Do you think we should have went to war with Iraq?

Do you think we should of went to war with Iraq?

  • Yes

    Votes: 8 17.4%
  • No

    Votes: 38 82.6%

  • Total voters
    46

geancanach

New Member
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Re: Do you think we should of went to war with Iraq?

Hanbit said:
1. They did use cell phones but they did use the Airphones too.

2. That only shows the tower falling. Not when it actually hit.

3. You never know when a building could collapse or not. Like the Titanic.

5. So... I didnt see a huge fireball from the plane in WTC I only saw flames like what happened in the pentagon. American 11 did NOT hit the WTC. It was founded on radar after the South Tower was hit.

7. Dunno

8. Still doesnt prove anything. Bodies can be vaporized.
1) but using cell phones from those elevations at those speeds sucessfully is physically impossible. the steel body of the plane would act as a faraday cage, effectively dampening the signal; what little did get through would be lost to the cascading/hand-off effect. that's why, in 2005, american airlines put a cell station in one of their jets. Thus, the official report is lying.

2) yes, that is how you measure the speed at which an object falls, from the beginning of its fall-time to the end of its fall-time. both towers collapsed with near free-fall speed (approx. 10 seconds) whereas if they were to pancake collapse as the official report claims, it would have been between 95 - 100 seconds. the only way to bring down a tower at thaose speeds is with controlled demoloitions working from the base support. again, the official report is lying.

3) No examination documented has pointed out a structural flaw in the WTC. They were, in fact, designed with plane crashes in mind and to withstand them. also, the steel used was tested to be able to withstand much higher temperatures than those possible with jet fuel, and for much longer durations. again, we have the oficial report lying.

5) the damage is completely inconsistant with a 757, not to mention that the Bureau of Transportation Statistics shows that American Airlines Flight 77 never even left the airport; yet the official report claims it was that very plane that struck the pentagon. surely they would have, during their investigation discovered it didnt, yet they manage to release a list of victims on the plane? again, they are clearly lying.

7) apparently we both agree they are lying here.

8) like the black boxes that msteriously 'vaporized', jet fuel just doesnt quite the heat energy for such a task. every airline crash over land has turned up bodies except for United Airlines Flight 93. Yet, even with these 'vaporized' bodies, the federal government was able to identify most of them from DNA results (but you need at least something of a body to test the DNA of). Again, they are lying.

A few other points where the US government is lying:
they claim that American Airlines Flight 11 crashed into the WTC north tower.
American Airlines Flight 11 never left the airport on Sept. 11, 2001 (see the screenshot posted earlier)

George W. Bush, when asked how he felt when he learned of what happened at the WTC claims that he first heard about it in the classroom where he was promoting a reading program to kids and he saw the first plane strike on the TV.
The first plane strike wasn't aired on TV until Sept. 12

The 9-11 Commision names the 19 'terrorists'.
Since, the BBC has found 9 of them alive, the FBI has stated that the identity of several were in question, their names we're on the passenger lists, they arent mentioned in the autopsy reports nor is their absence mentioned.

The federal government releases a 'confession video' in which allegedly Osama Bin Laden claims responsibility for the attack.
the person in the video does not resemble Bin Laden in appearence, and is clearly right-handed; whereas Bin Laden is left-handed
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm

The only logical reason for the US government to present and maintain these lies is to cover up the truly responsible party. The only logically responsible party is the US government itself.
 

Hanbit

New Member
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Re: Do you think we should of went to war with Iraq?

First... you repeated everything again.
 

geancanach

New Member
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Re: Do you think we should of went to war with Iraq?

Hanbit said:
First... you repeated everything again.
of course, the lies the gov't is trying to tell hanvent changed, the science and facts shows it.
what you should be asking now is, am i right about why they're lying? if i'm wrong about why, then what is their reason?
 

Hanbit

New Member
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Re: Do you think we should of went to war with Iraq?

How should we know. We don't got evidence enough to prove it.
 

waster

New Member
Messages
398
Reaction score
0
Points
0
still no war with iran!!!

or you love to kill somebody :p

love ppl is better than kill them

p.s: i voted for NO!
 

geancanach

New Member
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Since it looks like i won't be seeing any more retaliations on this, i would like to close out with a quote from Benjamin Franklin.
"Any society that surrenders a little bit of liberty for a little bit of security deserves neither and will lose both"
 

benjamin

New Member
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Points
0
well, it is one less dictator out of the way so we can usher in the new world order - a one world government.
 

tll229

New Member
Messages
28
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I believe with my heart that i wish we didn't go to iraq and it should never should of happened and by the looks of this war i reckon by the RAF stats its going to carry on for atleast 30years easly if out of luck it may be cut down in time and prevent more man-slaughter.
 

speakout

New Member
Messages
32
Reaction score
0
Points
0
In my opinion war is not the solution to all problems. The first thing the president did after the 9/11 attacks was to blame it to someone, and innocent people have to pay for something they were not aware of. I'm a big fan of the revolutions with a cause. Che is one of the figures that I admire the most, but this has to be with a good cause, not just for the heck of it.
 

geancanach

New Member
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
Points
0
are you trying to say a single world government is a good idea?
benjamin said:
well, it is one less dictator out of the way so we can usher in the new world order - a one world government.
 

