Now that the Anit-war people have been proven wrong, what do you think their excuse will be??

[Daxxax]

Any ideas?? I really don't know what their spin will be.The biggest issue before the war started was the accidental killing of civilians, well here is a pretty good fact that shows just how precise the coaltions attacks have been. Twenty-two million people live in the country of Iraq and only about 1,300 civilian deaths!! that means if you lived in Iraq before the war started you had about a one in 17,000 thousand chance of being accidently killed by the coalition. I'd say that is not a bad risk to take to be rid of a heartless dictator. Even most anti-war peeps agreed that Saddam was a thug.

They also said that Baghdad would be a street to street war with high casulties on both sides, WRONG!! We were met with open arms and people cheering BUSH, BUSH,BUSH!!! I'm sure glad I won't need to explain to the Iraq people why I didn't think that their freedom was worth fighting for.

 

[Alistar7]

If we had done nothing sanctions would have killed over 7,000 conservatively in the same time frame. How many of those 1200+ were killed by their own forces?

So far in two conflicts with Iraq the US has suffered less than 500 KIA, actually just over 400.
America can withstand heavy casualties, were just good enough to avoid them

 

[Jani]

Now that the Pro-war people have been proven wrong, what do you think their excuse will be??

Any ideas?? I really don't know what their spin will be.The biggest issue before the war started was the WMD, well here is a pretty good fact that WMD's haven't been used. Twenty-two million people live in the country of Iraq and only about 100 coalition deaths!! that means if you lived in US before the war started you had about a one in 1,170,000 thousand chance of being killed by the Iraq funded terrorist attack. I'd say that is not a bad risk to take to be rid of a heartless dictator. Even most pro-war peeps agreed that Saddam was a thug.

They also said that Baghdad would be a street to street war with high casulties on both sides, WRONG!! We were met with open arms and people cheering BUSH, BUSH,BUSH!!! I'm sure glad I won't need to explain to the Iraq people why I didn't think that their freedom was worth fighting for.

 

[Alistar7]

Consider the number of people killed on American highways over the same amount of time, pretty impressive when going to war is safer than driving to the store.

 

[Sxotty]

Originally posted by: Jani
Now that the Pro-war people have been proven wrong, what do you think their excuse will be??

Any ideas?? I really don't know what their spin will be.The biggest issue before the war started was the WMD, well here is a pretty good fact that WMD's haven't been used. Twenty-two million people live in the country of Iraq and only about 100 coalition deaths!! that means if you lived in US before the war started you had about a one in 1,170,000 thousand chance of being killed by the Iraq funded terrorist attack. I'd say that is not a bad risk to take to be rid of a heartless dictator. Even most pro-war peeps agreed that Saddam was a thug.

They also said that Baghdad would be a street to street war with high casulties on both sides, WRONG!! We were met with open arms and people cheering BUSH, BUSH,BUSH!!! I'm sure glad I won't need to explain to the Iraq people why I didn't think that their freedom was worth fighting for.

Was that supposed to be funny?

I did not care a lick about WMD, I wanted Saddam gone and he is. I never had any fear of WMD's b/c I know Saddam knew if he used them he would be toast so he was afraid. Of course I thought he might in the actual war but I guess not.

 

[Jani]

It isn't funny at all. WMD's were one of the reasons which was official justification of this war, remember UN resolution 1441.

Why do you think that was meant to be funny? I changed few words and the whole text is still true. No WMD, Saddam wasn't threat to anyone, no chemical weapons were used. One can say Pro-war people were proven wrong.

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: Jani
Saddam wasn't threat to anyone.

I think it's time to pass the bong.

 

[Kojak]

Jani, what is your time frame for finding WMD before the pro-war people are considered wrong?

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Jani
It isn't funny at all. WMD's were one of the reasons which was official justification of this war, remember UN resolution 1441.

Why do you think that was meant to be funny? I changed few words and the whole text is still true. No WMD, Saddam wasn't threat to anyone, no chemical weapons were used. One can say Pro-war people were proven wrong.

Tell that to the Kuwaitis who were shopping in the mall when Saddam's missille slammed into the buildingm, thank god all the others were shot down. I guess you don't think he was a threat to HIS OWN PEOPLE EITHER.

Chemical weapons did not have to be used for the coalition to be wrong, what makes you make that asshat assumption? They will be found, minus a few documents stashed by the Soviets.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Well, since war was the only answer, who do we invad- errr liberate next? Why should we stop there? There are plenty of countries with leadership we do not like. There are even a few of those that we have the balls to confront.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Well, since war was the only answer, who do we invad- errr liberate next? Why should we stop there? There are plenty of countries with leadership we do not like. There are even a few of those that we have the balls to confront.

Every country is different. This was not done because we "did not like the leadership"

I would suggest the US has the courage to face any foe, I would doubt you would find many willing to do the same. Exactly who do you think would stand up to the US? Why didn't they stop us from going into Iraq?

 

[Jani]

I think WMD should have been found already, didn't coalition have rock solid evidence like satellite photos and so on, but let's get realistic, 6 to 12 months should enough.

Wasn't there some kind of coaliton led military base in Kuwait? That was war and civilian casualties are always bad but it happens. Those people can sue themselves not leaving insecure zone. Alistar can you provide link where it tells Saddam has used chemical weapons recently against anyone. Sure there were Rumsfeld consulted gassing in the 80's but something newer please.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Jani
I think WMD should have been found already, didn't coalition have rock solid evidence like satellite photos and so on, but let's get realistic, 6 to 12 months should enough.

Wasn't there some kind of coaliton led military base in Kuwait? That was war and civilian casualties are always bad but it happens. Those people can sue themselves not leaving insecure zone. Alistar can you provide link where it tells Saddam has used chemical weapons recently against anyone. Sure there were Rumsfeld consulted gassing in the 80's but something newer please.

Well, France's intervention caused delays and that certainly gave Saddam time to move and hide the nasty stuff.

 

[Babelfish]

Originally posted by: Jani
It isn't funny at all. WMD's were one of the reasons which was official justification of this war, remember UN resolution 1441.

Why do you think that was meant to be funny? I changed few words and the whole text is still true. No WMD, Saddam wasn't threat to anyone, no chemical weapons were used. One can say Pro-war people were proven wrong.

Edit: WMD's were THE ONLY reasons which was official justification of this war, remember UN resolution 1441.

I hope for US and the worlds sake that they are able to find proof of huge quantities of WMD's, preferably in rocket war heads. That _could_ give US the excuse for attacing the way they did.

Without that proof we will probably see the west changing fast. Europe, including "the new Europe", will soon see that the current US administration couldn't care less about international opinion and international laws. The US will be defined as _the_ major treat to world peace and stability. Mind you, this is not something I like or hope for, far from, but my guess on how a unified Europe will react as soon as the vitory fever in GB comes down and Bush's puppet fall down. Also, regardless of the support to US by a few leaders in the world there's a pretty massive numbers of the people in all the countries against the war, including "suporters" like GB, Spain and Denmark. These leaders will fall and Europe will unite in somthing that probably will lead to United Nations of Europe within ten years. It's more likly that the world will end up with post WW I protectionisim where US and Europe will make trade blockades against each other with the invitably crach in world economy. This will probably start soon when US try to milk Irak's oil reserves by contracting only loyal (read US) oil companies for the rebuild and letting Irak pay for the war with their oil money.

It's a very sad future I'm afraid. The only bright spot is that one dictator has fallen, but I'm afraid the price will be heavy. Other nations will for ever be afraid and distrusting to US knowing they will do as they please: When will US turn their heads towards all the other dictators they don't like, then all their "firendly" dictators and finaly the friendly democraties? They can all easily by defined as enemies that treaten US power, security and economy as the west split apart.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Well, since war was the only answer, who do we invad- errr liberate next? Why should we stop there? There are plenty of countries with leadership we do not like. There are even a few of those that we have the balls to confront.

Every country is different. This was not done because we "did not like the leadership"

Was it the WMDs? Or maybe those pestici- errr chemical weapons we found?

I would suggest the US has the courage to face any foe, I would doubt you would find many willing to do the same. Exactly who do you think would stand up to the US? Why didn't they stop us from going into Iraq?

Where is the biggest physical threat to the US right now? I say it is China. China supposedly does not have the best record for human rights. They supposedly have a communistic economy, and a government system that could use some work. But what do we do to China? We send them more money. Sounds sort of hypocritical to me.

 

[Tiger]

One can say Pro-war people were proven wrong.

BWAHAHAHAHA! Nice attempt at spin skippy.
Nowhere near the truth but a nice attempt anyway.
Why don't you take the time to tell the newly freed Iraqi's why their freedom wasn't worth this effort?

 

[Siwy]

Originally posted by: Daxxax
Any ideas?? I really don't know what their spin will be.The biggest issue before the war started was the accidental killing of civilians, well here is a pretty good fact that shows just how precise the coaltions attacks have been. Twenty-two million people live in the country of Iraq and only about 1,300 civilian deaths!! that means if you lived in Iraq before the war started you had about a one in 17,000 thousand chance of being accidently killed by the coalition. I'd say that is not a bad risk to take to be rid of a heartless dictator. Even most anti-war peeps agreed that Saddam was a thug.

They also said that Baghdad would be a street to street war with high casulties on both sides, WRONG!! We were met with open arms and people cheering BUSH, BUSH,BUSH!!! I'm sure glad I won't need to explain to the Iraq people why I didn't think that their freedom was worth fighting for.

This shows what kind of distorted view some (I hope not many) pro-war people have about anti-war movement. First of all just because the attack was swift and is close to the end does not make it right. I would be all for it if it was done legally through UN and we were all convinced about Iraq's WMD AND (and that is important) close ties to terrorist groups.

I personally was against this war because no country has a right to attack another country unless it is in self defense. I was not convinced that Iraq is a threat to US and this quick liberation of most of the IRAQ so far, shows how little of a thread Iraq really was, even to it's neighbors let alone US or Britain.

The second reason why I was against this war is because US basically opened a can of warms. From now on what will stop India from attacking Pakistan, China from attacking Taiwan and the list goes on.....all of these countries can use the same argument US did for war with their weaker enemy.

