the iraq war. legal, or illegal?

[QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="jointed"]

[QUOTE="EboyLOL"]Yes. Do the United Nations have the balls to act? No.quiglythegreat

Balls to do what exactly?...

But France and Germany said that openly....

pride goes before a fall.

[QUOTE="buxboy"][QUOTE="giton"][QUOTE="buxboy"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="buxboy"][QUOTE="giton"]

[QUOTE="buxboy"][QUOTE="Cedric169"]It was wrong to do that war, I don't think is illegalGettingTired

yes. the US had no right to interfere.

To address the issue of WMDs, most are saying they were movied to Iran or Syria. I am not completely sure. Either way, we are doing our job.

that only makes a difference if the existence of WMDs is equivalent to their use. no one believes that and I can prove it.

the US possesses weapons of mass destruction. does that give other countries a right to invade the US? north korea may think so and perhaps Iran and even venezuala, but i do not think so and i'm sure you do not think so either.

[QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="buxboy"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="buxboy"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="buxboy"][QUOTE="giton"]

[QUOTE="buxboy"][QUOTE="Cedric169"]It was wrong to do that war, I don't think is illegalInsane00

yes. the US had no right to interfere.

To address the issue of WMDs, most are saying they were movied to Iran or Syria. I am not completely sure. Either way, we are doing our job.

Scroll down to the part about the UNSCOM inspections 1991-1998.

I don't know who you listen to, buxboy, but I have never heard anyone seriously say that the WMd's were smuggled out of the country (what would be the point, it's not like Saddam or anyone in Iraq had a chance to use them once we took over). Further, if they did have WMD's why the heck wouldn't the Iraqi army have used them to try to squelch our invasion. I mean, if someone tried to invade the US, we would pull out all the stops save the nukes to keep people out.

No, most people by now realize there never were any WMD's, just like there never was an attack on a US vessle in the Gulf of Tonkin prior to Vietnam. It was an excuse to go to war, and now all the hawks are talking about how great it was we disposed of Saddam, who was such an amazingly evil guy (that's sarcasm; and, I'm not saying he was a good guy, but no worse than Milosevich, and we never deposed him, we just forced him to stop killing people). I'd say we had no right to get rid of Saddam, but we put him in power. Then we got rid of him once he no longer served our purpose.

yes, it was a ruse to stage an invasion, and that means there was another agenda (what is it?) and active deception of the American people by Bush and the war pigs, so what does that call for? impeachment of Bush? i don't think that goes nearly far enough.

[QUOTE="Insane00"]

[QUOTE="buxboy"]Could not care less on how it start. It is just time to finish the job in my opinion. Mop them up.buxboy

Mop who up exactly? There are people coming to that country from all over the Arab world to continue the guerilla war. So how exactly, especially when the enemy combatants all look like civilians until they have a bomb strapped to their backs. It's not like we're fighting against a nation, or even an easily identifiable group of people. We're fighting certain individuals from a number of specific sects of Islam. So how do we just, mop them up?

Granted, and you make a good point, but unfortunately because of the nature of this war, just like in Vietnam, we are forcing our soldiers to kill people that look like innocent civilians. I'm not saying that they are innocent, just that when individuals are forced to hunt down and kill "normal people" it makes it difficult to know who exactly the enemy is, and further it's gotta really screw up the heads of the guys that gotta go through with that. I mean imagine having to kill someone that looks like an innocent 16 year old kid with your M16 and then be numb about it, even if you know it was the right thing to do.

Now imagine this, you kill the kid and then find out that it's just as likely he was innocent as an enemy combatant. Imagine having looked into his eyes before you pulled the trigger and now you just don't know who that person really was, but he's dead, by your hand, and nothing will bring him back. This relates to a story a history teacher of mine told us at the Vietnam memorial in DC. The guy was a Vietnam vet, and this was his last day as an officer before he was discharged...

He was in the US military camp he was stationed out of. There was an officers' meeting going on while he was in the camp before being sent out on patrol again for a few weeks. In the middle of the meeting, a few of the officer, including my teacher left the officers tent and the meeting to smoke a cigarette. While they were standing outside, a vietnemese individual ran by the officers' tent and threw in a grenade, that exploded and pretty much killed everyone in the tent. My teacher had seen the person who threw the grenade, who now was running away from the camp down the road and was a couple hundred yards away. He wasn't a very good shot, but adrenaline was pumping, he grabbed a nearby rifle, aimed and shot this person right through the head. When he went to check the body he flipped it over to find he had just killed a young girl about 12 years old. He asked to be discharged the next day and spent the next two weeks stinking drunk.

This is what we are putting our soldiers through, and when this is the emotional baggage that comes with war, letting our soldiers do what they were trained to isn't as easy as saying it. Remember our soldiers are people too, and we can only put then through so much emotional toil before they begin to crack.

[QUOTE="Insane00"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="buxboy"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="buxboy"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="buxboy"][QUOTE="giton"]

[QUOTE="buxboy"][QUOTE="Cedric169"]It was wrong to do that war, I don't think is illegalgiton

yes. the US had no right to interfere.

To address the issue of WMDs, most are saying they were movied to Iran or Syria. I am not completely sure. Either way, we are doing our job.

Scroll down to the part about the UNSCOM inspections 1991-1998.

I don't know who you listen to, buxboy, but I have never heard anyone seriously say that the WMd's were smuggled out of the country (what would be the point, it's not like Saddam or anyone in Iraq had a chance to use them once we took over). Further, if they did have WMD's why the heck wouldn't the Iraqi army have used them to try to squelch our invasion. I mean, if someone tried to invade the US, we would pull out all the stops save the nukes to keep people out.

No, most people by now realize there never were any WMD's, just like there never was an attack on a US vessle in the Gulf of Tonkin prior to Vietnam. It was an excuse to go to war, and now all the hawks are talking about how great it was we disposed of Saddam, who was such an amazingly evil guy (that's sarcasm; and, I'm not saying he was a good guy, but no worse than Milosevich, and we never deposed him, we just forced him to stop killing people). I'd say we had no right to get rid of Saddam, but we put him in power. Then we got rid of him once he no longer served our purpose.

yes, it was a ruse to stage an invasion, and that means there was another agenda (what is it?) and active deception of the American people by Bush and the war pigs, so what does that call for? impeachment of Bush? i don't think that goes nearly far enough.

yes, it was a ruse to stage an invasion, and that means there was another agenda (what is it?) and active deception of the American people by Bush and the war pigs, so what does that call for? impeachment of Bush? i don't think that goes nearly far enough.

giton

Quick question, are you being serious or sarcastic?

[QUOTE="Insane00"]

[QUOTE="buxboy"]Could not care less on how it start. It is just time to finish the job in my opinion. Mop them up.buxboy

Mop who up exactly? There are people coming to that country from all over the Arab world to continue the guerilla war. So how exactly, especially when the enemy combatants all look like civilians until they have a bomb strapped to their backs. It's not like we're fighting against a nation, or even an easily identifiable group of people. We're fighting certain individuals from a number of specific sects of Islam. So how do we just, mop them up?

everyone who attacks another person without just cause is deserving of prosecution. to invade another nation on trumped up justifications and outright lies is reprehensible, regardless of legality. "legal" only means that those who are really culpable have the power to excuse themselves from prosecution.

[QUOTE="buxboy"][QUOTE="Insane00"]

[QUOTE="buxboy"]Could not care less on how it start. It is just time to finish the job in my opinion. Mop them up.Insane00

Mop who up exactly? There are people coming to that country from all over the Arab world to continue the guerilla war. So how exactly, especially when the enemy combatants all look like civilians until they have a bomb strapped to their backs. It's not like we're fighting against a nation, or even an easily identifiable group of people. We're fighting certain individuals from a number of specific sects of Islam. So how do we just, mop them up?

Granted, and you make a good point, but unfortunately because of the nature of this war, just like in Vietnam, we are forcing our soldiers to kill people that look like innocent civilians. I'm not saying that they are innocent, just that when individuals are forced to hunt down and kill "normal people" it makes it difficult to know who exactly the enemy is, and further it's gotta really screw up the heads of the guys that gotta go through with that. I mean imagine having to kill someone that looks like an innocent 16 year old kid with your M16 and then be numb about it, even if you know it was the right thing to do.

Now imagine this, you kill the kid and then find out that it's just as likely he was innocent as an enemy combatant. Imagine having looked into his eyes before you pulled the trigger and now you just don't know who that person really was, but he's dead, by your hand, and nothing will bring him back. This relates to a story a history teacher of mine told us at the Vietnam memorial in DC. The guy was a Vietnam vet, and this was his last day as an officer before he was discharged...

He was in the US military camp he was stationed out of. There was an officers' meeting going on while he was in the camp before being sent out on patrol again for a few weeks. In the middle of the meeting, a few of the officer, including my teacher left the officers tent and the meeting to smoke a cigarette. While they were standing outside, a vietnemese individual ran by the officers' tent and threw in a grenade, that exploded and pretty much killed everyone in the tent. My teacher had seen the person who threw the grenade, who now was running away from the camp down the road and was a couple hundred yards away. He wasn't a very good shot, but adrenaline was pumping, he grabbed a nearby rifle, aimed and shot this person right through the head. When he went to check the body he flipped it over to find he had just killed a young girl about 12 years old. He asked to be discharged the next day and spent the next two weeks stinking drunk.

This is what we are putting our soldiers through, and when this is the emotional baggage that comes with war, letting our soldiers do what they were trained to isn't as easy as saying it. Remember our soldiers are people too, and we can only put then through so much emotional toil before they begin to crack.

I consider that collateral damage, something that happens during war. Always will, always has.buxboy

but do you consider it acceptable? not just in iraq, but wherever you live? if your country is invaded and your family is killed by "collateral" means, will you be able to accept that? what if you don't agree that the invasion of your country was "legal"? or even if you do?

it is easy to be glib with other people's lives, especially when they live a half a world away and you don't know who they are. would you be so glib with your son's and your daughter's lives?

[QUOTE="buxboy"]I consider that collateral damage, something that happens during war. Always will, always has.giton

but do you consider it acceptable? not just in iraq, but wherever you live? if your country is invaded and your family is killed by "collateral" means, will you be able to accept that? what if you don't agree that the invasion of your country was "legal"?

it is easy to be glib with other people's lives, especially when they live a half a world away and you don't know who they are. would you be so glib with your son's and your daughter's lives?

Yes, I have to consider it acceptable, there is no alternative.

[QUOTE="giton"][QUOTE="buxboy"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="buxboy"][QUOTE="giton"]

[QUOTE="buxboy"][QUOTE="Cedric169"]It was wrong to do that war, I don't think is illegalbuxboy

yes. the US had no right to interfere.

To address the issue of WMDs, most are saying they were movied to Iran or Syria. I am not completely sure. Either way, we are doing our job.

that only makes a difference if the existence of WMDs is equivalent to their use. no one believes that and I can prove it.

the US possesses weapons of mass destruction. does that give other countries a right to invade the US? north korea may think so and perhaps Iran and even venezuala, but i do not think so and i'm sure you do not think so either.

abu ghraib, guantanamo bay, secret offshore detention facilities, the Japanese internment in WWII. the list doesn't end there but that will do.

[QUOTE="giton"]

yes, it was a ruse to stage an invasion, and that means there was another agenda (what is it?) and active deception of the American people by Bush and the war pigs, so what does that call for? impeachment of Bush? i don't think that goes nearly far enough.

Insane00

Quick question, are you being serious or sarcastic?

serious.

[QUOTE="buxboy"][QUOTE="giton"][QUOTE="buxboy"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="buxboy"][QUOTE="giton"]

[QUOTE="buxboy"][QUOTE="Cedric169"]It was wrong to do that war, I don't think is illegalgiton

yes. the US had no right to interfere.

To address the issue of WMDs, most are saying they were movied to Iran or Syria. I am not completely sure. Either way, we are doing our job.

that only makes a difference if the existence of WMDs is equivalent to their use. no one believes that and I can prove it.

the US possesses weapons of mass destruction. does that give other countries a right to invade the US? north korea may think so and perhaps Iran and even venezuala, but i do not think so and i'm sure you do not think so either.

abu ghraib, guantanamo bay, secret offshore detention facilities, the Japanese internment in WWII. the list doesn't end there but that will do.

[QUOTE="GettingTired"][QUOTE="buxboy"][QUOTE="giton"][QUOTE="buxboy"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="buxboy"][QUOTE="giton"]

[QUOTE="buxboy"][QUOTE="Cedric169"]It was wrong to do that war, I don't think is illegalbuxboy

yes. the US had no right to interfere.

To address the issue of WMDs, most are saying they were movied to Iran or Syria. I am not completely sure. Either way, we are doing our job.

that only makes a difference if the existence of WMDs is equivalent to their use. no one believes that and I can prove it.

the US possesses weapons of mass destruction. does that give other countries a right to invade the US? north korea may think so and perhaps Iran and even venezuala, but i do not think so and i'm sure you do not think so either.

they committed war crimes... lol. that is a matter of definition. the fact is that charges were never filed against the vast majority of the detainees in Guantanamo or the people who were tortured in Abu Ghraib. if someone claims that you have committed a war crime and passes a law to "prove", then subjects you to torture, does that mean you will accept being tortured and perhaps killed?

The emotional wounds that come with what you described are beyond my comprehension, however, can you even begin to imagine the ones that acompany seeing the death of your best friend next to you, at the hands of an insurgent with no value for life and morals. Our soliders are the best in the world. Let them take care of bunsiness they way they were trained. They can do it. In war, it is known, after you become numb to the situation, you are the soldier you signed up to be. If Carlos Hathcock was alive, I am sure he would say the same thing as was said in the book written about him, Marine Sniper.buxboy

Valid point and I don't doubt the intensity of such a situation. However here are two points concerning that situation.

First, the teacher I was talking about before told us another story before the one I related to you. I won't go into too many details, but basically while out on patrol, his best friend and commanding officer was shot in the stomach and died in my teachers arms while his intestines were hanging out of his body. Didn't make him want to stay.

Further, my step mother's first husband was also a Vietnam vet. Except unlike my teacher, he became exactly what you are describing, the super soldier. He was an Airborn Ranger and his platoon was wiped out a at least twice with him being the only survivor. He was wounded in battle at least twice and was sent back into the front line each time. He had proof of being in Cambodian that my step mother saw herself while the US gov was denying our being there. He was a bad mother. Yet, he also beat my step mom. He literally killed her once and she spent a couple of minutes dead on the table before being resusitated (sp?). Once she got sick of it and divorced him, she had to go into a protection program to keep him from killing her. He even tried to ram his truck into her mother's house cause he thought she was living there hiding (he hit the large oak out front which to this day is still tilted from it). The man was born and raised a farm boy from like Montana or some such place, he was an extremely talented guitar player and artist, that was as peaceful as anything before he was turned into a super soldier. But he came back a killer, unable to adapt to society, and ended up getting shot in the back by a scared cop (cause of who the computer must have said he was) during a routine pull over for minor traffic violations and cremated and gotten rid of before anyone even knew about it. My step mom, the closest thing to a next of kin in his life at the time found out from her father who saw his obit in the paper.

So, yea, they can become great soldiers, but is it fair for us to destroy their humanity to make them such.

And also remember that the insurgents think of us the same way you described them, no value for life or morals. They just see moral values differently and respect life other than ours and in a different way. Both sides always think they are the good guys while fighting, at least as far as soldiers go. I would suggest reading All Silent on the Western Front. It's one of the best war books I have ever read.

[QUOTE="giton"][QUOTE="Insane00"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="buxboy"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="buxboy"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="buxboy"][QUOTE="giton"]

[QUOTE="buxboy"][QUOTE="Cedric169"]It was wrong to do that war, I don't think is illegalbuxboy

yes. the US had no right to interfere.

To address the issue of WMDs, most are saying they were movied to Iran or Syria. I am not completely sure. Either way, we are doing our job.

Scroll down to the part about the UNSCOM inspections 1991-1998.

I don't know who you listen to, buxboy, but I have never heard anyone seriously say that the WMd's were smuggled out of the country (what would be the point, it's not like Saddam or anyone in Iraq had a chance to use them once we took over). Further, if they did have WMD's why the heck wouldn't the Iraqi army have used them to try to squelch our invasion. I mean, if someone tried to invade the US, we would pull out all the stops save the nukes to keep people out.

No, most people by now realize there never were any WMD's, just like there never was an attack on a US vessle in the Gulf of Tonkin prior to Vietnam. It was an excuse to go to war, and now all the hawks are talking about how great it was we disposed of Saddam, who was such an amazingly evil guy (that's sarcasm; and, I'm not saying he was a good guy, but no worse than Milosevich, and we never deposed him, we just forced him to stop killing people). I'd say we had no right to get rid of Saddam, but we put him in power. Then we got rid of him once he no longer served our purpose.

yes, it was a ruse to stage an invasion, and that means there was another agenda (what is it?) and active deception of the American people by Bush and the war pigs, so what does that call for? impeachment of Bush? i don't think that goes nearly far enough.

i'm being generous when i say that your apparent willingness to accept your own delusion as truth excuses your naivete.

[QUOTE="buxboy"][QUOTE="GettingTired"][QUOTE="buxboy"][QUOTE="giton"][QUOTE="buxboy"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="buxboy"][QUOTE="giton"]

[QUOTE="buxboy"][QUOTE="Cedric169"]It was wrong to do that war, I don't think is illegalgiton

yes. the US had no right to interfere.

To address the issue of WMDs, most are saying they were movied to Iran or Syria. I am not completely sure. Either way, we are doing our job.

that only makes a difference if the existence of WMDs is equivalent to their use. no one believes that and I can prove it.

the US possesses weapons of mass destruction. does that give other countries a right to invade the US? north korea may think so and perhaps Iran and even venezuala, but i do not think so and i'm sure you do not think so either.

they committed war crimes... lol. that is a matter of definition. the fact is that charges were never filed against the vast majority of the detainees in Guantanamo or the people who were tortured in Abu Ghraib. if someone claims that you have committed a war crime and passes a law to "prove", then subjects you to torture, does that mean you will accept being tortured and perhaps killed?

And by the way, the United States Military Forces abide by the Geneva Convention, that means no torturing. The actions of a few bored Soldiers as Abu Ghraib should not reflect the entire United States and the war.

[QUOTE="Insane00"][QUOTE="giton"]

yes, it was a ruse to stage an invasion, and that means there was another agenda (what is it?) and active deception of the American people by Bush and the war pigs, so what does that call for? impeachment of Bush? i don't think that goes nearly far enough.

giton

Quick question, are you being serious or sarcastic?

serious.

Good! Then I agree. Impeachment is too good for the fools that sold the lives of our soldiers for whatever purpose they deemed valuable enough. The difference is that with LBJ, everyone knew he was a bast... but it was too late when they figured it out to do anything. We've been lead by the nose by this administration, falling for their cock and bull one turn afer another. We won't do anything about this until the majority of americans that dislike this war, or the entire rest of the world stand up and shout, "We aren't gonna take any more of your BS."

