Haliburton...

Midnyte_Ragebringer · September 11, 2004, 7:56 pm

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedi ... n-and-Root

Read this shit!

Haliburton has been at it for a hell of a lot longer than just the past decade. And been linked to more than just Republicans. War is a mighty good business to be in. Geez.

Keverian FireCry · Post by **Keverian FireCry** » September 11, 2004, 8:11 pm

You finally opening your eyes Mid? This is shit us commy, anti-american, anti-troop liberals have been telling people like you for YEARS. If that article had mentioned Bush or Cheney you would have dismissed it outright as spin and propoganda, but since it's LBJ, it's fact...

Midnyte_Ragebringer · September 11, 2004, 8:20 pm

Keverian FireCry wrote:You finally opening your eyes Mid? This is shit us commy, anti-american, anti-troop liberals have been telling people like you for YEARS.

I never doubted the Cheney connection, but I didn't know how far back it went. I have said it before, Cheney...Bush...aren't innocent of wrong doings at all. I just feel that besides their corporate and political corruption, their vision is better for America than the Democrats vision which is also filled with as much corporate and political corruption. That's why I don't think anything but their platforms and vision should be discussed, because they are all scum.

Keverian FireCry · Post by **Keverian FireCry** » September 11, 2004, 8:59 pm

You do realize that 1,000 of those troops you so heavily support are dead because of this corruption right? And 50,000 Iraqi civilians? Yet it's ok because Saddam is out of power.

Saddam's ruthlessness was the only reason Iraq wasn't a terrorist state like a lot of other middle eastern countries, now it is. Good for us. Go freedom, freedom for terrorists to reign.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » September 11, 2004, 9:05 pm

In one post you say Halliburton was the reason we went to war with Iraq, and you attempt to excuse a dictator's routine slaughter, torture, and opression of innocents. GJ man.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · September 11, 2004, 9:26 pm

Keverian FireCry wrote:You do realize that 1,000 of those troops you so heavily support are dead because of this corruption right? And 50,000 Iraqi civilians? Yet it's ok because Saddam is out of power.

Saddam's ruthlessness was the only reason Iraq wasn't a terrorist state like a lot of other middle eastern countries, now it is. Good for us. Go freedom, freedom for terrorists to reign.

No, sorry. They died helping fight the war against global terrorism.

Keverian FireCry · Post by **Keverian FireCry** » September 11, 2004, 9:41 pm

I'm not excusing Saddam at all actually, all I meant is that if we want to "win" the war on terror, we don't start it by taking out one of the only sovereign countries in the middle east, who also fights against terrorism. There's a difference between excusing someone and trying to understanding them and what conditions brought about their actions.

I don't understand how you can vilanize one man for killing innocent people while attempting to fight the Islamic insurgance in his OWN country and idolize a man who killed tens of thousands of innocent people in the name of a war on terror, by invading a sovereign country/

They died helping fight the war against global terrorism.

Wait, where do you get that from? Saddam had nothing to do with terrorists, in fact he was anti Islamic funamentalism and terrorism. You are believing Bush's bullshit over fact.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » September 11, 2004, 10:00 pm

Keverian for your rants to have value you need to stop tossing around that 1k number, because 40% or more of those deaths are not combat related. They were ilnesses, car wrecks etc. If all those troopies had been back in the world with a stock of booze, the death rate would have ran almost as bad.

Keverian FireCry · September 11, 2004, 10:01 pm

The troops died while in Iraq did they not? Whether or not they died from being blown up, shot, lack of medical aid, or crashing because the entire country is in chaos, they died because they are in Iraq on a bullshit cause...

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » September 11, 2004, 10:17 pm

I was kinda hoping this thread would be Mid trying to defend our misunderstood friends at Haliburton, lol

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » September 11, 2004, 10:59 pm

You also have to take into account that most people have zero idea of what Iraq was like pre-war.

