Topic: war in iraq

[Marcus Arillius]

thank u for proving how absolutely mindless the american public is. america is more worried about "american idol" than the serious situation at hand. 100% antiwar and u think saddam needs to be taken out?? how do u propose we do that, sit around with our thumbs up our asses all day like almost every country within the UN?? saddam is never going to cooperate, and yes, i think bush made the right decision about going to war. the u.s. has been patient for too long, and the UN is not patient, but rather full of crap, especially france. its sad that when other countries call for our help, the u.s. comes to the rescue, yet, when it is our turn, our time of "need", these countries turn their backs on us. by "need" i mean we don't need any physical help, but rather support by the whole world. everyone seems so urgent and quick to make the u.s. look like a terrorist, a hungry animal looking to gobble up anything, an imperialistic whore that's willing to take over the world. what we really are doing is liberating the iraqi people. almost every iraqi person has a family member that they lost to saddam. action needs to be taken, and the time is now.

We don't run the world.  Other countries don't have to support us.  The point of the U.N. is for the world to make decisions that affect the world together.  We are practically the ones who made the rules for it.  However, most of the countries' representatives voted against the war.  We should have went along with the voting results because we are part of the U.N. as well, and this is a global matter.  However, we basically said "screw you" to the U.N. and did what we wanted.  What is the point of the UN then?  Most of the Iraqi people don't want liberation.  I read an article that said most Iraqi's and other mid-eastern countries felt we deserved what happened to us on September 11 as well.  I don't think we did, however, I can see why they hate us.  The U.S. is a bully plain and simple, and by the U.S. I mean the government, especially George Bush, who is IMO the most aggressive president ever, and that's not a good thing.

[Marcus Arillius]

Quote
Originally posted by: BrianSLA
First of all I think Bush is an idiot / I hate him / think & know he is ruining the economy BUT that said I support the war. I always have. Saddam Hussein is a madman who needs to be taken out sooner or later. As it is now our troops will probably be gassed or biowar assaulted sometime in this campaign. BUT better now then latter when Saddam has even more weapons of mass destruction to hit us with. As for why I support the war: 1.) Saddam is a madman who is kills his people. 2.) Saddam is madman who will try to kill us sooner or later. 3.) The Iraqi people don't support Saddam. In Gulf War 1, EVEN his troops surrendered en masse in the hundreds of thousands. They don't even support Saddam.

I would be more worried about the U.S. being attacked with biological weapons right now than our troops.  No offense to them and I hope they all come back alive (sad but they won't).  Saddam most likely has the capability to do it.  His worth alone is over 5 billions dollars, that doesn't  include what is military is being funded with.  He most likely has weapons with the capability to hit the U.S., even if he couldn't build them, there are probaly of countries more than willing to seel them to him (heh hem, North Korea)



I know I'm triple posting, but I had to quote this

[thecubedcanuck]

The problem with people like the Dixie Chicks is that they take advantage of their position to try an push their opinion down the throats of people who are not listening to them for that reason. The Dixie Chicks are a country band. Then sing country music. Dont use the stage to push your uneducated beliefs. In this case they were clearly comments based on iggnorance instead of fact. I am sick and tired of celebrities trying to push thier beliefs on the public, especially when in most cases they dont practice what they preach (ie - the SUV crap from a month or two ago) . Go back to your mansion, enjoy your fantasy lifestyle, smile and shut the F up.
Saddam was never going to leave Iraq, he was never going to fully disarm, he would never fully comply with the UN. He, along with his 2 sons would simply continue to rule Iraq with an iron fist, terrorizing their own people all the while building and experimenting with god only knows what kind of weapons.
This had to be done, it is just unfortunate that so many other countries chose this time to play politics and feed their own agendas. One could hope that the US will take names and when that givin country comes crying with its hand out for help, the US will simply say we have nothing to give. However they wont, they will simply continue to be the worlds bandaid in times of crisis and its bank in times of need.
Cheers to the Americans who get it, and a tear for those who dont realize just how good they have it.

