Pictures Speak Louder Than Words (IRAQ)
 

Yeh we should give peace a chance with the scumball controlling Iraq who does shit like this to little kids in his own country.

http://www.intelmessages.org/Hack/im...ge/collag5.jpg

So when are you going to invade all the other countries that murder innocent people?

Yes, I'm sure you're going to cry yourself to sleep tonight over what bad old Saddam has done to his own people. :1orglaugh

word

preach on brother.

I dont care that he killed them, but these self righteous anti-war crowd that supposedly care so much about people should.

I LOVE YOUR SIG!!! TOSSED SALAD HAHAHAH

Your posts are too absurd to even respond to.

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Come visit any firestation in NYC near the WTC with your WE LOVE SADDAM t-shirts and I don't think you'll be needing your return flight ticket.

You lose.

Mate,

TYSAFSBHOOYASMD

:1orglaugh

firestation in NYC???? WTC???? WTF does that have to do with iraq?????

hellooooooooooooooooo

osama osama osama osama

I think he's been watching too much CNN! :1orglaugh

Maybe it's just me, but I don't think he/she meant to actually say let's keep the peace in Iraq. I think they meant kill the shit out of the fucks over there!

CNN brainwashed sheep!
grow up moron... you're feeded with shit!

and not even a drop of irony that we will be killing kids too.


It is horrible, it was horrible years ago and still wasn't the reason we went to war the first time. When people try to point out things like this throughout the world we are always told it isn't our job to be involed with the affairs of another country. So, when it suits the current cause celeb we are wimps but when it doesn't we are lefties.

It's gonna happen but don't act like it is a noble cause to save the people of Iraq.

I've been hearing on the news here the Tony Blair is almost certainly going to be deposed as British PM by his own party because of his support of George Bush's war machine when the vast majority of Britons are against it.

Not to mention that the Labour party itself is traditionally liberal.

well it all depends how it plays out. The labour party is traditionally liberal ( I was going to say socialist but most would read communist , too early to go there) but Blair did the whole 'New Labour' thing and took the party a bit to the right inorder to get them elected. The backlash from his own party is finally starting. However, I have little respect for the folks ont he benches next to him who were equally willing to sell their principles to get elected and are now switching back when the population give them the cue.

Fact is that the conservatives still have no hope in hell in being put in office for years to come so if Blair goes it will just be Gordon Brown or someone similar.

People who have to pull out the shock tactics when trying to make a point; make me sick. This war isn't about liberating Iraq. This war is about George Bush and George Bush Junior and a few of their corporate buddies making sure their oil shares remain higher than anyone else.

That would have to be done one country at a time.

So will China or Russia be next? :1orglaugh

Its also about preventing a depression. stablizing the middle east, and getting rid of a guy who has the means to support terrorists.

It may seem messy now, but getting the iraqs, north koreas, irans, syrias, al queda, under control will be worth it.

All the bullshit that went into the cold war was eventually worth it.

Sitting back with a blind eye and letting fanatics get more powerful does nobody any good.

exactly what i was thinking...

http://www.mctv.ne.jp/~bigapple/Victim0.gif

http://www.mctv.ne.jp/~bigapple/Victim04.gif

http://www.mctv.ne.jp/~bigapple/Victim15.gif

http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp/pea...e1/1-5-2-3.jpg

Interesting Reading

Pictures speak louder than words... (USA)

donnie, how bout showing some pics of the literally thousands of usa soldiers that died in those island battles.

The thousands that died on the ships as japan sent wave after wave of kamikazees.

How bout showing pics of the guys that got slaughtered during the bataan death march.

AHAHHAAHA.... my new favorite quote.

good news! :thumbsup

you must be ignorant because the people who dont want war (france) have oil deals with iraq worth 50 billion... on top of that they are the leading supplier of arms to iraq... this isnt about oil... its about the post 911 climate... this guy is a threat because of all the chemical weapons that he has... if we end up taking any oil or get it at a cheaper price from most favored nation status it wont amount to more money than this war will cost us

There's a difference between intentionally killing people and collateral damage during war. Hence, the whole criminal justice system is based on "intent". If you accidentally ran over somebody with your car on your way to work, the accident is not equivalent to murder now is it? You're obviously logically challenged if you can sit here and say that the United States Military is out there intentionally killing innocent people for the joy of it.

The ignorance on this board is almost driving me to stop reading here (no real point anyways). Only thing it does is make me lose faith in humanity. Congrats on some of you morons giving adult webmasters bad names. Go back to your own communistic, dictator-ruled countries that put their military over food for the common citizen already.

Dude, check your facts first. Oil is a small part of this, but in reality were' going to lose more money than we will gain in the next 20 years to fight this war. Otherwise we'd simply invade Canada or venezuela :Graucho

I'll 2nd that.

I don't live in a "communistic, dictator ruled" country. I live in a democracy and the standard of living for the average citizen here far outstrips the standard of living for the average citizen in your country. And I've spent six months in the USA so I feel qualified to judge.

Don't you think you should stop having little juvenile tantrums because people disagree with you?

let me guess, the six months you spent were on the berkely campus. :321GFY pinko

Hey Joe "Budweiser One To Many" Sixpack. Here's one for you dude. :1orglaugh

Once upon a time in the Kingdom of Heaven, God went missing for Six days. Eventually, Michael the Archangel found him, resting on the seventh day. He inquired of God, "Where have you been?"

God sighed a deep sigh of satisfaction and proudly pointed downwards through the clouds, "Look Michael, look what I've made." Archangel Michael looked puzzled and said, "What is it?"

"It's a planet, replied God, "and I've put LIFE on it. I'm going to call it Earth and it's going to be a great place of balance".

