Against the war...for the troops? | xltronic messageboard
 
You are not logged in!

F.A.Q
Log in

Register
  
 
  
 
Now online (1)
ijonspeches
...and 339 guests

Last 5 registered
Oplandisks
nothingstar
N_loop
yipe
foxtrotromeo

Browse members...
  
 
Members 8025
Messages 2614263
Today 10
Topics 127551
  
 
Messageboard index
Against the war...for the troops?
 

offline pantalaimon from Winterfell (United Kingdom) on 2003-03-20 05:47 [#00605532]
Points: 7090 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



interesting to see Iraq using scud missiles...

didn't they say they had none recently??



 

offline Ceri JC from Jefferson City (United States) on 2003-03-20 05:47 [#00605533]
Points: 23533 Status: Moderator | Followup to bill_hicks: #00605520 | Show recordbag



You can be opposed to the war, but once you resign yourself
to the fact the troops have no say in the matter, you can
let them know you're encouraging them, if not their goal. If
that makes sense.


 

offline pantalaimon from Winterfell (United Kingdom) on 2003-03-20 05:48 [#00605536]
Points: 7090 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



Ceri: i agree, though I do agree with their goal of
dissarming Iraq and destroying Saddam's regime, not just for
the world but for the people of Iraq.


 

offline bill_hicks from my city is amazing it is calle on 2003-03-20 05:49 [#00605541]
Points: 4286 Status: Lurker | Followup to Ceri JC: #00605533



it doesn't really.


 

offline jonesy from Lisboa (Portugal) on 2003-03-20 05:50 [#00605543]
Points: 6650 Status: Lurker | Followup to bill_hicks: #00605520



I don't know. That line is for people who are against war
but are too scared of being labelled 'unpatriotic'.


 

offline jonesy from Lisboa (Portugal) on 2003-03-20 05:52 [#00605545]
Points: 6650 Status: Lurker | Followup to Ceri JC: #00605533



They have no say in the matter but why join up?


 

offline flea from depths of your mind (New Zealand) on 2003-03-20 05:54 [#00605549]
Points: 9083 Status: Regular | Followup to jonesy: #00605545



yeah...why?


 

offline jonesy from Lisboa (Portugal) on 2003-03-20 05:55 [#00605550]
Points: 6650 Status: Lurker | Followup to pantalaimon: #00605536



I want to see the US disarmed. Since World War II, the
United States actually dropped bombs on 23
countries.

These include: China 1945-46, Korea 1950-53, China 1950-53,
Guatemala 1954, Indonesia 1958, Cuba 1959-60, Guatemala
1960, Congo 1964,
Peru 1965, Laos 1964-73, Vietnam 1961-73, Cambodia 1969-70,
Guatemala
1967-69, Grenada 1983, Lebanon 1984, Libya 1986, El Salvador
1980s, Nicaragua 1980s, Panama 1989, Iraq 1991-1999, Sudan
1998, Afghanistan
1998 and Yugoslavia 1999.

Post World War II, the United States has also assisted in
over 20 different coups throughout the world, and the CIA
was responsible for half a dozen assassinations of political
heads of state.



 

offline pantalaimon from Winterfell (United Kingdom) on 2003-03-20 05:57 [#00605554]
Points: 7090 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



dissarm the US? are you stupid, who would be getting rid of
Saddam now if they were dissarmed?


 

offline jonesy from Lisboa (Portugal) on 2003-03-20 06:00 [#00605559]
Points: 6650 Status: Lurker | Followup to pantalaimon: #00605554



But the US, above anyone else, needs to be disarmed. THEY
are the biggest threat to world peace as their record shows.


 

offline pantalaimon from Winterfell (United Kingdom) on 2003-03-20 06:00 [#00605561]
Points: 7090 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



doesnt the fact that they are already using weapons they
said they dont have prove action had to be taken?


 

offline pantalaimon from Winterfell (United Kingdom) on 2003-03-20 06:03 [#00605566]
Points: 7090 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



America is currently and in the future no threat to world
peace. They are one of the few countries actually enforcing
1441 for saddam to dissarm.


 

offline jonesy from Lisboa (Portugal) on 2003-03-20 06:03 [#00605568]
Points: 6650 Status: Lurker | Followup to pantalaimon: #00605561



I don't understand your logic. Why are we and the Americans
allowed to use WMD but not anyone else? Is that not
hipocrisy?


 

offline pantalaimon from Winterfell (United Kingdom) on 2003-03-20 06:06 [#00605571]
Points: 7090 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



The US has WMD for defence, can you really say the same for
Iraq?


 

offline pantalaimon from Winterfell (United Kingdom) on 2003-03-20 06:07 [#00605574]
Points: 7090 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



and besides Dissarming Iraq i think there is a better case
for freeing the Iraqi people from his regime, the amount of
lives saved from this is alone worth action.


 

offline pantalaimon from Winterfell (United Kingdom) on 2003-03-20 06:08 [#00605576]
Points: 7090 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



i suppose your going to tell me now that the US kills its
own people and have rape rooms etc?


 

offline flea from depths of your mind (New Zealand) on 2003-03-20 06:10 [#00605578]
Points: 9083 Status: Regular | Followup to jonesy: #00605559



*nods furiously in agreement..


 

offline jonesy from Lisboa (Portugal) on 2003-03-20 06:10 [#00605579]
Points: 6650 Status: Lurker | Followup to pantalaimon: #00605571



Iraq has invaded Kuwait, the US has invaded tens of
countries.

Was the bombing of Panama, El Salvador, Vietnam, Nicaragua
self defense?



 

offline jonesy from Lisboa (Portugal) on 2003-03-20 06:11 [#00605580]
Points: 6650 Status: Lurker | Followup to pantalaimon: #00605574



The regime installed by the CIA? The regime that existed
during the 1980s? The regime that we sold weapons to?


 

offline pantalaimon from Winterfell (United Kingdom) on 2003-03-20 06:12 [#00605581]
Points: 7090 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



the fact is Iraq, as decided by the UN *NOT* just the US
cannot have these weapons and they have them and lie about
them. Even with this proved, hippies still dont want action
taken.

Maybe we should have left Germany alone after World war
one... oh... we did didn't we.


 

offline jonesy from Lisboa (Portugal) on 2003-03-20 06:12 [#00605582]
Points: 6650 Status: Lurker | Followup to pantalaimon: #00605576



No, they just kill other people in other countries.


 

offline jonesy from Lisboa (Portugal) on 2003-03-20 06:13 [#00605584]
Points: 6650 Status: Lurker | Followup to pantalaimon: #00605581



Israel has nuclear weapons. Should we bomb them? No, we'll
give them more $s and more weapons and let them ethnically
cleanse the Palestinians.


 

offline pantalaimon from Winterfell (United Kingdom) on 2003-03-20 06:15 [#00605587]
Points: 7090 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



Dont you see what you saying is STUPID! because the US has
WMD Iraq should be able to have WMD despite the fact that
Saddam is more likely to use them?

Would you think it was fair if he killed thousands of
people? Would you say "well the US has them..."

you just dont realise what your saying do you?


 

offline E-man from Rixensart (Belgium) on 2003-03-20 06:16 [#00605589]
Points: 3000 Status: Regular | Followup to pantalaimon: #00605581



you really are a joke :D



 

offline pantalaimon from Winterfell (United Kingdom) on 2003-03-20 06:17 [#00605591]
Points: 7090 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



so basically your saying the UN is wrong to dissarm Iraq?
despite the fact he has used chemical weapons on his own
people before, don't think i can remember the US doing this.


 

offline E-man from Rixensart (Belgium) on 2003-03-20 06:18 [#00605595]
Points: 3000 Status: Regular



saddam armed himself MAINLY cos of the thread israel is
possing to them, shall i remmeber you the invasion of koweit
way back was a big bullshit, merely they had a skirmsih at
the frontier, and the us media were bluffed and lead the
opinion to support a war not justified


 

offline pantalaimon from Winterfell (United Kingdom) on 2003-03-20 06:18 [#00605596]
Points: 7090 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



E-man, you are the joke, dont you have anything worthwile to
say? probably not.


 

offline E-man from Rixensart (Belgium) on 2003-03-20 06:19 [#00605598]
Points: 3000 Status: Regular | Followup to pantalaimon: #00605591



the us tested weapons everywhere in the world after doin it
in his own land cos it's more secret and the peoples
affected are not your own...


 

offline E-man from Rixensart (Belgium) on 2003-03-20 06:20 [#00605600]
Points: 3000 Status: Regular | Followup to pantalaimon: #00605596



peace man i'm slow that's all:D


 

offline jonesy from Lisboa (Portugal) on 2003-03-20 06:20 [#00605601]
Points: 6650 Status: Lurker | Followup to pantalaimon: #00605587



I do. But you don't seem to. Why won't you acknowledge the
US' use of WMD?


 

offline flea from depths of your mind (New Zealand) on 2003-03-20 06:20 [#00605602]
Points: 9083 Status: Regular | Followup to jonesy: #00605579



Iraq invaded Kuwait with full knoledge of the US..in fact
the US foreign secretary gave them the go ahead and them
turned around and denied it..

Iraqi's discovered that Kuwaitis were illegally drilling
underground well inside the Iraqi territory...Iraqis asked
their then pals the US that was enough grounds for them to
attack and stop these drillings..and the US administration
agreed..


 

offline pantalaimon from Winterfell (United Kingdom) on 2003-03-20 06:21 [#00605605]
Points: 7090 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



so the UN is wrong? All the countries in the UN voted for
Iraq to be dissarmed immediately. They are all a joke then
are they?


 

offline jonesy from Lisboa (Portugal) on 2003-03-20 06:21 [#00605607]
Points: 6650 Status: Lurker | Followup to pantalaimon: #00605591



So you only need to be disarmed if you use WMD on your onw
people?


 

offline marlowe from Antarctica on 2003-03-20 06:24 [#00605609]
Points: 24596 Status: Regular



Good Luck To Our Brave Troops!

..nah


 

offline pantalaimon from Winterfell (United Kingdom) on 2003-03-20 06:24 [#00605610]
Points: 7090 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



ok forget the weapons, dont you think the Iraqi people would
be better off without Saddam?


 

offline E-man from Rixensart (Belgium) on 2003-03-20 06:24 [#00605611]
Points: 3000 Status: Regular



no saddam could be disarmed if everyone was... does saddam
ever threthened the us? NO! so why is Ireak dangherous?


 

offline Morton from out (Netherlands, The) on 2003-03-20 06:25 [#00605612]
Points: 10000 Status: Addict | Followup to marlowe: #00605609



hey fool! :P

where's that crazy hilarious avatar!?


 

offline flea from depths of your mind (New Zealand) on 2003-03-20 06:25 [#00605613]
Points: 9083 Status: Regular



The WMD's Iraq possess were happily provided by the US these
include Chemical and Biological weapons in the 80's because
at that time Saddam was using it on Iran and US's Hitler
dujour Ayatollah Khomaini..infact US didnt as much as bat an
eyelids when Saddam finished off the leftover stockpiles on
Kurds killing 5000..this very crime is cited over and over
as a case against Saddam but then it was just an ally taking
actions against domestic problems and seperatists which is
pefectly okay as long as the US knows about it in advance
and fucking you up the arse...


 

offline pantalaimon from Winterfell (United Kingdom) on 2003-03-20 06:25 [#00605614]
Points: 7090 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



anyway i'm finnished discussing this, I just hope the war is
short and Iraq is a better place for their people after...
which i think alone is good enough reason.


 

offline Morton from out (Netherlands, The) on 2003-03-20 06:27 [#00605617]
Points: 10000 Status: Addict | Followup to pantalaimon: #00605614



if there are any people left that is...


 

offline E-man from Rixensart (Belgium) on 2003-03-20 06:28 [#00605619]
Points: 3000 Status: Regular | Followup to pantalaimon: #00605610



saddam is not immortal, after all the years of sanction i
think it would have been better without sanctions and just
watch him



 

offline flea from depths of your mind (New Zealand) on 2003-03-20 06:29 [#00605620]
Points: 9083 Status: Regular | Followup to pantalaimon: #00605610



without Saddammm Iraq would split into atleast 3 little
warring states many a civil wars, bloodsheds and ethnic
cleansings will ensue not unlike the tragic plight of
Yugoslavia...


 

offline pantalaimon from Winterfell (United Kingdom) on 2003-03-20 06:29 [#00605621]
Points: 7090 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



morton: i'm surprised there is with the amount of people
Saddam kills each year


 

offline flea from depths of your mind (New Zealand) on 2003-03-20 06:30 [#00605623]
Points: 9083 Status: Regular | Followup to pantalaimon: #00605621



And the Sanctions..dont forget the thousands killed by the
Sanctions...


 

offline jonesy from Lisboa (Portugal) on 2003-03-20 06:33 [#00605625]
Points: 6650 Status: Lurker | Followup to pantalaimon: #00605610



Yes, but they'd be even better off if they weren't blown to
pieces by our bombs and starved with our sanctions.


 

offline jonesy from Lisboa (Portugal) on 2003-03-20 06:34 [#00605628]
Points: 6650 Status: Lurker | Followup to pantalaimon: #00605614



So you have no convincing arguments for us?


 

offline pantalaimon from Winterfell (United Kingdom) on 2003-03-20 06:35 [#00605629]
Points: 7090 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



flea you've been reading too many anti-war websites...

ever heard two wrongs dont make a right?

you almost sound as if it's ok for Saddam to kill his people
because of sanctions... you do realise he was doing this way
before sanctions were ever in place?



 

offline jonesy from Lisboa (Portugal) on 2003-03-20 06:41 [#00605633]
Points: 6650 Status: Lurker | Followup to pantalaimon: #00605629



Yeah, and the US gave him the means to do so and turned the
other way when he did use them. Why would they change their
minds about him now?


 

offline pantalaimon from Winterfell (United Kingdom) on 2003-03-20 06:43 [#00605636]
Points: 7090 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



but how does that make it right do turn the other way now?


 

offline flea from depths of your mind (New Zealand) on 2003-03-20 06:43 [#00605637]
Points: 9083 Status: Regular | Followup to jonesy: #00605633



yeah..what he said..


 


Messageboard index