Volconvo Debate Forums - View Single Post

damnrad · Feb 19, 2004, 06:28 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Stigmata66,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Deckard59 Posted on 02-12-2004 06:12 PM
Since it's now obvious to everyone in the United States, although the rest of the world knew before the war started, that there was never W. of Mass Destruction in Iraq, the question remains, what right did the United States have to attack Iraq.

True, Iraq didn’t meet all the requests of the Weapons Inspectors, but there was nothing to find. Iraq’s objections and lack of cooperation was somewhat within reason, especially now, when we can clearly see that Bush and the rest of the hawks were just using the United Nations.

Some do see the truth as to what happened, but still many fellow Americans feel they can pat themselves in the back because of all the horrific murders and human rights violations that they’ve uncovered and stopped. They feel that if the US didn’t go, those things would still be continuing today. That point maybe true, but in no way does that give a country the right to attack another country. All though not on the same scale, every country in the world is guilty of human rights violations, even the US.

When anyone looks now, it’s obvious to see that the United States only motive in attacking Iraq was because of Greed, Money and Power.

Without any legitimate reasons, it’s clear that the leader of such an aggressive war mongering country should be up for war crimes.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

No. You're an idiot.

Saddam was a war criminal! Hundreds of thousands of dead in mass graves, rape rooms, torturing of athletes that preformed under the Qusay bar of excelence, and needless to say the use of chemical weapons against the kurds. That's a real war criminal.

I geuss you don't support war in Iraq, so you'd rather have a real war criminal in power that did that ^, than the US REBUILDING, EDUCATING, AND PROTECTING IRAQI'S AT OUR OWN EXPENSE.If that is not justification to go to war then I don't know what is.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

And most of those dead in mass graves were put there when Saddam was the U.S.' buddy; when Rummy was happily shaking his killing hands; when the U.S. was urging him on in his war against Iran, which Saddam started by invading Iran; when the U.S. was supplying him with weapons, including the makings of chem and bio weapons; when the U.S. was happily turning its head the other way while he used those weapons; in short, when the U.S. was implicated in the war crimes.

And when Saddam invaded Kuwait, daddy Bush put together a coalition to reverse that but held back from toppling Saddam. Why? Because the U.S. did not want to anger its Arab allies, and because toppling Saddam would destabilize the region. Dubya wasn't as smart as papa.

Feb 19, 2004, 06:28 pm	#78 (permalink) (top)
damnrad Igneous Magma Posts: 264	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Stigmata66,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Deckard59 Posted on 02-12-2004 06:12 PM Since it's now obvious to everyone in the United States, although the rest of the world knew before the war started, that there was never W. of Mass Destruction in Iraq, the question remains, what right did the United States have to attack Iraq. True, Iraq didn’t meet all the requests of the Weapons Inspectors, but there was nothing to find. Iraq’s objections and lack of cooperation was somewhat within reason, especially now, when we can clearly see that Bush and the rest of the hawks were just using the United Nations. Some do see the truth as to what happened, but still many fellow Americans feel they can pat themselves in the back because of all the horrific murders and human rights violations that they’ve uncovered and stopped. They feel that if the US didn’t go, those things would still be continuing today. That point maybe true, but in no way does that give a country the right to attack another country. All though not on the same scale, every country in the world is guilty of human rights violations, even the US. When anyone looks now, it’s obvious to see that the United States only motive in attacking Iraq was because of Greed, Money and Power. Without any legitimate reasons, it’s clear that the leader of such an aggressive war mongering country should be up for war crimes. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> No. You're an idiot. Saddam was a war criminal! Hundreds of thousands of dead in mass graves, rape rooms, torturing of athletes that preformed under the Qusay bar of excelence, and needless to say the use of chemical weapons against the kurds. That's a real war criminal. I geuss you don't support war in Iraq, so you'd rather have a real war criminal in power that did that ^, than the US REBUILDING, EDUCATING, AND PROTECTING IRAQI'S AT OUR OWN EXPENSE.If that is not justification to go to war then I don't know what is.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> And most of those dead in mass graves were put there when Saddam was the U.S.' buddy; when Rummy was happily shaking his killing hands; when the U.S. was urging him on in his war against Iran, which Saddam started by invading Iran; when the U.S. was supplying him with weapons, including the makings of chem and bio weapons; when the U.S. was happily turning its head the other way while he used those weapons; in short, when the U.S. was implicated in the war crimes. And when Saddam invaded Kuwait, daddy Bush put together a coalition to reverse that but held back from toppling Saddam. Why? Because the U.S. did not want to anger its Arab allies, and because toppling Saddam would destabilize the region. Dubya wasn't as smart as papa.