You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Town's Crier
Moderated by Major Helper

Hop to:    
Welcome! You are not logged in. Please Login or Register.51 replies
Age of Kings Heaven » Forums » Town's Crier » War For or Against??
Bottom
Topic Subject:War For or Against??
« Previous Page  1 2  Next Page »
Metallica_AJ
Squire
posted 03-26-03 11:08 AM CT (US)         
Are you for or against the war on Iraq???
AuthorReplies:
Mobely
Squire
posted 03-26-03 11:22 AM CT (US)     1 / 51       
There is a whole topic on this in the Town Crier. Ask there

This is all, that is it.

Metallica_AJ
Squire
posted 03-26-03 11:28 AM CT (US)     2 / 51       
I didn't know that. Thanks
Macdaddy
Squire
posted 03-26-03 11:56 AM CT (US)     3 / 51       
Moved
Frogdude
Squire
posted 03-26-03 12:15 PM CT (US)     4 / 51       
For.
Saddam Hussein=

FrogdudeTM
Math Expert
Avid Player of The Awesomest Game Ever
Enraged Orange
Squire
(id: RoboPaul88)
posted 03-26-03 02:28 PM CT (US)     5 / 51       
Very much against.
Deathmatch
Squire
(id: Darkmaster)
posted 03-26-03 04:12 PM CT (US)     6 / 51       
Against.

Violence should be the last resort in a situation that can inevitably harm a lot of people.


-1
Danthered
Squire
posted 03-26-03 04:18 PM CT (US)     7 / 51       
Definitely and without question.

Against.


"Blasted Paradoxes!, They get absoloutely everywhere!" - Danthered
Current Project:None
Proud Member of DGDN
Faded Glory LARP
Completed Projects: Dark Happenings
Enraged Orange
Squire
(id: RoboPaul88)
posted 03-26-03 04:52 PM CT (US)     8 / 51       
Glad to see this board isn't overwhelmingly Republican/conservative like aoe2.com
Mobely
Squire
posted 03-26-03 05:00 PM CT (US)     9 / 51       
For.Lettting Saddam stay in power and further violate UN treaties longer then he has would have been redicilous(Sp?) not to mention that if we had not done anything, there was a chance he could acquire Nuclear Missles and keep the whole Middle East and World at bay.
Frogdude
Squire
posted 03-26-03 05:16 PM CT (US)     10 / 51       

Quote:

Violence should be the last resort in a situation that can inevitably harm a lot of people.

can inevitably LOLYes, it should be the last resort. But it should be a resort. When there is no alternative to war, it should be done.

FrogdudeTM
Math Expert
Avid Player of The Awesomest Game Ever
Deathmatch
Squire
(id: Darkmaster)
posted 03-26-03 05:47 PM CT (US)     11 / 51       

Quote:

can inevitably LOL

Perhaps you didn't understand the context of my sentence.


-1
nav
Squire
(id: nav_2004)
posted 03-26-03 09:09 PM CT (US)     12 / 51       
Against. We have about as much justification going into this war as we did going into Korea, Veitnam, and especially the Mexican-American war. The justification is weak.



(This space intentionally left blank.)
Adder
Fallen Angel
(id: The Adder)
posted 03-26-03 09:40 PM CT (US)     13 / 51       
i guess against but...im more in the middle leaning to against

Adder |
"I would like to wonder if Adder always acts like a stuck up asshole?" - Coldviper
Mobely
Squire
posted 03-26-03 09:57 PM CT (US)     14 / 51       
Would you like it if saddam launched a chem/bio attack on the US? He's already violating treaties that ended the[/b]Gulf[b]war for crying out loud..
Deathmatch
Squire
(id: Darkmaster)
posted 03-26-03 10:02 PM CT (US)     15 / 51       

Quote:

Would you like it if saddam launched a chem/bio attack on the US?

Are you absolutely sure that Saddam has the capability to do so, with solid evidence to back your allegations towards Saddam hording WMD, chemical and/or biological weapons?

Quote:

He's already violating treaties that ended the Gulf war for crying out loud..

He may be, but until you have clear evidence, the war is not justified.


-1
nav
Squire
(id: nav_2004)
posted 03-26-03 10:13 PM CT (US)     16 / 51       
I assume that you are attacking my opinion, Mobely. No one hopes that Saddam will use chemical or biological weapons against anyone.

I hope you can respect my opinion, which is that we don't have enough ground to stand on going into Iraq. You, obviously, think that since it is likely Saddam broke his treaties, we have the right to go in and take him out. To me, this isn't enough, but to a lot of people in our country it is. That's ok. I believe in respecting other people's opinion's whether I agree or disagree.

My comparison was to history. We fought a war with Mexico because they were "threatening" us. We also fought because we wanted Texas. Now we're fighting in Iraq because Saddam is a threat. We are also fighting because we are interested in oil.

That's my opinion. If you're gonna try to gun me down, well so be it. Just remember, I respect your opinion even if you don't respect mine. (And this post isn't aimed just at Mobely)




(This space intentionally left blank.)
Rose
Squire
(id: railroad)
posted 03-27-03 00:05 AM CT (US)     17 / 51       
Here's my opinion.

I personally think war should not happen. But the most important thing is the people of the country where the war is. Although many countries in the world don't support the war, the Iraqis that are oppressed want it. Some countries don't want it for certain reason. Examples would be France and Russia. They sell military hardware to the Iraqis, I'm sure they don't want the US to find out. Also, they have oil companies there that brings income to their countries. They are afraid they might loose it.


¯¨´*·~-.¸¸,.-~*´¨°o.O R Ø S O.o°¯¨´*·~-.¸¸,.-~*´¨
,,`,*Beauty fades . .. dumb is forever. *,,`,
Deathmatch
Squire
(id: Darkmaster)
posted 03-27-03 00:15 AM CT (US)     18 / 51       

Quote:

the Iraqis that are oppressed want it.

No, they don't. Even the defiant Kurds are unwilling to move in from the north, as the U.S. hopes that they will do.

When the last time the U.S. urged the Iraqis to carry out a rebellion (under the Bush Sr. administration), the U.S. never came to the rebellion's aid. The rebellion was quelled in 43 days, resulting in the death of about a million Iraqis.

The Kurds and Shiites have not trusted the United States since then.

[EDIT]

I'll continue this tomorrow. It's too late and I have school tomorrow.


-1

[This message has been edited by Darkmaster (edited 03-27-2003 @ 00:16 AM).]

Manaxter
Squire
posted 03-27-03 00:18 AM CT (US)     19 / 51       
Against. Sencles violence is crap.

Another Home Remedy!

"Got stomach cramps? Then, drill a hole in your head and fill it with muffins!!
Rose
Squire
(id: railroad)
posted 03-27-03 00:23 AM CT (US)     20 / 51       
Maybe not all of them want it. There are some videos on CNN that show Iraqis dancing and happy when US and British troops passed through.

¯¨´*·~-.¸¸,.-~*´¨°o.O R Ø S O.o°¯¨´*·~-.¸¸,.-~*´¨
,,`,*Beauty fades . .. dumb is forever. *,,`,
nav
Squire
(id: nav_2004)
posted 03-27-03 08:40 PM CT (US)     21 / 51       

Quote:

There are some videos on CNN that show Iraqis dancing and happy when US and British troops passed through.

Sounds like propoganda to me.

Edit: fixed quote




(This space intentionally left blank.)

[This message has been edited by nav_2004 (edited 03-28-2003 @ 07:21 PM).]

Kelar
Squire
posted 03-27-03 08:52 PM CT (US)     22 / 51       
I'm somewhat for and somewhat against. Saddam and his sons should be put out of power, but we shouldn't mess around with their civilians or oil.

