How much more proof do we need that Iraq was a "Just War"?

[Syzygyone]

Originally posted by Dowding
Because the RAF don't accept epileptics.

Well, sorry to bring up a sore subject.  I hope you'll be able to keep it under control.  And, at least you tried.  That alone sets you apart from many others.  So, you can keep on giving us your ridiculous thoughts.

[SirLoin]

Q:Why did the USA sell Iraq chemical weapons in the first place?


A very simple question.

[GRUNHERZ]

Yep simple, to kill many Iranians who were America's staunch enemies at the time. Back then it was completely legal for Iraq to poses such weapons. After the 1991 gulf war, it was not and it was up to iraq to convince us that they no longer had such weapons - they failed and we took care of business.

This is just another form of the idiotic anti-war USA-hater "you cant fight _______ today because in the past you were on the same side and helped him" argument you morons cried about Osama when you opposed the USA going into afhghanistan after 911 and again tried to use with saddam.

[GRUNHERZ]

But tell me who did the French want to kill when Jacqes Chirac sold Saddam a nucler reactor capable of producing nuclear weapons grade material?

Who did Canada want want to kill when Bull upgraded saddam's scuds to increase their range and started building a fixed super cannon pointed northwest?

[SirLoin]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Yep simple, to kill many Iranians who were America's staunch enemies at the time. Back then it was completely legal for Iraq to poses such weapons.

So it's OK to use poison gas on people as long as they are deemed "Enemy's of the State?"..Interesting logic Groinhertz...

Where in history have we seen this kind of logic before?

A very simple question.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by SirLoin
So it's OK to use poison gas on people as long as they are deemed "Enemy's of the State?"..Interesting logic Groinhertz...

Where in history have we seen this kind of logic before?

A very simple question.

At the time, it was ok to use gas in battle.  Now, it isn't.

[GRUNHERZ]

Yes sir loin go ahead twist those words around, yep it makes your argument so wonderful... I guess whenver Canada sold weapons abroad, a laughable concept I suppose but I'll humor your pathetic little nation ( I donno maybe you guys do sell weapons), they were intended to kill allies and not enemies of rustic little Canada "the state" or however you put it?

Maybe you liked it better when US dropped it's evil bombs on friendly Candian troops and not the "enemy of the state" taliban soldiers in the afghan war? Yea I bet you loved that, maybe  we can arange it for you again..

But yes, you found us out,  Amerika is just like nazi Germany - hell all these years I thought I was living in the fatherland and not california....

Why are you such an idiot and so desaperate tom keep making these idiotc comparsions like alluding that america is similar to the nazis?  Dont you realize how ridiculous it makes you look?

A very simple question.

[SirLoin]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ

Why are you such an idiot and so desaperate tom keep making these idiotc comparsions like alluding that america is similar to the nazis?  Dont you realize how ridiculous it makes you look?

A very simple question.

I was not comparing America to the Nazi's...I was alluding to YOUR LOGIC to that of the Nazi's.

A very simple comparison really...

[SirLoin]

Originally posted by Martlet
At the time, it was ok to use gas in battle.  Now, it isn't.

If it was OK at the time,then by that logic gassing the Kurds was the same as gassing Iranians.Both were enemies of Iraq at the time the USA sold them the chemical kaka.

BTW,your quote is sick.

Revisionism can be cured..Please give generously.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by SirLoin
If it was OK at the time,then by that logic gassing the Kurds was the same as gassing Iranians.Both were enemies of Iraq at the time the USA sold them the chemical kaka.

Revisionism can be cured..Please give generously.

The kurds are Iraqi, they weren't enemies of it.  They were anti-saddam.  Does that mean it's ok to kill the democrats since they are anti-bush?

[Naso]

Originally posted by Martlet
Does that mean it's ok to kill the democrats since they are anti-bush?

You'll love it, uh?

[Martlet]

Originally posted by Naso
You'll love it, uh?

Not at all.  I'm pro war in most cases.  However, I realize that my tendency to jump to war is in many cases not justified.  That is why the people having a voice works so well.  Both sides have to agree on a course of action.  The anti war people are not allowed to try to talk out every situation for as long as it takes.  The pro war people are not allowed to blow everyone up.  They have to reach an agreement.

Both sides are needed for a democracy to be truly effective.

[Naso]

Originally posted by Martlet
Not at all.  I'm pro war in most cases.  However, I realize that my tendency to jump to war is in many cases not justified.  That is why the people having a voice works so well.  Both sides have to agree on a course of action.  The anti war people are not allowed to try to talk out every situation for as long as it takes.  The pro war people are not allowed to blow everyone up.  They have to reach an agreement.

Both sides are needed for a democracy to be truly effective.

Was joking, btw, nice answer.

[SirLoin]

lol

[Maniac]

Well in an way yes