Do you think the Iraq war justified?

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="LiquidAjax"] The CIA which bush SR was involved with helped arm IRAQ to fight IRAN to keep region stability. They didn't help them commit genocide. Like I said before. I like how you became an expert on something I just told you about last night.LJS9502_basic

:lol: They armed one another to slaughter one another... I take it you have never heard of the Contra scandal?

The US didn't care when the Shah was torturing and killing his people when the government was arming him.. Now suddenly that another guy did a bad thing we shoudl all of a sudden say that it isn't right! Well of course it isn't right no where does that excuse it, merely pointing out the hypocrisy of the matter.. The US doesn't give a fvck if people are harmed in this and only ever use it as a excuse to get public support on it..

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

:lol: They armed one another to slaughter one another... I take it you have never heard of the Contra scandal?

sSubZerOo

The US didn't care when the Shah was torturing and killing his people when the government was arming him.. Now suddenly that another guy did a bad thing we shoudl all of a sudden say that it isn't right! Well of course it isn't right no where does that excuse it, merely pointing out the hypocrisy of the matter.. The US doesn't give a fvck if people are harmed in this and only ever use it as a excuse to get public support on it..

[QUOTE="thebest31406"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Not sure why this excuses Saddam for killing his own people but perhaps you can enlighten us....LJS9502_basic

:lol: Ok LJ please start selling weapons to innercity gangs.. I am pretty sure once your busted the whole "Hey its not my fault, I am not responsiible for this" will fly in court quite well.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="thebest31406"] Who's excusing it? Just illustrating that the US is responsible.sSubZerOo

:lol: Ok LJ please start selling weapons to innercity gangs.. I am pretty sure once your busted the whole "Hey its not my fault, I am not responsiible for this" will fly in court quite well.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

:lol: They armed one another to slaughter one another... I take it you have never heard of the Contra scandal?

sSubZerOo

The US didn't care when the Shah was torturing and killing his people when the government was arming him.. Now suddenly that another guy did a bad thing we shoudl all of a sudden say that it isn't right! Well of course it isn't right no where does that excuse it, merely pointing out the hypocrisy of the matter.. The US doesn't give a fvck if people are harmed in this and only ever use it as a excuse to get public support on it..

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Uh no. Giving someone arms doesn't mean one is responsible if they abuse them. Personal responsibility....learn it.LJS9502_basic

:lol: Ok LJ please start selling weapons to innercity gangs.. I am pretty sure once your busted the whole "Hey its not my fault, I am not responsiible for this" will fly in court quite well.

Ironic that you say "things are so black and white" but suddenly you fly "mercenaries" in the wind as some how make them to be the good guys.. You mean mercs like the men who formed the taliban to fight Soviet Union? Man that worked out SO WELL..

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Not sure why this excuses Saddam for killing his own people but perhaps you can enlighten us....LiquidAjax

The US didn't care when the Shah was torturing and killing his people when the government was arming him.. Now suddenly that another guy did a bad thing we shoudl all of a sudden say that it isn't right! Well of course it isn't right no where does that excuse it, merely pointing out the hypocrisy of the matter.. The US doesn't give a fvck if people are harmed in this and only ever use it as a excuse to get public support on it..

That your using small canisters of mustard gas put in arty rounds, ones that existed before desert storm.. Why should I bother commenting about that? The Bush adminstration touted that they were DEVELOPING weapons including nuclear.. And the biggest thing you got was 500 arty rounds that were pre-Desert storm that were developed by the arms that the US GAVE them to begin with during the 80s.

[QUOTE="LiquidAjax"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

The US didn't care when the Shah was torturing and killing his people when the government was arming him.. Now suddenly that another guy did a bad thing we shoudl all of a sudden say that it isn't right! Well of course it isn't right no where does that excuse it, merely pointing out the hypocrisy of the matter.. The US doesn't give a fvck if people are harmed in this and only ever use it as a excuse to get public support on it..

sSubZerOo

That your using small canisters of mustard gas put in arty rounds, ones that existed before desert storm.. Why should I bother commenting about that? The Bush adminstration touted that they were DEVELOPING weapons including nuclear.. And the biggest thing you got was 500 arty rounds that were pre-Desert storm that were developed by the arms that the US GAVE them to begin with during the 80s.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="LiquidAjax"] Ignoring my post on how I proved how stupid you are? LiquidAjax

That your using small canisters of mustard gas put in arty rounds, ones that existed before desert storm.. Why should I bother commenting about that? The Bush adminstration touted that they were DEVELOPING weapons including nuclear.. And the biggest thing you got was 500 arty rounds that were pre-Desert storm that were developed by the arms that the US GAVE them to begin with during the 80s.