[QUOTE="buxboy"]The emotional wounds that come with what you described are beyond my comprehension, however, can you even begin to imagine the ones that acompany seeing the death of your best friend next to you, at the hands of an insurgent with no value for life and morals. Our soliders are the best in the world. Let them take care of bunsiness they way they were trained. They can do it. In war, it is known, after you become numb to the situation, you are the soldier you signed up to be. If Carlos Hathcock was alive, I am sure he would say the same thing as was said in the book written about him, Marine Sniper.Insane00

Valid point and I don't doubt the intensity of such a situation. However here are two points concerning that situation.

First, the teacher I was talking about before told us another story before the one I related to you. I won't go into too many details, but basically while out on patrol, his best friend and commanding officer was shot in the stomach and died in my teachers arms while his intestines were hanging out of his body. Didn't make him want to stay.

Further, my step mother's first husband was also a Vietnam vet. Except unlike my teacher, he became exactly what you are describing, the super soldier. He was an Airborn Ranger and his platoon was wiped out a at least twice with him being the only survivor. He was wounded in battle at least twice and was sent back into the front line each time. He had proof of being in Cambodian that my step mother saw herself while the US gov was denying our being there. He was a bad mother. Yet, he also beat my step mom. He literally killed her once and she spent a couple of minutes dead on the table before being resusitated (sp?). Once she got sick of it and divorced him, she had to go into a protection program to keep him from killing her. He even tried to ram his truck into her mother's house cause he thought she was living there hiding (he hit the large oak out front which to this day is still tilted from it). The man was born and raised a farm boy from like Montana or some such place, he was an extremely talented guitar player and artist, that was as peaceful as anything before he was turned into a super soldier. But he came back a killer, unable to adapt to society, and ended up getting shot in the back by a scared cop (cause of who the computer must have said he was) during a routine pull over for minor traffic violations and cremated and gotten rid of before anyone even knew about it. My step mom, the closest thing to a next of kin in his life at the time found out from her father who saw his obit in the paper.

So, yea, they can become great soldiers, but is it fair for us to destroy their humanity to make them such.

And also remember that the insurgents think of us the same way you described them, no value for life or morals. They just see moral values differently and respect life other than ours and in a different way. Both sides always think they are the good guys while fighting, at least as far as soldiers go. I would suggest reading All Silent on the Western Front. It's one of the best war books I have ever read.

As far as the value of life argument, I do not see United States Soldiers cutting the heads of innocent civilians. Do you remember Daniel Pearle?

[QUOTE="giton"]

they committed war crimes... lol. that is a matter of definition. the fact is that charges were never filed against the vast majority of the detainees in Guantanamo or the people who were tortured in Abu Ghraib. if someone claims that you have committed a war crime and passes a law to "prove", then subjects you to torture, does that mean you will accept being tortured and perhaps killed?

buxboy

And by the way, the United States Military Forces abide by the Geneva Convention, that means no torturing. The actions of a few bored Soldiers as Abu Ghraib should not reflect the entire United States and the war.

What about american citizens, not being offered a trial that are being held in these camps cause something is suspicious about them. Not all the people being held in these prisons are necessarily enemy combatants, even if GW says so. In fact, a federal court recently ruled that the government could not hold US citizens in these prisons without a trial just because the president calls them enemy combatants. The reason such a ruling came out is because US citizens have had to fight for their constitutional rights under this administration because they are screwing us over. Not everyone in these places should be there, and the government is not making sure that such isn't the case by forcing the us to put the captives in these prisons on trial.

Well christ.....

The UN says, don't invade iraq, it's not going to work out and be a headache, then the US says shut up we do what we want, then the war is a huge headache.

Now the UN works, it did it's job, what's it supposed to do? start a war with the US because they wanted to go play in the sand, the answer there is no.

The US wanted war, it should have just waited a couple years for this iran ****.

[QUOTE="buxboy"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="buxboy"][QUOTE="giton"]

[QUOTE="buxboy"][QUOTE="Cedric169"]It was wrong to do that war, I don't think is illegalmig_killer2

yes. the US had no right to interfere.

To address the issue of WMDs, most are saying they were movied to Iran or Syria. I am not completely sure. Either way, we are doing our job.

actually the isreali air force took out his reactor in the 80's

Your stories do not cease to amaze me (no sarcasm meant with that at all). I see what happens war, it is all around us, but what can we do about that? What can we do about soldiers coming back with mental wounds that won't heal? There isn't much we can, it is sad, but we can't focus on something we have no solution.

As far as the value of life argument, I do not see United States Soldiers cutting the heads of innocent civilians. Do you remember Daniel Pearle?

buxboy

I do not see a solution. Unfortuantely, we do need to stay involved over there, cause we made a mess, and people will suffer for it, both over in Iraq as well as our returning soldiers. It is the cost of war, and why war should be our last resort, not so quickly gotten into as we did in this situation.