"Balance?" inquired Michael, still confused.

God explained, pointing to different parts of Earth. "For example, Northern Europe will be a place of great opportunity and wealth while Southern Europe is going to be poor; the Middle East over there will be a hot spot." "Over there I've placed a continent of white people and over there is a continent of black people" God continued, pointing to different countries. "And over there, I call this place America. North America will be rich and powerful and cold, while South America will be poor, and hot and friendly. And the little spot in the middle is Central America which is a Hot spot. Can you see the balance?"

"Yes" said the Archangel, impressed by Gods work, then he pointed to a large land mass and asked, "What's that one?"

"Ah" said God. "That's New Zealand, the most glorious place on Earth. There are beautiful mountains, rainforests, rivers, streams and an exquisite coast line. The people are good looking, intelligent and humorous and they're going to be found traveling the world. They'll be extremely sociable, hard-working and high-achieving, and they will be known throughout the world as diplomats and carriers of peace. I'm also going to give them super- human, undefeatable, strong in character citizens who will be admired and feared by all who come across them".

Michael gasped in wonder and admiration but then exclaimed, "You said there will be BALANCE!"

God replied wisely. "Wait until you see the buggers I'm putting next to them"


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And on that note, it's 5AM here and time to off to dream land. See ya later alligators . . . .

http://www.dannen.com/decision/handy.html

I wouldn't call specifically targetting civilians collateral damage. Would you?

You have many things to learn:

1. Budweiser is not a beer. It is beer flavoured water.
2. That joke works better the other way around. :1orglaugh

It seems like mr sixpack has done a little too much drugs.

And what leads you to that conclusion?

I'm inclined to agree.

thanks for the pics

:Oh crap

Because Saddam Hussein, and many of the people who run the country with him, are... say it with me now... Evil.



Many people accept this. They then go on to say that tis isn't a reason to go to war. Here are some of their arguments:


1.) It isn't the only reason the US claims they're going to war.

Basically, a lot of arguments run like this... "The US says that we're going to war because of terrorism, or weapons of mass destruction. They can't have it so many ways. Is it terrorism, mass destruction, or the fact that he is evil and slaughters his own people?"

My answer is simple. Why can't it be all three? It is possible to have more than one reason to do something. Under other circumstances, multiple justifications would be applauded as a sensibly made decision. Why, in this case, is it used as an objection?

Also, let's not be mistaken into thinking that these things are so far apart, as reasons go. The weapons of mass destruction we are most worried he has are chemical and biological weapons, the ones he has used on his own people. So his atrocities within his own country, and his possession of weapons of mass destruction go hand in hand. Also, it certainly looks like an act of terrorism to me. Slaughter a few villages in the most psychologically shattering way, its its amazing how the rest od the dissenters and minorities shut up and act loyal.

A big argument of this type is the "Iraq isn't part of Al Queda, so the War on Terrorism is just an excuse." We didn't claim to be going to war only on Al Queda, though. The US has long had very vocal enemies, in possession of dangerous illegal weapons. Saddam Hussein constantly says how he'd like to wipe us out, every man woman and child. Would you let someone who said that about you, who had the means to do so, just sit there? Even if Iraq has *nothing* to do with Al Queda, which is doubtful, they can still fall into the same category.


2.) We don't go to war on everyone who is evil.

Once again, here's the basic argument I keep seeing... "We don't march in and destroy/conquer every country that has an evil dictator. There are plenty of places where this stuff is happening, and they are getting away with it. So, this can't be the reason we are going to war."

Again, this comes down, as far as I can see, to an oversimplified understanding of causation. Just because the evil of the enemy can't be a cuase that totally justifies action elsewhere, does not mean it cannot be a major factor in taking action here. The fact is, while we are barely getting away with going to war with Iraq, we could not get away with going to war elsewhere. Why? Because few other countries have the same precendent set by UN mandate as is the case in Iraq.

Also, in the case of Iraq there are additional justifications. Going to war is not something to be taken lightly. Why do people whose whole position is based on that fact then hold it against America? It may be sad that we can't go in and get everyone who is evil... but if there is someone evil we can try to stop, why not do it?


I see a sort of common thread in these arguments. People seem to have an oversimplified idea of causation and/or justification. The US is saying, in this case, that a number of strong factors play into the decision to attack Iraq. One is the Al Queda connection, one is the terrorism threat from Iraq itself, one is Saddam Hussein's atrocities against his own people, one is the potential to stabilize the reason with democracy, one is that he possesses weapons of mass destruction, one is that he flouts his lack of regard for UN resolutions.

Yes, it is possible to take one of those reasons, and knock it down, *alone* using other facts about the situation. Congratulations. However, that does not mean that the *network* of multiple-justification falls down as soon as you do so.

War is a terrible thing. It is one of the most terrible things that can happen, because it involves the death of a lot of people. Worse, it involves their intentional and conscious murder by other human beings. That's something we should avoid wherever possible.

Unfortunately, some people miss out on the fact that there are worse things. If not going to war will cause those things to happen, or allow them to continue happening for *decades*, then well, frankly we have to reconsider. I hate war. I haven't been gung-ho *for* a war in my life, and never will be. However, sometimes it is a sad and regrettable fact that it is the lesser evil. These are hard decisions. It is easy to make them sitting in a coffee shop, or typing online. However, there are people who have to make these decisions for real, and live with them for the rest of their lives. There are people who have to order the war to start, and there are people-- some of them friends of mine-- who will have to march through the desert shooting people and making them die. Don't belittle the horrible decisions they have to make, by making easy ones in the comfort of the security they provide.