With evidence like that we might as well invade every country out there, afterall they may have minsucle amounts of World War 1 chemical weapons..:lol:

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

:lol: Ok LJ please start selling weapons to innercity gangs.. I am pretty sure once your busted the whole "Hey its not my fault, I am not responsiible for this" will fly in court quite well.

sSubZerOo

Ironic that you say "things are so black and white" but suddenly you fly "mercenaries" in the wind as some how make them to be the good guys.. You mean mercs like the men who formed the taliban to fight Soviet Union? Man that worked out SO WELL..

[QUOTE="LiquidAjax"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] Lol you got cornered dudekuraimen

Don't forget Great Britain.. CIA and MI6 ochestrated the coup of the DEMOCRATICALLY elected prime minister of Iran.. Which they then put the brutal and corrupt Shah..

[QUOTE="Rich3232"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Uh no. Giving someone arms doesn't mean one is responsible if they abuse them. Personal responsibility....learn it.thebest31406

[QUOTE="LiquidAjax"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

That your using small canisters of mustard gas put in arty rounds, ones that existed before desert storm.. Why should I bother commenting about that? The Bush adminstration touted that they were DEVELOPING weapons including nuclear.. And the biggest thing you got was 500 arty rounds that were pre-Desert storm that were developed by the arms that the US GAVE them to begin with during the 80s.

sSubZerOo

With evidence like that we might as well invade every country out there, afterall they may have minsucle amounts of World War 1 chemical weapons..:lol:

[QUOTE="LiquidAjax"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

The US didn't care when the Shah was torturing and killing his people when the government was arming him.. Now suddenly that another guy did a bad thing we shoudl all of a sudden say that it isn't right! Well of course it isn't right no where does that excuse it, merely pointing out the hypocrisy of the matter.. The US doesn't give a fvck if people are harmed in this and only ever use it as a excuse to get public support on it..

sSubZerOo

That your using small canisters of mustard gas put in arty rounds, ones that existed before desert storm.. Why should I bother commenting about that? The Bush adminstration touted that they were DEVELOPING weapons including nuclear.. And the biggest thing you got was 500 arty rounds that were pre-Desert storm that were developed by the arms that the US GAVE them to begin with during the 80s.

Do you know who Frans van Anraat, is?

The largest suppliers of precursors for chemical weapons production were in Singapore (4,515 tons), the Netherlands (4,261 tons), Egypt (2,400 tons), India (2,343 tons), and West Germany (1,027 tons). It appears that one substance was sold from the US though.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Depends on who the mercenaries are fighting I'd imagine. Nothing is black and white. If the mercenaries were dealing with an evil dictator that was committing genocide....well then I don't think you'd see outrage.LJS9502_basic

Ironic that you say "things are so black and white" but suddenly you fly "mercenaries" in the wind as some how make them to be the good guys.. You mean mercs like the men who formed the taliban to fight Soviet Union? Man that worked out SO WELL..

If your going to throw around the term "evil", what is more evil then a person who murders people for personal gain?

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="LiquidAjax"]Yeah because the CIA supporting Iraq fighting Iran for stability in the region is the same as george bush supporting genocide. You're just as much of an idiot as he is.sSubZerOo

Don't forget Great Britain.. CIA and MI6 ochestrated the coup of the DEMOCRATICALLY elected prime minister of Iran.. Which they then put the brutal and corrupt Shah..

The Shah of Iran first came to power in 1941. How does someone put someone already on the throne in power?

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="LiquidAjax"] Yeah because the CIA supporting Iraq fighting Iran for stability in the region is the same as george bush supporting genocide. You're just as much of an idiot as he is.sSubZerOo

Don't forget Great Britain.. CIA and MI6 ochestrated the coup of the DEMOCRATICALLY elected prime minister of Iran.. Which they then put the brutal and corrupt Shah..

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Ironic that you say "things are so black and white" but suddenly you fly "mercenaries" in the wind as some how make them to be the good guys.. You mean mercs like the men who formed the taliban to fight Soviet Union? Man that worked out SO WELL..

sSubZerOo

If your going to throw around the term "evil", what is more evil then a person who murders people for personal gain?

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="LiquidAjax"] Dress it up all you want, there were WMD's found. You're an idiot. NEXT.LiquidAjax

With evidence like that we might as well invade every country out there, afterall they may have minsucle amounts of World War 1 chemical weapons..:lol:

What difference does it make how they kill their people? I guess that the guy in Syria who is gunning down people execution style is now "ok" because he isn't using chemicals to gas his own cities? This is such a ridiculous argument your trying to make.. There is no legitimate reason to invade Iraq when literally they were toothless for a decade and were in a cold war with Iran still.. There are plenty of **** leaders out there that torture and murder their people all the time, the US still supports some and has supported (to out right CREATING them) in the past..

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] Stability? Oh yeah I forgot Iraq supported a coup to overthrow the democratically elected leader in Iran... Oh wait! That was the US. Lol small mistake...WhiteKnight77

Don't forget Great Britain.. CIA and MI6 ochestrated the coup of the DEMOCRATICALLY elected prime minister of Iran.. Which they then put the brutal and corrupt Shah..

The Shah of Iran first came to power in 1941. How does someone put someone already on the throne in power?

[QUOTE="LiquidAjax"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

With evidence like that we might as well invade every country out there, afterall they may have minsucle amounts of World War 1 chemical weapons..:lol:

sSubZerOo

What difference does it make how they kill their people? I guess that the guy in Syria who is gunning down people execution style is now "ok" because he isn't using chemicals to gas his own cities? This is such a ridiculous argument your trying to make.. There is no legitimate reason to invade Iraq when literally they were toothless for a decade and were in a cold war with Iran still.. There are plenty of **** leaders out there that torture and murder their people all the time, the US still supports some and has supported (to out right CREATING them) in the past..

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] A mercenary is someone who fights for money...they are neither inherently good....nor inherently bad. It's the situation that defines it.LJS9502_basic

If your going to throw around the term "evil", what is more evil then a person who murders people for personal gain?

Wrong it was YOU who specifically said about mercernaries facing a "evil dictator".. I didn't say that, you did.

Second....if paying someone to remove an individual engaged in genocide saves the lives of many many people....who cares why they did it?

Because they replace the guy and become just as bad if not worse? And where were these merc supportings for the Rwanda and Darfur genocides? I must have missed those.. The US doesn't support said groups to stop genocide.. They do it for their own political and economic gain.. IF the main goal was to stop death of innocents they would not prop up and support any of these groups at all.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] A mercenary is someone who fights for money...they are neither inherently good....nor inherently bad. It's the situation that defines it.LJS9502_basic

If your going to throw around the term "evil", what is more evil then a person who murders people for personal gain?

[QUOTE="Rich3232"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]What a childish and simplistic view of the world. You're being attacked. Your neighbor hands you a weapon to defend yourself if needed. You get drunk and shoot the postal employee. YOU are the one responsible. Not your neighbor.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

If your going to throw around the term "evil", what is more evil then a person who murders people for personal gain?

Rich3232

[QUOTE="Rich3232"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Fist....you throw the word evil around. Second....if paying someone to remove an individual engaged in genocide saves the lives of many many people....who cares why they did it?LiquidAjax

[QUOTE="thebest31406"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]What a childish and simplistic view of the world. You're being attacked. Your neighbor hands you a weapon to defend yourself if needed. You get drunk and shoot the postal employee. YOU are the one responsible. Not your neighbor.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="Rich3232"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Fist....you throw the word evil around. Second....if paying someone to remove an individual engaged in genocide saves the lives of many many people....who cares why they did it?LiquidAjax

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="LiquidAjax"] True, most of those countries used those chemical weapons on their own civilians too right? I swear you don't even try.LiquidAjax

What difference does it make how they kill their people? I guess that the guy in Syria who is gunning down people execution style is now "ok" because he isn't using chemicals to gas his own cities? This is such a ridiculous argument your trying to make.. There is no legitimate reason to invade Iraq when literally they were toothless for a decade and were in a cold war with Iran still.. There are plenty of **** leaders out there that torture and murder their people all the time, the US still supports some and has supported (to out right CREATING them) in the past..

Define evil.. That is my argument that these operations are not meant to save lives.. They are for political and economic gain.. I find it so hilarious and so tragic how fvcked up the reality of the matter is.. That we have the same people who go on about we went in for saving lives, but the very same people pretty much condone all the collateral damage and really not care about the deaths of the actual event to begin with....... If lives were the main goal where was everybody during the Rwandan genocide or the darfur genocide? The US supported many of the leaders EVEN WHEN this happened.. Reagan and Bush Sr. didn't pull their support when Saddam gased the kurds! They did when they became uncooperative and finally invaded a neighboring country of economic importance!

[QUOTE="LiquidAjax"][QUOTE="Rich3232"] well, if we're going to do this based on utilitarianism(which is what it sounds like you're implying), then we shouldn't start wars in the first place since it often kills more innocents in the end than most genocides. thebest31406

[QUOTE="LiquidAjax"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

What difference does it make how they kill their people? I guess that the guy in Syria who is gunning down people execution style is now "ok" because he isn't using chemicals to gas his own cities? This is such a ridiculous argument your trying to make.. There is no legitimate reason to invade Iraq when literally they were toothless for a decade and were in a cold war with Iran still.. There are plenty of **** leaders out there that torture and murder their people all the time, the US still supports some and has supported (to out right CREATING them) in the past..

sSubZerOo

Define evil.. That is my argument that these operations are not meant to save lives.. They are for political and economic gain.. I find it so hilarious and so tragic how fvcked up the reality of the matter is.. That we have the same people who go on about we went in for saving lives, but the very same people pretty much condone all the collateral damage and really not care about the deaths of the actual event to begin with....... If lives were the main goal where was everybody during the Rwandan genocide or the darfur genocide? The US supported many of the leaders EVEN WHEN this happened.. Reagan and Bush Sr. didn't pull their support when Saddam gased the kurds! They did when they became uncooperative and finally invaded a neighboring country of economic importance!

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="LiquidAjax"] I agree there is more people we should be dealing with, but because they're not as evil as them doesn't make it a reason NOT to go there. I have to say Africa is way too neglected.kuraimen

Define evil.. That is my argument that these operations are not meant to save lives.. They are for political and economic gain.. I find it so hilarious and so tragic how fvcked up the reality of the matter is.. That we have the same people who go on about we went in for saving lives, but the very same people pretty much condone all the collateral damage and really not care about the deaths of the actual event to begin with....... If lives were the main goal where was everybody during the Rwandan genocide or the darfur genocide? The US supported many of the leaders EVEN WHEN this happened.. Reagan and Bush Sr. didn't pull their support when Saddam gased the kurds! They did when they became uncooperative and finally invaded a neighboring country of economic importance!

[QUOTE="Rich3232"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]One....note the word views. Not the analogy. Second...it's the same analogy. Who is to blame if someone that up to a point was not a threat suddenly becomes a threat? It's the INDIVIDUAL. Rather silly to blame someone else.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LiquidAjax"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

What difference does it make how they kill their people? I guess that the guy in Syria who is gunning down people execution style is now "ok" because he isn't using chemicals to gas his own cities? This is such a ridiculous argument your trying to make.. There is no legitimate reason to invade Iraq when literally they were toothless for a decade and were in a cold war with Iran still.. There are plenty of **** leaders out there that torture and murder their people all the time, the US still supports some and has supported (to out right CREATING them) in the past..

sSubZerOo

Define evil.. That is my argument that these operations are not meant to save lives.. They are for political and economic gain.. I find it so hilarious and so tragic how fvcked up the reality of the matter is.. That we have the same people who go on about we went in for saving lives, but the very same people pretty much condone all the collateral damage and really not care about the deaths of the actual event to begin with....... If lives were the main goal where was everybody during the Rwandan genocide or the darfur genocide? The US supported many of the leaders EVEN WHEN this happened.. Reagan and Bush Sr. didn't pull their support when Saddam gased the kurds! They did when they became uncooperative and finally invaded a neighboring country of economic importance!

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="LiquidAjax"] I agree there is more people we should be dealing with, but because they're not as evil as them doesn't make it a reason NOT to go there. I have to say Africa is way too neglected.LJS9502_basic

Define evil.. That is my argument that these operations are not meant to save lives.. They are for political and economic gain.. I find it so hilarious and so tragic how fvcked up the reality of the matter is.. That we have the same people who go on about we went in for saving lives, but the very same people pretty much condone all the collateral damage and really not care about the deaths of the actual event to begin with....... If lives were the main goal where was everybody during the Rwandan genocide or the darfur genocide? The US supported many of the leaders EVEN WHEN this happened.. Reagan and Bush Sr. didn't pull their support when Saddam gased the kurds! They did when they became uncooperative and finally invaded a neighboring country of economic importance!

Perhapes you weren't aware of the Contra scandal, they sold to both sides.. The US and Israel armed both sides so they could slaughter one another.. Because a weaker Iran and Iraq were in their best interests..