[pimpcube]

marcus and gamer donkey, i think u both missed my point. i never implied that the u.s. wasn't part of the union, nor did i say that the un was of no use. wat i was saying is exactly what every pro-war post in here has been arguing, which is they are doing the right thing, whether u like and the whole world likes it, or not.
the u.s. can be ruler of the world if it wanted to, but it won't. indeed at times it may seem that the u.s. is taking advantage of the power, but imagine any other country with this power. u can't tell me that france wouldn't take advantage of it. history proves that the people of the country are  bitchy and conceited, and they'd love to be in our position. also, in turn, the u.s. isn't exactly ignoring the un. i'm sure the president feels the sting of the un countries criticisms and lack of support just like eminem feels the comments made against him by critics and the people alike. however, u.s. motives are for the most part, clean and moral. i mean, the government isn't exactly an angel, and we might take something home with us, although .highly unlikely, as the whole world IS watching. and that's the part of it that hurts the position of the u.s. the world is, in fact, watching. no support. no troops. no supplies. just countries "wanting to fill their own agendas" as one other poster said.

another thing, thanks for leaving this open rick. voice ur opinion too!!! this thread got me posting again, and it is very helpful and educational. truthfully, i've been open-minded about the whole thing. but from what i've seen, and believe, war is the one and only solution. we would have avoided it if possible, but it wasn't.
in addition marcus, the iraqi people are really upset with saddam. he is killing off the people that may say one thing against him. he is a tyrant, a dictator, and the people can't, and won't, do anything about it out of fear. the whole country lives in fear, and the u.s. is the "hero".

[BrianSLA]

>> The UN <<

NOPE. The UN is really a joke. The majority of the nations that belong to it are not democracies. Who is head of the UN Human Rights committee ? L I B Y A.  Yes Libya is..... how? Because they have petrodollars to spend and spent them buying votes. As for the guy who talked about the League of Nations and WW1.... know your history the League was a massive failure. If anything President Bush is enforcing the true will of the UN even when the UN doesn't have the backbone to do what it must.

>> This could have been done peacefully <<

Thats the biggest joke of all. No it couldn't. People who believe this are really naive. You can not do ANYTHING short of war to get rid of dictators / tyrannts. Why ? Because as tyrannts they have complete control of their respective countries... unless you go in and fight them they NEVER leave. They have no reason to, you can't do anything to them. Put sanctions on them? It doesn't hurt Saddam... he still lives in luxury, it is just his people suffer. Embargo them? same thing. Take all his foreign money? It doesn't bother him he controls his country. There is absolutely nothing you can do to remove them BUT war. Iraq has been under HEAVY HEAVY sanctions for 12 years and Saddam is the same, it is only his people who suffer. He has just as many palaces, cars, etc.  He doesn't feel a thing, he just takes it away from his people.  

[BrianSLA]

>> This isn't about OIL <<

I am not going to go with some of my idealist posters..... BUT YES OIL does in fact play a part of why we are there. Don't fool yourselves, oil does play a part. I am not going to be a hypocrite about it but oil does play a part. Unlike some of the anti-war people though it is NOT the biggest factor. It just isn't. If oil was the big deal..... we'd own it all. There is no one who could stop us. We are the biggest military power in the world..... all those europowers / etc couldn't do a thing about it if we wanted. The biggest reason why we are at war is that Saddam is a threat / he is a evil madman.
As for oil yes it is part of the reason but EVERYONE needs to acknowledge it... oil is vital to our economy and the world's economy / the fuctioning of modern society , etc al. If you are against the war and say it is because of oil....... I hope you don't use any. I hope you grow your own food, ride a horse & buggy that eats your home grown food, you wear clothes you made from scratch from natural resources and your job and life doesn't have anything to do with the consumption of oil / gas or you are a big hypocrite. Oil is one of the most important resources to society. Without it you don't have food on your table, you can't get to your job, you wouldn't be writing on a computer or watching tv or basically anything. Oil is part of almost EVERYTHING. From the tractors in the field to harvest food, to the trucks who bring it to market, to you having a way to go to a job or school , to transport goods from factory to your home, everything.  IF oil / gasoline went to $10-100 a gallon tomorrow ..... your world is dead. There would be massive unemployment, mass starvation ( no trucks, no food, food is hyper expensive, etc. ), etc.
So don't just say it is just about oil. OIL IS YOUR LIFE.... most people are just too obtuse to realize and APPRECIATE the role of oil in the modern world. Oil is a vital resource. It isn't cabbage or lint.  It isn't disposable and considering anyone reading this is reading this on the internet ( in REAL world terms a luxury. Try living in Africa or in the majority of the world  ) ...... I am 1,000,000 % SURE oil is vital to your life.

[BrianSLA]

Marcus,

>> Bush using this to divert attention...... pass bills ..... Alaskan oil.... protected land <<

Nope. That bill got shot down in the REPUBLICAN controlled senate. Again I HATE Bush / think he is an idiot / he is ruining the economy but he isn't going to war to do anything BUT go to war. Saddam needs to go and I am glad is Bush is doing it.  

>>  The president is supposed to represent us, and meet the demands of the public, not the other way around! <<

The US is a representative deomcracy. We choose leaders to represent us, to do the work for us, to lead. The American people had a choice and BASED ON our system of electing Presidents ( the Electoral College ), the American " people " chose Bush. In reality it was Gore based on numbers but in our electoral system, if you take the majority of the state vote, you get the state. More people voted for Gore than Bush but Bush won more states. That said you blame all this on that MAJOR IDIOT RAPLH NADER.... you screwed up the election, acted as a spoiler that took away votes from Gore that cost him the election.

>> we are a member of the UN. As a matter of fact we helped organize it............. The point of the U.N. is for the world to make decisions that affect the world together .........  We should have went along with the voting results because we are part of the U.N. as well, and this is a global matter. However, we basically said "screw you" to the U.N. and did what we wanted. What is the point of the UN then?  <<

Marcus, you have rosy colored view of the world.  Yes the US basically created the UN. But the UN is NOT a world government. It is in reality, in poli sci terms, a NGO  ( Non- Govenmental Organization ). It is just an organization. It isn't govenrment, it isn't supposed to be. The US and all members of the UN and those outside of it do not give any of their sovereignty to it. It is an organization to help countries solve their problems / disputes and to TRY to make a better world. That is it. The majority of the UN's members are not democracies. It is just an organization and when it becomes USELESS or ineffective, then it has to chucked.

>> Most of the Iraqi people don't want liberation <<

You can't be serious. The majority of the Iraqi people are Shi'ite muslims. He has genocided out of existance the marsh arabs. He has gassed his own people. He won 99.99999 % of the vote in his elections and the few hundred stupid people who voted against him are all missing or six feet under. TENS OF THOUSANDS of Iraqi children have died since the Gulf War due to the sanctions and Saddam screwing them over.  

[pimpcube]

brian, u can put into words my thought/your thoughts/pro-war thoughts a lot more elaborately and completely than i can... thank u

[zekermit]

First off I would like to say that I believe we are doing the right thing and the only thing left to do. As I read all the post I noticed that the Majority were for going to war and those that weren't most didn't even give any reason. For those that did, they were either incorrect or ignorent. The United States has support from 35 countries, and we don't need france or germany they don't have crap. In respose to "BrianSLA" post although oil is a big part of our everyday lives it is hardly why we are going to war and countrys would not sell it for $10, let alone $100. We have plenty of oil in our country to last a long time. We don't need any other country, but it seems like the world wants us to help them out. Pimpcube I thought your post was great and I totally agree with you. The reason we haven't done anything until now is because we had an idiot, as a president for 8 years. President Bush has been doing a good job. Just think of the mess we would be in if al gore had been elected. All that the UN has been doing is giving more time to suddam. The US is nowhere close to be perfect and it does act like a bully sometimes. Most of the time we are like that because no one else will or can do what has to be done. As for the dixie chicks, they have there right to free speech, radio stations and any other business has the right to decide what they play or sell for any reason. I hate country music and I'm glad stations won't play there music. Just because you have a talent or money doesn't make your opinion more important than anyone else. We need support our troops, their lives are on the line to defend our freedom. GOD bless America!!!!!!  

[highenergyboy]

Quote
And a comment to Highenergyboy, may I remind you that we once supported Saddam Hussein. I believe in 1982 the quote was "the U.S. will do whatever is necessary and legal" to keep Iraq from losing a war with Iran.

