the war in iraq....

well everyone knows bout the war, and some people arent for it (personally i am), but u guys remember how when all the soldiers came back from vietnam and how they were cursed at looked down upon and told they fought somebody else's war and that they wasted there time and liv'es,im sure yall do.. well of course they felt proud of fighting because as soldiers they believed in what they were fighting for,but to come back home and get that was horrible and just plain wrong.
when the people talkin bout them didnt do crap,but complain. my point is that how everyone complains about the war and their not helping at all just adding flame to the fire,when actually the soldiers in iraq are proud to serve their country and fight for them.i know cuz my cousins been there since it started and he was in afghan too,well i was also watching an interview of a general about what he and his soldiers had to say about that war protest in front of Washington D.C. when like a 100,000 people gathered there, the guy asked him "General how do ur soldiers feel when they see something like this and he said u know what when i went back to iraq i asked a batallion of marines and other service members that and they said "u know what tell the people back home to speak for themselve's and what happened on 9-11 will never happen again cuz were gonna beat them here"!!!!!!! and i agreed to that fully so i think when the soldiers come back to not treat them like we did to the nam vets, and that the soldiers know what their fighting for.......

I don't think you realize what you have just done...

I'm opposed to the war. Why? Because it's immoral. The war isn't about WMD's, it isn't about terrorism, it's about Global American dominance. I challenge you to find a single war in the history of mankind that has been based off of morality. War is fought over power. Period. If you disagree, you're wrong. It's that simple. I am opposed to killing people for power, and therefore I am opposed to all war, including this one. There is no excuse for what is happening in Iraq. I can only ask why people like you can condone it, let alone support it.

As a soldier in a Democratic nation, I also fight for my people's freedom of expression. If someone wants to use that freedom of expression to spit on me and swear at me, I'd be offended, but that's part of the job. I know that for every spit, I'd have a thousand hugs, and that's enough to keep me going, and enough to keep my head straight and proud.

well nikotine all i can say is war is needed especially when it knocks down a countries world trade center's i think that was just a little immoral too dont u think.........killing over 3000 inoccent Americans,maybe alittle immoral.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by War Angel

As a soldier in a Democratic nation, I also fight for my people's freedom of expression. If someone wants to use that freedom of expression to spit on me and swear at me, I'd be offended, but that's part of the job. I know that for every spit, I'd have a thousand hugs, and that's enough to keep me going, and enough to keep my head straight and proud.

---

Actually after Vietnam I'm pretty sure (I might be wrong but you'll have to prove it) that the articles at the time did not report any spitting on soldiers. However the story was spread later, however I've seen no proof at all it's true. So if you're talking about Vietnam please prove that it happened. And find someone who said it at the time.

Quote:

---

well nikotine all i can say is war is needed especially when it knocks down a countries world trade center's i think that was just a little immoral too dont u think.........killing over 3000 inoccent Americans,maybe alittle immoral.....

---

Nikotine never said that was moral, so that's a pointless question. Next on that specific subject how did the war in Iraq have any connection to the world trade center? How was us bombing afganistan better than terrorists (lots of which were not caught) bombing the trade center? It's both utterly horrible, innocent death dooesn't need to cause innocent death in retaliation... "maybe alittle immoral....."

I bet Nikotine will respond better than I have and maybe even has as I've posted.

Quote:

---

well nikotine all i can say is war is needed especially when it knocks down a countries world trade center's i think that was just a little immoral too dont u think.........killing over 3000 inoccent Americans,maybe alittle immoral.....

---

Okay, so, for now, we'll just say that war really is needed when one of your buildings gets knocked down. So, our buildings get knocked down, and we need to go to war. Why then, would we go to war with a country that did not knock down any of our buildings!?

You say that it is immoral to kill 3,000 innocent Americans. I agree, as any rational human being would. However, let me ask you this: Does immorality justify an immoral retaliation? You imply that because a fanatical terrorist killed American innocents it is okay for America to go and kill more innocents. As far as I can tell, you don't have a leg to stand on here.


(SPOILER)owned.

Quote:

---

So if you're talking about Vietnam please prove that it happened.

---

I'm not an American, and I do not speak of the war in Vietnam conducted by America, or any specific war or event in history. I was making a general statement, that contained my sentiments. A spit doesn't have to be physical, mind you. There are spits that try to stain one's hounour, too.

First off, Bush may be concerned about power. Hell, every leader in the world is probably concernend with power. But that's not why the soldiers are fighting in Iraq. In this country, there is very little power in being in the military, even if you're a high ranking officer. It's not like America's civil war where Generals were Gods on the battlefield. Soldiers fight for other reasons. Those reasons are usually pretty simple, they care for somebody enough to either protect them or try to help them. The soldiers in Iraq are helping the Iraqis. That's not what I think, that's what the Iraqis themselves think. Remember that statue of Saddam that was torn down when American troops came into Baghdad? Did you know that the man who built that statue, the man who was forced to make that statue or die, took the bronze from the fallen statue and rebuilt it into a memorial of an American soldier kneeling in front of the grave of one of his fallen comrades while a little Iraqi girl stands beside him with a consoling hand on his shoulder? Why do you think he went and did a thing like that? Because regardless of what the media would like you to believe, most people in Iraq are a hell of a lot happier now than they were when Suddam was in control. And they thank America for that. That's why soldiers fight.

[QUOTE=nik0tine]

Quote:

---

You imply that because a fanatical terrorist killed American innocents it is okay for America to go and kill more innocents.

---

And when did we kill any innocents? The only innocents that have died in this war died at the hands of insurgents and terrorists. I challenge you to find a single case where American soldiers knowingly killed innocent people.

You know what makes me really sad? Too many people are worried about the politics here and fail to see any of the good things that have actually happened. Seriously, guys, did any of you think that Saddam was a good guy? I really don't give two s about why we went over there. I don't care if it was WMDs or for oil. Bush wants oil, good for him; he's only in office another two years anyway. Then he'll be out, and we'll have a new president, and everyone can bitch about him next. But you know what will have changed? People in Iraq will have more freedom than they've had in a good long time. You'll excuse me if I'm not sorry that that happened. We helped people out, and that's really all I care about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by herbie08

And when did we kill any innocents?

---

so you think that dropping hundreds of bombs in afghanistan killed only a few terrorists? i think not. can't prove it, tho so i'll give you the benefit of doubt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by herbie08

Seriously, guys, did any of you think that Saddam was a good guy? I really don't give two s about why we went over there.

---

dude1: "hey, let's invade some other small country who doesn't have the money or the power to defend itself AND who haven't made any recent treats"
dude2: "why?"
dude1: "no reason"
dude2: "ok! :D"
sounds stupid? it is. and i don't think that forcing a goverment is a nice way to help people. what is that called again? oh, right: DICTATORSHIP.

Quote:

---

First off, Bush may be concerned about power. Hell, every leader in the world is probably concernend with power. But that's not why the soldiers are fighting in Iraq.

---

Uhh.. yes it is.

Quote:

---

In this country, there is very little power in being in the military, even if you're a high ranking officer. It's not like America's civil war where Generals were Gods on the battlefield.

---

I don't think you understand what I am trying to say.

Quote:

---

Soldiers fight for other reasons. Those reasons are usually pretty simple, they care for somebody enough to either protect them or try to help them.

---

Soldiers fight because they are ordered to. But that is besides the point. The soldiers don't decide what wars to fight and for what reasons, the politicians do.

Quote:

---

That's not what I think, that's what the Iraqis themselves think. Remember that statue of Saddam that was torn down when American troops came into Baghdad? Did you know that the man who built that statue, the man who was forced to make that statue or die, took the bronze from the fallen statue and rebuilt it into a memorial of an American soldier kneeling in front of the grave of one of his fallen comrades while a little Iraqi girl stands beside him with a consoling hand on his shoulder?

---

I'm sure some Iraqi's do think that we are helping them, and yes, there is some good coming out of this war. However, that isn't why we are in this war. No wars are fought for moralistic purposes. It's naive to think that.

Quote:

---

And they thank America for that. That's why soldiers fight.

---

Great. I'm glad that's what they fight for, but that isn't why politicians send them off to war, and it's the politicians, not the soldiers who make these decisions.

Quote:

---

And when did we kill any innocents? The only innocents that have died in this war died at the hands of insurgents and terrorists. I challenge you to find a single case where American soldiers knowingly killed innocent people.

---

Ever heard of collateral damage? At the bare minimum twenty six thousand Iraqi civilians were killed during this war, and the absolute maximum is 100,000. (although 100,000 is probably an unrealistic estimate, but it has been made. The 26,000 is civilians who have been killed directly from shrapnel, bullets, bombs, etc. the 100,000 estimate includes possible deaths from causes aside from the ones I mentioned previously) I don't need to find a case where a soldier has intentionally killed a civilian, because that has nothing to do with the point I am trying to make. I'm not saying we are in this war to kill people, but in war people die and it's not okay for people to die for an immoral cause.

Quote:

---

You know what makes me really sad? Too many people are worried about the politics here and fail to see any of the good things that have actually happened. Seriously, guys, did any of you think that Saddam was a good guy?

---

No, Saddam was a bad guy. We know, we know. But the United States government does not give two s about what the Iraqi people want. They are going to get an americanized lapdog government. The Iraqi's may end up with a decent government, but it will not be by their own choice. They may also end up with another Saddam, except this time he'll be sucking Americas dick. So long as the new leader of Iraq is on Americas leash our government wins. Thats what they want. Not peace, not morality, but power. Thats it, and that's all any government ever wants.

Quote:

---

so you think that dropping hundreds of bombs in afghanistan killed only a few terrorists? i think not. can't prove it, tho so i'll give you the benefit of doubt.

---

Well I can prove it, and I'll do so.
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

I though the war ended ages ago, we were just occuping the area like after WWII in Japan and Germany. But whatever.

I'm opposed to it becuase we're trying to force our beliefs on them. What did the First Amendment of the Constitution say? The right to have your own beliefs? And whatever happened to Afghanistan, where the terrorists responsible for the events of 9-11-01 were supposedly from? I haven't heard about that since 2003.

EDIT: Cloud No. 9 just pointed out that this is also a war crime, and now I remember that the U.S.A. isn't supposed to go to war unless in defense.

Most soldiers won't say their proud to be over here. They'll say they want to do their job and go home :(

iraq never had anything to do with 9-11. not a sasauge. hee haw. not a single little thing. and again i will give you a little history lesson.

after the revolutions in iraq and war in afghanistan against the russians bin laden and a few of his mates made al qaeda. they wanted to the muslim world to follow iran's example. the tried a few coups and failed.

bin laden hated anything non-muslim, the west, macdonalds, nudey bits on tv. and........ iraq. a secular state on "muslim ground" and more greatly some of it was holy grounds in the hands of a secular state. this did not please our bearded terrorist. so when the iraq-iran war started he knew which side he was on. the side of the muslim state. and a few his followers went to fight in a holy war (jihad) against a secular invader (backed by america as well). the jihad would always be still running for bin laden.

bin laden at this time was still rather friendly with the west. they had their difference but there was not the big thing there is now. he was not a terrorist at the time just a guy they had trained in afghanistan busy fighting more wars. he wasn't on the radar.

he came back on the radar during the gulf war. iraq was being aggressive again and yet again bin laden wanted to send troops. but his doctrine was stronger and he would not send men to help quwait who were receiving aid from america.

he in fact asked the saudi royal family (his home country) if they wanted a few troops to defend against a looming iraqi army. the saudi's snubbed him. they took help from america. that was the final straw. he declared holy war om america who were now in his home country and within a short time the african embassy bombings would be detonated.

but he still hated iraq. he hated the secular state on muslim ground. and he hated the west and he hated the saudi's.

on the topic of saudi. most the 9-11 bombers originated from there. it's a hot bed for terrorist wanna-be's though the government does do it's job in trying to suppress such tendencies.

but as we can see bin laden never wanted anything to do with iraq. he really wanted it's destruction. they didn't cooperate. especially while hussein was busy killing, torturing and gassing muslims either. bin laden would have been happy with sadamme's head on a stake.

and a man with such a heavy doctine with bin laden is not the type of man to cooperate with an enemey even for a common goal. it's unholy. not to be done. doesn't fit in his way of thinking. would not happen.

on the topic of the actual soldiers i will bring up the nuremburg principle of taking orders is not an excuse to commit a crime and since the war in iraq is illegal as it was not in defence, in response to genocide or allowed by the un the war is illegal and a war crime. and the soliders fighting it are automatically criminalized.

but we've screwed up now. it would not be clever to leave the country in the mess it is. we will need to be stationed there for many years to come. and take the casualties. the deaths of the soldiers is the price the people will pay for this war. and it was avoidable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackline77

well nikotine all i can say is war is needed especially when it knocks down a countries world trade center's i think that was just a little immoral too dont u think.........killing over 3000 inoccent Americans,maybe alittle immoral.....

---

hey dude that wasnt iraq it was osama bin laden and taliban, ya know saudi arabia........get it right, god!

wasn't really saudi at all. neither was it the taliban. the taliban were just willing to have al-qaeda training camps on their land.

oh it wasnt, i read in an article that it was...oh jeez false info given to a 13 year old

bin laden is from saudi. most of the hijackers were from saudi. but saudi weren't in on it on an official level.

they have a hot bed of terrorism (having us troops on your soil because you have oil makes people quite bitter for some reason) but it's underground. noone has any idea how big or powerful it is in saudi arabia. there have been huge differences in guesses for how many members there are in suadi arabia.

the government though tries to crack down but it's hard and it's not always successful. thought they have had a few good hits in the last few years. the yanks are putting pressure on you see.

but no it's an underground movement which noone really understands.

the taliban wer afghanistan's government. they let al-qaeda have bases there. it suited their views. and al-qaeda liked afghanistan as it is where it was formed. they had spent time in sudan when the sudanese had gave them hospitality but after the embassy bombings and america had bombed them they weren't too keen on having al-qaeda around. so they headed back to where the were formed. and the taliban liked having a little militia there. cia trained of course. only the best for the taliban.

what degree the taliban actually had in 9-11 is debatable. had degree iraq had to do with it isn't. they had none. saudi may have had by a lack of action. but that again is up for debate. but the only ones that were in on it were al-qaeda.

[QUOTE=herbie08]First off, Bush may be concerned about power. Hell, every leader in the world is probably concernend with power. But that's not why the soldiers are fighting in Iraq. In this country, there is very little power in being in the military, even if you're a high ranking officer. It's not like America's civil war where Generals were Gods on the battlefield. Soldiers fight for other reasons. Those reasons are usually pretty simple, they care for somebody enough to either protect them or try to help them. The soldiers in Iraq are helping the Iraqis. That's not what I think, that's what the Iraqis themselves think. Remember that statue of Saddam that was torn down when American troops came into Baghdad? Did you know that the man who built that statue, the man who was forced to make that statue or die, took the bronze from the fallen statue and rebuilt it into a memorial of an American soldier kneeling in front of the grave of one of his fallen comrades while a little Iraqi girl stands beside him with a consoling hand on his shoulder? Why do you think he went and did a thing like that? Because regardless of what the media would like you to believe, most people in Iraq are a hell of a lot happier now than they were when Suddam was in control. And they thank America for that. That's why soldiers fight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nik0tine

Quote:

---

You imply that because a fanatical terrorist killed American innocents it is okay for America to go and kill more innocents.

---

And when did we kill any innocents? The only innocents that have died in this war died at the hands of insurgents and terrorists. I challenge you to find a single case where American soldiers knowingly killed innocent people.

You know what makes me really sad? Too many people are worried about the politics here and fail to see any of the good things that have actually happened. Seriously, guys, did any of you think that Saddam was a good guy? I really don't give two s about why we went over there. I don't care if it was WMDs or for oil. Bush wants oil, good for him; he's only in office another two years anyway. Then he'll be out, and we'll have a new president, and everyone can bitch about him next. But you know what will have changed? People in Iraq will have more freedom than they've had in a good long time. You'll excuse me if I'm not sorry that that happened. We helped people out, and that's really all I care about.

---

You just said everything I've wanted to say for so long in this forum <3 :love:

this war was more unneccasary then me running into a brick wall, just for laughs

Before the war:

USA: Not enough oil
Iraq: Plenty of oil

USA's politicans: :(


After the war:

USA: Plenty of oil
Iraq: Not enough oil

USA's politicans: :)



To everyone who supports the war: You're all wrong. Listen to nik0tine, because everything he says is correct.

america didn't actually gain much oil by invading iraq.

it did gain something far more important. it gained another stronghold in the middle east. it is also convinetly right beside iran. which afghanistan was as well. which provides a nice bit of land to invade from.

Ok, sorry then. I always thought it was mainly about the oil.

if america were a guy id kick it in the nuts

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ultima Shadow

After the war:

USA: Plenty of oil
Iraq: Not enough oil

USA's politicans: :)

---

If this were true, oil wouldn't cost $3.50 a gallon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guitar from blackness

if america were a guy id kick it in the nuts

---

Come now that's not the Vermonter way YOU MUST BE A TRANSPLANT! :eek:

I hate vermont.........thanks for reminding me i live there......... :cry:

the only way to prevent 9-11 ever happening again would to be invade every country who may have the smallest thing to do with terrorism. then round up everyone who you think may have the slightest thing to do with terrorism and put them all in a camp and hold them there indefinetly.

oh.........

Maybe we could prevent 9-11 if we werent so damn power hungry

true but with the npac in power i don't see it happening.

I dont see why we had to invade.......if we needed oil we could have just asked them.

Nothing important, but, I watched Farenheit 9/11 recently (a great documentary. Worth a see whether you support Michael Moore or not) and many soldiers are very poor and not as patriotic as some people may think. Just wanted to say that because I have met people who call the American soldiers stupid, and blinded by what the President has said.

Other than that, I pretty much agree with what nik0tine has said in this thread.

yeah ok nokotine were killing innocents last time i checked terrorist run in iraq there called al queda or somethin and i dont think terroists are innocent....

blowing up american soliders is not an act of terrorism. it is an act of urban geurrila war. blowing up civillians is terrorism. all soldiers are legitimate targets.

if i remember correctly recently attacks have went up against the army and down against civillians. with the terrorist somehow able to get their hands on army piercing explosives it's now even easier to blow up your local army convoy. and after the bridge incident (noone here cared cos it was the same day as katrina) public opinion has turned grossly against the insurgency in iraq. killing 1,000 people in a day didn't make anyone happy. and blowing up the army is strategically better anyway. they are of course the problem for al qaeda not the civillian population.

it was seen that killing innocents wasn't winning al-qaeda any amount of favour. it was supposed to get more recruits by showing what turmoil the americans brought. but now they have better equipment (a level of sophistication that took the ira 25 years to get) they are better of just blowing up american and british soldiers.

and that is legitimate action really. not terrorism.

and venom it was not about the oil it was about a tactical positiion next to iran. allowing us to invade from 2 borders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackline77

yeah ok nokotine were killing innocents last time i checked terrorist run in iraq there called al queda or somethin and i dont think terroists are innocent....

---

...........are you serious.............do you even have a grasp on what is happening over there.............if you dont watch a show on FX called "over there" then you might be able to the see the error of your ways................

Quote:

---

To everyone who supports the war: You're all wrong. Listen to nik0tine, because everything he says is correct.

---

I agree.

Quote:

---

yeah ok nokotine were killing innocents last time i checked terrorist run in iraq there called al queda or somethin and i dont think terroists are innocent....

---

Do you seriously believe thaat every single person in Iraq is a terrorist? If so you have no place in a semi intelligent discussion. If you are going to argue with me, try to back your argument up. If you can't, you need to do one of two things: Concede your point and admit that I am right, or, do not concede your point, but admit that your argument is invalid since you don't have a single shred of fact to back yourself up. When you come back from watching Fox news I expect a response to this.

Quote:

---

and venom it was not about the oil it was about a tactical positiion next to iran. allowing us to invade from 2 borders.

---

It's more than that. That is why we invaded Iraq first. But the whole war in the middle east is about a much greater plan. Americanize an entire resource rich region, and gain a military stronghold there before the Chinese.

this is turning into another Vietnam, pointless.

Look Sadam is caught all they need now is Bin Laden, if they screw there heads on and actually search for him thintgs would be alright.


The soldiers in Iraq are making people cautious and suspicious causing more attacks and rebellions.

I feel bad for the people of Iraq,who are being tormented by Bushes little power hungry land theft.

Quote:

---

Look Sadam is caught all they need now is Bin Laden, if they screw there heads on and actually search for him thintgs would be alright.

---

Their heads ARE on, and that's why they haven't caught bin laden. Bin Laden is a symbol of the war on terror. If you caught him, the war would pretty much be over. Without the war on terror, the excuse to invade middle eastern countries is gone. Bin Laden will not be captured for a looong time, if at all.

yeah ok nikotine u give me proof that america is purposely killing innocents....
and obliviously u need to learn how to read because i never said everyone in iraq was a terrorist so u must have no place in an intelligent discussion!!!!!
and what u said has nothing to do with what i said in my last post obliviously u need to get some evidence and quit beatin round the bush........

Quote:

---

yeah ok nikotine u give me proof that america is purposely killing innocents....

---

I don't need to give you proof because I never said this once!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blackline77

and obliviously u need to learn how to read because i never said everyone in iraq was a terrorist so u must have no place in an intelligent discussion!!!!!

---

o rly? Then who said this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blackline77

yeah ok nokotine were killing innocents last time i checked terrorist run in iraq there called al queda or somethin and i dont think terroists are innocent....

---

Quote:

---

and what u said has nothing to do with what i said in my last post obliviously u need to get some evidence and quit beatin round the bush........

---

You obliviously need to clarify what the hell this means, since it makes no sense.

wow u really do need to learn how to read read it again it says terrorists run in iraq called al queda not all people in iraq r terrorists!!! learn how to read please, and by saying i need to clarify what it means u only prove my point of how ur beatin round the bush, gimme a break..........heres ur quote when u said america kills inoccents-

quote- "it is okay for America to go and kill more innocents. As far as I can tell, you don't have a leg to stand on here."
-

Quote:

---

wow u really do need to learn how to read read it again it says terrorists run in iraq called al queda not all people in iraq r terrorists!!!

---

Okay fine, let me explain this to you. I said we were killing innocents in Iraq. To this you responded by saying:

Quote:

---

yeah ok nokotine were killing innocents last time i checked terrorist run in iraq there called al queda or somethin and i dont think terroists are innocent....

---

This would imply that you meant "We are not killing innocents". However, we ARE killing innocents through collateral damage. That is irrefutable fact. So by trying to say that we have killed no innocents in Iraq, you imply that all Iraqi's are not innocent, and therefore all Iraqi's must be terrorists. You further support my argument when you made this statement: "last time i checked terrorist run in iraq there called al queda or somethin and i dont think terroists are innocent...."

So with that said, I think I know how to read quite well. It's you who needs to learn how to argue his point.

Quote:

---

and by saying i need to clarify what it means u only prove my point of how ur beatin round the bush, gimme a break..........

---

No, by saying that you need to clarify I mean that you make no sense. When you decide to NOT clarify after I ask, and try to make me look stupid, YOU become the one who is beating around the bush. So again, would you please clarify? After all, if what you said had a point, this wouldn't be a problem, would it?

Quote:

---

heres ur quote when u said america kills inoccents-

quote- "it is okay for America to go and kill more innocents. As far as I can tell, you don't have a leg to stand on here."

---

Nice way to quote me out of context. I'll say it again, America has killed innocents in Iraq. Period. No argument. I, however, did NOT say that America intentionally kills innocents. Big difference, bucko.

okay nikotine then ur saying america is killing inoccents without knowing okay yeah whatever, and when i said ur beatin round the bush i meant u know what i have said yet u say i need evidence and u have none, look have it ur way obliviously u have never heard the saying its better to listen than to speak...
im sorry but i dont have time to argue with people like u.

