War on Iraq

So you're for genocide of innocent Iraqis and what's probably going to become a mini-holocaust?

 

Let me point two very evident things out to you;

There was no Al Qaeda-Iraq link.
Iraq didn't have WMDs.

How the hell else would Iraq have been a threat? This was purely for oil. If they really wanted to stop terrorism in other countries, they'd be in Rwanda and Dafur, but of course there's nothing to benefit from in those places, so Iraq is somehow a "logical choice".

The whole "with us or against us" stuff is pure bullshit. Canada didn't go to war with Iraq, are we now your enemies? Russia didn't, are they? Germany? France? No. These countries are smart. They think about the consequences of invading a country with absolutely no proof or evidence before going to war under false pretenses. All of those countries (except Germany) had your backs in previous wars and all of a sudden because they're not coming along on your quest for middle-east controlism and oil, they're against you? That's the most fucked up logic I've heard.

People join the army to protect their country, not to go to a foreign country that is absolutely no threat to the country they're protecting and die for a pointless war. I feel very badly for all of the soldiers who are being used as chess pieces in a selfish, unsensible plot like this.

 

You're asking if Im for Saddam? Nope.

And to Mark: Saddam is a genocide maniac -- that's good enough logic to go in there and get him and try to fix things if you ask me. I never said there were ties to Al-Queida nor did I bring up WMD. [/b][/quote]
Aha! But you did say he was a threat to you. Now, I'll repeat my question; "How the hell else would Iraq have been a threat?"
How could he of hurt you without ties to terrorism or WMDs? There is no evidence to support this war.

The UN is who deals with things like genocide. If they found evidence of genocide, they'd go in there. The reason the UN didn't go in there was because of the weapons inspections which yielded no finding of WMDs. If genocide was present, the UN would be in there. Alas, it was not.

In fear of missing an opportunity at salvaging oil from an enemy country, the US forms their "coalition of the willing", or as I'd like to call them the "coalition of the coersed and bribed", and invents intelligence on how Saddam is a threat to national security. Of course, these claims were extremely false and had no factual backup.

 

You still won't answer my question! If he had no means to hurt your country (no terrorist link, no WMDs), how would he have hurt you? I want a straight answer that disproves my claims.

You're so freaking brainwashed by the constant lies portrayed in the media that you're a blind slave to corrupt republican agendas.

If a security risk was present (and it isn't) Clinton would've been there if the evidence was there. But there was no evidence. Thus, why no one attacked Iraq during the Clinton years.

 

You are not an Iraqi! How would he have hurt you, the United States of America. You are an American. When I say you, I mean your country. It's a blatant and easy comprehension of basic English that you're missing.

You're not next, because, again, there's were no means for Iraq/Saddam to hurt your country. You cannot deny that. No way. No evidence. No proof. He was not going to attack the US. He couldn't.

Bush wasn't going to find the answer out to anything. He wouldn't find out the answer if Iraq was a threat. So he went into a country and killed over a hundred thosuand people for no reason except for unfounded paranoia.

And I find my sources from alot more than a Moore movie/book. There's this beautiful commission called the "9/11 Commission" that established these facts that Iraq was no threat to your country in any way.

Repeating yourself over and over despite the proven facts is pointless. Two wrong things, three wrong things, or more will not cancel out each other and make your point true. You have no evidence or back-up to support the fact that Iraq was a threat to your country, and I'll outline it again; the USA. It's been blatantly proven otherwise. And now you're making me repeat the honest facts over and over again in an effort to pound them into your stubborn, unyielding, and incredibly underinformed cranium.

 

You still deny to acknowledge that Iraq was not a threat to your secuity. You constantly refuse to give me any proof that they were. Please, I would like to have some.

In addition, please give me a valid reason why the US went to war with Iraq.

Nothing about Saddam being a tyrant to his own citizens. Just pure facts showing two things; how Iraq was a threat to your country, and a valid reason for invading to Iraq.

I anticipate your response.

 

Saddam was a murderous tyrant in Iraq. So is Bush, we replaced evil with evil. We should have left Iraq alone.

 

What's the point? Anything I try to tell you will be refuted with your cute little emoticons of power. I already told you why I feel we should be in Iraq. It's my opinion and I have backed it up with facts. The facts are: we had beef with Saddam in the past, he's still being a tyrant to his people, he didn't comply with the UN very well...[opinion:] giving us suspicions that he had WMD, 9/11 scared us shitless...so that's why we went in there. These are my views on it. Your views are different. It doesn't mean you shoot me down, Mark. I'm not here to fight with anyone -- such hostility. Every topic I post an opinion in, there you are to fight with me. [/b][/quote]
That's because you're incredibly confrontational and have a problem with everything, minor or major. I just tend to disagree.

The point is to have you finally acknowledge that this war was based largely on paranoia (per your "9/11 scared us shitless" statement). There was no threat to your national security and helping the Iraqis could have been done through the UN, not by brute force and arrogance, in which you pissed off well over a hundred other countries.

I really couldn't care about your opinions on going to war because there aren't any decent and plausible reasons for going into Iraq and killing over a hundred thousand people. You don't give any. You say he gave you suspicions he had WMDs, when in fact these suspicions (based primarily on paranoia), were completely false and flawed, as proven by the UN weapons inspectors and 9/11 commission.

Not complying with the UN is not a reason to go in and kill a good portion of their population either. If they're not a threat, you don't go in and slaughter them. That could've been handled by the UN, not the "must-save-the-world!" United States of America. Being a tyrant could have also been handled by the UN by a UN-led coalition, but of course the US wouldn't reap oil benefits from that, so that's a no-no.

Feel free to continue self-victimizing yourself because of your apparent dislike for smilies. They're available for you to use too, so I'd suggest you try them. You are not a victim here, you are merely being out-debated and shown the error of your "facts". Time to fess up.

 

My opinion is my opinion. I'm not here to prove anything. I'm just contributing my opinion. I gave you my side and I got shot down horribly. I can't wait for the next topic we do this in.

To Link04: We both know the answer to that one. But the UN has proved itself completely worthless to me after 9/11. I was never much of a fan of it anyway, but after 9/11, I officially didn't like them at all. [/b][/quote]
An opinion can be incorrect, you know. Opinions can be wrong if based upon wrong information, in which yours was. Of course, how you feel on something is perfectly fine, but when you spread false information around, it's politically incorrect. I was merely pointing out the inaccuracies.