And you make a valid point again. Yet, I'm not saying that I agree with them, just that pointing out the fact that the insurgents aren't over there saying, "Yes, soon our evil and debasment of life will cover the whole world, MWA, HA, HA, HAAA." No, they think that by cutting off people heads and killing us westerners they are making the world a better place and stiking a blow for the entire muslim world. Just like Germans during WWII weren't rejoicing in thier evil, but fighting for national pride and because they thought they were the good guys. Just as we say we are making the world a safer place by hanging Saddam instead of leaving him to rot in a cell somewhere. I don't agree with their values, just pointing out that they see us similarly to how we see them. Personally, I think the insurgents are close minded fulls that have gotten so caught up in their leaders words that they can't tell right from wrong anymore. But they'd think I was an infidel that deserves to die.

[QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="buxboy"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="buxboy"][QUOTE="giton"]

[QUOTE="buxboy"][QUOTE="Cedric169"]It was wrong to do that war, I don't think is illegalmark4091

yes. the US had no right to interfere.

To address the issue of WMDs, most are saying they were movied to Iran or Syria. I am not completely sure. Either way, we are doing our job.

actually the isreali air force took out his reactor in the 80's

[QUOTE="buxboy"]

Your stories do not cease to amaze me (no sarcasm meant with that at all). I see what happens war, it is all around us, but what can we do about that? What can we do about soldiers coming back with mental wounds that won't heal? There isn't much we can, it is sad, but we can't focus on something we have no solution.

As far as the value of life argument, I do not see United States Soldiers cutting the heads of innocent civilians. Do you remember Daniel Pearle?

Insane00

I do not see a solution. Unfortuantely, we do need to stay involved over there, cause we made a mess, and people will suffer for it, both over in Iraq as well as our returning soldiers. It is the cost of war, and why war should be our last resort, not so quickly gotten into as we did in this situation.

And you make a valid point again. Yet, I'm not saying that I agree with them, just that pointing out the fact that the insurgents aren't over there saying, "Yes, soon our evil and debasment of life will cover the whole world, MWA, HA, HA, HAAA." No, they think that by cutting off people heads and killing us westerners they are making the world a better place and stiking a blow for the entire muslim world. Just like Germans during WWII weren't rejoicing in thier evil, but fighting for national pride and because they thought they were the good guys. Just as we say we are making the world a safer place by hanging Saddam instead of leaving him to rot in a cell somewhere. I don't agree with their values, just pointing out that they see us similarly to how we see them. Personally, I think the insurgents are close minded fulls that have gotten so caught up in their leaders words that they can't tell right from wrong anymore. But they'd think I was an infidel that deserves to die.

[QUOTE="Insane00"][QUOTE="buxboy"]

Your stories do not cease to amaze me (no sarcasm meant with that at all). I see what happens war, it is all around us, but what can we do about that? What can we do about soldiers coming back with mental wounds that won't heal? There isn't much we can, it is sad, but we can't focus on something we have no solution.

As far as the value of life argument, I do not see United States Soldiers cutting the heads of innocent civilians. Do you remember Daniel Pearle?

buxboy

I do not see a solution. Unfortuantely, we do need to stay involved over there, cause we made a mess, and people will suffer for it, both over in Iraq as well as our returning soldiers. It is the cost of war, and why war should be our last resort, not so quickly gotten into as we did in this situation.

And you make a valid point again. Yet, I'm not saying that I agree with them, just that pointing out the fact that the insurgents aren't over there saying, "Yes, soon our evil and debasment of life will cover the whole world, MWA, HA, HA, HAAA." No, they think that by cutting off people heads and killing us westerners they are making the world a better place and stiking a blow for the entire muslim world. Just like Germans during WWII weren't rejoicing in thier evil, but fighting for national pride and because they thought they were the good guys. Just as we say we are making the world a safer place by hanging Saddam instead of leaving him to rot in a cell somewhere. I don't agree with their values, just pointing out that they see us similarly to how we see them. Personally, I think the insurgents are close minded fulls that have gotten so caught up in their leaders words that they can't tell right from wrong anymore. But they'd think I was an infidel that deserves to die.

Yes, the inequality is a big problem, unfortunatly we are trying to squltch thousands of years of culture that hasn't gone through the enlightenment, ignored the US revolution, and has been ruled by a theocracy for about 1500 years. Trying to get these people to value our values overnight is impossible, and would have been difficlut even if we went about it with understanding rather than force. That is the entire problem, we are working against culture. The best way to fix the problem would be to do to them what we did to the natives over here, take them from their families at a young age and force them to learn what we want them to. Unfortunatly that is just as bad, and was really wrong when we did it to the native americans. I really don't see a solution cause we are trying to change culture by force, and that always goes badly.

[QUOTE="buxboy"][QUOTE="Insane00"][QUOTE="buxboy"]

Your stories do not cease to amaze me (no sarcasm meant with that at all). I see what happens war, it is all around us, but what can we do about that? What can we do about soldiers coming back with mental wounds that won't heal? There isn't much we can, it is sad, but we can't focus on something we have no solution.

As far as the value of life argument, I do not see United States Soldiers cutting the heads of innocent civilians. Do you remember Daniel Pearle?