Your main argument seems to be that there were only 1300 civilian deaths so far in exchange for getting rid of Saddam. Taking your argument a little further, there are other even weaker countries than Iraq that could use US' help in liberation, will you support that too? This war was supposed to be about WMD and terrorism, liberation of Iraqi people was supposed to be a "bonus", but all of a sudden it becomes the main reason why US attacked Iraq?!

Your idea about anti-war movement is totally wrong, try again.


"We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it. And we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war, for our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy. "
--Supreme Court Justice Robert L. Jackson, U.S. Representative to the International Conference on Military Trials, August 12, 1945

 

[Corn]

The truth is out there, somewhere!

 

[Babelfish]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Well, since war was the only answer, who do we invad- errr liberate next? Why should we stop there? There are plenty of countries with leadership we do not like. There are even a few of those that we have the balls to confront.

Every country is different. This was not done because we "did not like the leadership"

If not, why was it done? Certainly not 1441. That hasn't been mentioned once in the last three weeks. It's all about "liberation". Problem is that there are no international laws suporting that kind of warfare. No wonder US refused to sign the international treaty regarding war crime prosecution. Looks like Bush allready had it planned out to become a simple criminal.

I would suggest the US has the courage to face any foe, I would doubt you would find many willing to do the same. Exactly who do you think would stand up to the US? Why didn't they stop us from going into Iraq?

We all see that US has the lack of bra^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H courage to go to war against _anyone_. Thats the major force that will be behind huge changs in the world in general and the western world spesifically the comming years.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Jani
I think WMD should have been found already, didn't coalition have rock solid evidence like satellite photos and so on, but let's get realistic, 6 to 12 months should enough.

Wasn't there some kind of coaliton led military base in Kuwait? That was war and civilian casualties are always bad but it happens. Those people can sue themselves not leaving insecure zone. Alistar can you provide link where it tells Saddam has used chemical weapons recently against anyone. Sure there were Rumsfeld consulted gassing in the 80's but something newer please.

I could tell you how to kill someone with a lamp, that doesn't dismiss the fact the CHOICE to do so is still yours.

There were no military bases at the mall, sorry, and those were banned weapons, besides the fact our troops were in Iraq at the time. The very types of things we claimed he still had and would willingly use on his neighboors. Has he used chemical warfare recently? Ask the father of a child killed 15 years ago if the wounds have healed. Has Chalres Manson killed anyone recently, guess we should let him out of prison then. In none of my posts is there any mention of WMD, I did address your question though,

 

[Alistar7]

Did Saddam still have banned weapons? He used them in this conflict so that question has been answered.

Were terrorists operating in HIS country, yes, even Al-Queeda. Were traces of WMD found at the camp they used, yes. Were recipes and manuals on dispersion methods also found, yes. Seems like a slam dunk to me.

Of course they push the liberation issue until they can secure the country and provide even more proof of non-compliance and terrorist connections. Who will argue against freeing people from such a brutal dictator? Even if they find NOTHING else, their actions are still justified based on the response of the Iraqi people themselves. If you think the Iraqi people are not entitled to basic human rights then there is something inherently wrong with you.

 

[PG]

Doesn't that underground nuclear facility count as WMD? I would think so.

 

[Jani]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

There were no military bases at the mall, sorry, and those were banned weapons, besides the fact our troops were in Iraq at the time. The very types of things we claimed he still had and would willingly use on his neighboors. Has he used chemical warfare recently? Ask the father of a child killed 15 years ago if the wounds have healed. Has Chalres Manson killed anyone recently, guess we should let him out of prison then. In none of my posts is there any mention of WMD, I did address your question though,

As I said that was war and things happen in war. Palestine hotel attack, was it proven there were evil terrorist aiming coalituion tanks? Bombing Kuwaitian mall, one missile and that terrible war crime and use on illegal weapon, right. What about bombing Iraqian market square? Oh yes, it was Minister of Propaganga himself doing that attack
And I can continue your history lesson. Ask indians what they feel about Americans taking their lands? Ask aboriginals what they feel about Aussies? Ask native Europeans what they feel about crusades in the Middle Age. Or should USA be afraid of Iran & Iraq because Saddam was infact invention of US led intelligence agency, he was good guy in the 80's when Iran had those Islam fundamentalist in power.

Edit: I also wonder why nation who used chemical stuff in earlier wars and people (=Rumsfeld & co.) who couldn't care less using chemical weapons in Iraq-Iran war are judging Saddam Hussein using those weapons 15 years ago.

 

[VikingBerserker]

The anti-war protestors won't admit that they are wrong. They will find something else to support their pathetic reasonings.

 

[Alistar7]

Thanks for the "history" lesson, lol.

Is the US allowed to own and use the weaopons we deployed? Yes. So what is your point about that?
Were the ones Saddam launched at his sovereign neighboor legal for him to even own, let alone use? See the difference yet?

Funny I always thought the Spanish were here first? Are we committing any atrocities associated with the crusades? No we stopped Saddam from continuing the practices though.

Did the US look afraid of Saddam? dumbass troll