My hats off to the Brits

[emprworm]

Well, MY hat's off to the Germans, French and Russians.

for tolerating and sitting idly by while the oppressed, the poor, the lower class, the hungry, the underpriveledged, and the weak are murdered, tortured, raped, falsely imprisoned, and persecuted. Yes, the Bourgeois would be proud of you Edric. They would host an elegant opulent party with cocaine lines on crystal tables in your name. Saddamm might even toss a few Sarin gas grenades at a mob of Kurds in celebration just for extra fun laughs for your evening of enjoyment.

[Caid Ivik]

US forces just found a warhead with a nerve gas in Kirkuk. Isn't it Saddams? ::)

www.cnn.com

[Sardauker-Kirov]

And like the Americans can be trusted, even though we do not know what the politicians are doing right now.

This whole 'save the innocent oppressed hungry and wounded people' could be just a coverup for Bush's real goal.

If America is so mighty and so advanced, why don't they save the oppressed people of Korea and all the other god damn countries that is getting tortured by regimes similiar to that of Saddam.

And I thought if people are against America wouldn't receive help? Most of the Iraqi's are screaming their throats out by the American invasion and they receive help?

This is very odd if you ask me.....

Anyways, I am against the Americans and Saddam. And you can try and say sweet words of what glorious America did and ignore the bad things they did.

"Ignore the bad things, but pay attention to the good things."

Well, MY hat's off to the Germans, French and Russians.

Ummmm? Sorry, but the Americans do not "OWN" the world. Each country has his own decision and opinion, they do not trust the Americans and it is their choice.

It is their war, they wanted war with the Iraqi people. Sure drag the other countries in a WW3 and we will all fight eachother. Woahhhhhh that will be so nice. ::)

[SurlyPIG]

And what exactly is so utterly horrible that the coalition has done to offset freeing trenty-three million opressed people?

[Terror]

And what exactly is so utterly horrible that the coalition has done to offset freeing trenty-three million opressed people?

yes, i agree. The coalition may not have done everything right, and i'm sure that oil had a big influence as well. But the point is, they did free all those iraqi's, and i'm glad they did. Before the war, i did not know wether i was for or against. but now, looking back, i'd say i'm for this war

[SurlyPIG]

Oil, flameweaver? Well, maybe for Russia. France too, but I think they were more worried about keeping Saddam around so he could repay his five billion dollar loan to France. But if you mean the US, why would they go through all the trouble, vast spending and economic slowdown of war when they could have bought Iraqi oil straight from Saddam's regime?

[Terror]

because they want to make sure that the oil delivery stays that way.

[SurlyPIG]

Stays what way? How would the oil be any different if it were bought from Saddam or from a liberated Iraq?

[Terror]

Stays what way? How would the oil be any different if it were bought from Saddam or from a liberated Iraq?

Because the free iraqi's are on the US's hand, while saddam was not. If the chance were there, saddam would've destroyed the US.

[Acriku]

Oil was on the minds of every leader of the coalition. But not for your reasons. For the reasons of giving back to the Iraqi what is theirs', and helping the Iraqi economy get back on its feet.

[SurlyPIG]

Not necessarily, flameweaver. They could have continued to use the UN's oil for food program. However, if that were the case, you have one of two options; invade or contain. If you contain him you minimize the damage he does to the US and the rest of the world but not the damage he does to his own people. A half million people died because of Saddam after the gulf war up until now.

[emprworm]

And like the Americans can be trusted, even though we do not know what the politicians are doing right now.

This whole 'save the innocent oppressed hungry and wounded people' could be just a coverup for Bush's real goal.

If America is so mighty and so advanced, why don't they save the oppressed people of Korea and all the other god damn countries that is getting tortured by regimes similiar to that of Saddam.

And I thought if people are against America wouldn't receive help? Most of the Iraqi's are screaming their throats out by the American invasion and they receive help?

This is very odd if you ask me.....

Anyways, I am against the Americans and Saddam. And you can try and say sweet words of what glorious America did and ignore the bad things they did.

"Ignore the bad things, but pay attention to the good things."

Well, MY hat's off to the Germans, French and Russians.

Ummmm? Sorry, but the Americans do not "OWN" the world. Each country has his own decision and opinion, they do not trust the Americans and it is their choice.

It is their war, they wanted war with the Iraqi people. Sure drag the other countries in a WW3 and we will all fight eachother. Woahhhhhh that will be so nice. ::)

lol, this is just mindless ranting from a bind America-hater who is morally confused.

everytime i hear this immoral tripe: "Well if you are going to help 23 million people.....then why don't you help all the other people? Because you are not helping everyone else...therefore helping 23 million people is WRONG"....I want to puke, because it is despicable.

Typical mindless rhetoric that says "HOW DARE THE US HELP 23 MILLION PEOPLE! UNLESS THEY ALSO HELP THE NORTH KOREANS, THEN IT IS ***WRONG*** TO HELP 23 MILLION IRAQIS"

lol. Sheer idiocy from a morally confused mind.

And even more stupidity: "The MOTIVES of Bush are bad."

Irrelevant. THe motives of Bush have NOTHING to do with the FACT that helping 23 million people is right. I dont care if a doctor is saving the life of a patient just to make some money to buy a hooker that night....he is STILL doing the right thing saving his patient.

It amazes me, how so many people can have such twisted morality. I truly believe they are brainwashed.

[Edric O]

That's nice, Emprworm. You've been pointing the flaws in those 2 particular arguments for... what, 6 months now?

Now how about you stop ignoring the SOLID arguments for once? For example:

1. No country should have the right to invade another country without UN approval, FOR WHATEVER REASON. This kind of thing is exactly what the UN was meant to prevent.

2. Iraq is currently in a state of chaos, ruled by theives and street gangs. A huge number of people had their lives ruined.

3. Since Saddam wouldn't use WMD's even to save his own life, that means he either didn't have any of them after all, or he would never use them at all. Either way, he posed no threat to the US whatsoever, and the whole WMD issue was just an excuse to start a war.

[Miles]

That's nice, Emprworm. You've been pointing the flaws in those 2 particular arguments for... what, 6 months now?

Now how about you stop ignoring the SOLID arguments for once? For example:

1. No country should have the right to invade another country without UN approval, FOR WHATEVER REASON. This kind of thing is exactly what the UN was meant to prevent.

This was not the only purpose for the UN. It was also meant to enforce international laws, keep the peace and help people around the world who are in need. In order to maintain credibility it must be willing to enforce these ideals instead of sitting around debating while millions are tortured and killed by their leaders. If the UN is to be corrupted by the politics of some of it's members which stymie any positive action, then it's credibility is gone, and ruthless dictators will have the green light to do whatever they want. We cannot allow the UN to take us down with it.

I want you to notice the attitude of Kim Jong before the war in which the cracks in the UN were showing and now that we have shown that we are not chained by the whims of a weak organization like the UN. This proves what I have been saying all along.

2. Iraq is currently in a state of chaos, ruled by theives and street gangs. A huge number of people had their lives ruined.

Actions are now being taken. This was an inevitablity of liberation, but now with cooperation from former Iraqi police and the marines stepping up, order is slowly being restored. People's lives have not been ruined. They may have lost some possessions, but lives are not measured by possessions. They will have the opportunity in post-war Iraq to live better lives.

3. Since Saddam wouldn't use WMD's even to save his own life, that means he either didn't have any of them after all, or he would never use them at all. Either way, he posed no threat to the US whatsoever, and the whole WMD issue was just an excuse to start a war.

As soon as Saddam would have acquired nuclear weapons, then he would have been much bolder. We had to prevent this from happening, and with his proven links to terror, we could not trust him with ANYTHING.

[emprworm]

That's nice, Emprworm. You've been pointing the flaws in those 2 particular arguments for... what, 6 months now?

and so long as i continue to hear those same mindless, immoral, irrational, repudible arguments, i will CONTINUE to expose them for what they are: vile, repugnant tubercles of purulent ossification.

It is amazing, how the effect that Bush-hating has on making someone irrational and morally confused....isn't it?

No country should have the right to invade another country without UN approval, FOR WHATEVER REASON. This kind of thing is exactly what the UN was meant to prevent.

Lol. The UN decides what is right and wrong? Sorry. The UN is not the mandate for human morality. The UN is an anti-semitic body of beuaracratic corrputible cowards. The LAST thing they are is a symbol for human morality. I already illustrated to you how this so-called "beacon" for right and wrong nominated LYBIA (of all places) to chair the commission on human rights. Unbelievable.

the LAST group of people on eearth that should dictate right and wrong is the UN. A rampant crowd of frenzied monkeys in a rusted cage at a downtown zoo will produce more moral guidance than the UN.

23 million free Iraqi's are proof of this.

[Edric O]

So you're saying that the UNITED STATES should dictate right and wrong to the rest of the world?

I fail to see how a single country telling others what to do is in any way better than a free association of countries which decide together what to do.