Author Topic: Have some respect for the GWB (Read 382 times)

Siaf__csf · « **on:** April 15, 2003, 05:07:52 AM »

http://lollygagger.org/artists/manfish/GeorgieW.swf

Martlet · « **Reply #1 on:** April 15, 2003, 05:42:20 AM »

http://www.imao.us/archives/000552.html#000552

Some Thoughts on the War That's Not Quite Over

Getting liberated looks like fun. You get to knock down statues and loot like crazy and it's all cool!

Anyway, I thought it was interesting to see the mood of people during this war:

Wow! With the decapitation attack and Shock and Awe, everyone is going to surrender right away and this war will be over quick!

Oh no! They're actually fighting back! We have casualties and P.O.W.'s! This war will last forever and tons of our troops will be killed! Quagmire! Quagmire! Quagmire! Quag...

Wait a sec; war's over. Hooray!

Now that the Iraqis are cheering us - JUST LIKE WE SAID - all we need is to find some WMD's and then we'll prove we're totally right about everything and can be like, "That's why we don't listen to other countries: because we're right about everything and you're all turds." Let's then use the WMD's on France and Germany and say, "Since you said Iraq didn't have WMD's, these can't be WMD's we're using on you now and you can't get mad." But they probably will get mad. Hypocrites.

Siaf__csf · « **Reply #2 on:** April 15, 2003, 06:06:08 AM »

Actually Martlet there are anti-US demonstrators on the streets of Baghdad as we speak. They wanted to get rid of Saddam - but they sure as hell don't seem to want GWB to replace him.

I just saw a demonstration on tv with slogans 'Saddam out, Bush out..'

They want to have thier cake and eat it too.

But all that aside, the war had nothing to do with 'liberating Iraq' it was a pre-emptive strike because Iraq was an immediate threat to the US.

It seems that you're having a hard time digging up any evidence to support the initial arguments.

The fact remains that the US had no justification whatsoever for the attack. Sets a worrying example on the international community.

Oh and btw: didn't you think the animation was funny?

Martlet · « **Reply #3 on:** April 15, 2003, 06:09:15 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Actually Martlet there are anti-US demonstrators on the streets of Baghdad as we speak. They wanted to get rid of Saddam - but they sure as hell don't seem to want GWB to replace him.

I just saw a demonstration on tv with slogans 'Saddam out, Bush out..'

They want to have thier cake and eat it too.

But all that aside, the war had nothing to do with 'liberating Iraq' it was a pre-emptive strike because Iraq was an immediate threat to the US.

It seems that you're having a hard time digging up any evidence to support the initial arguments.

The fact remains that the US had no justification whatsoever for the attack. Sets a worrying example on the international community.

Oh and btw: didn't you think the animation was funny? [/QUOTE

I didn't get it.

What are the intitial arguments I'm supposed to be digging up evidence for?

US justification for the attack (not that we need it) was resolution 1441.

batdog · « **Reply #4 on:** April 15, 2003, 06:19:14 AM »

Everybody always seem to forget that resolution. The UN did as well so its not a big surprise. They have found mobile chem/bio labs. This ALONE is in direct violation of said agreement-resolution.

Martlet · « **Reply #5 on:** April 15, 2003, 06:22:19 AM »

http://www.imao.us/docs/Violence.htm

Siaf__csf · « **Reply #6 on:** April 15, 2003, 10:23:00 AM »

Martlett you and I both know res 1441 was only the final excuse to start the campaign. UN never approved military action against Iraq.

So, US failed to comply to UN mandates while it attacked Iraq for not complying to UN mandates.. Ironic.

Martlet · « **Reply #7 on:** April 15, 2003, 10:32:31 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Martlett you and I both know res 1441 was only the final excuse to start the campaign. UN never approved military action against Iraq.

So, US failed to comply to UN mandates while it attacked Iraq for not complying to UN mandates.. Ironic.

what UN mandates did the US fail to comply with?

Odd, I saw nothing to that effect go through the UNSC lately.

Siaf__csf · « **Reply #8 on:** April 15, 2003, 12:14:05 PM »

Well Martlett there was no actual mandate, but UN never approved the attack, so in that sense it did.

UN was strongly against the assault.

Martlet · « **Reply #9 on:** April 15, 2003, 12:17:53 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Siaf__csf
Well Martlett there was no actual mandate, but UN never approved the attack, so in that sense it did.

UN was strongly against the assault.

So what?

I'm strongly against 18 year olds being allowed to buy cigarettes. That doesn't make it a crime when they do, though.

Go find a real argument, and come back. Or admit you were wrong, and drop it.