...and I Return a Man

[TrongaMonga]

Like the US needs permission from the U.N. No.

Last time I checked the US only asked for help against the terrorists. But the UN was too lazy and busy eating their cupcakes.

Political ideas? You make freedom sound like a bad thing.

So, hold on, we can't tell you what is illegal, but you can? I mean, if you called Saddam a terrorist, it's because his rule war illegal.

That was another proof of the US arrogance and hypocrisy.

 

[Jason]

Jason I didn't know that a decent conversation had to have a winner!! I allways thought that forums were for people to express their opinions on diferent topics, intelligent ones or not, and that the interest of being in a forum was to learn more about others, other cultures, other ways of thinking and not a place to see who wins a conversation..... But that's just me!!!

If this thread were started as a debate thread in the AS then sure. You could drag it out until your fingers bled from typing too much. The fact of the matter is this is in Chit-Chat, and you're producing pages upon pages of discussion completely irrelevant to the topic.

The original topic was PB leaving to sign up for the army, and returning a man. Not whose policies and governments and militaries are better, etc. Learn to use a forum before you start defining it to me.

 

[Tipsy]

Which si odd, because I do remember the U.S. Never got permission to go to Iraq from the U.N., so basicly the American's are Terrorists as they faught an illegal war to push thier political ideas.

If I remember correctly, whether or not war was supported by international law was in dispute both amongst people trained in the field of international law and those that are not. I fail to see how you can claim that the war is either legal or illegal. I never claimed the war was legal (or illegal), I simply stated that wars can legitimately carried out without the army being considered 'terrorists'.

And wasnt Sadam "legally" ruling is countrie? It was, in may opinion, a very bad way to rule a countrie....

Nope, he was denying his citizens the rights all humans have been granted through the United Nation's Universal Declaration of Human Rights (For you, click here for it in Portugueese rather than English).

But that doesnt make him a Terrorist a dictator ys but not a terrorist

It makes him a dictator and a terrorist.

like XxSworn_EnemyxX said the priority was Bin Laden has he was the one that for so many years has terrorised the U.S and not Sadam....

That doesn't change the fact that Saddam is a terrorists and this is a war on terror rather than a war on Al Qaeda.

I heard (this means I dont know for a fact) that Bush said something like Sadam was keeping the oil in Iraq and oil is for all of us not only for him... or something like that! In my way of seeing things Bin Laden was an escuse to enter Iraq and saying "now that we are here let us find that oil" and so they had to take Sadam out of the picture so a new governement more loyal to the US governement would step forward!

I could really care less what his intention were because any way you look at it, I have quite a few problems with how this war is being run and why it is being carried out. I am not going to stand here and defend any position other than Saddam fits into the definition of a terrorist, terrorists being the target of the War on Terror.

Which si odd, because I do remember the U.S. Never got permission to go to Iraq from the U.N., so basicly the American's are Terrorists as they faught an illegal war to push thier political ideas.

If I remember correctly, whether or not war was supported by international law was in dispute both amongst people trained in the field of international law and those that are not. I fail to see how you can claim that the war is either legal or illegal. I never claimed the war was legal (or illegal), I simply stated that wars can legitimately carried out without the army being considered 'terrorists'.

And wasnt Sadam "legally" ruling is countrie? It was, in may opinion, a very bad way to rule a countrie....

Nope, he was denying his citizens the rights all humans have been granted through the United Nation's Universal Declaration of Human Rights (For you, click here for it in Portugueese rather than English).

But that doesnt make him a Terrorist a dictator ys but not a terrorist

It makes him a dictator and a terrorist.

like XxSworn_EnemyxX said the priority was Bin Laden has he was the one that for so many years has terrorised the U.S and not Sadam....

That doesn't change the fact that Saddam is a terrorists and this is a war on terror rather than a war on Al Qaeda.

I heard (this means I dont know for a fact) that Bush said something like Sadam was keeping the oil in Iraq and oil is for all of us not only for him... or something like that! In my way of seeing things Bin Laden was an escuse to enter Iraq and saying "now that we are here let us find that oil" and so they had to take Sadam out of the picture so a new governement more loyal to the US governement would step forward!

I could really care less what his intention were because any way you look at it, I have quite a few problems with how this war is being run and why it is being carried out. I am not going to stand here and defend any position other than Saddam fits into the definition of a terrorist, terrorists being the target of the War on Terror.

 

[Arkillo]

Seriously, move this shit to Arcane Sanctuary.

Not only is it off topic, but it's too much debate...

 

[[Koolaid]]

I dont want my Pausebreak to die

 

[TrongaMonga]

Nope, he was denying his citizens the rights all humans have been granted through the United Nation's Universal Declaration of Human Rights (For you, click here for it in Portugueese rather than English).

So, why is Kim Jon Il still alive? And it's spelt Portuguese, you american newb.

 

[Tipsy]

So, why is Kim Jon Il still alive?

On that I can only speculate, all I am saying is that the War in Iraq is encompassed in the term 'War on Terror'. Technically, a war against Saddam, one against Kim Jon Il, one against Al-Bashir, or any other person who meets the criteria to be considered a 'terrorist' could be considered a legitimate target for the War on Terror.

And it's spelt Portuguese, you american newb.

Forgive me.

 

[PauseBreak]

Well this has moved off-topic, and its quite expected to. I'm glad I got some intelligent thought into the Chit-Chat. Sorry iMike.

Anyways, I'm done with this thread. I'm in the army and now to get buff and sexy with a gun. And I'm not talking about my M-16a2

 

[Wing Zero]

psh i will ithe only gun i will ever use is the M1 Garand
and i dotn care if its 60 years old

big split later on tommorw or today wtf ever