WMD...Terrorism...Make me laugh!

If there was no oil reserve in Iraq, the United States would never go there...even if the iraqi people were tortured each days!

Come on...you can go to war but at least, be honest and tell the world (and your own people) the real reason of it.

(and as for the chemical goes, who do you think is having the largest reserve of chemical weapon in the world?)

Max

Babar, is the link to the two photos of wartime casualties supposed to open our eyes to the realities of war? If so, here's a link for you. http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html

Babar, most of those news accounts you've pointed out sound very well-thought out and rational, but only to the most extreme hard-core "peace" activist.

Just because most true news outlets don't show the massacre that you all want, doesn't mean it exists. There will be civilian casualties--hopefully not on a large scale though.

I understand that it's interesting and a good way to meet some fine college girls being in the anti-war movement and all, but I don't think you'll find many college girls hanging out on this web site.

It really seems to me that all of the energy of the anti-war movement could really be better spent cleaning up the environment and helping the poor or something. It does look like a fun party though. If I weren't married then I'd be out there hitting on some of those nice looking women I see picketing some corners here near Emory University in Atlanta. Just yesterday I saw a really damned good looking one waving her fist and shouting at all the cars that drove by.

Anyway, have fun, enjoy the big "peace" party. It'll be something you can tell your kids about some day. And hopefully some day you'll have your eyes opened.

>some people will never be convinced, and its pointless to argue with them. they say "so what" to the scuds they are using their not suppose to have.

Are scuds WOMD? If they have absolutely no chance of hitting the US why should we care if he has them? hint: they can hit Israel with them.

Where's the chemical weapons? Where's the nukes? Where are all the Iraqi terrorists that were supposed to be in the US to attack us? Bush lied to you and you will probably never be convinced that he did.

> theres no hope in getting support from them. they are the same people that cry about UN resolution but overlook the fact iraq broke it a long time ago, and breached it several more times since then, but that doesnt matter to them.

It doesn't matter to you that the country that has the most UN violations is Israel and they have been defying resolution 242 for a few decades. You overlook that fact and support bombing Saddam because the US lied and said he has WOMD when in fact he doesn't. Don't believe me? Would you believe one of the UN weapons inspectors that was actually in Iraq? http://www.aftenposten.no/english/world/article.jhtml?articleID=511811

It also seems like Bush's continuing his father's doings in a sense.

I would actually look at it more as a son correcting his father's mistake. He's basically saying that his father was wrong in not pursuing the 1991 war to a true conclusion. Bush Sr. told the Iraqis to rise up against Sadaam, and those who did were basically left to fend for themselves when Bush Sr. didn't continue the assault on Iraq. That's when so many of them were killed. It followed the old US policy of encouraging people to revolt, and then leaving them out to dry with no further support.

I think Bush W is doing it right this time (so far).

>Not only has he taken time to pick non-civilian targets out (Unlike the first Gulf War) and hit them with precision,

Not exactly true: http://english.pravda.ru/world/2003/03/22/44827.html

>We WILL leave the Iraqi people better then what they were before we came. And frankly, that is all that matters to me.

Yeah, I'm sure these 2 are much better off http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/03/1586174.php

Hi folks, not much of a regular poster here, but here's a link to an interesting article that might clear up why US doesn't have the support it could get from the international community. It raises very valid points; hope you get to read it.

The link is: http://www.msnbc.com/news/885222.asp

I second Greenish's suggestion that people (on either side of this issue) read the article he linked to. It's a little taxing on those with video game induced attention-span deficits (myself included) but it does contain some excellent information.

some people will never be convinced, and its pointless to argue with them. they say "so what" to the scuds they are using their not suppose to have. theres no hope in getting support from them. they are the same people that cry about UN resolution but overlook the fact iraq broke it a long time ago, and breached it several more times since then, but that doesnt matter to them.


This comment was edited on Mar 22, 12:37.

IMO there was still one more round of negotiations that could've taken place at the UN instead of restorting to war.

America thought so too and was prepared to introduce new resolutions to the United Nations. However, France made clear that it would veto any new resolutions even prior to hearing them. So much for diplomacy.

It would've been better to get a full international support...

