musiclover

:embarrased: that wasn't meant for Sternly. That was a comment meant for mr.cool...the guy who started the 'iraq war' thread....because he doesn't know much of anything and just gives flames. :rolleyes:

you lost the point i was making, which is that you can't morally support this war. on moral grounds. on the grounds of U.S. actually had any moral reason of attacking. as for you saying that not long ago humans used to attack each other....I sure hope that we have evolved into something more civilized, as I know we have. There's Geneva Protocol, if you're aware of it. :rolleyes: Human nature is to protect oneself, you say. What was the U.S. protecting itself against? By giving away its WMD to Saddam in the first place? Bush feeling responsible for the entire world is like saying Bush is your messiah.... :lol: too naive, really, for me to comment. :/ Why do you think leaving Saddam alone would have led to another terrorist attack? He didn't cause terrorist attack on anyone. He had nothing to do with 9/11. Afghan war was to avenge 9/11. Al Quaeda and Saddam are hardly the same. :rolleyes: Americans might become more happy is they start using nuclear weapons again. Or start attacking small countries with their might. Is that a justification....that Americans are happy? :rolleyes: Yep, this was a terribly one-sided war. The same as when U.S. will next attack any other banana republic, for no good reason. :rolleyes:

sounds fair enough. If you don't know much than you shouldn't comment either. :-) but well we all have our opinions.

too bad. but we all got our own opinions, i guess :rolleyes:

oh yep, I knew I made a mistake there. Sorry! :embarrased:

And I'm not forgetting how Gen. Augusto Pinochet, of South America (Peru, is it?) was caught in Spain and was going to be put on trial for the crimes he committed during his brutal and ruthless dictatorship, which, was fully supported by the moral-know-it-all, USA. But I thought let's focus on just Iraq for the moment :sneaky:

:lol:

Since some new guy comes in here and starts a thread about moral reasons of starting an unprovoked war in Iraq, I thought may be some morality can be brought to bear on the unsavory characters of Prez. Bush and his administration. Here's one: Wanna see the CURRENT defense secy. shaking hands with Saddam? http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/index.htm Bush Jr's dad even wanted to be close friends with Saddam: No moral scrupels were needed by Bush Jr.'s daddy dearest? Only Bush Jr. knows about morals and how to get rid of "axis of evil"?? I wonder where he got his education in morals, not from his daddy-prez for sure! Look what else Donny Rumsfeld---the guy who likes to smirk at press and give snide remarks and behave in COMPLETELY UNDIPLOMATIC and UNCIVILIZED manner---has been up to. This is not some old history. This is the same guy who is at the helm of Defense again. Can you expect such unsavory fellows to do the right thing by morality? How can anyone even trust these guys. :angry: :rolleyes: So now you wonder whether the U.S. would let Saddam be had by those people whom he hurt the most...Iraqis themselves. And as you know, Iraqis want an open trial, so that the whole world can know about this grand-terrorist. But will the U.S. allow such a thing to happen? Donny Rumsfeld seems to have had memory loss about his involvement in providing Saddam with the WMDs not so long ago.... Another episode of the U.S. hiding its naked butt from the public view, and from the morality-judgment that we all can make. Finally: If U.S. officials insist on retaining control over Saddam’s case, what are they going to charge him with — “misleading President Bush into mistakenly believing that he still possessed the weapons of mass destruction that the president’s father gave him”? Given that Iraq never attacked or threatened to attack the United States and given that Saddam and Reagan-Bush were allies during the entire 1980s, what other offense against the United States could they conceivably charge him with during that period of time? and the knock-out: If U.S. officials relinquish control over Saddam’s case to the Iraqis or to an international tribunal of independent (i.e., non-U.S. or British) judges, there’s a good possibility that Saddam will be charged with employing chemical weapons both against Iran and his own people. But how do they explain the failure to indict the U.S. officials who furnished him with those weapons in the first place? How do U.S. officials prevent the tribunal from permitting Saddam to testify to the world about such matters in an open (i.e., non-secret) proceeding? Moreover, who can doubt that Saddam will use his trial to charge the United States and the United Nations with crimes against humanity arising out of the brutal 12-year economic embargo against Iraq, which contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people — an embargo that U.S. officials continually justified on the claim that Iraq still possessed the weapons of mass destruction that U.S. officials had delivered to him during the 1980s? After all, don’t forget that two high UN officials resigned their positions on moral grounds arising out of the massive number of deaths that the sanctions were producing year after year. For full-er details on the U.S. morals--or lack there of--do kindly read this, and many such others that I may be able to furnish: Saddam’s Capture Means Trouble for U.S. Officials http://www.fff.org/comment/com0312f.asp

<<<< dumb ass should change his last name to Dumas (pronounced dum-ass :lol: )

hey missy, you're only 17. better not be going to bed with guys just yet! :stunned: :P and awww Jo, I love history. hope you didn't do as badly as you think you did. You're Malay? bhasa malay... :cool:

you hardly made any sense this time, sternly! :lol: but it's okay, i don't mind it. you've got much better English skills than some native speakers! "why is everone against the war in iraq?" :lol:

so? even better, no? being able to go to bed with the bf, that is. :sneaky: :lol:

oh yeah... could be message board. good one, sternly!

<<<< likes to think outside the box sometimes :lol:

3rd one from bottom? :lol:

:cool: awww well then now you're done, so rest. :-) :kiss:

:cool:

why only one of them?

musiclover :cool:

:P @ Sternly. Why are you rolling your eyes? what in the history do you want to know? I don't know everything, don't pretend to know everything either. Wanna know about U.S. propped-up Augusto Pinochet? :sneaky: :cool:

I know! grrrrr @ people just looking and not posting in here! Josephine...hmm were you named after one of the Little Women? :sneaky: :D wonderful name :-)

yep, totally agree with Fifi :-) but, i got a question. :huh: what's mb? :huh:

hi ya Jo! nah, I didn't notice it either :embarrased: she told me about it. So I'm like...I've to make it up to her now! so ta daaaaa.... a new thread dedicated to Kasia! :cool:

tired but in a good way! don't shopping give you a high on adrenaline? :lol:

:cool: