»If kerry wins i garuntee you that the US will be attcked«
|
|||
 Quote: are you talking about the kids that were neglected under the food for oil program to build several palaces for Saddam and his regime? that's a good question lets ask him...so ralph are you talking about the kids that were neglected under the food for oil program to build several palaces for Saddam and his regime? hmmm...? posted by Agent Zero |
|||
|
|||
| in-my-opinion.orgPoliticsBush, Kerry, Iraqif kerry wins i garuntee you that the US will be attcked |
|
|||
 how many of those iraqi civilian deaths have been the result of car bombimgs and other "insurrgent" activity i would say that it constitutes a pretty substantial % just thought i'd through that in to force home that its not all the actions of the allies that are causing the civilian deaths posted by the anomaly |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 the anomaly: how many of those iraqi civilian deaths have been the result of car bombimgs and other "insurrgent" activity
i would say that it constitutes a pretty substantial % just thought i'd through that in to force home that its not all the actions of the allies that are causing the civilian deaths Geez, you people are too taken in with the Divine USAnian Agency thing! Hello? Is insurgent activity possible without war and invasion? And why is OneDerMan questioning the conclusion of the website whose statistics he so confidently quoted? Because you have to reject out of hand any piece of information which indicates that the war was a mistake. posted by ralph_angelus |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
don't start talking fucking crap about "brainwashing" by the government because i choose to take their side over the side of a bunch of sick fucking maniacs like abu musab al zarqawi is any of the post i put wrong?...are thousands of civilians being killed DELIBERATELY by these "insurrgents"? you cant put a comparison without the ideals behind the actions...it puts it completely out of context and in doing so makes you the one who ignores that facts of the matter posted by the anomaly |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
the anomaly: is any of the post i put wrong?...are thousands of civilians being killed DELIBERATELY by these "insurrgents"? The numbers are definitely wrong. Do you think Iraqis are killing thousands of their own? In any case insurgency or terrorism in the name of insurgency would not be possible without a war. the anomaly: don't start talking fucking crap about "brainwashing" by the government Maybe not by the government, but as KNN puts it, self-hypnosis. What else can I conclude if you refuse to empathise with the Iraqis, if you adopt a seperate standard to evaluate the death of Iraqi nationals? One of the main reasons in support of the war is that Iraq supported terrorists who could harm the U.S. and the U.K. This threat was perceived when less than 3000 US residents died in 9/11. But by even the most conservative estimate, over 16000 Iraqi civilians have died due to the war(I am not saying whether they were shot by US or pseudo-insurgents, if there is such a thing, just that they died because there was a war. nobody can dispute that). The US-led war was heavily supported by the UK. Therefore the UK poses a demonstrable threat to Iraq. Now if Iraq had the capability, would you agree that it would be justified for them to attack the UK and cause over 16000 civilian deaths? That would anger you, but you make ridiculous reasons to justify >>16000 Iraqi deaths. The only thing which decides which deaths are right and wrong is the respective attacker's military might. Saddam Hussein did not have the capability to conduct a war against the US and neutralize the threat that the US poses to him, but the US does, and can and did neutralize the (falsely)perceived threat. And US is good/Saddam is evil arguments are irrelevant: Saddam hurt only his own people, but US foreign policies and economic exploitation starve countless children to death worldwide and US imperialism kills thousands of civilians. posted by ralph_angelus |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Be even better if the spelling was right! Fuckwit... posted by Bubbles |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 ralph_angelus: Saddam Hussein the dictator had to be removed so the people could VOTE. Saddam to to be removed so US companies can sxell Kellog's Cornflakes. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 knnknn: The term "evil" is a religious term. All I can say is... oh brother. posted by stinkz |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
i'm afraid bush will attack my country in his pursuit of oil i mean there were no wmd in iraq. they weren't even close to being a threat. you americans sould just go after al quida. they are your enemy not the rest of the world. what are you people gonna do go after everyone who is of a different religon who doesn't think the same way as you. It's that kind of thinking that lead to the atomic bombings of my country just because we wanted to keep our Emperor in power do you all realize the U.S.A has had no real right in any war since world war one posted by igashika |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 stinkz: knnknn: The term "evil" is a religious term. All I can say is... oh brother. Why is that all you can say Stinkz? Are you stupid or something? can't debate can only dismiss what other people say. The Anomaly: Your Either with Bush or with the terrorists. What? Ok so by that logic Lets say "You are either a doctor or you help disease" Or another one "You are either a christian or a muslim" Why can't three or even six hundred parties exist? Why must there only be two. Basically what you are saying is you either fight terrorism or you are a terrorist.Well I don't have a gun with me and im not in Iraq shooting the place up right now, so you had better shoot me before i strap a bomb to my chest and blow up the WTC. Or im not a firefighter so i actively cause fires. Hey im not a doctor,Terrorist fighter,Firefighter or christian. So im a Muslim,Terrorist,arson who goes to hospitals and stops doctors from curing the sick. Oh yeah I can see why you use that logic. posted by Kupov |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 Kupov2: Why can't three or even six hundred parties exist? Why must there only be two. if you mean politcal parties in the U.S. then...there are more than two. its just that the republicans and the democrats are the two main/large parties (with most of the money...or something like that), and you usually only hear about just those two. when you vote for a president, you don't have to vote republican or democratic, there are other parties and people running...they just don't have enough money or influence to advertise or draw as much attention. posted by allone |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
allone: If you mean political parties No that's not what I meant at all. I was retorting to "you are either with us or against us",I think that's a very idiotic statement because that is presuming that only two parties( ill use the word groups instead ) exist. The Terrorists The Terrorist Fighters And obviously that is not true, so there are more parties ( Groups ) then two. posted by Kupov |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 err, kupov i think you took it out of context. the anomaly was quoting it as bush would say. the anomaly: its as simple as bush put it...you are either with Bush or with the terrorists...make your choice and live with the consequenses posted by sangu |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
sangu: err, kupov i think you took it out of context. the anomaly was quoting it as bush would say. the anomaly: its as simple as bush put it...you are either with Bush or with the terrorists...make your choice and live with the consequenses But he quoted it as a fact, to help his argument. posted by Kupov |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
oh right, sorry. i guess itook it out of context. 
in any case, i agree with you posted by sangu |
|||
|
|||
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next
Goto page Previous
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next
 Register Log in |
The time now is 2 December 2008, 01:29 php B.B. |