No. Bad Jarl. Bad Bad Jarl. NO Penis ASCII.
-Andy.
Dave3377
Squire
posted 03-31-03 00:12 AM CT (US)     23 / 51       
against. It would likely be a better world without Sadam. But I also feel it would be a better world without George W. But assinating them is not the way to do things.

And starting a war to assinate a head of state is REALLY not the way to do things.

P.S. did you hear about all those weapons fo mass destruction they found? hmm....that's funny, me neither. I wonder why that is?

P.P.S. If they are in Baghdad, and we bomb Baghdad, and hit a nuke or biological weapon with a conventional explosive...won't that set off the weapon potentially giving everyone in the area (our troops included) lukemia or whatever awful disease or condition the weapon causes?

AIM_54a
Squire
posted 03-31-03 00:41 AM CT (US)     24 / 51       
I am for the battle however I do not agree to it's timing. Bush should have waited for UN approval.
I also do not like people being angry at Canadians for this. We are part of the UN, therefore we stick with their decisions.

GSC-4E
Co-Founder
Shade Studios
Jamel
Squire
posted 03-31-03 01:02 AM CT (US)     25 / 51       
The Iraqi people who support the war and you see on TV are taped by an American Solder with camera in one hand and a gun in the other. I think that helps gain "support" when they are interviewed. I think that the war on Iraq has caused problems, but the main reason I do not support is not moral (but I am moraly agasint it). It will cause HUGE problems ten years from now. America will have to fight North Korea, then why not go after some South American country for fun? Then a few warring Aferican countries, always "for there own good". Not only that but like Afganistan the America helped when they fought Russia Iraq will enevtualy be ruled by fanatic crazy goups (Kurdish rebels, or any one who might help America in the short run like the "Nothren Alliance" in Afganistan who are no longer Allies and are fighting eachother). When I say crazies I am not taking about Muslims. Al Qadi are crimanls. They are not ture Muslims like Bush is not a ture Christain. A good Christian would not kill thousands so he could make a few dollars and get reveange. This will cause LOTS of econimical, mitary, social, ect. problems in the future.

I do believe that Saddam is evil. I am not Anti-American. I think that the the way Bush is handling America is stupid. If he was a skilled statsman or smart he could have had support and everyone would have went with him. He could have attacked Iraq with specail forces blaiming it in the Kurds. Then Blown up one of his own ships and blaimed it on Saddam. Yes this is sick and mean and would have caused a war, but not as many after afects would have been their. He should have been DEFENDING not ATTACKING. I don't think Bush realises what is happening and Dick Shanny (sp?) is using him like a cheep wh... The world let America bomb the hell out of Afganistan because their was something concreat. People need to see a reason. I hope he is at least smart enough to plant weapons of mass-destruction. This will gain him some support, as long as he plays it right and doesn't get carried away. In Canada this whould case more resentment to our leading party for being "wrong". A more pro-American stance would be taken. This is reality and it sucks.

Iraq does have wapons, the ones we sold them (Dick's compine suplied them with LOTS of equipment). But we are not in harm's way. Their is no way that it can reach us. Isreal is the only nation that should be afraid. We should not be afraid of bombs, or diseas, or flying. The people who will attack the West (with good cause mind you) have a weapon more feasom and scarry then any nuke, they are willing to die. Deep down we want our solders to come home and so do they. The "Terrorist" (as the worlds largest terrorest, Bush, calles them) don't inteand to live. The reson the goverment does not like to talk about this is because it is hard to fight. Bombs can be found and eliminated, vaciens bought fot ills. But a person who is willing to die cannot be stoped. That is why Irland, Isral, many African countires, Balkine nations, Chehnia, ect. are in trouble. How do you stop that?

Origanly I was just going to say I am against the war but I ended up typing a criptic end-of-the-world senerio. I don't feel like deleting it all so here is is read it and ignore 99% of it, (especaily the whole thing about blowing up boats).


"For you were brought into this world with nothing and you shall take nothing out." 1 Tim. 6:7
« Previous Page  1 2  Next Page »
You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Hop to:    

Age of Kings Heaven | HeavenGames