Iraq war - yes or no? (country, rock, American, effect)

IamAlejo · 08-12-2005, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adidass

does the possesion of illegal weapons really constitute a legitimate reason for an invasion?

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamAlejo

As for is it a legitimate reason, judging by Hussein's actions in the past, hell yeah it's a legitimate reason.

Please don't take what I say out of context and try to make me look stupid. It won't work.

IamAlejo · 08-12-2005, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adidasss

i would say that croatian newspapers and television ARE more objective when it comes to Iraq, we don't have any interests in the matter you see...

I'd say any war that involves the US, as of now each and every country in the world has interests in the matter. So...no.

08-12-2005, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamAlejo

So every President who doesn't get the US blown up is a good President? I mean, I know we've had some good ones, but.....

no but one who manages to avert a major crisis and doesnt get blown up is....

IamAlejo · 08-12-2005, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adidasss

that fact aside it was up to the UN to give clearance for the war which it did not do, why did the US take it upon itself to resolve the matter when so many countries were against the war? why do you think half the world hates the US? because of Honduras, Chile, Vietnam, Iraq and countless other "incidents"....

Because the US sat around and waited for the UN to give clearance. Honestly, the US gives the UN...what, like 75% of the money. So when we ask for UN backing on something and they don't give it, or sit on their ass about it, it doesn't go over to well. That's why the US just said no sir and decided to get things under way. And as of countries against it....well, most people have a strong idea why countries such as Russia were so strong against the war.

Quote:

i'm of the opposite thinking, i think the UN needs to be dismanteled and NATO to grow stronger, it seems to be the only organisation that can really guarantee peace and take serious action ( like against Serbia when they refused to stop slaughtering Albanians in Kosovo, i just wish they did that in Croatia and Bosnia....but the decision making needs to change )

NATO was created as a defensive mechanism to communism and the Warsaw Pact. Neither of those are a threat anymore, which makes NATO not needed.

IamAlejo · 08-12-2005, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pastor of muppets

no but one who manages to avert a major crisis and doesnt get blown up is....

So your saying that one good deed in his Presidency overshadows the failures in his presidency? It's not that I hate the guy, but the reference was made at the beginning making him seem like the greatest President in US history, which he isn't even close to being.

08-12-2005, 08:09 PM

oh im not saying hes the greatest ever.... i think he is overglorified cos of his assasination... but he did a decent job i feel....

anticipation · 08-12-2005, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sikoholickkouboi

Oh, and "war for peace" is NOT an oxymoron. Peace won't spread everywhere without FIGHTING for it.

so thats like saying

ya, I can stab you, and we'll be cool, and so will your parents and family/friends. im stabbing you for peace. I should get a ****ing medal.

please dont be a **** about this, because its a ****ing joke.

riseagainstrocks · 08-13-2005, 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adidasss

that fact aside it was up to the UN to give clearance for the war which it did not do, why did the US take it upon itself to resolve the matter when so many countries were against the war? why do you think half the world hates the US? because of Honduras, Chile, Vietnam, Iraq and countless other "incidents"....

US = not UN

the UN is not binding. Nor should one nation decided on a national platform based on the wills of other nations.

I think it's wonderful how people point out all the things we aren't doing right now (as in action in other countries). Because if we were doing them than they would scream at us for being imperialist.

adidasss · 08-13-2005, 05:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomesickAtSpaceCamp

No country has to wait for the UN before they do anything. Also the US is one of the powerful out of any of the countries in the UN and they are the top contributers ($$$) to the UN........ so they are, and have not, going to do anything about it.

is english your native language?

adidasss · 08-13-2005, 06:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamAlejo

Please don't take what I say out of context and try to make me look stupid. It won't work.

look, the fact remains, regardless of Iraqs actions in the past, when they invaded Kuwait and launched misles(sp?) at Israel, that now, they did absolutely nothing to nobody and still got invaded under a pretence that they have weapons of mass destruction, you're being very clever at avoiding THAT fact, that THAT was the main reason for the invasion and it turned out that Iraq had NO weapons of mass destruction, sure, they own biological weapons that are illegal but why hasn't anyone intervened when they used them in the war against Iran? and the US want to war because of a thread to it's safety? i haven't heard that Iraq owns weapons that can reach the US...there was no imediate threat and the war was pointless....

View Poll Results: Do you agree with the war in Iraq?
Yes	6	13.64%
No	38	86.36%
Voters: 44. You may not vote on this poll

08-12-2005, 08:09 PM	#66 (permalink)
pastor of muppets Guest Posts: n/a	oh im not saying hes the greatest ever.... i think he is overglorified cos of his assasination... but he did a decent job i feel....