Announcement

**Ted Striker** · March 20, 2003, 01:27

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
First photos of Baghdad strike.

HAHAHAHAHA

**Imran Siddiqui** · March 20, 2003, 01:30

this war is illegal

No war is 'illegal' unless the people who start them lose.

**Master Zen** · March 20, 2003, 01:30

Originally posted by johncmcleod
Well, um, excuse me Master Zen but Saddam is in breach of his agreement at the end of Gulf War 1. He was supposed to remove his WoMD and he still hasn't 12 years later.

Resoultion 1441 states that Iraq will face "serious consequences" if it does not comply". That is diplomatic lingo for not yet supporting military force in full. According to protocol, such a statement invites a further resolution which does in fact authorice "all means necessary" (diplomatic lingo for war) which is like what the US/UK/Spain draft resolution which was never voted on called for.

**Alexander's Horse** · March 20, 2003, 01:30

Richard Symonds strikes.

Attached Files

**johncmcleod** · March 20, 2003, 01:31

When you say it's a War of Agression, you're only making an educated guess. You aren't in Bush's mind.

Just for the sake of discussion, more people should argue for the war. I'm opposed to war, but I lose in arguments about it a lot so I want to hear arguments and facts backing them up from both sides.

Master Zen may be right, but as an outisder of the argument he isn't explaining and backing up what he is saying enough. I'm trying to pick up from his arguments so I can use them, but I need just a little more backing it up. Good job though.

**Ted Striker** · March 20, 2003, 01:31

Originally posted by Master Zen

Resoultion 1441 states that Iraq will face "serious consequences" if it does not comply". That is diplomatic lingo for not yet supporting military force in full. According to protocol, such a statement invites a further resolution which does in fact authorice "all means necessary" (diplomatic lingo for war) which is like what the US/UK/Spain draft resolution which was never voted on called for.

Give it up. The cat is out of the bag.

This debate is so 2002.

**notyoueither** · March 20, 2003, 01:32

Originally posted by Master Zen
Terrorists or freedom fighters... depends on who's side you're on

No. A terrorist is a piece of excrement who skulks around in civies trying to kill civilians, rather than confronting uniformed forces who could defend themselves. They are the worst form of vile creatures.

Do not insult those who confront soldiers in rebellions by associating them with such vermin.

**Master Zen** · March 20, 2003, 01:32

Originally posted by Ted Striker

Oh aren't you just the bastion of all that is good and just in the world.

I just don't follow the propaganda any country, even my own, spits out at me. If that's too hard to understand, I pity the poor sheep who follow Bush and his madman allies to the abyss...

**Alexander's Horse** · March 20, 2003, 01:34

Originally posted by johncmcleod

You aren't in Bush's mind.

That's one thing to be grateful for. I couldn't stand the silence.

**Ted Striker** · March 20, 2003, 01:34

Everyone is affected by propaganda. Nobody is above it.

**Drake Tungsten** · March 20, 2003, 01:34

How thick do I have to lay it on before the one-trick ponies realize that I'm mocking them? Anyway...

Russia and Mexico are the leaders in worldwide genocide! The people of the world must rise up to fight their evil empires! We can't let these horrible nations continue their unchecked aggression against brave freedom fighters!

**Master Zen** · March 20, 2003, 01:35

Originally posted by notyoueither

No. A terrorist is a piece of excrement who skulks around in civies trying to kill civilians, rather than confronting uniformed forces who could defend themselves. They are the worst form of vile creatures.

Do not insult those who confront soldiers in rebellions by associating them with such vermin.

Is there a difference between an atrocity commited by a uniformed soldier and a terrorist? Why should they follow the other's rules? None of these countries can confront the US in a conventional war so why not go the other route? What makes an F-15 strike which knocks out a dam and starves a hundred people any more legal than a terrorist strike? Both are repudiable acts.

**Master Zen** · March 20, 2003, 01:36

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
How thick do I have to lay it on before the one-trick ponies realize that I'm mocking them? Anyway...

Russia and Mexico are the leaders in worldwide genocide! The people of the world must rise up to fight their evil empires! We can't let these horrible nations continue their unchecked aggression against brave freedom fighters!

BTW, is it just me, or did Saddam look like a fake double in his latest speech?

**Ted Striker** · March 20, 2003, 01:37

Originally posted by Master Zen

Is there a difference between an atrocity commited by a uniformed soldier and a terrorist? Why should they follow the other's rules? None of these countries can confront the US in a conventional war so why not go the other route? What makes an F-15 strike which knocks out a damn and starves a hundred people any more legal than a terrorist strike? Both are repudiable acts.

TERRORISTS *TARGET* INNOCENT CIVILIANS.

DUH!

**Timexwatch** · March 20, 2003, 01:38

Saddam just gave a speech on Iraqi television.

It was standard stuff, no particulars, just lots of hot air about the U.S., Zionists and lots of "Allahu Akbar!" and "Long Live the People of Palestine!".

Interestingly enough, some reporters have commented that as they watched, they saw some errors in the broadcast indicating that it was probably taped.

Announcement

The War Has Started!

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment