Anti War demo's this Saturday

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by Tupac_
look right

saddam has ******* years to attack us if he wanted but did he??

no he ******* didnt
the way u act its like u dont value ur life
i rest my case yeh

Lmao I won't even comment until you say something sensible.
 
What some people are forgetting is that it was up to Iraq to dissarm under the terms of the resolution, not for the UN to prove he still has them. Iraq has failed to show what it has done with several thousand tons of chemical weapons and that is where pro-war countries will find the legality for their war. Fact is anti-war doesn't have a leg to stand on and in the end they know there's nothing they can do to stop it.
 
Originally posted by dirtydog
We could go on like this all day :)

You won't be swayed by facts so have it your way.

You're the one not swayed by facts, but then I'm sure you know better than the attorney general and the government.
 
Originally posted by IndyModeOCHW
My cousin is in the middle east - he realized and has told me that he knows just because I don't agree with his boss doesn't mean I don't support him and his mates. And my cousin isn't the smartest cookie - so if he realizes that - surely the majority of our troops can :p


I don't think we can assume though.
 
Originally posted by dirtydog
I would imagine the support for war is well over 50% in the country, and will rise once war proper gets underway.

But why is that?

I picked up a copy of yesterday's Sun paper today, and it is full of naked propaganda and lies.. it states for a fact that Bin Laden and Saddam are linked - offers no proof, just states it as an accepted fact, like saying Blair is the PM. Millions read that paper. I expect other pro-war papers have the same spin and lies.

If I thought Saddam and Bin Laden were linked, and without removing Saddam we would be attacked, I would support the war! But of course that isn't the case at all - it's just a lie concocted by Bush, repeated by Blair and the pro-war press, to make people support the war. They know most people are gullible and will believe what they are told by them, at face value, like sheep.

That's just your opinion, it doesn't mean it's true. I wouldn't know about the sun because I don't read it. Clearly there is enough of a threat because we are at war, no one would start a war for no good reason. You think it's a lie, lots of people don't.
 
Originally posted by JodieG
I don't think we can assume though.

well you are assuming they will think we arn't supporting them - no difference is there?

I mean, just because I don't like my boss doesn't make my fellow workers think I don't like them or think they aren't doing a good job does it?

My troops are there, among other things, protecting my right to free speech, my right to assmble, and my right to petiton the government. It's hypocritcal to say 'shaddup you shouldn't protest' when the fact that we have the right to do so is one of the very things the military is there to ensure we have.
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by JodieG
You're the one not swayed by facts, but then I'm sure you know better than the attorney general and the government.

:D

The attorney general is a Labour peer and Blair's friend.. and the government are hardly gonna come out and say the war is illegal are they.

It is legal in international law to fight in self defence, not to attack another country which has not attacked nor threatened you, nor to remove its leader and institute 'regime change'.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4624520,00.html
The prohibition of the use of force is a foundational rule of international law. Only two exceptions are permitted: the use of force in self-defence, or with the express authorisation of the UN security council exercising its powers under chapter VII of the UN charter.

Iraq has not attacked the US, the UK or their allies, nor is there any evidence that it is about to do so. Force may only be used in self-defence in response to an actual or (according to some commentators) an imminent armed attack. Therefore any arguments based on self-defence fail. What the US national security strategy has advocated are pre-emptive attacks on countries which may threaten the US. The use of armed force in such circumstances is contrary to international law.
 
Originally posted by Tupac_
u say im on the other side of sensible look at ur speeches...hahaha u crack me up:rolleyes:

Yes that's right I do. Doesn't it occur to you that maybe Hussein was getting ready to attack? Don't you wonder why he wouldn't disarm? Asking if I value life is why I think you're not sensible, it's as if you can't think of anything else to back up your arguement so you resort to other tactics.
 
Originally posted by dirtydog
:D

The attorney general is a Labour peer and Blair's friend.. and the government are hardly gonna come out and say the war is illegal are they.

It is legal in international law to fight in self defence, not to attack another country which has not attacked nor threatened you, nor to remove its leader and institute 'regime change'.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4624520,00.html
[/B]

Like I said it's about resolution 1441. Each side will take this the way that suits them.
 
