Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Off Topic [BG]' started by kafka, Oct 12, 2002.
I wonder who support the war here (as musicians) in Iraq and why?
I don´t support it, I consider it to be a big mistake.
I wonder who might support the war as citizens of their nation, instead of as musicians?
I don't support it at all. All bush is doing is furthering his own agenda in the wake of a tragedy. He's just finishing daddy's work. Read my sig.
Yeah, let's wait until we have proof. Another 3000 or so dead US citizens should be enough.
It is a well-established fact that Iraq had nothing to do with that, so what are you trying to say?
Is it really a fact that Iraq had nothing to do with it? Can we be absolutely sure that Iraq is free from guilt in the 9/11 attacks? I don't think you should be so sure about that....
Why not? Even war-mongering Bush is not making that claim, so why should you?
well, the claim of Iraqi involvement has already been made, but that will probably be irrelevant in this discussion... Please explain why you believe that Iraq was not involved.
I'm saying it would be real smart to wait around until Sadam "proves" that he is what everyone knows he is. Another 3000 lives or so should prove it, don't you think?
What are you trying to say? That Sadam is a nice fellow?
Oh god.. not another senseless conspiracy-theory...
Personally i think that it is not Saddam Hussein that needs to be disarmed, but it is Bush that needs to be disarmed, because he clearly has some loose wires somewhere in his head.
Because in over a year, and after a huge investigation, no US Government agency has said that they WERE involved. Most publicly stated that Iraq had nothing to do with it. Now, because of what Bush is planning for Iraq, they are less vocal, but nobody has presented ANY evidence of Iraq's involvement. Probably because to Al-Qaeda, Saddam Hussain is as 'bad' as Bush, if not worse. After all, 'infidels' are expected to be 'bad', but Saddam and his cronies are supposed to be muslims, and to BinLaden, they are not.
OIL...OIL....OIL....need i say more.....OIL....OIL....
it's also a well known fact that some organizations
will sacrifice there own for POWER.
sad but true.
Well, that ain't gonna happen.
I am saying that Sadam had nothing to do with it. Sadam is not nice, neither are the Turkish government (Kurds, occupation of Cyprus) or the Saudis (they financed 9/11), nor many other US 'friends'. Gonna bomb them all?
Do not flame me, however, I do support the war if there is no other alternative...I do, however, feel that we should send Carter...who is tops in peace negotiations...However, If there is not an alternative, then yes, lets go for it...JMO
I'm not talking about 9/11, you are.
I think you were the one to mention it first. Regardless, if you want to talk about 3,000 dead US citizens, link to Saudis is proved, link to Iraq is not. Why not bomb Saudi?
Could it be that bombing Iraq has nothing to do with 3,000 dead US citizens, and everything to do with high-quality, cheap-to-pump Iraqi oil, not to mention having military and political control of a country smack in the middle of the (oil-rich) Middle East?
It will. Next election.
Sorry, but I find it extremely hard to believe we're going to invade Iraq just for oil benefits.
Remember, UK promised to send in troops if the US does. If i'm not mistaken, so has Australia and a few other countries. It's not just the US anymore.