For example, Iraq had the most progressive views on women in the entire region, the very antithesis of the Taliban, and extremist Islam, and yet we're all to believe that Saddam (who was in his own right a royal asswipe) was in bed with Osama...

Midnyte_Ragebringer · September 11, 2004, 11:47 pm

Zaelath wrote:You also have to take into account that most people have zero idea of what Iraq was like pre-war.

For example, Iraq had the most progressive views on women in the entire region, the very antithesis of the Taliban, and extremist Islam, and yet we're all to believe that Saddam (who was in his own right a royal asswipe) was in bed with Osama...

Yes, I am aware of the hit Iraqi women took when Saddam took on the Islamic fundamentalist structure in order to consolidate power after the gulf war. I'm also aware of how this has been pushed by some women organizations. To me it is nothing more than typical anti-american propaganda. Saddam used the UN sanctions to set the progress of women back, therefore giving men the majority power back and vilifying America in yet another way. Wonderful way to continue to breed hate.

If you grow up hating another group of people and being told others are to blame for your misfortunes you will never be able to achieve greatness on your own merit. You have to have the desire to blame yourself for your shortcomings, in order to appreciate and recognize the effort to erase those shortcoming and turn them into successes.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » September 11, 2004, 11:58 pm

No, sorry. They died helping fight the war against global terrorism.

Not even Cheney is delusional enough to still argue that Iraq had anything to do with this. But Midnyte is I see!

To me it is nothing more than typical anti-american propaganda.

How the heck is it anti-American propaganda to tell you a simple truth that Iraq was the least strict of all the Middle-Eastern countries? It's a simple fact. Of course, the new rules being implemented now have been commented on as being "Taliban-like"...

You have to have the desire to blame yourself for your shortcomings, in order to appreciate and recognize the effort to erase those shortcoming and turn them into successes.

Man you must feel a lot of blame both from yourself and from your children..

Thess · Post by **Thess** » September 12, 2004, 12:53 am

Actually - Cheney said just 2-3 days ago that Iraq was harboring Al Qaida!

Spang · Post by **Spang** » September 12, 2004, 1:38 am

Keverian FireCry wrote:The troops died while in Iraq did they not? Whether or not they died from being blown up, shot, lack of medical aid, or crashing because the entire country is in chaos, they died because they are in Iraq on a bullshit cause...

troops die everyday. war or no war. it doesn't matter.

Sirton · Post by **Sirton** » September 12, 2004, 4:09 am

First off lets go by facts not spin....not even maybes.

Saddam was a ally to the US during the 80's because he was anti Iran. He was an ally in the world, we liked him more than Iran. Now all mid eastern countries had strains with the US because the Soviet Union was there protectorate we were Iraels, in a general sense not particulars....Look at all there hardware and equiptment...tanks, personel, machine guns, jets ect. to each country.

Saddam was quoted saying his only regret in invading Kuwait was that he didnt makesure he had nuclear weapons, because he thought he could prevent the world from butting in. Saddam hated America more than anything in the world after Gulf War I. He tried to assasinate a president of the US, he kept shooting at our aircraft, he kept playing poker with us.

Now there is a saying Saddam hated terrorism, because it was able to overthrow his government. He was anti terrorist. THIS IS TRUE. BUT...Dont half spin this shit though...we have brains. Continued--->

Saddam anti Iran 80s and fanatics=positive US
Saddam anti Kuwait 90s and fanatics=anti US and UN
Saddam+no control over fanatics=enemy US

We didnt take him out of power but we devistatded him. He had no major control outside of Baghdad many years. He hated the US more than ANYTHING. He had meetings with Bin Laden 2-3 times in the 90's, he gave 25k to members of hamas familys per homicide bomber, he shot at american aircraft(We won Gulf war I, so had the right to no fly zones), He tried to assasinate a president of the US, He mass murdered 300,000(atleast) muslims+, He invaded Iran(with US support), He invaded Kuwait, He had a vision of controling the entire Middle East, He used WMDs on his own people and Iran.

