Unless you are a complete idiot, you know there were rape rooms, genocide, and murder happening all of the time in Iraq before we went. Now there isn't.

Tell me what you would have supported in order to stop that. I don't want anymore "America had done worse" trash. Tell me what you would have done to end the killing.

are you trying to say that we should help out every country that has problems? why should we be prancing around "helping" countries in "need" when we have so many problems here. okay, those "rape rooms, genocide, and murder" is gone. but if we're going to try to stop all of that in every country suffering from any of those issues, then we're never going to get anything accomplished....

wait.


we're not getting anything accomplished now

For the record (bushsupporter) you claim rape WAS happening in Iraq and now we stopped it. I want you to have all ur facts straight, but soldiers HAVE raped women and children in Iraq. The world is not black and white, good or bad. Just because ur a soldier does not equilvalate good, or bad. There are many honorable soldiers that I am proud of, but there are also men/women who I feel should not have been given a gun. If I may quote StarWars, "With great power comes great responsibility." And I'm not so sure wat we have been doing is 100% good, how can killing other people ever be good? Wat does it prove? nothing. Therefore, the war in Iraq may seem like we are doing good...but are we really?

probably because its just fun to argue...which is why I'm assuming everyone is here. I mean, I really don't expect to change anyone's mind just from posts on a forum where everyone gets bogus and biased sources.

Bushsupporter, believe it or not, the stance was six times pro-war to anti-war

Guys, why are you still arguing with Bushsupporter and notsojoey? It's like trying to talk to a wall. They're stubborn, closed-minded, and they're cocky as heck. Seriously, just ignore them, you'll be better-off.

If your government is so sensitive to the plight of nations whose citizens suffer genocidal acts, mass rapings and mass murder, then why did it not take action during the Rwandan Genocide, or the current Darfur Genocide for that matter, where hundreds of thousands were killed / are being killed? Why, instead, did they choose to "liberate" Iraq and Afghanistan?

I'll tell you why:
IRAQ = CONTROL OF OIL AND STRATEGICALLY IMPORTANT IN MIDDLE-EAST

AFGHANISTAN = CONTROL OF HEROIN TRADE (WHICH IS MORE VALUABLE THAN OIL) AND CLOSE TO CHINA

Honestly, I disagree very much. Iraq is about the same since before we invaded, maybe even worse. Now that the U.S. has gone in, Iraq is prone to more attacks, granted they're mainly on us, but the bombings to kill our troops and to try to drive us away just kill innocent bystanders. I don't think that violence is the answer, especially not in a country that has seen more than it's fair share of it, and one who needs peace also.

"An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind" -Gandhi

quote:

Originally posted by Bushsupporter:
Unless you are a complete idiot, you know there were rape rooms, genocide, and murder happening all of the time in Iraq before we went. Now there isn't.

And what is happening now if I may ask? I´m honestly interested in hearing you´re distorted version of reality.

Can someone with more time on here please tell me if monkeysupporter and joey are the same person using multiple accounts?
They're about equally bright and everything they say seems mutually reinforcing so I wouldn't be surprised.

quote:

Still not a word, in any english dictionary.

Funny that you pull the grammar police act; here are a few of your own grammatical masterpieces:
-I call them like I see them any my visision is always 20/20
-You people are very rude. There is no need for such abusive for doing something so fantastic.
-Most of Presidents were NOT Free Masons. Free Masons are not a cult, they are a social group, like a fraternity, soriety, or Legion.(WTFROMANARMY?)

quote:

That Saddam was bad

No point, why should anyone have to admit a widely known fact? it's a given that everyone agrees on this.

quote:

That when two Arab countries go to war it is not a civil war

Well considering you said two countries there is no way it could be a civil war, as a civil war is a conflict among people of the same nation.

I've ignored the rest because I think I'd make myself look stupid if I took the time to call you out on everything you say.

quote:

Originally posted by notsojoey:
Find me a school that lets you use wikipedia as a source for research papers and I'll be amazed. Are you really trying to argue that wikipedia is the most credible source?

Considering that I said "It's not supposed to be a source itself", it seems clear that's not what I'm arguing. Comprehensive reading seems to be declining these days.

I'll dumb it down: credible sources -> collected on Wikipedia -> read by user

quote:

You are entrenched in the left. That's fine, it simply means I can no longer continue to engage you in argument.

I have no choice but to agree with Bushsupporter. We have provided facts and evidence to back our arguements while Canvas has relied on conspiracy theories and radical assumption that no one else agrees with. Thus, I will no longer argue with her.

Canvas refuses to admit the following:
That Saddam was bad
Saddam should not be in power
That Saddam killed many people with chemical weapons
That when two Arab countries go to war it is not a civil war
That the Iraqi election was not rigged
Foreign insurgents are fighting in Iraq
Vulnerating is not a word.
There is no proof that 100 Iraqis are dying a day
There is no proof that reasonable death tolls estimate Iraqi civilian deaths at over 1 million
The majority of Iraqis do not hate Americans
That the Iraqi government wants American troops in Iraqi and it does not undermine the states soveriegnty.
Foul language is not appropriate on youthNOISE

As you can see this is not a case of arguing the merits of the war, this is a case of an illogical person, Canvas, grasping for straws

Canvas:
You are extremely left wing and it is impossible to argue with you. You claim our media is pro-war, you think saddam wasn't that bad (he ONLY killed...), you think that President Bush only went to Iraq for his dad, you think That Iraqs elections were rigged. These are all very leftwing viewpoints. One can only argue with reasonable people. You are not reasonable. You are entrenched in the left. That's fine, it simply means I can no longer continue to engage you in argument. I am sorry. I know that others will read this board and recognize what I have and see that I and notsojoey have made very valid points, that you are too left wing to notice.