Insane00

I do not see a solution. Unfortuantely, we do need to stay involved over there, cause we made a mess, and people will suffer for it, both over in Iraq as well as our returning soldiers. It is the cost of war, and why war should be our last resort, not so quickly gotten into as we did in this situation.

And you make a valid point again. Yet, I'm not saying that I agree with them, just that pointing out the fact that the insurgents aren't over there saying, "Yes, soon our evil and debasment of life will cover the whole world, MWA, HA, HA, HAAA." No, they think that by cutting off people heads and killing us westerners they are making the world a better place and stiking a blow for the entire muslim world. Just like Germans during WWII weren't rejoicing in thier evil, but fighting for national pride and because they thought they were the good guys. Just as we say we are making the world a safer place by hanging Saddam instead of leaving him to rot in a cell somewhere. I don't agree with their values, just pointing out that they see us similarly to how we see them. Personally, I think the insurgents are close minded fulls that have gotten so caught up in their leaders words that they can't tell right from wrong anymore. But they'd think I was an infidel that deserves to die.

Yes, the inequality is a big problem, unfortunatly we are trying to squltch thousands of years of culture that hasn't gone through the enlightenment, ignored the US revolution, and has been ruled by a theocracy for about 1500 years. Trying to get these people to value our values overnight is impossible, and would have been difficlut even if we went about it with understanding rather than force. That is the entire problem, we are working against culture. The best way to fix the problem would be to do to them what we did to the natives over here, take them from their families at a young age and force them to learn what we want them to. Unfortunatly that is just as bad, and was really wrong when we did it to the native americans. I really don't see a solution cause we are trying to change culture by force, and that always goes badly.

I am tired and about to head out for some drinks. You put up a great argument, along with Giton, I believe that was his name. I had a good time debating with you guys.

[QUOTE="giton"][QUOTE="Insane00"][QUOTE="giton"]

yes, it was a ruse to stage an invasion, and that means there was another agenda (what is it?) and active deception of the American people by Bush and the war pigs, so what does that call for? impeachment of Bush? i don't think that goes nearly far enough.

Insane00

Quick question, are you being serious or sarcastic?

serious.

Good! Then I agree. Impeachment is too good for the fools that sold the lives of our soldiers for whatever purpose they deemed valuable enough. The difference is that with LBJ, everyone knew he was a bast... but it was too late when they figured it out to do anything. We've been lead by the nose by this administration, falling for their cock and bull one turn afer another. We won't do anything about this until the majority of americans that dislike this war, or the entire rest of the world stand up and shout, "We aren't gonna take any more of your BS."

3800 american military casualties and 74 to 80 thousand Iraqi citizens killed. but Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of 911 remains at large. what are people dying for?

i have protested the invasion since the first rattle of the sabres.

As far as the value of life argument, I do not see United States Soldiers cutting the heads of innocent civilians. Do you remember Daniel Pearle?

buxboy

there are plenty of documented atrocities and criminal homicides committed by US military forces in iraq.

... one reactor, in no way completely rules out any WMDs.buxboy

and your point? that alleged existence of WMDs, something that the US also has, that cannot be proven to not exist, justifies an invasion?

the legality of aggression is irrelevant to the ethical questions that it presents.

giton

Correct, but the topic we are in is not about ethics or morallity. We are talking about legal v. illegal.

[QUOTE="giton"]

the legality of aggression is irrelevant to the ethical questions that it presents.

LukeAF24

Correct, but the topic we are in is not about ethics or morallity. We are talking about legal v. illegal.

true, but the legal question is boring. the ethical question is why we care.

I think the whole war was legal because Bush wanted to stop the spread of Terrorism. Not to mention that Osama made it clear he hates us. Saddam was also harbouring terrorists before we got here, so unless you want Jihads screwing with you, we need to finish the fight.

it is irrelevant to me whether the invasion of iraq was legal or illegal. it was wrong.giton

it doesn't matter if it's legal or not because the ones that attacked in 2001 were terrorists not a country and despite that it is irrelevant it was indeed illegal

[QUOTE="giton"]it is irrelevant to me whether the invasion of iraq was legal or illegal. it was wrong.Lisandro_v22

it doesn't matter if it's legal or not because the ones that attacked in 2001 were terrorist not the whole Irak poppulation and despite that it is irrelevant it was indeed illegal

you are aware i hope that the 911 attacks were not carried out by iraqis and that osama is saudi?

[QUOTE="Lisandro_v22"]

[QUOTE="giton"]it is irrelevant to me whether the invasion of iraq was legal or illegal. it was wrong.giton

it doesn't matter if it's legal or not because the ones that attacked in 2001 were terrorist not the whole Irak poppulation and despite that it is irrelevant it was indeed illegal

you are aware i hope that the 911 attacks were not carried out by iraqis and that osama is saudi?

I think the whole war was legal because Bush wanted to stop the spread of Terrorism. Not to mention that Osama made it clear he hates us. Saddam was also harbouring terrorists before we got here, so unless you want Jihads screwing with you, we need to finish the fight.

Wolf-Man2006

continuing "the fight" guarantees that you will have endless years more jihadists and even more than before. the us government are terrorists too. ask the relatives of the people in iraq who die a "collateral" death.

osama should be killed for what he did. do you think the invasion of iraq is helping to accomplish that?

[QUOTE="giton"][QUOTE="Lisandro_v22"]

[QUOTE="giton"]it is irrelevant to me whether the invasion of iraq was legal or illegal. it was wrong.halo9424

it doesn't matter if it's legal or not because the ones that attacked in 2001 were terrorist not the whole Irak poppulation and despite that it is irrelevant it was indeed illegal

you are aware i hope that the 911 attacks were not carried out by iraqis and that osama is saudi?

a band of militant islamists under the leadership of osama bin laden. the group is called Al Qaeda. none of the ones who are known to have participated in the attacks on 911 were iraqi. the invasion of iraq has done nothing to eliminate al qaeda. in fact it is believed to have grown since the invasion started. osama himself is from saudi arabia. when iraq invaded kuwait in 1990, osama made an offer to the saudi arabian defense minister to fight saddam hussein.

your turn.

the iraq war. legal, or illegal?

illegal

end

now we are discussing if the war is really fighting terrorism or creating it

The word you are looking for is....

Is it constitutional or not?

Did you know... the President can invade another country without the act of congress? I mean he can't go to war, but he can still shove is military power.

[QUOTE="halo9424"][QUOTE="giton"][QUOTE="Lisandro_v22"]

[QUOTE="giton"]it is irrelevant to me whether the invasion of iraq was legal or illegal. it was wrong.giton

it doesn't matter if it's legal or not because the ones that attacked in 2001 were terrorist not the whole Irak poppulation and despite that it is irrelevant it was indeed illegal

you are aware i hope that the 911 attacks were not carried out by iraqis and that osama is saudi?

a band of militant islamists under the leadership of osama bin laden. the group is called Al Qaeda. none of the ones who are known to have participated in the attacks on 911 were iraqi. the invasion of iraq has done nothing to eliminate al qaeda. in fact it is believed to have grown since the invasion started. osama himself is from saudi arabia. when iraq invaded kuwait in 1990, osama made an offer to the saudi arabian defense minister to fight saddam hussein.

your turn.

Just so you know... You fell right for the government's plan.... You know... there is NO relation with Iraq, and Al Qaeda when we invaded. First it was all about... Oh they have WMD's... then its all about Iraq has ties to AL Qaeda.... Don't believe what the government is spoon feeding you. halo9424

[QUOTE="Insane00"][QUOTE="giton"][QUOTE="Insane00"][QUOTE="giton"]

yes, it was a ruse to stage an invasion, and that means there was another agenda (what is it?) and active deception of the American people by Bush and the war pigs, so what does that call for? impeachment of Bush? i don't think that goes nearly far enough.

giton

Quick question, are you being serious or sarcastic?

serious.

Good! Then I agree. Impeachment is too good for the fools that sold the lives of our soldiers for whatever purpose they deemed valuable enough. The difference is that with LBJ, everyone knew he was a bast... but it was too late when they figured it out to do anything. We've been lead by the nose by this administration, falling for their cock and bull one turn afer another. We won't do anything about this until the majority of americans that dislike this war, or the entire rest of the world stand up and shout, "We aren't gonna take any more of your BS."

3800 american military casualties and 74 to 80 thousand Iraqi citizens killed. but Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of 911 remains at large. what are people dying for?

i have protested the invasion since the first rattle of the sabres.

As have I. I remember the build up, and I was totally against it. My girlfriend at the time was really freaked out cause she was in Italy and got to see what was going on without the US spin and was like, "watch out, this things gonna happen." I was in my second year of college and I went on vacation during spring break to Redwood National Park. I spent a glorious week camping and completely out of the loop. Then, on the way home I was getting gas, saw we had invaded on the front page of the paper and thought. "well frig, he it begins."

You know the US didn't join the UN after its formation after WW2, even though we suggested it?Luminouslight

Ehm, what? The US joined the UN in 1945.

You know the US didn't join the UN after its formation after WW2, even though we suggested it?Luminouslight

No, the UN's first meeting was in San Francisco for drafting the UN charter. Further the US is one of the five nations that have permanent veto power. The US has always been in the UN since it's creation in 1945.

You are confusing the UN with the League of Nations that was proposed by Woodrow after the end of WWI. The US legislature would not become a part of the council because they were afraid we would give up too much of our independance. This remained the case despite the fact that Wilson ran around the country trying to garner support for the LoN until he had a stroke. As it is however, the League was such a mess that the victors in WWI stuck it to the losers rather than help thaem out of their hole like we did at the end of WWII. The result was massive depression in a number of european countries and the desire for revenge that helped spark WWII.