[DerbyX]

Q-Q Q-Q:

As for you not believing in a god, that's at least consistent with what you advocate be done to certain members of the human race--and I find that quite refreshing. Of course, then you wouldn't be swearing on any Bible in any kind of oath toward duty toward country. Yet another crock.

Yours in pacifism

Pardon me????? You equate Atheism with advocating harm to others? Care to take me on? I am a well known or at least notorious Atheist and have debated and argued about the belief that not all muslims are extremists and a ton of other freedom and humanitarian angles.

Swearing an oath is a personal choice and the book is actually irrelevant. They could be swearing on the MacDonalds employee handbook for all I care as long as they keep their oath and it would be just as binding.

[dgthe3]

Q-Q, you can call Bart a jerk for many things, but not for this. I have disagreed with his opinion many times, but a soldier is to follow orders, so long as they are just. At the time, there was no way to conclusively know if the claims of weapons of mass destruction were valid, and certainly not by a regular soldier.

$1:

The bloody invasion of Iraq was illegal and anyone with a brain at least the size of a pea knows full well that the invasion of Iraq was in effort to control ME oil PERIOD.

Anyone with a brain at least the size of a pea knows that gas prices have up after the invasion, they went up further after the hurricanes hit the gulf coast. The price has been on a steady upward trend from a relatively low price of $40/barrel to over $60 now adays. Yup, looks like the US got their cheap oil

In other news, the Iraqis got elections and the Albertans got rich

[DerbyX]

dgthe3 dgthe3:

Anyone with a brain at least the size of a pea knows that gas prices have up after the invasion, they went up further after the hurricanes hit the gulf coast. The price has been on a steady upward trend from a relatively low price of $40/barrel to over $60 now adays. Yup, looks like the US got their cheap oil

In other news, the Iraqis got elections and the Albertans got rich

Actually, the main reason why the oil/gas prices went up is that suddenly bush and co were in charge of all that iraqi oil instead of having to buy it. When they became sellers instead of buyers the prices rose. It wasn't a coincedence.

[DerbyX]

Avro Avro:

DerbyX DerbyX:

dgthe3 dgthe3:

Anyone with a brain at least the size of a pea knows that gas prices have up after the invasion, they went up further after the hurricanes hit the gulf coast. The price has been on a steady upward trend from a relatively low price of $40/barrel to over $60 now adays. Yup, looks like the US got their cheap oil

In other news, the Iraqis got elections and the Albertans got rich

Actually, the main reason why the oil/gas prices went up is that suddenly bush and co were in charge of all that iraqi oil instead of having to buy it. When they became sellers instead of buyers the prices rose. It wasn't a coincedence.

OOOOOOOOOOO a little to conspiracy for me.

Call me Mulder. Your Scully.

[dgthe3]

Or possibly supply and demand. SUVs became very popular. They consume alot of oil, China is also starting to use cars. That means less oil for everyone, then pirce goes up. And since production can no longer increase to meet demand, the relative price goes up

[DerbyX]

Avro Avro:

I think Mulder will do......

Ahhhhhh. Got a thing for Mulder eh?

Why do I think you went out and got "Brokeback Mountain" on DVD?

[Wullu]

Wullu Wullu:

$1:

Do me a favour and READ!! I never said that Canada is a peace keeping nation.

and from your first post on this thread........

$1:

we'll lose even more credibility as a peace keeping nation.

Well, which is it?

Still waiting Q-Q

[Wullu]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Wullu Wullu:

Q-Q no one has ever been able to show me the invasion of Iraq was illegal, apparently you have a new source to prove this? If so please enlighten me.

Illegal? You are probably right. Mind you there exists no real law or format to determine what is legal and not?

try immoral though.

Agreed Derby that there is no real set in stone set of laws on what is legal and what is not as pertains to this situation, but immoral? No. When over 40 million people have been given the most presious gift, self determination, then I cannot consider it immoral. This gift was bought and paid for by the men and women of the US forces along with their allies who understood their responsibilities and carried out the orders given to them, not by some coward who does not even have the courage of his own convictions. The people of Iraq and Afghanistan have embraced, under terrible threat, that which we take for granted. We barely had a higher voter turn out than Iraq and no one was threating our polling stations. All that has to happen over there for things to completely quiet down is for their neighbours to stop allowing terrorists to get into Iraq. The US is not Iraq's biggest problem, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Palistein, Eqypt etc etc are Iraq's biggest problem, because that is where most of these terrorists are coming from.

[Wullu]

Q-Q Q-Q:

Wullu Wullu:

Avro Avro:

Wullu Wullu:

Q-Q no one has ever been able to show me the invasion of Iraq was illegal, apparently you have a new source to prove this? If so please enlighten me.

Show me that is wasn't.

I lost track of the number of Security Council resolutions that authorized the use of force if Saddam and his cronies did not abide by em. The most prominent of them was the one that called for the ceasefire at the end of Desert Storm. You will notice it was a cease fire, not and end of hostilities, the war of 1991 never actually ended. The UN good enough for ya Avro?

