Is the war against Iraq legal ??

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Maven
Sure they are, name one country that is saying that Iraq has completely been disarmed. Iraq doesn't count =P They are saying that they think they can achive disarming Iraq through peaceful means. I say that they have had 12 years and time has ran out.

It doesnt work that way. You are assuming you know everything that the leader knows, you don't. In most countries the majority does not rule and thats a good thing.

---

1) No country says they're completely disarmed. But no-one has said that they're not disarming.

2) I don't assume I know everything the leaders knows.
That's the problem though. If they want the support of the international community they'll have to give a little.


One cannot expect support for such actions without first proving there is a need to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by plenderj
Without first proving that it is indeed threatened ?

---

Perhaps your just chosing to ignore what our intelligence officals are saying. I personally think that you have some kind of anti-americanism going on that blinds you from the truth. They have found several clear ties that links Saddam to Al-Q'eada.

In 1993 Iraq supported assassins to attempt to kill President George Bush Sr. on his visit to the gulf. Farouk Hijazi, Iraq’s ambassador to Turkey, met with bin laden in Afghanistan in 1998. Our Intelligence believes that the ambassador was offering asylum to bin laden in Iraq. Contacts between the 9/11 hijackers and Iraqi diplomats have been reported from Malaysia, the UAE, and the Czech Republic. Ramzi Yousef who led the 1993 NY bombs coolly boarded a plane to Baghdad after the attack and still remains there. Considerable evidence shows that he was an Iraqi intelligence officer. Iraq has supported terrorist organizations including Al-Qeada in the past with training, funding, and explosives. Saddam gave funds to the families of the Sept 11th hijackers. We also have intelligence that Iraq was training Iraqi and non-Iraqi people how to hijack airplanes with knives. This was pre-9/11. We have photos from satellites showing this training, we have been told that was the type of training taking place by Iraqi defectors, and the weapon inspectors in Iraq has confirmed the location of the plane used in the training.

I peronsally think that you require Saddam to step out on national TV and announce to the world that he is supporting terrorism before you will believe.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Maven
Perhaps your just chosing to ignore what our intelligence officals are saying. I personally think that you have some kind of anti-americanism going on that blinds you from the truth. They have found several clear ties that links Saddam to Al-Q'eada.

---

So why did the director of the CIA say that there was absolutely no connection between Saddam and Al Quaeda ?

Osama Bin Laden hates Saddam. Saddam kills muslims.
Osama Bin Laden fights for Muslims. They are not in cahoots.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by plenderj
1) No country says they're completely disarmed. But no-one has said that they're not disarming.

2) I don't assume I know everything the leaders knows.
That's the problem though. If they want the support of the international community they'll have to give a little.


One cannot expect support for such actions without first proving there is a need to do so.

---

1. Name one country besdes Iraq that says he has did what resolution 1441 called for. He has destoried a few missles (Our intel showed he was even rebuilding them at antoher location) and all question about the biological and chemical weapons are blank. Its already been displayed that Iraq isn't fully cooperating as just a week ago they found some stuff that wasn't declared in the report.

2. They can't tho, thier information is classified. It puts lives in danger when they give out information that they aren't suppose to.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by plenderj
So why did the director of the CIA say that there was absolutely no connection between Saddam and Al Quaeda ?

Osama Bin Laden hates Saddam. Saddam kills muslims.
Osama Bin Laden fights for Muslims. They are not in cahoots.

---

That information might I add came from the former director of the CIA who was around at the time this stuff was taking place. His name is John Woosley.

Russia and America hated each other in WW2 but we still fought side by side against the germans. It's called putting away your differences in the name of a commen enemy. Do you honestly think Bin Laden is going to reject support? LOL get real.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by duc
Heh, if even if it is illegal what will they do, declare war on us?

---

I think this statement sums up peoples fears of the policy of pre-emptive strike.
Might is right we'll do what we want when we want because you can't stop us.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Maven
Military doesn't do that my man, they never have in history. You don't annoucnce on public TV where you are going to strike before you do. Why? Because even a dumbass would know to move it.

---

You wouldn't have to put it on the CNN, like your government seems to be doing about every other thing :rolleyes:

You could have presented the evidence "in camera" to only the UNSC or only to the veto-holding bigwigs. Or to the UN inspectors. The fact that you don't have anything in the name of solid evidence is what makes you talk about the so called secrecy of your intelligence sources.

Also I have not seen any other government than the US claiming they have evidence about Iraq's WMDs. Any nation backing the US on the matter has said they accept the US argument. This defeats the argument that many governments have the proof/evidence.

.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Maven
Do you honestly think Bin Laden is going to reject support? LOL get real.

---

Yes I do.
You would not have fought alongside the germans - especially after you found the concentration camps.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by honeybee
You wouldn't have to put it on the CNN, like your government seems to be doing about every other thing :rolleyes:

You could have presented the evidence "in camera" to only the UNSC or only to the veto-holding bigwigs. Or to the UN inspectors. The fact that you don't have anything in the name of solid evidence is what makes you talk about the so called secrecy of your intelligence sources.

Also I have not seen any other government than the US claiming they have evidence about Iraq's WMDs. Any nation backing the US on the matter has said they accept the US argument. This defeats the argument that many governments have the proof/evidence.

.

---

What information is shared is done in private and not at the UN. Those countries are under an obligation to not share any of the information with anyone including their own citizens.

To accept the argument means that you agree with it. Most of our intelligence is suggestive evidence and most of the intelligence that your country gathers is to. I like the idea that "We'll support it after he kills 100,000 in a nerve gas attack".

Quote:

---

Originally posted by plenderj
Yes I do.
You would not have fought alongside the germans - especially after you found the concentration camps.

---

Ok if Saddam was to offer Bin Laden a nuclear bomb, your telling me that he woudln't take it? As I said before get real, Bin Laden will take support from anyone who offers it.

By the way did you fall asleep when Bin Laden was threating to attack americans if we attacked Iraq?

ummm where did I say america was fighting alongside germans?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Maven
What information is shared is done in private and not at the UN. Those countries are under an obligation to not share any of the information with anyone including their own citizens.

To accept the argument means that you agree with it. Most of our intelligence is suggestive evidence and most of the intelligence that your country gathers is to. I like the idea that "We'll support it after he kills 100,000 in a nerve gas attack".

---

Sensible and reasonable people would like to take action only after seeing substantial evidence :rolleyes:

That bull's hits about obligation of not sharing intelligence is a flimsy excuse to cover up the fact that the US probably doesn't have an iota of credible evidence. I know for a fact that the intelligence agencies of various countries and governments work hand in hand, passing bits and pieces of information across to each other. Therefore saying the countries are obliged not to share any of such information with others is quite ignorant.

.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Maven
Ok if Saddam was to offer Bin Laden a nuclear bomb, your telling me that he woudln't take it? As I said before get real, Bin Laden will take support from anyone who offers it.

By the way did you fall asleep when Bin Laden was threating to attack americans if we attacked Iraq?

ummm where did I say america was fighting alongside germans?

---

1) Maybe he would. But I doubt Saddam has nuclear weapons.

2) I don't blame him.

3) "Russia and America hated each other in WW2 but we still fought side by side against the germans"
You also hated the Germans - I was drawing a comparison.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Maven

By the way did you fall asleep when Bin Laden was threating to attack americans if we attacked Iraq?

---

I hope the US government is keeping this in mind.

While focusing on Iraq it will become easier to attack the US

Quote:

---

Originally posted by honeybee
Sensible and reasonable people would like to take action only after seeing substantial evidence :rolleyes:

That bull's hits about obligation of not sharing intelligence is a flimsy excuse to cover up the fact that the US probably doesn't have an iota of credible evidence. I know for a fact that the intelligence agencies of various countries and governments work hand in hand, passing bits and pieces of information across to each other. Therefore saying the countries are obliged not to share any of such information with others is quite ignorant.

.

---

Quite right .

The US can do like some policemen do searching a man on drugs and putting it on him during the search.

If there was evidence the security agencies of UN country's should know about it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by honeybee
Sensible and reasonable people would like to take action only after seeing substantial evidence :rolleyes:

That bull's hits about obligation of not sharing intelligence is a flimsy excuse to cover up the fact that the US probably doesn't have an iota of credible evidence. I know for a fact that the intelligence agencies of various countries and governments work hand in hand, passing bits and pieces of information across to each other. Therefore saying the countries are obliged not to share any of such information with others is quite ignorant.

.

---

Sensible and reasonable people understand that if certian information was made public, it would put troops in danger.

That means they cannot go public with the information presented.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by plenderj
1) Maybe he would. But I doubt Saddam has nuclear weapons.

2) I don't blame him.

3) "Russia and America hated each other in WW2 but we still fought side by side against the germans"
You also hated the Germans - I was drawing a comparison.

---

1. Sure he would, he would take any kind of support.
2. I thought they hated each other so much, why would bin laden care?
3. Your comparision was dumb.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Maven
3. Your comparision was dumb.

---

How was it dumb ?
You were fighting them both in World War 2.
Then you became an ally of one of them to fight the other.

How is it a dumb comparison ?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Maven
Sensible and reasonable people understand that if certian information was made public, it would put troops in danger.

That means they cannot go public with the information presented.

---

You're guestimating. The evidence presented to the world would be thrown out of any court for being spurious. Saying that vital information is being witheld for the security of the troops is a handy scapegoat. I bet you $100 if they found any convincing evidence whatsoever, it woudl be splattered all over the news. They've been chomping at the bit to get into Iraq since February.

Putting troops in danger is also an unqualified statement. The troops in Kuwait have been covering globaly on the major TV channels, and have been there for quite a while. So their positions can be no secret.

Almost every major international incident in recent history has seen sneaky tactics and bending of truths. We only see all the official secret documents (quite rightly so) when they are released to the public until years after the event.

Speaking of information being available, I was listening to the radio last week.
Kate Adie

Quote:

---

The Pentagon has threatened to fire on the satellite uplink positions of independent journalists in Iraq,

---

Radio Show's transcript

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DeadEyes
Speaking of information being available, I was listening to the radio last week.
Kate Adie


Radio Show's transcript

---

...with their black helicopters

Quote:

---

Originally posted by plenderj
How was it dumb ?
You were fighting them both in World War 2.
Then you became an ally of one of them to fight the other.

How is it a dumb comparison ?

---

We was not fighting russia in WW2. I was making a point with a situation that happened in history where you was making a fairy tale situation.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Gaffer
You're guestimating. The evidence presented to the world would be thrown out of any court for being spurious. Saying that vital information is being witheld for the security of the troops is a handy scapegoat. I bet you $100 if they found any convincing evidence whatsoever, it woudl be splattered all over the news. They've been chomping at the bit to get into Iraq since February.

Putting troops in danger is also an unqualified statement. The troops in Kuwait have been covering globaly on the major TV channels, and have been there for quite a while. So their positions can be no secret.

Almost every major international incident in recent history has seen sneaky tactics and bending of truths. We only see all the official secret documents (quite rightly so) when they are released to the public until years after the event.

---

If you think the states is going to make all thier information public then your joking yourself.

I’m getting board of arguing about this as this is going no where. You cannot convince someone who is anti-American that an American lead war is needed to stop a brutal dictator. We are American after all so that makes everything we do automatically wrong.

To give a nice answer to the poster:

The war with Iraq is legal. Resolution 1441 said that if Iraq failed to disarm and give complete and full cooperation immediately then serious consequences will occur. Resolution 678 authorizes “All means necessary” which is diplomatic code for war. This then gets suspended (crucially not repealed) by a ceasefire in resolution 687, upon conditions (Iraq's disarmament). A breach of resolution 687 of Iraq not co-operating therefore re-invokes resolution 678s authority. Resolution 1441 states that Iraq is in material breach of 687, therefore its authorized, also re-authorized by saying "serious consequences".

According to some people on this board, serious consequences equals more inspections and jumping through Sadaam provided hoops.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Maven
If you think the states is going to make all thier information public then your joking yourself.

---

Regardless, you are guessing, basing an argument on heresay rather than fact, almost conspiratory. I very much doubt you can believe that if Bush's people found WMDs in iraq, that they'd keep it a secret from the press. I'll bet he was praying to god that he could find some...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by run_GMoney
According to some people on this board, serious consequences equals more inspections and jumping through Sadaam provided hoops.

---

No, many people on this board believe it is wrong to go to War without the support of fellow nations.

Blix isn't impressed :
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...084250,00.html

And neither is the pope :
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...271887,00.html

Quote:

---

Originally posted by plenderj
Blix isn't impressed :
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...084250,00.html

And neither is the pope :
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...271887,00.html

---

So what, they're both old. :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Maven
I’m getting board of arguing about this as this is going no where. You cannot convince someone who is anti-American that an American lead war is needed to stop a brutal dictator ...

---

So anyone who's disagreeing with you is suddenly anti-American.
What is this ? New international McCarthyism ?

That's what's getting on my tits. You blabber on about freedom, freedom of speech and rights and wrongs but when someone dares to tap on your shoulder and says "it could be done another way. We do not agree with what your president says" and all of a sudden we're vile anti-american moaners who should by rights shut up and leave the arena to the "decent" people.
A year ago you wouldn't call me names, hell, you didn't even know or interact with me but now I'm anti-american scum who lives in a fairytale land.

Freedom of speech ? Perhaps.
Respect for other points of view and other solutions my big hairy backside. You only believe yourself to be 100% right and anyone who dares to disagree must be some anti-american left wing bleeding heart liberal/commie right ?

That's what's so disgusting about all this pro and contra war talk. You can't do it without resorting to the Bush inspired "Them or Us" rethoric.

This isn't a debate, it never was.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally Pipp
So anyone who's disagreeing with you is suddenly anti-American.
What is this ? New international McCarthyism ?

That's what's getting on my tits. You blabber on about freedom, freedom of speech and rights and wrongs but when someone dares to tap on your shoulder and says "it could be done another way. We do not agree with what your president says" and all of a sudden we're vile anti-american moaners who should by rights shut up and leave the arena to the "decent" people.
A year ago you wouldn't call me names, hell, you didn't even know or interact with me but now I'm anti-american scum who lives in a fairytale land.

Freedom of speech ? Perhaps.
Respect for other points of view and other solutions my big hairy backside. You only believe yourself to be 100% right and anyone who dares to disagree must be some anti-american left wing bleeding heart liberal/commie right ?

That's what's so disgusting about all this pro and contra war talk. You can't do it without resorting to the Bush inspired "Them or Us" rethoric.

This isn't a debate, it never was.

---

Agreed, well said Wal... :)

whatever happened to common sense mate ? Did they can it with betamax or something ?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally Pipp
So anyone who's disagreeing with you is suddenly anti-American.
What is this ? New international McCarthyism ?

That's what's getting on my tits. You blabber on about freedom, freedom of speech and rights and wrongs but when someone dares to tap on your shoulder and says "it could be done another way. We do not agree with what your president says" and all of a sudden we're vile anti-american moaners who should by rights shut up and leave the arena to the "decent" people.
A year ago you wouldn't call me names, hell, you didn't even know or interact with me but now I'm anti-american scum who lives in a fairytale land.

Freedom of speech ? Perhaps.
Respect for other points of view and other solutions my big hairy backside. You only believe yourself to be 100% right and anyone who dares to disagree must be some anti-american left wing bleeding heart liberal/commie right ?

That's what's so disgusting about all this pro and contra war talk. You can't do it without resorting to the Bush inspired "Them or Us" rethoric.

This isn't a debate, it never was.

---

What he said!

Three cheers for wally!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally Pipp
So anyone who's disagreeing with you is suddenly anti-American....That's what's so disgusting about all this pro and contra war talk. You can't do it without resorting to the Bush inspired "Them or Us" rethoric.

---

http://www.vbforums.com/attachment.p...postid=1389235

Oh, and look at all these anti-Americans....

http://www.vaiw.org/vet/index.php

It's obviously irellevant that they once fought for their country to brave stay at home chickenhawks like Arc, they're obviously all traitors who deserve to go to prison :rolleyes:

I'm confused? Saddam has repeatedly said he has no WMD. Yesterday he announced he was going to launch Chemical weapons against Allied troops on the southern border:confused:

ID that is very very true. However we were attacked. Unless Bush has been taking lessons from David Copperfield and made the Finincal District in NYC dissappear we were definatly attacked. Saddam Hussein has threatened us, His sons have threatened us. N. Korea has threatened to nuke us. The words came out of their mouths not Bush's. Any way, it's pointless to argue about it now. All we can do is hope our friends and family out there fighting come home safe.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MasterBlaster
I'm confused? Saddam has repeatedly said he has no WMD. Yesterday he announced he was going to launch Chemical weapons against Allied troops on the southern border:confused:

---

Did he? All I heard on CNN where statements like "It is believed Saddam has given his troops instructions to use chemical weapons." I never heard of him actually saying it? (I'm not saying he didn't - but a news link would be helpful to fill in my missing knowledge - thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MasterBlaster
ID that is very very true. However we were attacked. Unless Bush has been taking lessons from David Copperfield and made the Finincal District in NYC dissappear we were definatly attacked.

---

Yes, but not by Iraq.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MasterBlaster
Saddam Hussein has threatened us, His sons have threatened us. N. Korea has threatened to nuke us. The words came out of their mouths not Bush's.

---

You have 300,000 troops on his border, and Bush is constantly threatening to attack, are you surprised he's making threatening statements in return? Who wouldn't?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MasterBlaster
Any way, it's pointless to argue about it now. All we can do is hope our friends and family out there fighting come home safe.

---

Here!, Here!, on both counts. Lets just hope that casualties are minimal or maybe an internal coup or something before the shooting starts.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Futt Bucker
Did he? All I heard on CNN where statements like "It is believed Saddam has given his troops instructions to use chemical weapons." I never heard of him actually saying it? (I'm not saying he didn't - but a news link would be helpful to fill in my missing knowledge - thanks.

---

Heard it on radio this morning. That's why I was asking. Not sure, the only person they quoted was one of his kids saying that american troops mothers are going to cry blood and are not safe, or something to that effect.

Quote:

---

Yes, but not by Iraq.

---

Are you 100% certain. you know for a fact that the anthrax being mailed around the US wasn't purchased out of saddams stockpiles? I'm not, arguing this point, Just thought I'd put it up for discussion. Saddam dosn't scare me. The people potentially buying chem/bio's off of him do.

Quote:

---

You have 300,000 troops on his border, and Bush is constantly threatening to attack, are you surprised he's making threatening statements in return? Who wouldn't?

---

These threats have been flying at us for the last 12 years.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by plenderj
So why did the director of the CIA say that there was absolutely no connection between Saddam and Al Quaeda ?

Osama Bin Laden hates Saddam. Saddam kills muslims.
Osama Bin Laden fights for Muslims. They are not in cahoots.

---

It’s not like US and British forces trusted the Russians or even liked them during WWII. Yet they still managed to work together and defeat a common enemy in Germany.

You don’t have to like someone your in "cahoots" with. Just agree with the over all goal or objective. Bin Laden and Saddam both hate the US that is their common bond despite their other differences.

X

Quote:

---

Originally posted by plenderj
Blix isn't impressed :
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...084250,00.html

And neither is the pope :
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...271887,00.html

---

The pope didn't support us attacking the germans in WW2.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Gaffer
Regardless, you are guessing, basing an argument on heresay rather than fact, almost conspiratory. I very much doubt you can believe that if Bush's people found WMDs in iraq, that they'd keep it a secret from the press. I'll bet he was praying to god that he could find some...

---

I look at suggestive evidence based on public released information. I cannot tell you what kind of information that has went to other governments but netiher can anyone else.

What kind of proof are you looking for? For us to find it? You do understand that is extremely hard to do and it took us 4 years before we could find any when the inspectors first started.

Yes the was is Legal, what isnt legal is Sadam gasing his own people and he tried to take over Kuwaits oil fields in the 90's.
he is a nusence to the region and he will be destroyed.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally Pipp
So anyone who's disagreeing with you is suddenly anti-American.
What is this ? New international McCarthyism ?

That's what's getting on my tits. You blabber on about freedom, freedom of speech and rights and wrongs but when someone dares to tap on your shoulder and says "it could be done another way. We do not agree with what your president says" and all of a sudden we're vile anti-american moaners who should by rights shut up and leave the arena to the "decent" people.
A year ago you wouldn't call me names, hell, you didn't even know or interact with me but now I'm anti-american scum who lives in a fairytale land.

Freedom of speech ? Perhaps.
Respect for other points of view and other solutions my big hairy backside. You only believe yourself to be 100% right and anyone who dares to disagree must be some anti-american left wing bleeding heart liberal/commie right ?

That's what's so disgusting about all this pro and contra war talk. You can't do it without resorting to the Bush inspired "Them or Us" rethoric.

This isn't a debate, it never was.

---

Oh I respect everyones views but I'm not going to consistantly argue with someone who is antiamerican in the first place. The debate is useless when someone uses rethoric arguments that are lacking in foundation.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Gaffer
No, many people on this board believe it is wrong to go to War without the support of fellow nations.

---

Then I guess the US can do no wrong, since the US has support from:

Quote:

---

Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Britain, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey and Uzbekistan.

---

;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NotLKH
Then I guess the US can do no wrong, since the US has support from:





;)

---

Not to mention that our USA lead Korean and Gulf war have been the only ones EVER backed by the UN. So I think its a bit humerous to be lectured by other countries.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Maven
Sensible and reasonable people understand that if certian information was made public, it would put troops in danger.

That means they cannot go public with the information presented.

---

I didn't want to come into this argument, because I don't have the full facts, but the above quote doesn't really make any sense. If Saddam has WMDs, than how does hidding that information would make it any safer for the troops? If he has WMDs he will use it whether this information is public or not. On the other hand, if US shows some hard evidence, US will gain support form many other nations like Canada.

Showing evidence doesn't mean giving out the tricks of the secret service, they only needed to direct the UN inspectors.

Lawyers' views on the legality of this war:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp.../iraq_law_dc_1

They have gave evidence as far as audio tapes of orders and satellite photos. This evidence also came from more then our government. Point is that the public is only going to see what doesnt put the troops in danger or contacts inside of iraq.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Maven
Oh I respect everyones views but I'm not going to consistantly argue with someone who is antiamerican in the first place. The debate is useless when someone uses rethoric arguments that are lacking in foundation.

---

Did you read what you just wrote? You accuse those who disagree with you of only doing so because they're anti-American, and then complain that debates are useless when people use arguments that are lacking in foundation.

I feel like I've just been whacked by a bar made of solid irony. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by InvisibleDuncan
Did you read what you just wrote? You accuse those who disagree with you of only doing so because they're anti-American, and then complain that debates are useless when people use arguments that are lacking in foundation.

I feel like I've just been whacked by a bar made of solid irony. :rolleyes:

---

Plenderj was quoted in another threat saying that he'd like to see our troops attacked with chemical weapons since Saddam is defending himself.

Here is a example quote I get form him:

Quote:

---

Osama Bin Laden hates Saddam. Saddam kills muslims.
Osama Bin Laden fights for Muslims. They are not in cahoots.

---

I take a example from history:

Quote:

---

Russia and America hated each other in WW2 but we still fought side by side against the germans. It's called putting away your differences in the name of a commen enemy. Do you honestly think Bin Laden is going to reject support? LOL get real.

---

It gets turned into this:

Quote:

---

Yes I do. You would not have fought alongside the germans - especially after you found the concentration camps.

