Bush to Saddam: Get out of Iraq in two days or prepare to die.

[Darunia]

I decided to be wacky and pretend that I'm a videogame character; so I took on the alias Barry Burton...but its still me, Darunia!

[A Black Falcon]

Well... the war. We can hardly back out once we're in, so all we can do now is finish this... and hope that once its over Bush lets the Iraqi people decide on who their next leader will be and not use some US military governor... that would be REALLY bad. Oh, and we BADLY need the UN to help!

Stupid Bush and his anti-peacekeeping policy...

[Darunia]

Bush's anti-peacekeeping policy is about to liberate millions of hapless Arabs and end a genocidal madman's 30-year reign.

[A Black Falcon]

Uh... Bush's anti peacekeeping stand has very little to do with Iraq... that's his neo-colonialism and his listening to the same Republican Hawks who urged the first Bush to take out Sadaam, world's support or not... thankfully that Bush rejected the idea...

[alien space marine]

The U.S should be careful in how it rebuilds the country, No Iragi American Oil tycoons made as leader. Anything involving Oil other then putting out fires should be left to who ever is elected by the Iragis.

[Darunia]

ASM: STOP SAYING IRAGIS! IT HAS A 'Q'!!

ABF: Uh... Bush's anti peacekeeping stand has very little to do with Iraq...

WTF? It has everything to do with Iraq; it's his stance that is liberating it. Were is stance any different, Iraq would be different too...how can you say that? His stance is the differenc between war and peace!

that's his neo-colonialism

Yea, you're right; just like we turned Afghanistan into a viable colonial empire. The Jewel of the American crown, those Afghanistanis. Colonialism...you're either the most liberal person ever, or very naive.

and his listening to the same Republican Hawks who urged the first Bush to take out Sadaam, world's support or not...

I'm pretty sure that we had the world's support on that one. Even France dispatched a whole carrier battle division (it's only one.) Germany sent 2,560 aids to CentCom, one battalion of troops, and three naval frigates. We had everyone on our side that time. Your theory holds no water.

thankfully that Bush rejected the idea...

What the fuck are you saying? That was his biggest mistake!! If he had, this war wouldn't be going on right now! He should've taken out Saddam when he had the chance, liberals like you postponed it, and now we're in another war!

[CartoonDevil]

Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Oh, and I very much doubt that France, Russia, and Germany have their contracts as primary reasons to not want to go to war... its just not about that...

How can you possibly say that the United States is only in this war for oil and revenge, and then say that France is not trying to protect it's cashcow? When did you become a French citizen? How do you know that we're just in it for the money, yet they're noble people who's money is the last thing on their minds?

Not too bright, are you?

its about not seeing any good reason to fight and not changing that opinion when the US completely fails to provide any semblance of proof or reason to go to war...

Are you insane? Have you watched Colin Powell's address to the UN security council? Have you watched any of the news on TV? Whether or not Iraq has chemical weapons (which he does) is a mute point. The very SCUDS he's fired into Kuwait are in serious violation of UN resolution 1441, which was <B>UNANIMOUSLY</B> supported by the security council. That fact alone would be enough to justify military action.

oh, and doing what your people want (no war) in an attempt to win the next election, too.

See, your liberal ideals are warping your reality. Bush is a good and moral man, who would do the right thing, and fight for both our freedom and the freedom of the Iraqi people whether it was going to get him re-elected or not. BECAUSE IT IS THE RIGHT THING, not because he only cares about re-election!!! It's called having morals, and Tony Blair also has morals. He was standing with the US, despite falling polls in Brittain (which have since turned around).

You have demonstrated yourself to have no moral compass. You believe in nothing worth fighting for, and wouldn't fight for anything worthwhile if your friends thought you shouldn't. You live a very sad life.

[Darunia]

France is trying to suck off German and put itself at the head of a new European community...it wants the EU to rival the US. I was just reading how Chirac is just like De Gaulle, he wants to create French hegemony by challenging the US...so far it' working. No one is more pro-France then me (remeber the French flag I had for an avatar??) but they're wrong this time.