Now he was an ally against terror is what I hear from some of you????? What BS!

His government from 12 year of sanctions had control over what?

All of Iraq within 5 square miles of Baghdad is about it, maybe within that triangle...Terrorist had free zones in Iraq....Dont even pretend from political bias, this is a big part in why John Kerry and 75% of democrats favor the war on Iraq, depending on the week.

AGAIN Saddam was quoted in saying his main mistake in invading Kuwait was he didnt wait till he had nuclear missles. After he was captured we found out that he had a program in developing nuclear war heads. YOU KNOW WHAT ALSO none of you have apoligized yet or hadnt noticed.....GW Bush was burned by ya guys for the Africa link to Iraq that he mentioned in the State of the Union. Guess WHAT, He was right!!!!

Now my Spin or my thought:

You guys need to think...What if the anti-Bush BS you hear is WRONG and why you hate him or even not him but his international policy's or the same with Kerrys, Clintons, Gores international policys(they all agree with each other on it. watch the debates). Then were are we..think about it deeply. These fanatics are extremely close to WMD's, with the downfall of pakistans gov't you have absolute crazy BS. 50-100-200 years from now were are we.

We have to setup moderate muslim regimes or democracys or anything that will monitor the radical elements in there own land before they hit us...9/11 showed us they are powerful enough to just start to show there balls. We are playing at the point of sitting back and getting a wakeup call that makes 9/11 look like a kindergarden football team playing a high school team.

You can say you BUSH PROPOGANDERIZED BLAH BLAH.

But Bill Clinton and your own party agrees with much of the facts of this. And technology always is a helper as it is a destroyer. Nuclear weapons a hell on earth that was made. This isnt a bomb, this is unreal. This is something that many of you can't even imagine in RL..Your city is poof like your spell fizzles on EQ.

Now if Pakistans President was assainated and a pro Al-queda gov't took over, what would you guys do?

Id pre-emptive strike that countrys ass so hard theyd have no chance to launch anything even at India(atleast there niclear facilitys). Id have a year long Air campaign if needed there. Why do you think the real reason is why we always keep a major aircraft carrier squadron out there? Now how much of a serious threat will this be in 100-200 years.

Anyways screw this I got a test to take this weekend........I can type about this shit all day. If any of you want to have a real discussion (for or against) let me know. Not Blah Blah opinion no facts I saw Michael Moores Film BS Polarizing fuker, anti-US basterd that my friends put there lives everyday on the line for,in Iraq and afganistan. For his freedom and ours. Its not just a word, look in history its something you must defend or you loose it 10 times faster then it took you to establish it.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » September 12, 2004, 4:30 am

We have to setup moderate muslim regimes or democracys or anything that will monitor the radical elements in there own land before they hit us...

Thanks Mr. Kissinger a stunningly new tactic that. It has worked so well in...Oh wait it has never worked...

This is exactly the tactic that has garnered us stunning support in Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Nicaragua, Chile...

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » September 12, 2004, 5:03 am

we need to stop them from attacking us and make them like us.

Toshira · Post by **Toshira** » September 12, 2004, 5:22 am

Thess wrote:Actually - Cheney said just 2-3 days ago that Iraq was harboring Al Qaida!

but they are!

of course, we are too ><

Keverian FireCry · Post by **Keverian FireCry** » September 12, 2004, 6:24 am

troops die everyday. war or no war. it doesn't matter.

LOL. Tell that to the familes of the 756 troops who died IN combat in Iraq you fucking asshole. That has to be one of the most rediculous arguments I've EVER heard.

No, no wait, let's just continue with your logic..

Humans die everyday anyway, so why not just start killing everyone off now? Why wait and die from natural causes or illnesses when we can shoot and bomb eachother to death today?

WHY OH WHY DIDNT I THINK OF THAT EARLIER!?! THANK YOU SPANG YOU'VE REALLY OPENED MY EYES!! COME TO THINK OF IT, I'M GONNA SIT DOWN RIGHT NOW AND PRAY MY HARDEST FOR THE FOUR HORSEMEN OF THE APOCOLYPSE TO COME AND TAKE US ALL AWAY!!