Originally posted by JodieG
It doesn't make it illegal, it is going ahead because it is legal, even our attorney general said the same thing.


does that mean that if he said the sky was coverd in polka dots, and the moon was made of sheese you would believ him?

ok,
list of people who think it is illegal. this is a quicl list, but you get the idea....


here

here

here


here

british lawyers

concern our troops will take the flak for blair

The UN Charter says: "All members shall refrain ... from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state". It says force may only be used in self-defence or if approved by the Security Council.
 
Originally posted by MAD_BANDIT
does that mean that if he said the sky was coverd in polka dots, and the moon was made of sheese you would believ him?

ok,
list of people who think it is illegal. this is a quicl list, but you get the idea....


here

here

here


here

british lawyers

concern our troops will take the flak for blair

The UN Charter says: "All members shall refrain ... from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state". It says force may only be used in self-defence or if approved by the Security Council.

Clearly lots of people think it is legal as well.
 
Originally posted by JodieG
Yes that's right I do. Doesn't it occur to you that maybe Hussein was getting ready to attack? Don't you wonder why he wouldn't disarm? Asking if I value life is why I think you're not sensible, it's as if you can't think of anything else to back up your arguement so you resort to other tactics.

I haven't seen you in the Iraq threads recently so I don't know if you've read this point.

If Saddam was about to attack us.. if Saddam is a real threat to us..

Explain why Robin Cook, who is the PM's friend (even now), former foreign secretary and who saw all the same intelligence reports on Iraq as Blair has seen - came to the conclusion that Saddam is not a threat to us, and we should not be going to war.

:confused:
 
Originally posted by MindYerBeak
There is dispute about 1441. The solicitors can't agree one way or the other, yet the tree huggers insist it was violated.

Why do you have to keep using patronising language?
 
Originally posted by JodieG
Yes that's right I do. Doesn't it occur to you that maybe Hussein was getting ready to attack? Don't you wonder why he wouldn't disarm? Asking if I value life is why I think you're not sensible, it's as if you can't think of anything else to back up your arguement so you resort to other tactics.

please read this regarding 'disarming'

a quote.
Blix criticises US 'impatience'
Many inspectors felt their missions was prematurely ended
Former chief weapons inspector Hans Blix has expressed regret over US "impatience" to go to war with Iraq - and suggested Washington had little interest in peaceful disarmament from the outset.

He suggested that Washington was "doubtful from the beginning" about the process.

"I somewhat doubt that when (the Security Council) got the resolution last November they really intended to give under three-and-a-half months for inspections," Mr Blix said.

Dubious tips

Mr Blix also criticised the information US and other intelligence services passed on to Unmovic and the IAEA - the UN's nuclear watchdog agency.
 
Originally posted by BuckEye
Sorry, off forums with work. Will respond to a few if I can.

So you're sugesting we go to war with countries because we don't know their motives? Who shall we attack next because we don't know it's NOT justified?

jeez

S

look mate there is no WE involved YOU(the general public) are just a spectator.it does not matter waht YOU think because like ME you know nothingabout the inners of the government.it does not matter what 98% of the people THINK because thats all they do THINK:D

whats the point of asking mister fast food workers opinion or mister road workers opinion on war when he has no idea what the government really know,he just knows what the media feeds him.
LOL at all you peace protestors youve really done a good job havent you.you know what the funny thing is,the only way the government would listen to all of you PEACE protestors is if you were extremly VIOLENT towards them LOL LOL,what about that then LOL.

mister terrible is just an average cat who knows nothing about wether the war is justified or not so he doesnt talk about it in the real world because he doesnt know the TRuE facts like 98% of the people in the world.anyway WTF am i going to do.
 
1441 was designed purely to trip Saddam up, so that the US could go back to the SC and get another vote authorising war.

1441 did not authorise war - countries like Syria stated at the time it was not a trigger for war, and that they voted for it only on the understanding that it did not authorise war.

If 1441 authorised war, why the hell did the US & UK spend the last several months trying to get support for a 2nd resolution supporting war!

Now they have failed to win support for war, of course they are now saying 1441 DOES authorise war.
 
Here is resolution 1441 for those who haven't read it yet.

http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm

How about a quote showing how many 'last chances' Saddam has had to dissarm:

Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,

I think that's more than anyone deserves.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom