Poll: War - yes/no?
- Thread starter [TW]Fox
- Start date
- Status
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
Permabanned
Originally posted by IndyModeOCHW
Why on earth would you like Saddam?
Who said that I like saddam?
Custor
C
Custor
Gallup, Mori, someone professional?
people where being dematerialized while the nuclear bombs detonated over hiroshima and nagazaki, people where burned alive from the napalm bombs, people where chocking to death from the gazes in vietnam, people where being bombed inside hospitals in cosovo, i didnt see qusay, it was the usaf
Um, during Vietnam, a war Britain played no part in. There was widespread outrage, burning of flags etc. and US soldiers came home to a rather unpleasant reception. I don't agree with the us of nuclear weapons in WW2 either. I don't undertand your point, you're refering to wartime incidents where I'm referring to a country which during peace time grinds people up in machines ffs!
this is a country that tortures, mutilates and executes in horrible fashion its citizens. 
A pointless war? After today's debate in the HoC I'm more convinced it's needed as Saddam has yet to account for thousands of litres of chemical weapons (big desert to hide them in), has stalled on inspections on numerous occasions, has had plenty of 'final chances' and has been caught trying to develop nuclear weapons by Jordan authorities (of all countries to find it).
Questions: Do you think Blair or Bush would use chemical/nuclear weapons on his own people? Do you think they would expell 4 million of their own population, murder innocent civilians for speaking out against them or murder people after saying 'all is forgiven, come back, we won't hurt you'?
If there's one thing to learn from history is that if you attack American's on American soil expect major retribution and revenge. Just look at Japan after Pearl Harbour.
Questions: Do you think Blair or Bush would use chemical/nuclear weapons on his own people? Do you think they would expell 4 million of their own population, murder innocent civilians for speaking out against them or murder people after saying 'all is forgiven, come back, we won't hurt you'?
If there's one thing to learn from history is that if you attack American's on American soil expect major retribution and revenge. Just look at Japan after Pearl Harbour.
Associate
Firstly Even the japanese have said that those that died in the first two A-bombs that you have quoted "PREVENTED" far more from dying if the war were to have continued.
The Vietcong didnt do anything nasty to the Yanks out there at all did they, no they just drank tea all day and sang songs.
The germans didnt invent the BlitzKrieg, and carpet bombing in WW2 either.
Wars hurt & kill people, they are unpleasant, they are not supposed to be nice, but if they prevent humanity from suffering in the long run then so be it.
Permabanned
I voted no.
If the US wants to invade Iraq then fine. But there is NO REASON AT ALL for the UK to get involved.
When was the last time that there was a terrorist attack on Britain that wasn't anything to do with N.Ireland?? After this the chances are gonna be a lot higher...
If the US wants to invade Iraq then fine. But there is NO REASON AT ALL for the UK to get involved.
When was the last time that there was a terrorist attack on Britain that wasn't anything to do with N.Ireland?? After this the chances are gonna be a lot higher...
DirtyBerty
D
DirtyBerty
i don't recall voting in this NATIONAL poll? nor do my family/friends.
Generally the polls on sky news etc are ignored by the majority of pro-war people, whereas those anti-war will go out of their way to say no.
Permabanned
Originally posted by afraser2k
A pointless war? After today's debate in the HoC I'm more convinced it's needed as Saddam has yet to account for thousands of litres of chemical weapons (big desert to hide them in), has stalled on inspections on numerous occasions, has had plenty of 'final chances' and has been caught trying to develop nuclear weapons by Jordan authorities (of all countries to find it).
Questions: Do you think Blair or Bush would use chemical/nuclear weapons on his own people? Do you think they would expell 4 million of their own population, murder innocent civilians for speaking out against them or murder people after saying 'all is forgiven, come back, we won't hurt you'?
If there's one thing to learn from history is that if you attack American's on American soil expect major retribution and revenge. Just look at Japan after Pearl Harbour.
When has Iraq attacked the US?
Custor
C
Custor
Originally posted by DirtyBerty
i don't recall voting in this NATIONAL poll? nor do my family/friends.
Generally the polls on sky news etc are ignored by the majority of pro-war people, whereas those anti-war will go out of their way to say no.
That would be a referendum not a national poll.
Sky news eh? I ignore Jon Cravens News Round Polls too. Do you want to quote that?
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 5,415
Who's Bush going after next? It won't be long before he comes after us. Well maybe.
I think Bush should be put back in the zoo with the other chimps.
I think Bush should be put back in the zoo with the other chimps.
Originally posted by silverpaw
Um, during Vietnam, a war Britain played no part in. There was widespread outrage, burning of flags etc. and US soldiers came home to a rather unpleasant reception. I don't agree with the us of nuclear weapons in WW2 either. I don't undertand your point, you're refering to wartime incidents where I'm referring to a country which during peace time grinds people up in machines ffs!
uhhh, well, i guess wartime is when the us is fighting and everything is ok, but when someone else does something then he should be killed...
when did they say that? i am curius to know, even so, that doesnt mean that you can nuke someone
OHH!!!! those bad people!!! they where defending their land!!!! THEY HAVE TO DIE IN HELL FOR THAT!!!
i dont know what that is, can you please explain?
oh, well kids in iraq have been suffering for 12 yrs, so we can just kill them so they can stop suffering, hey i have a headache, kill me please!!!
How about every chance it gets within their newspapers, or offering suicide bombers' families payment for services rendered? I don't just mean large-scale attacks. Try and answer my whole post rather than one point as well.
Interesting read on possible future targets: http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2002/ciareport.htm
Iraq is a country which:
- Tourtures it's own people.
- Executes people without trial, beheading in the street is popular.
- Gassed 60 000 of its own citizens as they went about everyday business.
- Invades neighbouring countries, Kuwait for example.
- Persistantly tries to create chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, against UN resolutions set out after the last war.
- Has broke resolution 1441 by not declaring the whereabouts of chemical weapons we hnow they have, nor proving they've been destroyed.
- Have persistently ****** about, threatened and spied on weapons inspectors.
Associate
At nopoint has the US said they would premtibly use any WOMD, they have said that they would retaliate if any were used against them.
At what point have we actually killed civillain yet, We havent so stop going on as if the US is just going to flatten Iraq, it wont, if it does any support it has will evaporate. Right behind the troops is a huge pile of aid, just like in Afghanistan, as soon as it is safe to distribute it it will go out.
"BlitzKrieg" or lightning war was when the germans just sent as many bobmbers and escorts to level a city overnight. No lets keep the civillians safe. A war is a war people die. but there will be no indiscriminate targeting over there, they will go after legitimate military target, some they will get wrong, but not for the want of trying.
At what point have we actually killed civillain yet, We havent so stop going on as if the US is just going to flatten Iraq, it wont, if it does any support it has will evaporate. Right behind the troops is a huge pile of aid, just like in Afghanistan, as soon as it is safe to distribute it it will go out.
"BlitzKrieg" or lightning war was when the germans just sent as many bobmbers and escorts to level a city overnight. No lets keep the civillians safe. A war is a war people die. but there will be no indiscriminate targeting over there, they will go after legitimate military target, some they will get wrong, but not for the want of trying.
Custor
C
Custor
Thats 3 reasons then?
I am for the war
44% is not majority last time I checked
44% is not majority last time I checked
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 5,415
There could be something like 40% for and 16% who don't know/care.
- Status