Vive Les États-Unis!!

[A Black Falcon]

First, CartoonDevil. Please note that I made that post days before the war started... you don't seem to realize that... it should change some of what you said...

Oh, and this post will be long. :)

How can you possibly say that the United States is only in this war for oil and revenge, and then say that France is not trying to protect it's cashcow? When did you become a French citizen? How do you know that we're just in it for the money, yet they're noble people who's money is the last thing on their minds?

Not too bright, are you?

Of course France is also trying to protect its own intrests... but I very much doubt that they would be taking this hard a stand if all they wanted to do was protect their investments, not once war became inevitable (to try to get on the US's good side so that after its over they could be in the best position as possible to continue business)... yet they have. Hmm, I'd say that that puts it a lot closer to making a stand... as well of course as trying to capitalize on the public's hatred for this war in 99% of the world...

Are you insane? Have you watched Colin Powell's address to the UN security council? Have you watched any of the news on TV? Whether or not Iraq has chemical weapons (which he does) is a mute point. The very SCUDS he's fired into Kuwait are in serious violation of UN resolution 1441, which was UNANIMOUSLY supported by the security council. That fact alone would be enough to justify military action.

Umm... when I wrote that there was no proof of any kind of any violations like that... and plus, even if there was a violation, it didn't make war okay... Oh, and the only people who would have found Colin Powell's UN presentation effective agreed with him before it started.

Why do you think the US didn't try to vote on the resolution? Not because it would be vetoed by France... if that was all that would have happened they would have pressed on it anyway. No, they withdrew it because they knew that the resolution wouldn't get enough votes to pass. Only 3 votes were certain... and we would never have gotten the number we needed to get it to the point where France even could veto it. Enough countries knew how stupid the idea of a war here was.

As for 1441, my previous statements that show how it is a fact that according to people who are experts on the subject, that resolution did not in any way authorize war. Thinking anything else is just deluding yourself.

No, this war isn't a legal one. For a war to be legal it must be (as I said before) self defence or sanctioned by the UN. This is neither of those things. Denying that is silly.

As for offenses, of course he's violated UN resolutions. Of course he's hiding stuff. He almost certainly does have hidden chemical weapons. But (hey, repeating myself again!), THAT ISN'T THE POINT! Violating UN resolutions doesn't make war legal... it makes action a good idea, but not war. It made sanctions with increased strength and more inspectors and some threat of action if the Iraqis kicked out the inspectors again a very good idea. But Bush was too impatient and, as I've said several times, is playing sherriff by taking out the 'black hats'... the only problem is that he's acting irresponsibly and angering the citizens of the town (ie most everyone else in the world who doesn't live in the US, UK, or Israel).

I just don't understand why conservatives dismiss world opinion. Sure, we're more powerful than any of them. We could beat them up if we want. But is that a good measure of why to do something? NO! The support of the rest of the world should, by any reasonable administration, be of vital importance! Even the first Bush understood that, as I'll say later... but just because we outmatch them militarially and disagree on some issues politically, it doesn't mean that the rest of the world isn't of vital importance. What good is winning the war if the result is intense hatred for the US from huge portions of the globe? I didn't think so... but that is EXACTLY what is happening. Notice how much the Arab people hate us now? You think they hated us before? Well, they did... but now? Its several times worse... good job, hawks!

Oh, and making Europe (sans the UK) angry with us is a even worse idea. Europe is a very important part of the world and when we alienate them and leave them angry at us at our arrogance (which is how it is right now), we ask for one thing: them to become a LOT less willing to go along with US policies. Good idea there.

See, your liberal ideals are warping your reality. Bush is a good and moral man, who would do the right thing, and fight for both our freedom and the freedom of the Iraqi people whether it was going to get him re-elected or not. BECAUSE IT IS THE RIGHT THING, not because he only cares about re-election!!! It's called having morals, and Tony Blair also has morals. He was standing with the US, despite falling polls in Brittain (which have since turned around).

You have demonstrated yourself to have no moral compass. You believe in nothing worth fighting for, and wouldn't fight for anything worthwhile if your friends thought you shouldn't. You live a very sad life.

Bush is an idiot. He is also extremely unintelligent... I often wonder if he ever 'thinks'... He is doing what is best for some groups, sure... Rich people, Oil barons, the top 1%, and his father's (rich) friends. That's it. Stuff like his awful tax plans, how most of his advisors also advised the first Bush, and this war sure prove that... he's also both imperialist and slightly isolationist in some ways. Why isolationist? That is his hatred for peacekeepers, which are what I'd say should be the foundation of how to insure global security... the imperialism? It was made possible by 9/11, but probably was always there. Just look at Iraq... the only real reason we went to war was to help the intrests of US oil companies that want in... that and to get rid of Saddam after his father didn't...

Freedom? You HONESTLY think that this war has ANYTHING to do with freedom? Are you INSANE? I'd think that a blatant lie like that would be pretty clear... Bush tried for months to make this war valid. He tried WMD. None found before the war started that weren't being dealt with already.
They tried how he's a brutal dictator. Uh uh. Not after how many other dictators, who are worse, have been left in power... and how over the years the US has supported so many other brutal dictators to stay in power...
Then he hit on 'freedom'. Its nebulous, has nothing to do with war or international politics, and is a clear out on a situation that really was falling apart (that is, convincing anyone this war is remotely valid). Of course, no one believed this war is about freeing the Iraqis who didn't already agree with Bush because of how clearly he made it up to cover himself from the questions of the American people... and how he knew it'd go over real well on the public -- freeing people from opression gets good ratings! Of course that is a side effect of his actions, but lets not kid ourselves by trying to say that it is anything more for him than a forunate side effect.

It has nothing to do with the reasons he went to war (his father's legacy, helping oil companies, helping the people who got him elected, his personal vendetta against Sadaam, helping along neo-colonialism...).

Oh, and the fact that wars get REAL good ratings and always help people get re-elected sure makes it look good to him too...

And on to Darunia.

WTF? It has everything to do with Iraq; it's his stance that is liberating it. Were is stance any different, Iraq would be different too...how can you say that? His stance is the differenc between war and peace!

Huh? What does this have to do with peacekeeping? I can't see a connection... its not like we could have sent peacekeepers into Iraq while Sadaam was still in power so I fail to see the connection...

Check back after the war is over. When he refuses to let US troops be peacekeepers like he's done in Afghanistan, THEN you will have a point that peacekeepers and Bush's opinion of them have something to do with Iraq. Of course, like Afghanistan, it'll be a bad point... we need peacekeepers there! If we'd put a bunch of peacekeeprs in Afghanistan maybe we could have helped those people a lot more than we are doing...

Yea, you're right; just like we turned Afghanistan into a viable colonial empire. The Jewel of the American crown, those Afghanistanis. Colonialism...you're either the most liberal person ever, or very naive.

You make no sense, you know. Uh, I'd say that Afghanistan is a prime example of neo-colonialism now. Now, I would say that we didn't go to war there to create a empire (we did it to get rid of Al-Quaida... the freeing of the Afghanis from the Taliban was, like the freeing of the Iraqis will be, just a nice side effect that got good TV ratings), but now? We've got the troops in the country and a puppet government that is deeply indebted to us... not to mention Iraq, where all of the reasons that we are fighting are for personal profits or benefits while expanding American power onto helpless nations (a hallmark of colonialism)...

I'm pretty sure that we had the world's support on that one. Even France dispatched a whole carrier battle division (it's only one.) Germany sent 2,560 aids to CentCom, one battalion of troops, and three naval frigates. We had everyone on our side that time. Your theory holds no water.

Uh, that isn't what I said... I said that Bush didn't kill Sadaam and didn't take out the Ba'ath party because of lack of international support. As you said, he had a huge international group supporting his actions to kick Sadaam out of Kuwait... and that did very well. But that cooalition didn't support taking out Sadaam... the Saudis in particular. So he didn't because he didn't want to have the US take a unilateral action. Now the second Bush comes along and does exactly that: unilaterally takes out Sadaam. And the result? As I outlined above... hatred for us and our alienation in the international community... not good things. And the first Bush was smart enough to see that.

