Reverend Blair Posted July 3, 2004 Report Posted July 3, 2004 It seems that you are the only person in this thread who doesn't like that article. It seems I'm the only one in thread who doesn't fuck pigs. Sorry boys, I've seen enough of your little site. Have a nice life. Quote
August1991 Posted July 3, 2004 Report Posted July 3, 2004 Sorry boys, I've seen enough of your little site.Taking your toys and going home? Why? Quote
KrustyKidd Posted July 4, 2004 Report Posted July 4, 2004 I'll sjow you mine if you'll show me yours. Who, prominent in international law outside of the Bush administration, has clearly backed your position up? Not by inference. Who has outright said that the invasion was legal? The Heads of Astate of the following countries; United Kingdom. Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Netherlands, Iceland, Italy, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary Albania, Macedonia, Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey, Croatia, Slovenia, Ukraine, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Philippines, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Georgia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Solomon Islands, Mongolia, Palau, Tonga, El Salvador, Colombia, Nicaragua, Costa Rica Dominican Republic, Honduras, Australia, Kuwait, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Uganda, Rwanda, and Angola. Just because they don’t meet in the same basement as your ‘unofficial’ lawyers that like to hold ‘non-binding’ kangaroo courts doesn’t mean that they think it is illegal. People demonstrate against things they wish to change or for things they wish to prevent others from changing. When a government thinks something is the way it should be and is legal, they keep on doing it. BTW, has the new Spanish government said that the action was illegal? That's why so many so vehemently oppose the US occupation. Vehemently? Hmmmm, as usual a bit mellowdramatic, If it were vehement then picture a hundred fifty thousand troops up against twenty five million people. It would be over in hours. I would say oppposed is a better word. Then again, I am opposed to the occupation in Iraq/ GW Bush is as well, every soldier in Iraq is. Nobody want the US to be there, them included. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/20...oll-cover_x.htm  The poll shows that most continue to say the hardships suffered to depose Saddam Hussein were worth it. Half say they and their families are better off than they were under Saddam. And a strong majority say they are more free to worship and to speak. A year ago they said that they were worse off and they wanted the US out. What has changed scince then? Quote We're Paratroopers Lieutenant. We're supposed to be surrounded - CPT Richard Winters
ResearchGuru06 Posted July 9, 2004 Report Posted July 9, 2004 I am opposed to the occupation in Iraq/ GW Bush is as well, every soldier in Iraq is. Nobody want the US to be there, them included. What's there to be opposed about? We've found about 90% of what we said we would, we've liberated 25 million+ Iraqi's from a despotic, opressive ruler, and we've intiated a democracy, to be shaped by the Iraqi populas. You can oppose war as much as you want, but every death here was justified and America did the right thing all the way around. Your comment about the soldiers in Iraq is not only inappropriate, but, also, completely without factual basis. It is a small minority of soldiers in Iraq that oppose the war... trust me, I talk with quite a few people in the Army, as well as many people who have close relatives there. QUOTE   The poll shows that most continue to say the hardships suffered to depose Saddam Hussein were worth it. Half say they and their families are better off than they were under Saddam. And a strong majority say they are more free to worship and to speak.   A year ago they said that they were worse off and they wanted the US out. What has changed scince then? They have seen the potential for Iraqi sovereignty. No one wants to live or is happy living in an occupied country. A year ago, a functioning Democracy in Iraq was just a distant thought, today it's a reality. Because of this, many Iraqi people have released pent up pessimism against the US, and people are seeing how much better life is now and how much better it has the potential to become. Quote
ft.niagara Posted July 11, 2004 Report Posted July 11, 2004 Several years ago, my car broke down in a small town in Wisconsin and I had to wait several hours while it was in a garage. In wandering around the town, I saw a small monument with the names of some 10 young men from the town killed in Vietnam. I realized, "There are thousands of towns like this across America."It has been fashionable on the Left to say the Vietnam War was a big mistake and America should never have gotten involved. No doubt, there were many errors committed in Vietnam, and Robert McNamara has listed many. Nevertheless, America was right to get involved. America was fighting the good fight. The same one Churchill fought. Since World War II, America has learned that it must defend the principles of liberty abroad where it can and when the threat is particularly great to America itself. This defense of liberty sometimes means lengthy, complex wars that last for years. On the balance of evidence, Iraq had WMD and this provided justification for war. The possibility Iraq would share these weapons with a terrorist group also justified war. One forgets also the signal this war delivers to other countries about America's intention to defend itself. Gaddafi is not the same as before. Most Canadians travel abroad without visas, move freely from one part of Canada to another and write all kinds of nonsense on forums such as this. Too easily, we take these freedoms for granted. As Canadians, we should be grateful those young Americans believed in their country, and grateful America won the Cold War. As an American I appreciate your kind words. No country is immune to problems. Substitute the word bioterrorism with SARS and Canadians should be able to understand when your country is attacked. Quote
caesar Posted July 11, 2004 Report Posted July 11, 2004 "n the balance of evidence, Iraq had WMD and this provided justification for war. The possibility Iraq would share these weapons with a terrorist group also justified war. One forgets also the signal this war delivers to other countries about America's intention to defend itself. Gaddafi is not the same as before.'Nonsense. The evidence was shown to be tainted fraudulent and forggeries PRIOR to the invasion of Iraq. It has been proven to be completely lacking any substance now. Even the US congress recognizes that the evidence used by the USA (And rejected by the majority of the UN Security Council) was completely lacking merit. "flawed" I believe is one of the words used. Iraq is NOW full of terrorists. Prior to the invasion by the USA; it was not. The invasion of Iraq was not self defense; it was outright aggression. Perhaps YOU think it was worth it. If it was your son or daughter who died in this invasion; would you still feel that way in your heart. It is one thing to sacrifice your life in defense of your country; it is quite a waste when it is based on lies, frauds, and forgeries. Quote
Stoker Posted July 11, 2004 Report Posted July 11, 2004 Iraq is NOW full of terrorists. Prior to the invasion by the USA; it was not. Better there then here.........don't you think? The invasion of Iraq was not self defense; it was outright aggression. I think the term is preemption......I'd ask Maplesyrup first, but didn't Stalin once say the best defence is a good offense? Fight the buggers on their own turf instead of our's....... Quote The beaver, which has come to represent Canada as the eagle does the United States and the lion Britain, is a flat-tailed, slow-witted, toothy rodent known to bite off it's own testicles or to stand under its own falling trees. -June Callwood-
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.