All too true, and I am also well aware of the fact that we provided support to the Afgan freedom fighters and Bin Laden that would eventually give rise to both the Taliban and Al Qaida after the Russian war in Afganistan. I will not deny our country is no angel but neither is France, Germany, China and Russia.
Quite a coincidence isn't it considering these major countries opposing the war also happen to be the same ones who are known to conduct business with Saddam's regime? Of course they will oppose the war. When the regime is removed they will likely lose all their investments. Ironic isn't it that some of these investments involve oil when the anti-war protestors are using the laughable slogan "no blood for oil" to oppose this very war.
Did you know Iraq possesses the lowest oil yield compared to others like Venezuela and Saudi Arabia? OPEC has already stated they will make up any shortage in the supply that is lost due to the current war so the claims that this war is explicitly for oil are complete nonsense. You should blame the oil companies for gouging us especially in California where its the worst. They are creating artificial shortages resulting in high prices. Surprisingly oil prices have actually been falling despite this war going on.
The reason why the U.S. is trying to seize the oil fields is because they will be counted on to finance the reconstruction of Iraq. Every one of them that Saddam sets ablaze will only further hurt the recovery of Iraq. He did the same thing in Kuwait lighting 700 of theirs on fire during the occupation. Its only common sense to secure the fields early on to make sure this scenerio is not repeated.
This is why I disregard the anti-war movement as laughable. They don't take in the facts, cannot comprehend reality, and the only excuse they can manufacture to oppose this war is a very poor one. That and the moronic celebrities who think their opinions actually take precedence over those of our government. They will never have to worry about getting drafted so of course they can freely further their own twisted political agendas. I say cancel the Oscars, there are more important events taking place that demand our attention.
To sum this all up I see regimes like Saddam's as pure evil along with that of North Korea and terrorist factions like Al Qaida and Hamas (who are slaughtering innocent Israelis with their barbaric suicide bombings in the West Bank). The reality is good and evil cannot coexist. For peace ever to be truly possible evil must be completely destroyed and war sadly is and will remain the only way to accomplish this. Like it or not this is the bitter truth. Just because you may want peace doesn't mean others will automatically share this view.    
Lastly, I fully support our troops and appreciate the sacrifices they are making. I hope this war is brief and ends with the most minimal of casualties on both sides.


 

[deminisma]

Quote
Originally posted by: BrianSLA
>> The UN <<
The majority of the nations that belong to it are not democracies.

Yeah, right. What sorta crack are you smoking, buddy? That statement is plain incorrect. Check your facts, instead of making blind assumptions.

[Gamer Donkey]

Quote
The United States has support from 35 countries, and we don't need france or germany they don't have crap.

And we bribed most of them. Up to $30 BILLION dollars in grants and loans are being offered to countries for support of war. I understand reimbersing countries for damages, but should we really be spending that much to gain support from countries who oppose us while cutting $92 billion from Medicaid, $14 billion from veterans' programs(good way to support the troops), and $7 billion from farm programs. Also, off the war subject, remember that the administration is retaining $726 billion over ten years in tax cuts for those with incomes over $1 million dollars a year.

Quote
Quite a coincidence isn't it considering these major countries opposing the war also happen to be the same ones who are known to conduct business with Saddam's regime? Of course they will oppose the war. When the regime is removed they will likely lose all their investments.

How do you think we got Bulgeria? We promised to make sure Iraq pays their debts to Bulgeria after the war.

Quote
Marcus, you have rosy colored view of the world. Yes the US basically created the UN. But the UN is NOT a world government. It is in reality, in poli sci terms, a NGO ( Non- Govenmental Organization ). It is just an organization. It isn't govenrment, it isn't supposed to be. The US and all members of the UN and those outside of it do not give any of their sovereignty to it. It is an organization to help countries solve their problems / disputes and to TRY to make a better world. That is it. The majority of the UN's members are not democracies. It is just an organization and when it becomes USELESS or ineffective, then it has to chucked.

As we are part of this organization, I believe we should at least consider the descisions that are reached by it. Instead we simply dismissed it saying they preferred inaction.

Lets say Germany wanted to invade Pakistan because their military was getting too powerful or something. If it was vetoed by the members of the UN and Germany attacked anyway, how do you think we would act? Would we just say, "Oh well, the UN is useless and ineffective anyway."

My poit is just because the UN disagreed with our course of action, doesn't mean its useless. We may never know for sure the reasons that some countries oppose the war, but we do know there were enough of them to veto our resolution for war. In my mind I think if we expect others to obey the UN's decisions, isn't it a little hypocritical for us not to?

I'm sorry my ramblings went on so long.

Edited for single spelling mistake.
 