And have you stopped counting the innumerable SC resolutions that Israel has ignored. Oh, I see, you're not up on that one.

In any event, under international law (which, of course, the US of A scoffs at), there are only two LEGAL ways a country can wage war against another--self defense (which the U.S. claimed but which was nothing but a monstrous joke--there were NO weapons of mass destruction let alone WMD aiming at the U.S., nor was Saddam connected with 911) and by agreement of the Security Council (which did not happen). The bloody invasion of Iraq was illegal and anyone with a brain at least the size of a pea knows full well that the invasion of Iraq was in effort to control ME oil PERIOD. As for any claim that Bushco got trigger happy because it wanted to free the Iraqi people of Saddam, puhlleeeese don't insult my intelligence. No strike that, you insult your own intelligence by believing the American propaganda machine.

Ahh Isreal...the last resort eh? Good to know you are both anit-American and anti-jewish.

Security Council resolutions? Ok here is a small sample of the EIGHTEEN resolutions :

1

2

3

4

5

6

Was the world supposed to resolution him to death?


Next...WMD : Did they find any? Nope. Were Saddam and his cronies working on them? You bet. Take a look at the transcripts of the recently released tapes that has him talking about how to get a WMD program up and running.


And of course the last fall back of the anti-Iraq crowd. OIL!!!!! You cannot seriously think that the US has spent 10s of billions of dollars for access to oil they don't need do you? Hell if the US wants oil so bad, all they had to do is invest abut 5% of what they have spent on Iraq in Alberta on the tar sands. They could then tell the middle east where to stick its oil.


9/11? The stated aim from Bush's state of the union after 9/11 was to go after all terrorists and those that harbour and support them. I would call the $25,000 that Saddam paid to the familys of the Palistinian suicide bombers support. And that just scratches the surface. To think that Saddam was not supporting terrorists is nothing more than head in the sand thinking.

[maritimematt]

Q-Q Q-Q:

Wullu Wullu:

Avro Avro:

Wullu Wullu:

Q-Q no one has ever been able to show me the invasion of Iraq was illegal, apparently you have a new source to prove this? If so please enlighten me.

Show me that is wasn't.

I lost track of the number of Security Council resolutions that authorized the use of force if Saddam and his cronies did not abide by em. The most prominent of them was the one that called for the ceasefire at the end of Desert Storm. You will notice it was a cease fire, not and end of hostilities, the war of 1991 never actually ended. The UN good enough for ya Avro?

And have you stopped counting the innumerable SC resolutions that Israel has ignored. Oh, I see, you're not up on that one.

In any event, under international law (which, of course, the US of A scoffs at), there are only two LEGAL ways a country can wage war against another--self defense (which the U.S. claimed but which was nothing but a monstrous joke--there were NO weapons of mass destruction let alone WMD aiming at the U.S., nor was Saddam connected with 911) and by agreement of the Security Council (which did not happen). The bloody invasion of Iraq was illegal and anyone with a brain at least the size of a pea knows full well that the invasion of Iraq was in effort to control ME oil PERIOD. As for any claim that Bushco got trigger happy because it wanted to free the Iraqi people of Saddam, puhlleeeese don't insult my intelligence. No strike that, you insult your own intelligence by believing the American propaganda machine.

Q-Q - while it's legitimate for you to say you disagree with the invasion of Iraq, it's pretty silly to accuse people who dissent from that of being 'pea brained'. If you want to talk about international law, it's a fact that the attack on Saddam was legal. Resolution 1441, passed unanimously by the Security Council in November 2002, warned Iraq of "serious consequences" if it failed to comply with its obligations to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors. This was on the back of Resolution 678 (which authorised the liberation of Kuwait in 1991) and Resolution 687, passed by the SC after Gulf War I, which stated that force could be used against Iraq if it failed to cooperate with the UN on disarmament. In the dozen years between Gulf War I and II, Iraq failed to cooperate with the inspectors. In 2003, Hans Blix - hardly a supporter of the US - himself admitted that Iraq had not fully cooperated with him and his team. While the US and the UK did attempt to get a second resolution in favour of action on Iraq - and that almost entirely because Tony Blair needed to do this in order to secure support from his own Labour Party - a second resolution was not necessary to ensure the war was legal.

[Q-Q]

Wullu Wullu:

Wullu Wullu:

$1:

Do me a favour and READ!! I never said that Canada is a peace keeping nation.

and from your first post on this thread........

$1:

we'll lose even more credibility as a peace keeping nation.

Well, which is it?

Still waiting Q-Q

Gee Wullu, what's your problem. We have credibility as a peace keeping nation is not the same as saying Canada IS a peace keeping nation. I can't help that others think of our country in that light, but the point is that many do and I'd like them to keep thinking that. I can tell you that I have friends who have passports from both the U.S. and Canada. Which passport do you think they travel under and why? I know this is a skill testing question. Take your time.