{ingnik* here here!

Reply 10

'

{ingnik']vienna you are outwardly dismissive of arguments you oppose, perhaps you could add to 'what does this matter?' as the answer is pretty clear. it matters because several thousand innocents died.

ok, firstly i happen to raise some points of disagreement or of confusion and this is 'outwardly dismissive'? its called a discussion..i dont agree with his points, is that OK with YOU? have YOU got anything to add or are you going to continue to show your double standards? some people did agree with the war..ye, we do exist!!!!

what does this matter? what does being an immediate threat or not matter to the validity of entering Iraq...im amazed that this wasnt clear..

Reply 11

yawn1

I see you haven't 'upped' the quality of your contributions to the forum.

Same old same. :rolleyes:

still no opinions of your own, still personal, still no answers to my questions

Reply 12

Everdawn

*claps for I{ingnik* here here!

its 'hear hear'

Reply 13

one or the other, its late and im tired with the flu, forgive me if i seem a little out of it! :mad:

Reply 14

]{ingnik

1

vienna95

ok, firstly i happen to raise some points of disagreement or of confusion and this is 'outwardly dismissive'? its called a discussion..i dont agree with his points, is that OK with YOU? have YOU got anything to add or are you going to continue to show your double standards? some people did agree with the war..ye, we do exist!!!!

what does this matter? what does being an immediate threat or not matter to the validity of entering Iraq...im amazed that this wasnt clear..

if there was an immediate threat from iraq, the war would have been at least partially justified. with no reason for war in iraq, the war was completely unjustified, simple as that, or is this too complex for your single track mind?

and perhaps you may consider actually debating points you disagree with rather than simply labelling them as wrong.

Reply 15

'

{ingnik']if there was an immediate threat from iraq, the war would have been at least partially justified. with no reason for war in iraq, the war was completely unjustified,

haha, and thats according to who? who wrote this fascinating rule?

simple as that, or is this too complex for your single track mind?

hmm, your convinced your playground political judgements are concrete and im the one with the single track mind? having a difference in opinion and being ask to justify it signifies a healthy political mind.

Reply 16

]{ingnik

1

vienna95

having a difference in opinion and being ask to justify it signifies a healthy political mind.

then i would advise you to eat more healthily :rolleyes:

you are suggesting that war without purpose is morally correct, perhaps you could explain this to me?

Reply 17

'

{ingnik']then i would advise you to eat more healthily :rolleyes:

eh?

you are suggesting that war without purpose is morally correct, perhaps you could explain this to me?

no, im not suggesting that at all. again i thought this was quite clear.

Reply 18

'

{ingnik']
and perhaps you may consider actually debating points you disagree with rather than simply labelling them as wrong.

erm, if they are wrong they are wrong. if i feel i need to discuss a point i will.

Reply 19