---

None of that has anything to do with what I posted. Your anti-American post was aimed at Wally, who was taking great pains to explain that not wanting a war is not a synonym for being anti-American. You then say you won't debate because, since he disagrees with the war, he must be anti-American - a completely baseless and fatuous statement. After that, you complain that people make baseless arguments - exactly what you had just done.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Maven
Plenderj was quoted in another threat saying that he'd like to see our troops attacked with chemical weapons since Saddam is defending himself.

---

No I didn't say that I would like to see him use chemical weapons.
What I'm saying is that you're invading his country.
In my opinion he has every right to use every military tactic and measure to his disposal.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Maven
They have gave evidence as far as audio tapes of orders and satellite photos. This evidence also came from more then our government. Point is that the public is only going to see what doesnt put the troops in danger or contacts inside of iraq.

---

..evidence that is unilaterally viewed as being spurious. Personally I think the evidence was embarrassing. Good entertainment as Colin Powell squirmed in his seat as he listed off details that were as convincing as Bush's Florida election "victory" (but that's another issue).

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Maven
Oh I respect everyones views but I'm not going to consistantly argue with someone who is antiamerican in the first place. The debate is useless when someone uses rethoric arguments that are lacking in foundation.

---

Good grief man, come off it. Even in the first sentence you have a contradictio in terminis. You respect views but you won't bother with those who are, and I quote, "antiamerican in the first place".
So basically you're saying that the only right arguments, the only good and decent morals, the only good rethoric is yours and those who do not follow are inherently "antiamerican" and thus not worthy of debating. They can safely be ignored because they have no significance to you.

Why did you bother with this "debate" then ? Surely not to "respect everyones views" or to enjoy a hearthy exchange of views.
The only things you've done so far is putting down every alternative and different view as being "antiamerican".

What a shameless, demeaning, condescending arrogance.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by plenderj
No I didn't say that I would like to see him use chemical weapons.
What I'm saying is that you're invading his country.
In my opinion he has every right to use every military tactic and measure to his disposal.

---

I'm sorry, but using chemical and biological weapons is never an acceptable military tactic.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by run_GMoney
I'm sorry, but using chemical and biological weapons is never an acceptable military tactic.

---

Then why did you give him the chemical and biological weapons in the first place ?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by plenderj
Then why did you give him the chemical and biological weapons in the first place ?

---

Well he asked me really nicely and, what can I say, I'm a sucker for politeness.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally Pipp
Good grief man, come off it. Even in the first sentence you have a contradictio in terminis. You respect views but you won't bother with those who are, and I quote, "antiamerican in the first place".
So basically you're saying that the only right arguments, the only good and decent morals, the only good rethoric is yours and those who do not follow are inherently "antiamerican" and thus not worthy of debating. They can safely be ignored because they have no significance to you.

Why did you bother with this "debate" then ? Surely not to "respect everyones views" or to enjoy a hearthy exchange of views.
The only things you've done so far is putting down every alternative and different view as being "antiamerican".

What a shameless, demeaning, condescending arrogance.

---

No its realizing a debate is going nowhere and ending it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by plenderj
Then why did you give him the chemical and biological weapons in the first place ?

---

Actually it was the Russians that gave Iraq its first chemical weapons. They sold some to Iran too and watched each side gas each other during the Iran/Iraq war. Nice huh.

Of course we can't forget China, France, and Germany who were the other major arms sellers to Iraq.....hmmmm the same countries that were against military action in Iraq. Ironic aint it?

X

http://www.ireland.com/focus/iraq/features/fea1.htm

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Gaffer
..evidence that is unilaterally viewed as being spurious. Personally I think the evidence was embarrassing. Good entertainment as Colin Powell squirmed in his seat as he listed off details that were as convincing as Bush's Florida election "victory" (but that's another issue).

---

Don't worry Gaffer you are going to see a lot of what Saddam has been hiding from the world as the war progresses. Then you will have the evidence that US intelligence had all along. Then you can rest well and be assured that this war was the right thing to do.

And your right the Florida elections are another thing. I'm sure you think his brother had something to do with rigging the ballets down there. Of course Im only guessing but it goes in line of your way of thinking :)

X