Kay

New Member
Messages
804
Reaction score
0
Points
0
well I am surpised that this topic is still up and running - well all your views are counted - 25people think we shouldn't of gone to war, thats alot.
 

cetutnx1

New Member
Messages
510
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I particularly think that war is not the best solution to the problems...

Besides the US and company make a lot mistakes and disaster(?), so i don't thik that THIS war was as US present it in defense of the world...
 

Bodifar

New Member
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I voted no, because I think you shouldn't go to war, simply because you do not support a government. Hell, the US of A is a far greater thread than anybody else, in matters of politics, economics, religion and warfare. What a world would we be living in if the only governments still in business are the ones they support?
 

Ferinos

New Member
Messages
69
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Speaking for the British, I do not believe we should have gone to war, although I cannot comment from the American's perspective, so what I say here is my own opinions for the British alone.

Britain in my mind, followed America, basically George Bush into Iraq, rather Tony Blair did, ignoring one of the largest protests in Britain to do so.
We should not be out there, because in my mind, it has caused us more problems going out there, than it would have done by leaving well enough alone.
I cannot quote the exact figure, but I believe 120+ soldiers from the British armed forces alone have been 'killed in the line of duty' while serving in Iraq.

Our troops are using sub-standard equipment, our boots are melting in the heat, our rifles that fire loads of rounds a minute are often allowing us to fire a single bullet a minute before jamming.

Tony Blair wants to be remembered for a great leader, so he followed Bush to Iraq. Tony Blair will never be remembered as great, merely as a warmonger. He takes soldiers to war, like some fantasy battle-game, gives them equipment that fails, gives them a lack of equipment, and at least twice, soldiers being forced to share their military equipment has led to fatalities.

Unfortunately, to my mind, we cannot pull out now, for we would suffer huge amounts of terrorism in Britain. Tony Blair doesn't seem to realise, in his little war game, he is not playing with lead soldiers, he is gambling with men, and women's lives, of varying ages. It will never sink into him, and he is a warmonger, a fool, and a murderer, directly or indirectly.

PLEASE NOTE;;
I like a lot of Americans, my opinions of Bush are not of the American people, I do not have a hatred of the Americans, I do not have a dislike of them, and anyone that says they deserved the deaths in war, which I have seen posted on forums, is a disgrace to their country.
A lot of messages I have seen recently on a 9/11 video had comment posted, largely by british I hate to add, saying America deserved it.

I am ashamed to be a part of a nationality that can say that, and not have a guilty conscience, or have a pang of regret. We are brainwashed in Britain, into thinking Bush is bad, America is bad so ALL AMERICANS EVERY ARE BAD. No! This is not the case, and I shall argue at gunpoint that this is not the case if it ever came to it.

I hope I have not offended anyone, and please remember these are my personal views and mine alone. For 9/11, I have to say I am truly gobstruck, for nothing can be said to describe the events of that day.

Thanks for reading, and if this has offended you, please PM me, and I shall remove my comment.
 
Last edited:

Rufio1

New Member
Messages
154
Reaction score
0
Points
0
well that all depends on who you ask. If anyone remembers the real reason we went to Iraq was not to capture Saddam or "free" Iraq, but it was to "Look" for "Weapons of Mass Destruction", and did we find any? NOO. Bush jr. was trying to be a little daddy's boy and avenge his father's attemped murder, by the and only Saddam. So to say that it was because of oil, your only looking at an after thought. I mean look at gas prices now (at here in California), gas a near double since we started the war. If we went in for oil, its sure not getting to us.

All in all the war was a waste of time, money and resources
 

soten355

New Member
Messages
278
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I do not believe that we should have gone to war. If we didn't go to war, then we would be better off economy wise and military wise.
 

ZeptOr

New Member
Messages
442
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I say no, but I don't follow the reasons behind the war that much
 

geancanach

New Member
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
Points
0
well that all depends on who you ask. If anyone remembers the real reason we went to Iraq was not to capture Saddam or "free" Iraq, but it was to "Look" for "Weapons of Mass Destruction", and did we find any? NOO. Bush jr. was trying to be a little daddy's boy and avenge his father's attemped murder, by the and only Saddam. So to say that it was because of oil, your only looking at an after thought. I mean look at gas prices now (at here in California), gas a near double since we started the war. If we went in for oil, its sure not getting to us.

All in all the war was a waste of time, money and resources

then again, it seems like every time Bush was questioned about the reason for being in Iraq, he had a different answer. including such idiocoes as because god told him to do it. (of course, anyone else claiming to get instructions from invisible guys in te sky usually end up in a loony bin)
 
Top