OH WAIT, MAYBE THEY ARE ALREADY HERE!!!

HOOOORAY FOR DEATH AND DESTRUCTION!!...AND "THRILLER"!?

Spang · Post by **Spang** » September 12, 2004, 6:54 am

Keverian FireCry wrote:
troops die everyday. war or no war. it doesn't matter.
LOL. Tell that to the familes of the 756 troops who died IN combat in Iraq you fucking asshole. That has to be one of the most rediculous arguments I've EVER heard.

No, no wait, let's just continue with your logic..

Humans die everyday anyway, so why not just start killing everyone off now? Why wait and die from natural causes or illnesses when we can shoot and bomb eachother to death today?

WHY OH WHY DIDNT I THINK OF THAT EARLIER!?! THANK YOU SPANG YOU'VE REALLY OPENED MY EYES!! COME TO THINK OF IT, I'M GONNA SIT DOWN RIGHT NOW AND PRAY MY HARDEST FOR THE FOUR HORSEMEN OF THE APOCOLYPSE TO COME AND TAKE US ALL AWAY!!

OH WAIT, MAYBE THEY ARE ALREADY HERE!!!

HOOOORAY FOR DEATH AND DESTRUCTION!!...AND "THRILLER"!?

i said it cause it's true. troops die every day. it doesn't matter if there is a war they are involved in or not. they die. when you realize that you'll understand what i mean.

Keverian FireCry · Post by **Keverian FireCry** » September 12, 2004, 7:32 am

No, I completely understand what you mean, and it is one of the stupidest arguments I've ever heard on this board.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » September 12, 2004, 7:37 am

that's great, but i'm not arguing.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » September 12, 2004, 11:11 am

I think we need a pre-emptive strike against the US and remove their leadership which is extremely dangerous for world stability and peace.

Sirton · Post by **Sirton** » September 12, 2004, 12:43 pm

Thanks Mr. Kissinger a stunningly new tactic that. It has worked so well in...Oh wait it has never worked...

This is exactly the tactic that has garnered us stunning support in Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Nicaragua, Chile...

arborealus

??huh?? I know you are smarter than this. If it didnt work it wouldnt ever be a policy after it was clear.

First off the process is still happening in Iraq, and Ill give you a few examples of were it did work and gave us Support.

Germany
Japan
Italy
Panama
Soviet Union now Russia
Poland
Romania
Latvia
Lithuania
Bulgaria
Estonia
Turkey
Many western hemisphere countrys.
South Africa

The process has not really hit the middle east yet, because the Soviet Union had a sphere of influence in the region that we couldnt counter for a long time.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » September 12, 2004, 12:59 pm

Well I beg to differ that the "policy" you talked about were used and/or was effective in all those countries. That said, it also brings up the question: Is it your job and do you have a right to change governments at will in other sovereign countries?

Acies · Post by **Acies** » September 12, 2004, 1:02 pm

No that I know, but Sirton... that list of countries you posted, are any of them inhabited primarily by Muslims?

Sirton · Post by **Sirton** » September 12, 2004, 1:28 pm

Did I say democracys must be installed in them..no just more moderate gov't and can be done just by influence and pressure.

And yea there is one Muslim country there:) and can argue on a couple more to put on that list...theres so many ways to influence new govt's. Hell you can put Libya on that list now even with the same leader. Now since hes turned over his WMD programs and renounced terrorism.

Depends Kelsh. in my opinion. The Cold war, yea it would be a good thing. WWII yea Id have to say it would be a good thing. The current environment in the middle east after 9/11 as a wakeup call to Americans yea Im pretty much thinking its a good thing. Have we made mistakes in the pass, yea, but thats no reason to roll over and play dead to fanatical islam factions and regimes that hate America. Peace marches aren't going to get you anywhere with those guys except your head cut off.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » September 12, 2004, 2:51 pm

Have we made mistakes in the pass, yea, but thats no reason to roll over and play dead to fanatical islam factions and regimes that hate America.