[sequoia]

Im am putting 100% of my surport to bush and the war. I know that some thing is evil and sick when some one bombs there own people, the people who make up the the government that they govern.. when saddam and osama are taken care of, I hope that we have made a point and will make jim kong think again about attacking the U.S.

[BiLdItUp1]

Quote
My poit is just because the UN disagreed with our course of action, doesn't mean its useless

Any body that has Syria on the damned SECURITY COUNCIL  is truly misguided. Any body that condemns Israel almost daily for almost everything, the only recognized democracy in the Middle East(save Kurdistan and Turkey) yet looks away while a madman relishes his power should not deserve to exist.

Quote
Most of the Iraqi people don't want liberation

Then exactly why were they reveling when American troops liberated yet another village, relishing while they gleefully tore down posters of their hated leader?

Saddam Hussein has committed crimes against humanity. Routeenly(sp?), people are led out and given acid baths.  Worse still are the pipe-rooms, which drip acid from the ceiling that a person must avoid, lest he/she burn. Then there are the gases and all. Only a handful of years ago, he had enough anthrax to kill every person on earth FOUR TIMES OVER!

Is the world supposed to stand by and do nothing as it did in the past with Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin and that Chinese guy(name escapes me at the moment)? Are we to appease such a person, as we have so foolishly done in the past?

The world is letting their egos get the best of them. Because the US is the only remaining superpower, the rest of the world feels it must be the counter-balance. While I could see where they're coming from, it is sad to see that they are letting this issue blind them. There is no reason not to support a just cause such as this one.  It is equally sad that countries must be bribed in order to 'understand' us.

When all this is over, all you naysayers will be forever thankful that we got rid of a tyrant the only way possible.

EDIT: Yeah, and now some of you people are gonna say, yeah, that last sentence was a showcase of American arrogance.(got rid) If any of you believe that he stands a chance, check yourself into a mental asylum or something....

[ThePerm]

tyhere was that whole ultimatum thing. If he really cared for his people he would have surrendered before anything happened. He also said he didnt have any more weopons of mass distruction and what he do just the other day he shot scud missles at kuwait. We're there now. We started it. We must finish it. Look at Afganistan. Democracy. Ill say no one complained when we were trying to get rid of communism, everyone was all for it...up until too many people died. This is essentially the same thing. And if you don't think bush will help the economy imagine how much the price of gas is about to drop.  This i guess for politicians is partly about oil. However we need not have such brutal dictators in the world. Heck, Bush even said he wouldnt mind if Saddam accepted exile, however since the deadline was failed...well you know how it goes.

[pimpcube]

Bilditup, i think u r referring to mao zedong.

[Marcus Arillius]

Quote
Originally posted by: BrianSLA
Marcus,

>> Bush using this to divert attention...... pass bills ..... Alaskan oil.... protected land <<

Nope. That bill got shot down in the REPUBLICAN controlled senate. Again I HATE Bush / think he is an idiot / he is ruining the economy but he isn't going to war to do anything BUT go to war. Saddam needs to go and I am glad is Bush is doing it.  

>>  The president is supposed to represent us, and meet the demands of the public, not the other way around! <<

The US is a representative deomcracy. We choose leaders to represent us, to do the work for us, to lead. The American people had a choice and BASED ON our system of electing Presidents ( the Electoral College ), the American " people " chose Bush. In reality it was Gore based on numbers but in our electoral system, if you take the majority of the state vote, you get the state. More people voted for Gore than Bush but Bush won more states. That said you blame all this on that MAJOR IDIOT RAPLH NADER.... you screwed up the election, acted as a spoiler that took away votes from Gore that cost him the election.

>> we are a member of the UN. As a matter of fact we helped organize it............. The point of the U.N. is for the world to make decisions that affect the world together .........  We should have went along with the voting results because we are part of the U.N. as well, and this is a global matter. However, we basically said "screw you" to the U.N. and did what we wanted. What is the point of the UN then?  <<

Marcus, you have rosy colored view of the world.  Yes the US basically created the UN. But the UN is NOT a world government. It is in reality, in poli sci terms, a NGO  ( Non- Govenmental Organization ). It is just an organization. It isn't govenrment, it isn't supposed to be. The US and all members of the UN and those outside of it do not give any of their sovereignty to it. It is an organization to help countries solve their problems / disputes and to TRY to make a better world. That is it. The majority of the UN's members are not democracies. It is just an organization and when it becomes USELESS or ineffective, then it has to chucked.

>> Most of the Iraqi people don't want liberation <<

You can't be serious. The majority of the Iraqi people are Shi'ite muslims. He has genocided out of existance the marsh arabs. He has gassed his own people. He won 99.99999 % of the vote in his elections and the few hundred stupid people who voted against him are all missing or six feet under. TENS OF THOUSANDS of Iraqi children have died since the Gulf War due to the sanctions and Saddam screwing them over.

I am very well aware that the bill was not passed, however, the point is that is was put up for vote in the first place.  The war (and the economy) is being used an excuse to destroy the environment by loosening restrictions on pollution producing companies, and drilling for oil and what not.

I am also very well aware of how our representative democracy operates.  You, however, are taking my comments out of context.  People shouldn't blindly follow the President in whatever decisions he makes.  Although we chose people to represent us it doesn't mean they always do.  That is where the First Amendment comes in, allowing us the right to free speech, and the right to protest, which people should take full advantage of.  

I never once said the UN was a government, ( You quoted me, you should know)  however, there are governmental processes that take place within the UN.   All countries in the UN have an ethical obligation to follow the voting process that is involved when making their decisions.  Now an ethical obligation is not a legal obligation so it doesn't mean they have to follow what is voted, but if they didn't then there really isn't a point in having a "Non-governmental Organization" such as the UN in the first place.

And most Iraqis don't want liberation.  Read up a bit.

[SuperCube]

Quote
I'm very vehement, but that doesn't mean I don't respect other people. Yes, I think the public is being lied to and mislead, but that doesn't mean I have any enmity towards such people. I know my post will be offensive to many, but that's just the way it goes. I'm sure this is why this kind of topic is off limits.

Can you say Pentagon Papers? The time when most of our most powerful government officials and presidents lied to all of its citizens about what was happening in Vietnam and what the chances were of us "winning"? This did include President Truman and Kennedy.

1.) Young men got drafted and sent to a farwaway country that they don't even know much about. They wer being drafted to die basically
2.) Again, the government lied to us about the chances of us "winning". The chances were extremely low and they kept saying we were doing well in battle so they could do well in elections and campaigns. Also so that they would keep rolling in the money from sponsors so that they could be re-elected.

It was all for the publicity and the money. If my own American government, which is supposed to be for the land of the free and lied to our people, why should I believe anything that they say now? Please tell me.

Now, I noticed somebody mentioning that Suddam was hiding his weapons. Let me ask you all something. If you were dictator of a semi-powerful country wouldn't you want to keep your government secrets...secret? I know I would want to keep them away from the world. I can't blame him for wanting to hide some of his precious so called "weapons of mass-destruction". Can you?

Once again on the oil topic, this is a clear stated fact on CBS's Sunday morning about 1 month ago. Iraq produced about 3.1 (30?) million barrels of oil each day. They have about over 120 BILLION barrels in their reserves. That is a lot of freaking oil. Now, Bush has been an oil freak ever since I heard about him, and with all of this oil in reserves, he probably thinks that it "might" save our economy from dropping even more. Don't say that this is an ignorant thought because it isn't. Thinking that attacking Iraq is for terrorist purposes (in a good way) may not be true. Attacking Iraq for world peace might not be true. The reasona are numerous. Please inform me where you got that information if you do think it's for anti-terrorist purposes or some other reason. I'd be willing to look at it if you show me.

One more thing. I doubt I'll be posting on this topic anymore, because political threads just lead to more and more fighting and useless bickering that isn't nessacary. I just don't enjoy posting on threads like those. Please keep this topic going and don't insult.
It just makes more and more people angry.  

[mouse_clicker]

"And most Iraqis don't want liberation. Read up a bit."

Seriosuly, where are you getting that information? Last I checked civilians don't welcome US troops, defile posters of their "esteemed" leader, and surrender by the thousands if they didn't want to be liberated. Next you'll be telling me the people of Iraq *voluntarily* elected Hussein as their dicatator.

