Conquer Club

are you for or against the war in Iraq.

f*ck the war with Iraq, it's taken away five of my close friends already...

i am very sorry to hear that

parno4u wrote:are you for or against the war in Iraq.

To answer your question: I am against the illegal US imperialistic invasion and I have sympathy for the Iraqi resistors - though I do not approve of the targeting of civilans in any war.

parno4u wrote:i am very sorry to hear that

no offense...but that doesn't bring them back...i mean, thanks for your apology...but still...they are still dead, over a pointless war

I'm not too keen on the whole thing.

I don't think it would be a good idea for the US to pull out now, though. Unless some other power was going to move in afterward and clean up the mess. I'm not sure even the UN could pull that off.

I'm against the war but I do not have any sympathies for the resistors, just the civilians who have been killed. As for imperialistic, don't worry pressure from the democrats will force us to get out of their sooner or later.

Well, I'm sure that you are happy that these assholes are protesting NOT the war, but the soldiers themselves. That's right, "Thank God for Dead Soldiers". That is exactly what they say. So enjoy their stupid homophobic, disgusting behavior.

flashleg8 wrote:

parno4u wrote:are you for or against the war in Iraq.

To answer your question: I am against the illegal US imperialistic invasion and I have sympathy for the Iraqi resistors - though I do not approve of the targeting of civilans in any war.

Hate to break it to you, but you have your facts wrong

1) The invasion is not illegal, as the bill was passed by congress and is perfectly legal.

2) If the war is imperialistic, why hasn't America made any imperialistic political maneuvers in Iraq?

Also, how can you have sympathy for terror cells whose stated objectives are:

The Destruction of the Jewish race

No Rights for Woman

The destruction of Democracy

Making everyone under their control convert to Islam

Basically these guys are the Nazis, just with less power

Numia Kereru wrote:I'm not sure even the UN could pull that off.

Where the hell have you been hiding? The UN is probably the single most ineffective pseudo-governmental body in existence. They couldn't pacify a wet paper bag.

Also, the war, well f*ck. We've gotten ourselves into another half-assed conflict. If you're going to war, fucking go to war, go hard or go home, 200,000 troops do not pacify a country, they aren't an effective MP force. If we're going to stay we need to mean it, and at this point we're kind of stuck, or we lose what little face we may or may have not had left in the eyes of the world. And if we do pull this shit off? We're fucking heroes (seriously, people have very short memories and switch positions fast).

Now, whether we should have gone in? Probably not, but we're there now, so we gotta deal with it.

Burrito Loco wrote: And if we do pull this shit off? We're fucking heroes (seriously, people have very short memories and switch positions fast).

Now, whether we should have gone in? Probably not, but we're there now, so we gotta deal with it.

I'm puzzled as to why you think there is still some shit to be pulled off. The whole thing is a disaster - the quicker America get out, the better. The worst thing they could do, is to add even more fuel to the fire. Oh wait, that is what they are doing - never mind.

The Americans had no right to enter the country in the first place. Weapons of mass distruction my ass!!! They just wanted OIL!!! Oh and the weapons they do have were actually given to them by the Americans a ways back. I'm NOT for the war, however I wouldnt pull out now until they've cleaned up the mess they've made.

DIRESTRAITS wrote:1) The invasion is not illegal, as the bill was passed by congress and is perfectly legal.

I hate to break it to you but there is a wider world outside of the US who is not governed by congress and has their own views on the legality of a war that is after all not being conducted within the jurisdiction of the US government and was started unilaterally without being fully sanctioned by the UN. This is just the first link from a google search on "legality of war iraq"....

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/is ... windex.htm

Burrito Loco wrote:

Numia Kereru wrote:I'm not sure even the UN could pull that off.

Where the hell have you been hiding? The UN is probably the single most ineffective pseudo-governmental body in existence. They couldn't pacify a wet paper bag.

And what do you think they can do?

It really pisses me off that everyone assumes that the UN somehow should be able to send in their small amounts of troops with the blue helmets on and suddenly stop everyone fighting, in spite of the fact they're often outnumbered 100 to 1. And unlike the other guys, they can't kill or otherwise knock out the people they're fighting without being punished for that too.

i am actually for it.

BBust wrote:The Americans had no right to enter the country in the first place. Weapons of mass distruction my ass!!! They just wanted OIL!!! Oh and the weapons they do have were actually given to them by the Americans a ways back. I'm NOT for the war, however I wouldnt pull out now until they've cleaned up the mess they've made.