Quote:

---

okay nikotine then ur saying america is killing inoccents without knowing okay yeah whatever

---

So you resort to putting words in my mouth? hahaha, nice one! My point is this (What is this, the fifth time now?) In war, innocents die. America is waging war and therefore innocents are being killed. That reason alone is enough for me to be opposed to this war. What about this do you not understand? Or more appropriately I should ask what is it that you refuse to understand?

Quote:

---

and when i said ur beatin round the bush i meant u know what i have said yet u say i need evidence and u have none

---

But that's not the truth. I'm not beating around the bush, I'm simply asking for clarification, because this statement makes NO SENSE!!!!

Quote:

---

and what u said has nothing to do with what i said in my last post obliviously u need to get some evidence and quit beatin round the bush........

---

All I'm asking is for you to rephrase this sentance. Why you refuse to do that is beyond me, but you in general tend to be beyond me.

Quote:

---

obliviously u have never heard the saying its better to listen than to speak...

---

No, actually, I haven't heard that one yet. :p

Quote:

---

im sorry but i dont have time to argue with people like u.

---

People like what? I have consistently made sense throughout this thread. I have consistently defended my argument without spouting nonsensical crap. I have supported my argument with both morality and with logic. You, however, have yet to do ANY of this. It should be me who doesn't have time to argue with you. So, I ask you again, what is it about me that you cannot argue with?

calm down children.

now about bin laden. he doesn't have any real power. it's a common misconception he planned 9-11. he didn't. i'm about to head to lectures and i can't remember the man who did but i will find it out later.

and about al qaeda as an organisation. alot of mistakes have been made about it. in afghanistan they thought it was a huge organistaion in the tora boras mountains with it's own base. a huge underground bunker complex with hydro power, tanks, helicopters etc. it in fact had a few caves with a bit of ammo in them.

the term al qaeda is an odd one. bin laden never used to use it. even after the embassy bombings it was never used. the first people to use it where in fact the americans while they were trying bin laden in his absence on the mafia laws (only laws which allow you to try in absence). of course the big thing was the construstion of al qaeda. noone knows exactly how it works. or how big it is. it could be thousands upon thousands of men. some think the real numbers are less than a hundred. but the term al qaeda was first used in that trial where they first established it as a real organisation and it's set up. whether this is correct remains to be seen and there are many pointers that it is not and seems to work under a franchise system rather than anything with a direct command like the ira.

also the term al qaeda is also intersting. it is in fact not the name of the organisation. al qaeda means "the base" and refered to the base in sudan. america at the time was still struggling for a name for this organisation that had just wiped out two embassies and so refered to it by this name as the base in sudan.

how much bin laden has anything to do with what is happening in iraq is hard to decide. did he personally send troops? did someone act under his orders? or is someone just doing what they think is what the organisation might like? kinda in the way the nazi government worked. or maybe saying that you work for al qaeda just gets you a better reputation.

aside from killing innocents america tortures them.

Seriously, how about you freaking DROP the accusations? If I went after your country based on one-time events, I'd have a longer list than you'd ever have.

AMERICA DOESN'T TORTURE PEOPLE. SORRY. DO NOT PASS GO. DO NOT COLLECT $200.

yes of course because camp x-ray is a holiday camp. and baghram air base is where the good afghans go for their free holidays. and abu gahrib is a little fun house for all the iraqi children. and when america flies out prisoners to uzbekistan, syria, lebannon and lybia it's for a little break in the sun and not to have electrodes shoved up their ass.

and that's why america didn't feel the need to change it's own legislation on torture and pull out of the war crimes court.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hachifusa

AMERICA DOESN'T TORTURE PEOPLE. SORRY. DO NOT PASS GO. DO NOT COLLECT $200.

---

I'm pretty sure the people who have lost loved ones in this pointless war are tortured emotionally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackline77

yeah ok nikotine u give me proof that america is purposely killing innocents....
and obliviously u need to learn how to read because i never said everyone in iraq was a terrorist so u must have no place in an intelligent discussion!!!!!
and what u said has nothing to do with what i said in my last post obliviously u need to get some evidence and quit beatin round the bush........

---

wow.......thats really the pot calling the tea kettle black aint it?

Too many arguments going on here for any sort of proper discussion to be conducted, so I'll just close.