We have an English language for a reason, and vulnerating is not a word. You have argued that it is and have provided a link to the definition of vulnerate to prove it. You can not add 'ing' to any word you want and call it a word.

quote:

Iraq was a mistake, and so was voting Bush

So you would rather see Saddam still in power? And how would you know if voting for Bush was a mistake, you don't even live in America. Does the Canadian media even report any of his domestic policy?

quote:

I've all ready provided you with everything you need to know.

No, you haven't. You haven't provided anything that suggests the Iraqi elections were rigged.

quote:

since you think a democratically elected governments "represents" its people, in a way you've just justified every terrorist bombing in the history of mankind

Wow, this is quite the leap, please elaborate. You rationale makes no sense. You do know the difference between a government and a terrorists organization, don't you? This should be interesting.

quote:

hat or your population was effing brainswashed by the 6:1 ratio of pro-war media that promoted the war.

Interesting ratio, proof?

I want to move back to your "civil war" theory. By your rationale the Iran Iraq war was a civil war, correct?

quote:

hatever you say now is insignificant and you really should open-up your mind a little.

Very mature, provide outrageous claims with no proof, don't defend your points, and then just run away saying you have proven everything you need to. This means one thing to a reasonable person, you have lost.

quote:

Originally posted by notsojoey:
Still not a word, in any english dictionary. Here you go.

Crap is a word; crapping isn't. So, if you realise vulnerating isn't a word, but you know vulnerate is, and yet still won't argue with speed's point, that just means you have nothing to say.

I've all ready provided you with everything you need to know. I didn't say it WAS rigged, I said it would be favourable to the US if it WAS rigged (need Saddam 2.0?); and since you think a democratically elected governments "represents" its people, in a way you've just justified every terrorist bombing in the history of mankind, because the government fought the countries and oppressed the countries that gave birth to terrorism; killing the innocent people was okay, by your logic, because killing the innocent Iraqis or Afghanistanis who gave birth to (still with me) terrorists was what you wanted.

Right?

That or your population was effing brainswashed by the 6:1 ratio of pro-war media that promoted the war. So you're either brainwashed, or evil, and frankly that about sums it up for me. Whatever you say now is insignificant and you really should open-up your mind a little. I hope you'll be able to look back in 50 years and realise how wrong your stance is today.

quote:

vulnerating

Still not a word, in any english dictionary. Here you go.

quote:

Assuming that the elections weren't rigged to begin with

Nice conspiracy theory, proof?

quote:

The people, which is also the MAJORITY, hence the fucking definition of DEMOCRACY, don't; so please, save it.

Your language is offensive. The democratic government of Iraq, which represents the people of Iraq, wants American troops there. Do you have any proof that the majority of Iraqis hate us? If so, please provide it. The government maintains the soverignty of the state.

Canvas has demonstrated here inability to, once again, make a credible argument based on flawed opinion with no proof to back it up.

quote:

Originally posted by notsojoey:

Not a word. Don't even know what this means.

It means to hurt. I give you the power of the English dictionary, and the power of research. Since I can't scan my own dictionary, here you go.

quote:

How so, the sovereign, democraticly elected government of Iraq, wants American troops there. So how is it ?vulnerating? their sovereignity?

Assuming that the elections weren't rigged to begin with - and it's Iraq, that sort of thing happens, never mind the US would want someone they could trust - the people hate your guts. I'll say it again: Iraqis despise the USA.

quote:

Incorrect, the democraticly elected government of Iraq wants our troops there, so it is not a forceful occupation and it violated no 'international law'.

The people, which is also the MAJORITY, hence the fucking definition of DEMOCRACY, don't; so please, save it. And honestly notsojoey, you've woven yourself into a corner. You shouldn't embarrass yourself any further. I'd drop this, if I were you. Iraq was a mistake, and so was voting Bush - both times. I can only hope that others have learned. You certainly haven't.

quote:

vulnerating

Not a word. Don't even know what this means.

quote:

By maintaining our troops in Iraq we are ?vulnerating? their rights as a sovereign nation

How so, the sovereign, democraticly elected government of Iraq, wants American troops there. So how is it ?vulnerating? their sovereignity?

quote:

That is called forceful ocupation and is completely illegal under international law.

Incorrect, the democraticly elected government of Iraq wants our troops there, so it is not a forceful occupation and it violated no 'international law'.

quote:

Originally posted by speed:

By maintaining our troops in Iraq we are vulnerating their rights as a sovereign nation, as both the government and the population have manifested countless times that they want our forces to withdraw. That is called forceful ocupation and is completely illegal under international law.

Thank you!

quote:

Still fact.

quote:

Unfortantly, your lack of credibility to this point has forced me to not read the rest of your post. Please be more observant and make credible arguements for this discussion continue.

Still fact.

quote:

Tell me what you would have supported in order to stop that. I don't want anymore "America had done worse" trash. Tell me what you would have done to end the killing.

Lift the embargo so Iraq wasn't one of the poorest countries in the region; then the Iraqis would of had the means to stand up for themselves and overthrow saddam, and we wouldn't be involved in a conflict that has nothing to do with us and is killing our soldiers on a daily basis.
Also, in this hypothetical situation the process of national unification that would be required to overthrow saddam's dicatorship would have probably improved the Sunni-Shia relations and we wouldn't be looking at a civil war scenario.
If the Iraqis where unhappy under saddam it was their responsibility to overthrow him, not ours. A foreign intervention could only be justified if teh vast majority of the population actually petitioned for international help, which was never the case.

By maintaining our troops in Iraq we are vulnerating their rights as a sovereign nation, as both the government and the population have manifested countless times that they want our forces to withdraw. That is called forceful ocupation and is completely illegal under international law.