Ok, first off the whole "This war is about oil" rhetoric is old and incorrect. The reason we're over there is because Bush has some kind of Texas vendetta and just wanted to invade. There is no conspiracy around it, Bush sent us in there because he wanted to finish the job his father half-assed.

Are we doing good there? Let me put it this way, the Iraqis had electricity and an infrastructure before we got involved. Now, their grid is fuxxored and their infrastructure is scattered to the four winds.

We aren't an invading force? Let's see, we sent over troops, forced a new government on them, and we shoot civilians.

Sounds like an invasion to me. You can call it legal all you want, that doesn't mean that the US has any global mandate whatsoever. I still say the member states of the UN need to come together and give that organization some damn teeth. Once the UN has the power to fully enforce its edicts, then maybe we'll be able to get something done as a planet.

if we pull out they will just come back and start crap again.

vtmarik wrote:

BBust wrote:The Americans had no right to enter the country in the first place. Weapons of mass distruction my ass!!! They just wanted OIL!!! Oh and the weapons they do have were actually given to them by the Americans a ways back. I'm NOT for the war, however I wouldnt pull out now until they've cleaned up the mess they've made.

Ok, first off the whole "This war is about oil" rhetoric is old and incorrect. The reason we're over there is because Bush has some kind of Texas vendetta and just wanted to invade. There is no conspiracy around it, Bush sent us in there because he wanted to finish the job his father half-assed.

Are we doing good there? Let me put it this way, the Iraqis had electricity and an infrastructure before we got involved. Now, their grid is fuxxored and their infrastructure is scattered to the four winds.

We aren't an invading force? Let's see, we sent over troops, forced a new government on them, and we shoot civilians.

Sounds like an invasion to me. You can call it legal all you want, that doesn't mean that the US has any global mandate whatsoever. I still say the member states of the UN need to come together and give that organization some damn teeth. Once the UN has the power to fully enforce its edicts, then maybe we'll be able to get something done as a planet.

if the UN could support its sanctions very few wars would occur

including this one

and another thing. if we hadnt invaded and saddam had killed another thousand kurds eveyrone would say oh the US should do something. but we head out to iraq and what happens? the US is bad cause they invaded a country ruled by a dictator who suppressed peoples rights tortured them and masscred them.

in ten years when iraq is a stable democracy people will blame it on how awsome the iraqis are for doing it to spite the american invasion but its because of the american invasion that they have some semblance of democracy now.

even if it was for oil and we never find WMDs then it will still be worth it when an iraqi women takes her children to school, or a kurd has a conversation about politics with a shia and a sunniw without dying.

besides with gps saddam could have buried everything he had in the desert where no one will find it.

you got that right

Blueoctober wrote:including this one

and another thing. if we hadnt invaded and saddam had killed another thousand kurds eveyrone would say oh the US should do something. but we head out to iraq and what happens? the US is bad cause they invaded a country ruled by a dictator who suppressed peoples rights tortured them and masscred them.

As opposed to the army, which does that so much better. I can't believe you're this brainwashed.

in ten years when iraq is a stable democracy people will blame it on how awsome the iraqis are for doing it to spite the american invasion but its because of the american invasion that they have some semblance of democracy now.

Maybe we were saying that 10 years ago?

even if it was for oil and we never find WMDs then it will still be worth it when an iraqi women takes her children to school, or a kurd has a conversation about politics with a shia and a sunniw without dying.

If you think that democracy is worth this many deaths, then I really don't know what perverse view of human life you have.

DIRESTRAITS wrote:Hate to break it to you, but you have your facts wrong

1) The invasion is not illegal, as the bill was passed by congress and is perfectly legal.

2) If the war is imperialistic, why hasn't America made any imperialistic political maneuvers in Iraq?

Also, how can you have sympathy for terror cells whose stated objectives are:

The Destruction of the Jewish race

No Rights for Woman

The destruction of Democracy

Making everyone under their control convert to Islam

Basically these guys are the Nazis, just with less power

This has been covered in the Amercans thread to death, but what the hell...

Hate to break it you but you have your facts wrong.

1) Outside of the US, the war is completely illegal. It was not UN sanctioned. International law (and this has been studied by the foremost experts in the field) views the whole invasion as entirely illegal. Prior to the invasion they were notified by International Commission of International Jurists (you can google them...) that any unilateral invasion would be entirely illegal under international law. Remember, the IS a world outside of the US just being ratified by Congress doesn't make a war legal to anyone other than said Smerican congress. They could theoretically declare war on Belgium and your definition would still see it as a legal war. Indeed, we can see faults with even this definition of 'legality'. There was never a formal declaration of war.

Secondly, the reasons for which we went to war (those which would give the war at least an elemnt of legality) were all fraudulent. The first reason was WMDs. They didn't exist. The (official, governmental) Baker Report in the UK proved that the intelligence info was based on very shakey foundations (some guys PhD I think) and would never usually have been trusted. The Iraq Study Group (an opfficial bi-partisan panel appointed by congress) concluded that "Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991." Therefore, the war was illegal. The information was fraudulent and this was known at some level prior to the war.

Secondly, the other reason was to end Saddam's support for terrorist organisations involved in 9/11. Once again, this justification has been proven absolutely, verifiabley false. He had know links to Al'qaeda. There are certainly cases of terrorist groups with operatives in Iraq before the war, but there are also operatives in Saudi, Turkey, (a huge number in) Pakistan... Those countries are not the target for invasion because it is not a war they can win. The excuse was that Saddam had links to Al'qaeda and he didn't. The (official governmental) Senate Armed Services Committee reported in 2003 that the information givn by the Bush administration making this link was 'hyped and exaggerated' and that 'The evidence about the ties was not compelling.' Sounds like another legal excuse to me...

Well that's the legality out of the way...

2) If the war is imperialistic, why hasn't America made any imperialistic political maneuvers in Iraq? - The invasion of Iraq is an imperialisitc one in itself. Now I'm not going to be able to convince you on this on, I know, but at least open your eyes and see the real situation for what it is: an attempt by the US to exercise its hegemonic influence and create a client-state in the middle east. I've already discussed this at length in other threads, so I don't want to go over it again, but what benefits do you think a US friendly Iraq would bring? Firsltly the obviouc economic ones, but also a bastion of western power against the powers of Iran and Saudi. An ideological 'team-mate' for Israel (in that when th US say jump Iraq ill jump)... You'd have to be an idiot not to see the myriad benefits of having a US controlled state in the region.

Thirdly, there's a difference between terror cells and insurgents. You'll probably laugh but I'd like to quote a rapper called Immortal Technique for this one:

They say the rebels in Iraq still fight for Saddam
But that's bullshit, I'll show you why it's totally wrong
Cuz if another country invaded the hood tonight
It'd be warfare through Harlem, and Washington Heights
I wouldn't be fightin' for Bush or White America's dream
I'd be fightin' for my people's survival and self-esteem
I wouldn't fight for racist churches from the south, my nigga
I'd be fightin' to keep the occupation out, my nigga
You ever clock someone who talk shit, or look at you wrong?
Imagine if they shot at you, and was rapin' your moms

The US and UK forces are occupiers. How the f*ck do you expect them to treat you? Even if we can see it would be a disaster, the every-man Iraqi would want you gone as soon as possible.

parno4u wrote:i am actually for it.

You can't just say that without justification.

Blueoctober wrote:besides with gps saddam could have buried everything he had in the desert where no one will find it.

Oooooooooohhhhh, Per-leeez!

Repeat after me, "Saddam never had any WMDs. The whole thing was a crock."

I recommend saying that to yourself 20 times every waking hour, for a month. Hopefully, after that, every trace of icky-Fox-News-brainwashing will be reversed.

DIRESTRAITS wrote:

flashleg8 wrote:

parno4u wrote:are you for or against the war in Iraq.

To answer your question: I am against the illegal US imperialistic invasion and I have sympathy for the Iraqi resistors - though I do not approve of the targeting of civilans in any war.

Hate to break it to you, but you have your facts wrong

1) The invasion is not illegal, as the bill was passed by congress and is perfectly legal.

It says nothing about the legality of it. Just because a bill was passed, it doesn't make the bill "right".

For a recap, bills passed under circumstances that were false or misleading are typically struck down.

2) If the war is imperialistic, why hasn't America made any imperialistic political maneuvers in Iraq?

*facepalm*

Lying about it? No bid contracts? Vague objectives?

Also, how can you have sympathy for terror cells whose stated objectives are:

The Destruction of the Jewish race

No Rights for Woman

The destruction of Democracy

Making everyone under their control convert to Islam

Basically these guys are the Nazis, just with less power

This is classic.

You're failing to distinguish between Saddam (a secular dictator) with the jihadists.