Jump to content

POLL: IRAQI'S prefer dictatorship! Re--enslave them now!

emprworm
 Share

Recommended Posts

Dragoon Knight

Dragoon Knight

Posted
Posted

You lot are sick... you condone lying to the entire world as justification for a war that has killed thousands.  How is a lie that condones DEATH not a crime?  Try and come up with a valid reason for lying like that.

Caid Ivik

Caid Ivik

Posted
Posted

It was a crime against us all becuase the statement that Iraq was harbouring WMD was told to the entire world... A LIE.  A CRIME... or do you not think that LYING to the ENTIRE WORLD is a crime?

Lie is no crime. There is some legislative in courts, as you must speak truth under swear or what, but lying to entire world? I would say they some things underestimated and overestimated. If they WOULD find it, it could be even worse lie. As there were truly found polish soldiers in Glywice '39...

emprworm

emprworm

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Your freedom was bought with the death of thousands.  and you condone it?  YOU ARE SICK

(p.s. ask Iraqi's if freedom is worth sacrifice)

Name me one country on earth in all its history where freedom was obtained bloodless?

if your freedom is worth blood, who made you GOD to declare Iraqi's are not?

you are not in Iraq.  YOu have no right to tell them their freedom isn't worth it.

Dragoon Knight

Dragoon Knight

Posted
Posted

MAY THE FIERY PITS OF HADES CONSUME YOU FOR YOUR IGNORANCE!  I have not ignored it: the consequences are good.  READ WHAT I HAVE SAID, YOU BIASED IMBECILES, and you will have answers to your questions.

emprworm

emprworm

Posted
  • Author
Posted

"THIS PARTICULAR LIE HAS RESULTED IN THE DEATHS OF THOUSANDS, AND YOU STILL CONDONE IT?  YOU ARE SICK"

yes, because freedom was obtained.  furthermore, you claim it was a lie, and that is a baseless assertion.  most people believed he still had the weapons, since it was an imperical fact he once had them.

again, your bush-hatred blinds you.

to summarize Dragoons  misnomers and false claims (socialist spin):

#1) He said it is a "crime" but can cite no law that was broken

#2) He said it was a lie, but has no proof that anyone KNEW FOR SURE weapons did not exist.  How could Bush KNOW FOR SURE that there were no weapons in Iraq?  The UN even believed he had them.  So the accusation of LIE is just anti-bush rhetoric.  Bush sincerely believed weapons were there, and indeed, they still might be.  But at minimum, Hussein, a killer of 500,000 is gone.  And hussein qualifies for a WMD, or nothing does.

#3) He said it was a mistake to remove Hussein, yet claims that a free Iraq is a good thing.  What alternative is there to a free Iraq?  Answer:  An Iraq under Hussein.  So how does Dagoon reconcile these conflicting statements?  I have no idea.

emprworm

emprworm

Posted
  • Author
Posted

give it up gunwounds.  Dagoon is a bush-hater.  He calls the war a 'lie' but since we KNOW we sold him weapons, we were NOT LYING when we believed them to be there.  A lie is when you KNOW something not to be true.  Bush and company KNEW that Saddam was sold weapons, (one reason:  because we sold him some 15 years ago), so how does Dagoon say it was a lie?  Is Dagoon God?  Can Dagoon read Bush's mind?  Can Dagoon look into Bush's soul and say "Yup, Bush is lying.  Bush KNOWS 100% there are no WMD's".

no.

Dagoon has let his anti-bush bias cloud his reasonable judgment.

there is no point in arguing.

Dante

Dante

Posted
Posted

Freedom is overrated.

Maybe the USA and its Coalition had other reasons to invade Iraq that they didnt think was your business to know...

your lucky they even gave you a reason in the first place... and your gonna hold them to that reason huh... like that was the ONLY reason??.. it wasnt

A government that professes to serve the people should tell the people everything.

they had many other valid reasons for invading Iraq .. such as removing a horrendous Dictator... believe it or not .. that was one of the Promises that they kept... one you choose to ignore...

But was that a good thing?

lol!  Lying to the world is not a crime.  every time Chirrac opens his mouth, he lies to the world.

You'll have to provide proof for that. Besides, lying politicians are nothing new. Of course some don't have the brainpower to lie...

a crime is a criminal offense that violates a law.  What law was violated?  You say your moral code was violated.  Sorry, but your moral code is not a law.

Actually the invasion was illegal as it went ahead without a second UN mandate, breaking 1441 I think. Thus by UN standards the invasion was illegal.

WOW so your arguement has been REDUCED to the effect of "A politician told a lie so therefore the sky is falling" ? ? ?

OMG  ... listen buddy i got news for you... politicians lie every second of their existence ... if your naive to think they are gonna tell you the crystal clear truth about everything.. then your naive... every government and every politician has an agenda...

GET OVER IT.....

And you accept this?!

how can it be a crime against YOU?  You do not live in Iraq.  If the Iraqi majority population says it is NOT a crime, what right do you have to say that it is?  You are not the one living under Hussein.  You have no right to say it is a crime.

Neither are you.

"THIS PARTICULAR LIE HAS RESULTED IN THE DEATHS OF THOUSANDS, AND YOU STILL CONDONE IT?  YOU ARE SICK"

yes, because freedom was obtained.  furthermore, you claim it was a lie, and that is a baseless assertion.  most people believed he still had the weapons, since it was an imperical fact he once had them.

If he had them, find them. When that's done, perhaps your argument will hold some credibility. As for freedom... well that's a matter of opinion. And whether they're better off. That's also a matter of opinion.
again, your bush-hatred blinds you.
And your Bush-loving doesn't?
to summarize Dragoons  misnomers and false claims (socialist spin):

#1) He said it is a "crime" but can cite no law that was broken

#2) He said it was a lie, but has no proof that anyone KNEW FOR SURE weapons did not exist.

You're putting words into people's mouths again.

How could Bush KNOW FOR SURE that there were no weapons in Iraq?  The UN even believed he had them.  So the accusation of LIE is just anti-bush rhetoric.  Bush sincerely believed weapons were there, and indeed, they still might be.  But at minimum, Hussein, a killer of 500,000 is gone.  And hussein qualifies for a WMD, or nothing does.
So what if he had WMD? And I mean if he had them. The US has them. Britain has them. Why not Iraq? Because they won't use them responsibly? And the US did? Hmm...
#3) He said it was a mistake to remove Hussein, yet claims that a free Iraq is a good thing.  What alternative is there to a free Iraq?  Answer:  An Iraq under Hussein.  So how does Dagoon reconcile these conflicting statements?  I have no idea.
How about Iraq freed from Hussein under a different method? One that involves less bloodshed, less illegality, less war, less idiocy...

We can prove they were there

BECAUSE WE SOLD IRAQ BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS AND WE KNOW HOW MUCH WE SOLD TO HIM

AND WE KNOW HOW MANY OTHER COUNTRIES SOLD THEM WEAPONS AND WE KNOW HOW MUCH WAS SOLD....

THEY BOUGHT IT... AND THEY OBVIOUSLY DIDNT USE IT ALL SINCE THEY WOULD HAVE TO KILL ALOT OF PEOPLE TO DO SO.... SO OBVIOUSLY THE WEAPONS ARE STILL IN THAT COUNTRY SOMEWHERE...

now refute that.... i dare you...

Oh so they came from us, that's alright then. We gave them to him and now we're taking them back... Hmm. Has it occured to you that maybe he deconstructed them sensibly, as everyone else should? That perhaps he bought them from you in order to deconstruct them and stop anyone else using them? A remote possibility I admit but possible...

Then again he might have sold them. There are any number of people eager for weapons. The weapons haven't been found in months of searching and show no sign of appearing now. So... where are they?

Finally, there is no point in arguing with you either Emprworm. You claim that we are the ones who are blinded when to us it is clear that you are the one with impaired vision. We hate Bush for a reason, did you consider that? There must be some reason behind the hatred, so what is it? People don't hate for no reason.

But they do follow blindly. That they do. An example does spring to mind.

GUNWOUNDS

GUNWOUNDS

Posted
Posted

Then again he might have sold them. There are any number of people eager for weapons. The weapons haven't been found in months of searching and show no sign of appearing now. So... where are they?

Exactly you just reinforced my point.. while we were getting Delayed by the hypocrites like France and Germany and Russia (Fellow arms dealers)

emprworm

emprworm

Posted
  • Author
Posted

"A government that professes to serve the people should tell the people everything."

not when it involves national security.  If the government told the people everytime it recieved a terrorist tip (which most times are frauds), and create mass panics, how would the economy, let alone society function?  If the government told the people the missions of its spies, how would that benefit them?  And who are you, Mr. "amoral" to say a government should do anything?

"But was that a good thing?"

If you can make a moral claim that removing Saddam was bad, and that the more moral alternative is to continue the slavery of 25 million people, then its pretty obvious where your moral views lie.  (you need to be tossed into a north korean prison camp for a year or two, so that your 'amoral' views get a kick in their arse.  THEN you will have a new view about human slavery)

"Actually the invasion was illegal as it went ahead without a second UN mandate, breaking 1441 I think. Thus by UN standards the invasion was illegal. "

cite this reference.  Furthermore, who are you to put the UN law as supreme law of the earth?  Very frequently countries do not comply with UN mandates.  It is not considered criminal by the UN.  No US law was broken.  Does UN law trump US law in regards to US actions?  Who are you to let other countries determine the laws of other countries?  Hypocrisy!  If you say the UN has a right to tell the US what our laws should be, then you have no right to criticize the US for invading Iraq.  The UN is NOT PART of the US. So why are you spewing hypocrisy saying that the UN now has a right to tell the US what its laws should be?  Given your philosophy that no country has the right to impose on another country, then the UN HAS NO RIGHT to tell the US what its laws should be.  a complete double standard.  but you have many of those these days, dustscout.

"As for freedom... well that's a matter of opinion. And whether they're better off. That's also a matter of opinion."

An what opinion matters more?  YOURS....or THEIRS?  Again, you are imposing on Iraq.  IRAQ says they are better off.  So...quit imposing your amoral views on them.  You continue to violate yourself when you do.  If IRAQ endorses the action, then the action was right.  Your amoral views have no rational basis to say otherwise.  So stop using a moral absolute to judge the people of another country who majority say the action was right.

Caid Ivik

Caid Ivik

Posted
Posted

UN is composed of many countries. Decolonization process in 60s spawned many new votes against USA and Israel, as these new states were permanently warring. Like bitches they sold allegiance for russian weapons. That's why UN condemned sionism, that's why there was no action against Jom kippur war, or against any other such conflict. Do you remember war in Jugoslavia? UN had thousands of soldiers with the best equipment available there - but without permission of shooting or even evacuating of civilians!

emprworm

emprworm

Posted
  • Author
Posted

The Iraqi people probably are better off but the same results could have been achieved in a very different manner to the coarse, brutish invasion.

better??  How can you pose such a moral argument?  How can one way be more 'right' than another way?  Especially when u have yet to prove that a crime was comitted by the coalition.

I'm not claiming that the UN is above all when it comes to laws, but I can't find a better alternative.

What about when one country does not WISH to abide by the UN?  What if a country says "we dont want to be part of this?"  Will you now FORCIBLY impose UN laws on them?  What right do you have to say the US should be FORCED to abide by UN mandates?  I thought you were all about staying out of other countries' affairs.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.