Partially agree. I have a few problems with it though:
1. Both this and pre-emptive strikes set a very dangerous standard for others to follow.
2. Where do you draw the line? At what time does a country get on the list of "regimes that hate America"? Does it have to pose a direct threat? Indirect? Does the leadership have to hate it? The people? Part of the people?
3. What standard of proof would be required?
4. Should the rest of the world be ignored?
5. And bottom line to me is.. who gave you the right to tell what people should and should not believe religious or political wise? If YOU have the right to tell others, why shouldn't they have the same right?

Sirton · Post by **Sirton** » September 12, 2004, 4:26 pm

Partially agree. I have a few problems with it though:
1. Both this and pre-emptive strikes set a very dangerous standard for others to follow.
2. Where do you draw the line? At what time does a country get on the list of "regimes that hate America"? Does it have to pose a direct threat? Indirect? Does the leadership have to hate it? The people? Part of the people?
3. What standard of proof would be required?
4. Should the rest of the world be ignored?
5. And bottom line to me is.. who gave you the right to tell what people should and should not believe religious or political wise? If YOU have the right to tell others, why shouldn't they have the same right?

Kelshara

1. Yes it does, but its nothing new. We didnt set it. It was done all the way to the begining of mans history. If you are attacked and you see something that maybe a lingering threat or danger to your country exspecially after something like 9/11 you strike it first if you are able to protect your citizens.

2. Line? Well I think trying to assasinate a former leader of a country would put you on that list(Iraq). Shooting at there military personel(Iraq). Making training camps and preaching for the destruction of your country(Iran). Threatening to use nuclear weapons on your country and your allies(N. Korea). Not accounting for missing WMD's that the UN said needed to be accounted for and they still are not accounted for, which is scary(Iraq). Harboring people that blew up parts of your City(Afganistan). And any fanatical regime that will use Nuclear missles or bombs as a first strike device(possible Pakistan if Musharrof(sp) is assasinated). The line depends if your gov't says its a threat or upcoming threat to your national security. After 9/11 that line got shorter.

3. This is a hard one to answer in my own opinion even with myself. I think each case must be taken seperately. In Iraq for example: Well the UN, Russia, France, Germany, UK, US all said he had em. He used them before in the past. He had stockpiles not accounted for that still are not accounted for. And we found leads in Africa he was still interested in acquiring them. Hes been quoted to wanting to acquire them. Our CIA director told our President it was a Slam Dunk.

4. Deff. not they should be listened too, but not always follow if you think it is a issue of your national security or a country is not following the agreements made after being defeated in a war. Example Nazi Germany could of been stopped in its early stages if more thought like Churchhill. In the current situation 30 countrys are supporting us in Iraq and 40+ in the War on Terror. Thats listening enough. Youll never get the entire world to agree on anything, and the UN security Council is a joke...No country should have Veto power. It makes the UN powerless if there is a disagreement.

5. They have the same right. Example, Islam has grown by about 600million in the past century to about 1.1 billion now the fastest growing religion atm. Christianity is still about 34% of the total population at close too 2 billion. They are using there right to spread there faith. And in my opinion just as you have your right to spread your views. If you didnt try and encourage your system at all. You would eventually be over taken by other views, because in reality there is nothing anyone can do to stop ideas.

Acies · Post by **Acies** » September 12, 2004, 8:04 pm

Sirton, you know how hypocritical most of #2 is? I mean shit, we captured (probably killed) their president, we have killed over 50,000 of their people. We have training camps and right now, you are preaching the destruction of Iraq. We have nukes and have actually USED them before.

Got to admit though, any power that thinks Nuclear technology is a first strike weapon instead of a "threat of force" item only, needs to be disappeared.

Sirton · Post by **Sirton** » September 13, 2004, 1:09 am

I disagree or it would look more like:

The UN putting sanctions on us for invading someone like Canada? Is there a world force that defeated us and we aren't complying to the demands? And recently have we used WMDs on our own people and Mexico..killing 300,000 of our own people directly, and McDonalds doesnt count. Has the UN put any sanctions on us for invading Iraq? Has Bill Clinton been leading our country with an Iron fist for 30 years and wants the destruction of many countries across the world and has a desire of countroling the entire region of Europe to make a great white western power?

The main difference is they invaded a country first of Kuwait and they hadnt comply'd to the demand of there defeat, so that puts them wrong at the start.

And yea we used nukes and used em, but what was the alternative. It was a World War.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » September 13, 2004, 5:54 am

What I want to know is how your government can justify spending the same on defence against terrorists who MAY get their hands on a nuke at some point and MAY harm ONE US city somewhere, as they did to defend the nation against multi-megaton annihilation at 4 minutes notice?

Anyway. Linking Iraq to terrorism as a justification for the war is never going to wash. Yeah the place is crawling with them now but there really was nothing to go on beforehand unlike Afghanistan. Which you've now abandoned instead of helping form a stable democracy.
Also playing the emotional "Saddam was a bad man" card won't wash. It's true of course but to turn a blind eye to it for decades when it suits you then attack for the same justification is hypocrisy. Where were you when us pussy liberals were decrying your propping up of this barbaric regime?
The best way for the US to reduce the justification for terrorism is to pull out of Saudi. Ideally before the place goes up in fundamentalist flames and you get kicked out anyway. It's also easier to tacks Saudi's support for international terrorists when you're not in hock to them for airbases n shit. However pulling out would leave you with fuck all on-the-ground forces in the region that controls your lifeblood. Option2: Iraq. Second biggest reserves, easy to propogandise into a clear and present danger, easy to knock over. Direct control of their oil isn't necessary. A friendly government is just fine. This is the overall strategic goal of the US and the rest of it is just fluff. Wool to be pulled over your eyes. However it's probably not a cynical money-grab in entirety. The oil supply is your nation's number one national security and stability issue.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » September 13, 2004, 1:39 pm

Too bad Sudan never had any ties to Al Qaeda or had any chemical weapons facilities that were being used by Al Qaeda, because then we would have a rationale to go in and save the population there from genocide from non-governmental Islamist militias.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » September 13, 2004, 2:18 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedi ... n-and-Root

Read this shit!

Haliburton has been at it for a hell of a lot longer than just the past decade. And been linked to more than just Republicans. War is a mighty good business to be in. Geez.

Don't forget to brush up on Bechtel while you're at it.

Hesten · Post by **Hesten** » September 13, 2004, 2:19 pm

Voronwë wrote:Too bad Sudan never had any ties to Al Qaeda or had any chemical weapons facilities that were being used by Al Qaeda, because then we would have a rationale to go in and save the population there from genocide from non-governmental Islamist militias.

Dont worry Voron, if Bush get reelected im sure he can get bad intelligence advice again, so he can attack yet another country.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » September 13, 2004, 2:20 pm

Voronwë wrote:Too bad Sudan never had any ties to Al Qaeda or had any chemical weapons facilities that were being used by Al Qaeda, because then we would have a rationale to go in and save the population there from genocide from non-governmental Islamist militias.

I agree I am in awe at all the other countries rushing in there, The mobilization of the Canadian,French and Russian military is amazing.

miir · Post by **miir** » September 13, 2004, 2:31 pm

And recently have we used WMDs on our own people and Mexico..killing 300,000 of our own people directly

Oh for fuck sakes stop using the 'he used WMDs on his own people' argument.

Kurdish rebels in the midst of an a violent uprising != his own people.

OMG THE US KILLED HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF THEIR OWN PEOPLE IN THE CIVIL WAR!!!!!

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » September 13, 2004, 2:36 pm

miir wrote:
And recently have we used WMDs on our own people and Mexico..killing 300,000 of our own people directly
Oh for fuck sakes stop using the 'he used WMDs on his own people' argument.

Kurdish rebels in the midst of an a violent uprising != his own people.

OMG THE US KILLED HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF THEIR OWN PEOPLE IN THE CIVIL WAR!!!!!

Irainians were his own people?

miir · Post by **miir** » September 13, 2004, 2:38 pm

Cartalas wrote:You have added this person to your Ignore List. Click HERE to view this post.

Why do all of your posts say the same thing now?

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » September 13, 2004, 2:40 pm

miir wrote:
Cartalas wrote:You have added this person to your Ignore List. Click HERE to view this post.
Why do all of your posts say the same thing now?

Thank god!!! One ass fuck down many more to go.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » September 13, 2004, 2:50 pm

So your goal is to be as annoying as possible so everyone who agrees with you will ignore you? Is that Republican1.01 or something?

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » September 13, 2004, 2:54 pm

Kelshara wrote:So your goal is to be as annoying as possible so everyone who agrees with you will ignore you? Is that Republican1.01 or something?

No my goal is to get dumbasses like miir to go away. He couldnt answer my question so he hit the STFU button. But dont kid yourself im willing to bet im not on his ignore list.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » September 13, 2004, 3:15 pm

Well the way I saw it your question pretty much broke down your own argument FOR the war. The argument has always been that "He used WMDs towards his own people!". Then you bring up Iran and a war? When Iraq (and their use of WMDs) was supported by the US?

Kuds != his own people.
Iranians != his own people

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » September 13, 2004, 3:23 pm

Kelshara wrote:Well the way I saw it your question pretty much broke down your own argument FOR the war. The argument has always been that "He used WMDs towards his own people!". Then you bring up Iran and a war? When Iraq (and their use of WMDs) was supported by the US?

Kuds != his own people.
Iranians != his own people

So your saying there is justification for him killing people but not for the US to go in and stop him?

Your saying its all right for Saddam to kill millons of his own people with WMD and to kill 100's of Thousand Iraninans because a war was delclared?

Ok if that is what your saying I can justify killing Iraq's why you might ask because its a war.

Hoarmurath · Post by **Hoarmurath** » September 13, 2004, 4:05 pm

Cartalas wrote:
Kelshara wrote:Kurds != his own people.
You're saying it's all right for Saddam to kill millions of his own people with WMD

I believe the point being made is that the Kurds were not considered by Saddam to be "his own people".

We always seem to make this argument because Saddam was killing people within the borders of Iraq. (Borders that, it should be remembered, were imposed on the people of the region by foreign empires.)

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » September 13, 2004, 4:10 pm

Hoarmurath wrote:
Cartalas wrote:
Kelshara wrote:Kurds != his own people.
You're saying it's all right for Saddam to kill millions of his own people with WMD
I believe the point being made is that the Kurds were not considered by Saddam to be "his own people".

We always seem to make this argument because Saddam was killing people within the borders of Iraq. (Borders that, it should be remembered, were imposed on the people of the region by foreign empires.)

they lived in his country right? If you go with that train of thought then it would be alright for the U.S too pick a race and start killing them if congress said they were not our people.

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » September 13, 2004, 4:13 pm

If you go with that train of thought then it would be alright for the U.S too pick a race and start killing them if congress said they were not our people.

You mean like the US is doing in Iraq?

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » September 13, 2004, 4:15 pm

Wulfran wrote:
If you go with that train of thought then it would be alright for the U.S too pick a race and start killing them if congress said they were not our people.

You mean like the US is doing in Iraq?

Nope these people are not within the US borders. But Kelshara said it was okay becuase its war.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » September 13, 2004, 4:24 pm

Ah but Cartalas, I don't see the US going in to stop Russians from killing Chechnyans. They are within their borders after all!

VeeshanVault

Haliburton...

Haliburton...

Re: Haliburton...