WMD

[Dylflon]

This is directed at you The Strangler. Notice I have not once in this entire thread argued with America's motives for going to war. Not only that but none of my statements have been Anti-American. My moral opposition to this war stems from the amount of people that are dying because of it.

Yet you want to yell at me for this. For believing that innocent people shouldn't die. Go ahead and "tear my argument to shreds". I'm sorry if I don't believe sacrificing people's lives is a way to solve a problem. I don't understand how you can manage to argue with me about what I'm saying (which so far has only been about casualties) unless you believe that human life is expendable and should be wasted on such trivial matters.

And what you're arguing with is my opinion. And I'd like to make sure you know that I'm entitled to having one. But just in case this idea of an opinion is hard for you to grasp, I'll break it down for you by using the dictionary definition.

A view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter

Your manner of arguing is rather juvenile in my opinion. This is how your arguments go:

You're an idiot and what you believe is untrue and/or propeganda.

I have not called you wrong but have only stated what I believe.

Continue to attack me for being against war if you wish. I will not change my mind. Most of these wars shouldn't be fought. And young men and women shouldn't be sent to die over these disputes.

If ever there's a day when I pick up a gun and fight, there will be a damn good reason I'm doing it.

[Typhoid]

I dont support any war at all. Except WWII because something had to be done there. Im not fueled by propaganda, im Canadian, and i dont have a large standpoint on liking war.

I dont know why war exists, i dont know why war is carried out in the manor it is, and i dont know why the United States likes to bully around other countries to get its way, and if the country in question doesnt comply, they say " this country is a threat to our nation"

...I say within 10 years, the U.S. will start a war over Canada, because we wont give free softwood. War kills many, and Produces nothing.

[Professor S]

Fine, you want it, you got it...

Originally Posted by Dylflon

This is directed at you The Strangler. Notice I have not once in this entire thread argued with America's motives for going to war. Not only that but none of my statements have been Anti-American. My moral opposition to this war stems from the amount of people that are dying because of it.

I didn't say your post was anti-american, I said Typhoids was in the first post. Thats what my first post was directed towards.

Yet you want to yell at me for this. For believing that innocent people shouldn't die. Go ahead and "tear my argument to shreds". I'm sorry if I don't believe sacrificing people's lives is a way to solve a problem. I don't understand how you can manage to argue with me about what I'm saying (which so far has only been about casualties) unless you believe that human life is expendable and should be wasted on such trivial matters.

LOL! Not only can I put together pretty much a air tight argument about this, but I'll repeat it yet again as I've repeated it before:

Saddam Hussein killed an estimated 1.5 million of his own people. To date, or at least the last time I checked, over 400,000 bodies have been found in mass graves in Iraq. That was a couple of months ago, though, so I'm sure that number has increased. You ramble on about how many lives have been lost "needlessly" because of this war, when all I can see are the tens of thousands of lives that have been saved. Now maybe you can imagine how I can argue with you about this.

And what you're arguing with is my opinion. And I'd like to make sure you know that I'm entitled to having one. But just in case this idea of an opinion is hard for you to grasp, I'll break it down for you by using the dictionary definition.

A view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter

Your manner of arguing is rather juvenile in my opinion.

I don't argue with your right to have an opinion, but I would rather see your opinions be a little more well read and even handed. You claim to be more informed about the subject that you are expounding upon, but I have yet to see evidence of this. It looks more like you have spent time looking up the opinions of like minded individuals that will support your opinion regardless of their veracity.

This is how your arguments go:

You're an idiot and what you believe is untrue and/or propeganda.

I have not called you wrong but have only stated what I believe.

And I believe you shouldn't constantly voice an opinion that is not educated to the subject, and I will continue to voice MY opinion about that.

As for opinions actually based on FACT, please see my long post about WMD here:

http://www.gametavern.net/forums/sho...highlight=iraq

I really don't feel like typing it again.

Continue to attack me for being against war if you wish. I will not change my mind.

The perfect example of why I shouldn't even bother arguing with you about this in the first place. A closed mind is pointless to converse with.

Most of these wars shouldn't be fought. And young men and women shouldn't be sent to die over these disputes.

If ever there's a day when I pick up a gun and fight, there will be a damn good reason I'm doing it.

How very Politically Correct. I happen to think saving thousands of lives, freeing millions of people, and helping to protect out own country in the process is a damn good reason. I'd like to hear what you think a good reason would be.

[Jonbo298]

Still no justification why Bush went to war without the UN's support. I dont know what he was thinking when he decided to go it alone. I think that was his worst decision so far in his 3 and a half years as a president. Hopefully people wakeup to the fact that he is running our deficit so deep that it'll probably never recover.

[Dylflon]

Oh, I see The Strangler. You have to kill Iraqis so Saddam can't kill them.

Hooray for justice.

Yes. I realize now how hard it would have been to send in units to do nothing other than look for Saddam. Occupying their towns and killing civilians and capturing oil fields is a much better way to find Saddam. How could I have been so stupid?

Your argument is that what your doing is right because Saddam was worse. That's a bunch of crap. That doesn't justify anything.

BTW, Saddam has been captured. People shouldn't still be dying.

[mickydaniels]

Originally Posted by Dylflon

Oh, I see The Strangler. You have to kill Iraqis so Saddam can't kill them.

Hooray for justice.

[Crono]

Originally Posted by Dylflon

BTW, Saddam has been captured. People shouldn't still be dying.

Try telling that to the loyalists who are still firing at and killing American and coalition forces.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Dylflon

Oh, I see The Strangler. You have to kill Iraqis so Saddam can't kill them.

Hooray for justice.

Yes. I realize now how hard it would have been to send in units to do nothing other than look for Saddam. Occupying their towns and killing civilians and capturing oil fields is a much better way to find Saddam. How could I have been so stupid?

Your argument is that what your doing is right because Saddam was worse. That's a bunch of crap. That doesn't justify anything.

BTW, Saddam has been captured. People shouldn't still be dying.

What a myopic view of war. If you look at any other war in modern history, the civilian casualties that have taken place in Iraq PALE in comparison. In WWII, the war that you yourself claim to support, the civilian casualties were astounding. Carpet bombing was commonplace and tens of thousands of innocent non-combatants on both sides were killed.

So by your theory we shouldn't have gone full tilt after Hitler because of the potential for innocent lives to be lost? Or does the fact that the complete genocide of the Jews in western Europe and the many more lives that would have been lost through a prolonged war were avoided justify that unfortunate occurance? You yourself said that it was a just war.

You have to look at the big picture, and not just keep on with this silly and ignorant view that "war is bad". A few thousand have died so that hundreds of thousands can live. In the real world we have to take trades such as that, just as we did during WWII.

The FACT is that every effort to avoid civilian causalties and even to protect sacred muslim sites have been made. Instead of carpet bombing during the war which would have been far more effective in destroying the infrastructure and demoralizing the troops, we hand picked targets and made every effort to spare the city and civilian lives.

Now that the war is over, troops are basically targets because they cannot go into sacred mosques that terrorists and fundamentalists from Syria and Iran are using as fortresses and bases of operations.

Also you mention capturing oil fields as if it were a BAD thing. Do you know anything about what happened in the first Gulf War? Saddam lit fire the HUNDREDS of oil fields in Kuwait before backing out and it was one of the biggest ecological disasters in history. The smoke spread all the way to East Asia. The FACT is that the oil fields in Iraq were captured because they had been rigged with explosives to be destroyed if an invasion took place. Amazingly our troops were able to disable most of the explosives and prevent all but a few fires. Also, there is NO EVIDENCE THAT THE US HAS STOLEN OR PLANS TO STEAL ONE OUNCE OF OIL FROM IRAQ. That sure doesn't keep people from ignorantly screaming that they are, does it?

Like I said before, do some research and look up some facts about war before spouting off about things you really know nothing about. The truth is that the Iraq been one of the most gentle wars to the civilian populace in HISTORY, and that out of planning and not happenstance.

In the end, your argument still remains "war is bad" with no logical reasoning behind it.

[Jonbo298]

Hitler was a threat to the world. Sadaam really wasnt. He supposedly had the weapons, but sadaam wasnt really going after other countries.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Jonbo298

Hitler was a threat to the world. Sadaam really wasnt. He supposedly had the weapons, but sadaam wasnt really going after other countries.

Hitler wasn't considered a threat to the world when he annexed Austria. Hitler wasn't considered a threat to the world when he invaded Poland. It wasn't until Hitler ran over France and had the time to build up his arsenal that he was considered a world threat.

You call it Saddam not being a world threat, I call it learning from history's past mistakes.

[Typhoid]

Originally Posted by Jonbo298

Hitler was a threat to the world. Sadaam really wasnt. He supposedly had the weapons, but sadaam wasnt really going after other countries.

Saddam SUPPOSEDLY had the weapons, while Bush DOES have them.....yet someone who is supposed to have weapons is a bigger threat to the world than someone who might have them.
And "Rogue" Iraqis are still firing on American troops because you bombed the hell out of, and invaded their contry. I dont know about you, but if someone did that to my country id be p*ssed.
Bush thinks he can go into iraq and force the western view of sociatle structure on them. But he cant, they are stuck in their views because thats how they lived for centuries. Put it this way: The Iraquis want to be westernizes about as much as we want to live in Iraq. Just pull the troops out of Iraq, clean up your mess and stop killing innocent people. Too many people die from this.
All Wars are just basically Dick waving contests. Its one of those "Im better than anyone else so im justified to force my opinion on others" mentality.
When it comes down to it, you cant tell people how to live or what to do or how to do it. thats called Communism. And thats what the Americans are doing to Iraq, they are becoming the Communist power.