Not another iraq topic? - *cough*...

I guess I don't seem to be doing to well at these debates since everyone tends to leave when I start posting :biggrin:

So this time I'll just stick to abreviated question asking...

To War with Iraq supporters:
1. How can you call it a justifiable that Iraq broke UN treatys, when the US is clearly ready to break UN treaties to... do what?? Stop another country from breaking UN treaties? That's just weak hypocracy...
2. How is there justifyable evidence that Iraq has links to al-Qaida when Bin Laden (if you believe it was him), said in his own words that Iraq is governed by the socialist "infidels", including Saddam?
3. How is Iraq possesing chemical and biological weapons an actual threat to the US? Has Bush not already made it clear that the US military is ready to crush Iraq... when it's not even remotely as powerful as it was during the Pursian Gulf War? Seems like having an airforce with a bunch of nukes as well as an international navy negates any possible threat of a few chemical/bioweapons that Saddam may posses.
4. (for non-military personel) Would you be willing to be drafted into the army, and go to the Middle East and die fighting against Saddam's regiem?
5. When was the last time (that you remember), of Iraq threatening the United States of an impeding invasion and/or military agression towards the US?

To anti-war with Iraq supporters:
1. Has it not already been proven that Iraq is a totalitarian regiem and abuses it's own people? Even to the extent of testing weapons on their own people? Have not Iraqi immigrants spoken against Saddam?
2. Has it not already been proven through his past agression towards other countries that Saddam is ambitious and liable to attack again if givin the chance?
3. Do you not agree that bringing Democracy to Iraq would prove more benefit to the inhabitants of Iraq... regaurdless of the amount of people that may die in the process?
4. Lastly... a quote from Kuiate (whose words from there are in all likelyhood, much better informed then views from across the world, where a war won't really seem to have much of an effect beyond economical):

[quote:post_uid0="Sheikh Dr. Mohammed Al Sabah"]

[bloodpack]

im ANTI-WAR but necessarily an IRAQI supporter

i believe the US doesnt want any RIVALS when it comes to building any weapons

they want themselves to be ONLY ONE

and like said before... HIDDEN AGENDAs plays a pivotal role in this dilemma...

[coolplayer2K2]

ok heres a big tip

osama is dead but i dont know about sadam!!!

[bloodpack]

osama is not dead, i read in our local newspaper that hes provoking/advising Iraq to wage war too

[coolplayer2K2]

yea sure

[SolidSnake76]

NEWSFLASH coolplayer. bin laden aint dead. he recenty sent a message to the iraqi's saying they should commit sucide bombings against the US army if a strike is made.

[coolplayer2K2]

ok y dont they just do this

sneak up on him
then shoot him and sadam sure they might die but its worth 10000000million ppl dieing

[bloodpack]

sneak up on who, osama?
hes one clever SOB, no one knows where hes hiding

[LiquidSnake78]

ok coolplayerk2k2, i see u dont read the newspaper.

iraq wants a face to face war. Also they said that the main thing they want to bomb, is a power plant. If they bomb a power plant * In New York* That can wipe out either half of NY or all of NY. Also they can sent a Nuke to the us which can make a World War3. They want to wipe out NY first because NY has the most power. So far, The US is on High Alert. And osama, they cant find him, he's hiding. Not even Bush Knows where osama is hiding. Also If they Bomb the power plant*IN NY* if it wipe out half of NY, where will be no power.

[SSJKarma]

ok...
ANTI-WAR i am !

i never said there was no real threat by the iraqi, but i sure said there was no real proof nor as the US right to attack em because iraqi broke the laws that the US themseves made ! hell, they even broke their own laws to attain their goal ! (talking about the us) so why would it matter if a single treaty is like that ?

as for the OSAMA BIN-LADEN, he doesn't even have a big role here !
let's see... he aske HIS people to sacrifice when its not actually HIS PEOPLE !
so basically he's asking them to aid him in destroying the us in exchange of strickly nothing !
why would he be a threat when it is clear that he isn't ?

also...
don't you think it is strange that suddently osama has something to do with all this ?
afetr all... set-up are so easy to do !
i think the us just want a justification to attack iraq. so they relyed on osama's attempt to justify their own actions before the publics !
why ? because they know the public will accept the war if it is to avenge the death of the peoples that died in those towers !

basically, this war is just there because the US wanted some vengeance because of those towers. since they didn't have anything against the former country who made the attempt, they are bombing the first coiuntry that show em something !

that's my thought !
why i think that way ?
because in the other topics (i didn't talk much) the two towers appeared in the discussion a lot of times. that proves that the public still want to make a country suffer cause of that attempt but seriously, the towers doesn't even have a single thing to do with this !

again...
why exactly you want to go in war ?
no real proof of them not having weapons, no real proof of them having some !

as for the thing of destroying a nuke plant with a missile !
think before saying stupities... missile are detected by radars and things even before they leaved their own country !
US would now have to intercept it, and if they cannot, they'll just launch one at them too !

you all know it...
in a missile war, we all are loser in the deal !
one launch a missile, the other launch one too, now the first try to intercept and the other try to but once they do they launch another one and that until one has no more weapons !

conclusion...
the us wins no matter what !
sorry, but missile and radar wise, it is dumb to launch missiles in the world were in !

[DA_VIPA]

this is now become one of those 'do or die' situations...

bloodpack: You wouldn't mind elaborating on those "hidden agendas" would you? (provided that you do know some specifics on them).

SSJKarma: Not sure where you're getting osama from... but if you look at this news article (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030215/ts_nm/attack_binladen_dc_3), it pretty clearly states how Osama is calling Saddam a "socialist infidel" (therefore negating any GW Bush claims that Iraq is affiliated with al Qaeda.

Rest of your response is pretty solid... 1 question though:
Do you believe that the US should back Turkey in case of Iraqi aggression?



Edited By 2000warrior on Feb. 15 2003 at 10:08

[nosoul4evr]

1 question though:
Do you believe that the US should back Turkey in case of Iraqi aggression?
Turkey is a part of the UN..if one country attacks a nation of the UN...the rest of the UN nations defend the attacked country....thats the way it is suppose to work.

Should the US defend turkey...No
Not that turkey shouldnt be defended.
but the US has it's hands full with Iraq at the moment.
So the 'impartial' UN nations that are neither here nor there on the US attacking Iraq should be put in charge of defending Turky if Iraq invades them.



Edited By nosoul4evr on Feb. 15 2003 at 12:02

[zsa zsa spek]

well ur sayin the un will protect an attacked country so is the us part of the un cuz if they r we shud be gettin sum reinforcement sumtime rite

im reel ANTI-WAR but wen it comes to stuff like this war it sets me ff we shud just go in for one major kill instead of attack the countrys and soldiers trak down thats osama bin bastard and gun his ass same wit sadam sneak attack wen they least expect it and pleez dun flame me for these oppinions becuz its what i think no1 can stop me from my thots cuz i wudnt to u pure massacre by silverchair lisen to it