It's May 16, 2024, 09:45:48 AM
And nevertheless, he's right about the propaganda.I remember that after 911 and when the plans for a war on Afghanistan first came to the ear of the public,CNN had all kinds of interviews with people who had lost family and such in the 911 disaster and every interview would be like this:-A part describing how great the lost person was and how he/she was missed (this involved lots of crying,understandably)- Then a part where people said how they couldn't understand why this was doneand at last, the interviewer asked 'do you think the Americans should punish the ones organising this terrible event?' and of course, people answered 'Yes,I want that' then the interviewer would ask 'Should we make a war on them,if that's neccesary to punish them?' and of course, the people answered in tears 'Yes'And this way propaganda for a war on Afghanistan was made.
so thank you for strengthening my arguement....we gave him WMD and he abused them so we took them away and wanted to make sure he didn't have anymore...
when america dropped the bomb on japan it probably saved more lives than it killed cos otherwise japs would have carried on till the end especially as they thaught they were unconquourable because there haddn't been a successful invasion of japan in over 1000 years, and they also had a much stronger mentality than the allies. and until then surrender wasn't an ooption even tho the generals knew they couldn't win.
Quote from: smerlus on May 01, 2004, 01:56:36 PMso thank you for strengthening my arguement....we gave him WMD and he abused them so we took them away and wanted to make sure he didn't have anymore... U were just crying right now about, "this is the guy we should let have weapons?"when u were the ones who gave him the weapons, and stood by his side when he used them10 yrs later u wana go to war for this reason? LOL
^That's completely beside the point. I'll help you to get back on it:The point was not that we can't look into the future to see what harm might be done but that it smells rather suspicious to start a war because of something you yourself have given to the one you'll attack,just because he has it. It's like kids playing,one giving the other a shovel and then the first kid hitsthe other one because the other has a shovel that he might use to hit him.
^I don't think Saddam threw WMD on Iraq,especially considering he didn't have any.
LOL... the funny thing is, is that you keep up your argument.Fact, no weapons have been seen in Iraq since after Gulf War I, when the U.N. went in there and told Saddam to destroy his weapons. Fact, in 1998, Bill Clinton bombed what was believed to be a factory for chemical weapons (what they were called before Bush renamed them to make them sound more dangerous). Fact, since 1998, no one has ever investigated if Iraq still has weapons until 2002, in which the U.N. found none. Fact, if Saddam had weapons, I'm pretty sure he'd used them with the U.S. invading, or at the very least, when his sons died. I know if someone killed my sons, I'd use everything in my power to get back at them. You continue an argument that even Bush is starting to take back. Face it, Iraq had no weapons. You were lied to by the man that you put your trust in. It happens. The media, your president, everyone has lied to you. Wake up