And get off the oil thing, people- YES politicians probably do want some oil out of Iraq. I'd personally like to see the US move towards alternative forms of energy, but that's what their doing. But you have to realise that the *opponents* of this war- Russia, Germany, and France- ALL have huge oil deals with none other than Hussein himself. so who's really fighting for oil? I'll admit that oil should not be the focus of this war, and so far it hasn't, it's only been an underlying desire that everybody knows about. Then again, knowing my fellow Americans, they'd rather bomb the $%# out of a country than have higher gas prices which are actually some of the lowest in the world.

Also, interesting little note- it was rather recently unveiled that certain people high up in Russia's government were giving Iraq weapons over the last year, including radar scramblers and anti-tank missiles, and are even now teaching the Iraqis how to use these devices. The US has known about this and has supplied the Russian goverment with all the necessary details of these people and urged them to get arrest these people. Russia has done diddly squat to stop these people, and now it looks like more Americans and British will die because of it.

"It was all for the publicity and the money. If my own American government, which is supposed to be for the land of the free and lied to our people, why should I believe anything that they say now? Please tell me."

Because that was 30 years ago! A lot of things change in 30 years, namely administrations/presidents. LBJ and Nixon are long gone. I'm not saying Bush is an angel, but I think we have more to trust in him than we did back then, especially seeing as that was a largely political war while this is for the defense of our own people. During Vietnam it was very *politically* advantageous of the US to lie about how the war was going- I'm not saying it was right by any stretch of the word, but you HAVE to agree that had a lot more to gain from lying about Vietnam than lying about Iraq. Do you really think Iraq is winning the war right now? I think the simple fact that the US has embedded journalists in Iraq shows that they aren't lying.

"Now, I noticed somebody mentioning that Suddam was hiding his weapons. Let me ask you all something. If you were dictator of a semi-powerful country wouldn't you want to keep your government secrets...secret? I know I would want to keep them away from the world. I can't blame him for wanting to hide some of his precious so called "weapons of mass-destruction". Can you?"

Well of course, but if the United Nations were on your back for the better part of a decade, don't you think you'd divulge those secrets, too? Don't even TRY to justify what Hussein has done- this guy kills his own people so he can have more palaces. He's INSANE. He has absolutely no use for weapons of mass destruction OR chemical weapons- no country does, not even the US. So why is he so vehemently guarding them?



What really surprises me is that some Americans are so selfish they'd rather we leave Iraq alone than help their people- what ever happened to our American compassion? Some might say it was never even there. I'd personally rather see Saddam Hussein and his regime taken down rather than have him supply nukes or chemical weapons to a terrorist and have another repeat of 9-11. Just my thoughts personally.

And who cares if the US doesn't have the majority of the UN's support? Most Arab nations are under the impression we intend of destroying the Islamic religion and replace it with Christianity, which couldn't be farther from the truth. Remember Kosovo? The UN didn't officially do anything ebcause Russia kept threatening a veto. The US came in and ended much of the ethnic cleansing in that area. When asked who they should thank for the end of it, most of the people in that area responded "Not the UN". We shouldn't let "UN officialness" stop us from eliminating a threat to our nation and people.

[ThePerm]

also essentially the ba'ath party is essentially athiestic, in reality to muslims saddam is an infedel. He's only associating with islamic extremist because thier also arab and they oppose u.s. Its morepolitical then anything.

so you see the real reason were targeting him is because he's a jackass.

also people bring up the idea "why didnt we finish the job 12 years ago? when we were at war?"
because clinton got elected and had 8 years in office. The tides of power was handed off and the agenda was different. The person who started it never got to finish it. Politically, you can't accheive such a thing in just 4 years. It seems as though Junior's finishing daddy's unfinished buisiness.

[SuperCube]

Quote
Well of course, but if the United Nations were on your back for the better part of a decade, don't you think you'd divulge those secrets, too? Don't even TRY to justify what Hussein has done- this guy kills his own people so he can have more palaces. He's INSANE. He has absolutely no use for weapons of mass destruction OR chemical weapons- no country does, not even the US. So why is he so vehemently guarding them?

Then why does Russia still have weapons of such type? Why do we? How about we get rid of our own and go on an expedition to Russia with freaking UN inspectars to destroy THIER MISSI3S!!!11ds omg

That comment of yours is partially hypocritical, because if we have no intention of destroying Russia's nukes, why are we so eager to get rid of Iraqs? Should we actually ph33r Iraq? I seriously doubt we should.

One more thing. I'm still not going to believe any higher-up government officials until they can litteraly PROVE to me that they have changed. A lot CAN'T change in 30 years. Did you know that?

And another thing too (this is for your benefit). Proofread your posts.  

[mouse_clicker]

"Then why does Russia still have weapons of such type? Why do we? How about we get rid of our own and go on an expedition to Russia with freaking UN inspectars to destroy THIER MISSI3S!!!11ds omg"

Because Russia's obviously not going to USE their nukes to bomb the United States, and vice versa. Iraq IS going to, if they ever get a chance. The United States and Russia both agreed at the end of the Cold War to dismantle the large majority of our nuclear weapons, and both of us HAVE. We have no intention of using ours, so no nation should be in fear of that possibility. If we did have that intention, believe me, this war with Iraq would've lasted one day.

"That comment of yours is partially hypocritical, because if we have no intention of destroying Russia's nukes, why are we so eager to get rid of Iraq’s? Should we actually ph33r Iraq? I seriously doubt we should."

Have you read anything I've said? Hussein is CRAZY. Would you trust weapons of mass destruction to a man that willingly kills people for little more than amusement? And don't give me any crap about how you don't think Bush is competent, as much as you'd like to cut him down.

"One more thing. I'm still not going to believe any higher-up government officials until they can literally PROVE to me that they have changed. A lot CAN'T change in 30 years. Did you know that?"

I'm starting to think you skimmed my post rather than actually read it- like I said before, I think the simple fact that the United States government has embedded journalists IN Iraq with the American and British troops is proof enough that they have nothing to hide as far as this war specifically goes. News organizations can and will report on anything they want. Besides, Iraq's military was decimated after Desert Storm. There's honestly not much to fear from them nukes and chemical weapons aside. Also, if you SEARCH for ulterior motives in everything the US does, you'll find them, exactly where you want to. I'm not saying you should believe 100% everything our government tells us, but calling everything lies is just stupid.

"And another thing too (this is for your benefit). Proofread your posts."

I'll make a note of that for future posts, but honestly spelling mistakes shouldn't matter as there has been no proven correlation between spelling and intelligence. Some guy who spells perfectly could be as dumb as a rock and some guy who has atrocious spelling could be the next Einstein- please don't dismiss my posts just because you see I've misspelled some words. If you want the truth, I chicken peck at close to 120 wpm and when doing so I often hit keys out of order or pull a fat finger and hit two keys at once. I'll look over my future posts, but like I said, don't ignore someone simply because they couldn’t pass a national spelling bee.

By the way, from the first paragraph of yours I quoted:

"How about we get rid of our own and go on an expedition to Russia with freaking UN inspectars to destroy THIER MISSI3S!!!11ds omg"

If I were you, I'd make sure my own spelling was perfect before critiquing others on it. I don't think of you any less because of it, especially since it was only one word compared to my many, but be careful when you're calling other hypocrites to make sure you're not one yourself.

[manunited4eva22]

If you really care
1) I think people who turn their back to the flag don't know what they are doing

2) The protests accomplish nothing

3) France wanted to gain power, Protesting war was just the means to gain it

4) Turkey is playing chicken with the US

5) NATO is outdated

6) The UN is outdated

7) The Dixie Chicks got the other end of free speech, public backlass (see O' Connor)

The US is not an imperialism

9) Bush knows more about foreign policy than the arm chair quarterbacks

10) People who breaking laws that have no bias (traffic laws) are incapable of deciding what is against the law

Edit: So there is some intellingent conversation in here I stand corrected.

About the lack of democracies in the UN. If there is not a majority, there are a whole lot that are not. Look at the continents that have/had one up until the last few years.

South America: Argentina, Columbia, Peru
Africa: Too many to list
Europe: Former soviet republics
Western Asia: Practically all nations (turkey and israel are no better for their oppression)
Eastern asia: North Korea, Laos, Myanamar, Indonisia for oppression
North America: Cuba, Haiti

There still is a whole lot of groups in the UN who love to see other groups oppressed, there is no way to deny there isn't.

[ThePerm]

in the american revolutionary war we forced a british genral to surrender with the help of france. 200 years later were helping iraq. Maybe
200 years from now they'll be freeing someone else.

[Matt]

This war is needed to make the word safe from the evils of Saddam Hussein.  That's why we need the war, that's why its happening.

Liberating the Iraqi people, while good and important, is secondary.