Agreed.

...because with the behavior shown by US and allies they're weakening a regulatory peacekeeping institution like the UN.

How about the behavior of those countries that helped pass the original U.N. resolutions? These were resolutions that made provisions for using force against Iraq yet these same countries now choose to ignore those resolutions.

What prevents any other country, let's take for example North Korea, from disregarding the UN

Nothing, as it's the effectiveness of the U.N. that is in question. It is the U.N. that is incapable of following through on the promises that were made over 4 months ago in resolution 1441.

What will happen if they don't find these WOMD in Iraq?

The opposite question can just as easily be asked. What will happen if and when WOMD are found in Iraq? Only time will answer that question and it will be very interesting to learn the answer.

Don't you think that there should be a more international consensus (UN) when a country's sovereignity (sp?) is to be breached (in this case Iraq's)?

Again, I agree with you on this point. There should be an international consensus. The lack of one is not neccessarily an indication, however, that we are doing the wrong thing. The majority is not always right.

What would you do if it's your country?

Well, if my country was Iraq, I would welcome the regime change. As the article you linked to pointed out, Saddam "gassed 60,000 of his own people" and has sacrificed "nearly a million Iraqis", "killing or wounding more than a million Iranians" and "flouted 16 United Nations resolutions over 12 years". I believe time will prove we are doing the right thing and the proof will come from the Iraqi people themselves.

I do believe though that US intentions are not those of "liberating" Iraq, but rather oil reserves, restart their economy, increase their influence in the Middle East, etc

You are free to believe that just as I am free to believe we are simply doing what is right. I believe the majority of the people of Iraq feel what we are doing is right. They are not provided the same freedoms as you and I that allows them to speak out against their government.

It also seems like Bush's continuing his father's doings in a sense.

Why should anyone be surprised that George Bush shares the same view regarding Iraq as his father? Just rember, the American public put Bush Jr into office and I'm quite sure they were aware of similarities beween father and son. Saddam's son Uday is generally regarded as being next in line to rule Iraq and you can be sure that it is not the will of the Iraqi people that would put him there. Now, do you honestly believe that there would be a significant difference in the political views between Saddam and Uday? The difference is that Uday would become president because that is what Saddam wants. George Bush became president because that is what the American people wanted.

Hi folks, not much of a regular poster here, but here's a link to an interesting article that might clear up why US doesn't have the support it could get from the international community. It raises very valid points; hope you get to read it.

The link is: http://www.msnbc.com/news/885222.asp

IMO there was still one more round of negotiations that could've taken place at the UN instead of restorting to war. Seems that the decisíon to attack Iraq right now was a bit rushed, probably by the simplest of causes: the weather, (that i think was an issue brought up early in the thread). Hopefully they will find these WOMD, and even then, i don't believe it's a good reason to attack considering not all the pacific instances had been exhausted. It would've been better to get a full international support, because with the behavior shown by US and allies they're weakening a regulatory peacekeeping institution like the UN.
Here are a few questions to fuel the debate, hopefully it can take place with everybody being rational:

What prevents any other country, let's take for example North Korea, from disregarding the UN if the US or UK have already done so by attacking Iraq without UN sanction?
What will happen if they don't find these WOMD in Iraq?
Don't you think that there should be a more international consensus (UN) when a country's sovereignity (sp?) is to be breached (in this case Iraq's)? What would you do if it's your country?

I have no doubt that Saddam is a dictator that has no respect for his people or country. I do believe though that US intentions are not those of "liberating" Iraq, but rather oil reserves, restart their economy, increase their influence in the Middle East, etc.

It also seems like Bush's continuing his father's doings in a sense.

Cheers,

Greenish

First of all, I would like you to take into account that I *was* one of those against this war, though recent events in the news have turned my head around, so to speak.

Secondly, I'd like to say that those protesters in San Francisco and Chicago should be ashamed of themselves. Not only did they start fights and pull people out of their cars, but they also kept the local cops busy when these same cops should have been patrolling the sensitive "Terrorist targets" that are in those two cities. Imagine if someone snuck into the Sears tower with a bomb strapped to his chest and exploded it in a crowded lobby? Imagine if the cops stationed outside left their post to quell a Protester riot?

I'd like to say that Although I think a peaceful avenue could have been found, Bush has impressed me with the way he has handled this. Not only has he taken time to pick non-civilian targets out (Unlike the first Gulf War) and hit them with precision, but he has already set aside 66 million pounds of wheat in our reserves to feed the Iraqis when we liberate them. Not only that, but he has honestly tried to get Iraq's leaders to surrender, and word is on CNN right now that such a surrender might very well happen.

I expected Bush to make a run for the oil fields, overtake them, bomb every square inch of Baghdad and leave it a smoldering ruin. However, much to my surprise, he has done the total opposite.

So, I'd just like to tell babar this:

We WILL leave the Iraqi people better then what they were before we came. And frankly, that is all that matters to me.

This comment was edited on Mar 22, 01:04.

This post is out of control. All you goofballs arguing about something you have no control over.


--------------------------------------------------
Bunko
TI-83+ Graphing Calculator, 64k Memory, 1" Display
Not good for ninja fights.

>babar, you sure like to distort the truth, do you by chance work for the media?

LOL! No, I don't. What truth have I distorted?

I assume you mean the great Ted Nugent...

As a matter of fact Terrible Ted is one of my favorites but wasn't the author of SPANKER's rant - it was Dennis Miller. I can only imagine the froth Ted is generating right now.

(btw, imho Craveman is Nugent's best album since 1978)



-----------------------------------------
Of course I could be wrong... but really, what are the chances of that happening twice?
This comment was edited on Mar 21, 22:52.

babar, you sure like to distort the truth, do you by chance work for the media?

[SPZ]SPANKER, great post, I'll assume that you just forgot to give credit to who wrote it. He's one my favorites too. ;)

I assume you mean the great Ted Nugent...

Our Founding Fathers were supreme champions of freedom of speech.

[SPZ]SPANKER, great post, I'll assume that you just forgot to give credit to who wrote it. He's one my favorites too.

-----------------------------------------
Of course I could be wrong... but really, what are the chances of that happening twice?

The anti bush crowd is pissed that we are winning the war. They still wish they had Bill Clinton in office with his "wolka wolka porn guitar".

>Look, it's obvious that you are passionate in your beliefs.

Yes I am, especially when it comes to my country invading another country and murdering innocent people without very good reason.

> It is also obvious that you have a serious axe to grind against Isreal.

No, I don't. I have no issues with Israel, just pointing out the truth. Sorry if some of you have a problem with it.

In my daily life I find very little support for Bush. If his approval rating was that high 70% of the people I run into daily would support him...in reality it's not even close to that. It's less than 10%.

This is false. My guess is that you do not live in a very heterogeneous area. The samples that CNN take attempt to reach across all areas of the country. Your sample is taken in your immediate area. If you moved to certain areas of the US you would find that support for Bush would approach 95%-100%. My advice, take a college course in statistics.

And why aren't we bombing Israel for non-compliance with resolution 242 that says they must retreat from territories they are illegally occupying, which has been in affect for several decades if I'm not mistaken.

I believe you are comparing apples and oranges here. There are two types of resolutions that the UN can pass. I believe that many (if not all of) the resolutions that have passed regarding Isreal are the 'unenforceable kind'. Read into that what you will. I don't claim to be an expert on the history of that region. I do find it disturbing that the level of hatred between the two groups (Jews and Muslims) has risen to the point of neither side being able to admit any fault in the crisis.

Anyway, the resolution on Iraq set out the threat of force based upon non-compliance with the resolution. The peace treaty that Iraq signed stated that they must comply with weapons inspections. They failed in that regard. Based upon that alone Iraq doesn't have much of a leg to stand on.

Look, it's obvious that you are passionate in your beliefs. It is also obvious that you have a serious axe to grind against Isreal.

I'm disapointed in people on both sides of this issue that can't see any validity in even one iota of the other sides stance on the matter. As long as people refuse to look in the mirror and truly look at their own flaws there never will be peace in that area of the world.

-TPFKAS2S
http://www.braglio.org
How many toes does a fish have?
How many wings on a cow? I wonder, yep. I wonder!