[Darunia]

Is it that WE'RE all wrong, or JUST YOU ARE? Really now!

This neo-colonialism shit is degrading and insulting. The US has gone into Iraq to oust the Baath party and Saddam, and to erradicate any viable threat there. The liberation of the population is a prime secondary motion. I don't appreciate you're bashing of my country, which the greatest ever made. Bush's motives are clean, your grand proof is just liberal propaganda. We've done more for any single country than ANYONE else...and now in Iraq too. Stifle yourself.

[alien space marine]

The french and Chinese , Have big Oil contracts with Suddam both have sold weapons to Suddam after the first gulf war.

There a big difference between Imperial Colonization and Liberation.

Suddam Invaded Kuwait so Iraq could acquire more sea ports and of course Oil. He stuck down the big flag and killed anyone that so much as Sneezed on it. The Iraqi soldiers decapitated hundreds of Kuwaiti Children some whose only offense was having parents that were freedom fighters. Chemical Ali had brutaly murderd caputed rebels and cut out their insides and shoved into their mouths.As many Kuwaiti families are rejoicing at his recent death for what he did to their sons and daughters so long ago.

Liberation , freeing a nation from already existing Occupying force.
Wolrd war 2 agiast the nazis , Mislsovic was removed for doing Genocide on Albanians and other ethnic groups , Suddam did the same on the kurds and Kuwaitis so why the hell does he remain in power while a former European Tyrant is in Jail?
The police dont tell Serial Killers to stop killing people and walk away like the U.N does.
I support Force agaist Suddam I just feel bad for the Iraqi people but alot of german civilian died in world war two because of hitlers Defiance this is no different as distasteful as it is.

[Darunia]

The police dont tell Serial Killers to stop killing people and walk away like the U.N does.

Right there is the single best line I can think of to support the war. We can't leave the world the whims of shitheads like Saddam; we need to make SURE it's safe by ousting people like him.

[CartoonDevil]

Originally posted by A Black Falcon
...but I very much doubt that they would be taking this hard a stand if all they wanted to do was protect their investments, not once war became inevitable (to try to get on the US's good side so that after its over they could be in the best position as possible to continue business)... yet they have.

You don't think they've tried to get on the good side of the United States since all this started? Do you even READ the newspapers? You can't possibly believe what you just said, it's too moronic. France has since very much tried to gain favor with the United States.

as well of course as trying to capitalize on the public's hatred for this war in 99% of the world...

Over exageration. Granted, the French are morons because in a recent poll, 33% of them wanted Saddam, a murderous and tyrannical dictactor, to win the war against the U.S. However, to say that 99% of the world is against this war is stupid. The president's approval numbers are <B>SOARING</B> and Tony Blair isn't doing too badly either.

<B>DO YOU REALIZE WE HAVE MORE COUNTRIES SUPPORTING OUR COALITION THAN WE DID IN 1991?!?</B> Over 45 countries officially support the coalition to remove Saddam...how is it that 99% of the world is against us?!?

Oh, and the only people who would have found Colin Powell's UN presentation effective agreed with him before it started.

Not true. On Rush Limbaugh's program, in the following days there were many callers who said that Colin Powells presentation had changed their minds. I think the only people who's minds wouldn't have been changed were those who are only against the war because Bush is president. You liberals are still hating Bush for the Florida 2000 vote count. If Bill Clinton were in office, doing the exact same thing (not that he has the morals to do what is right) you'd be 100% behind the war. It's only because it's Bush that you hate it.

Bush is an idiot. He is also extremely unintelligent... I often wonder if he ever 'thinks'... He is doing what is best for some groups, sure... Rich people, Oil barons, the top 1%, and his father's (rich) friends.

Your statement just proved my earlier statement.

As for 1441, my previous statements that show how it is a fact that according to people who are experts on the subject, that resolution did not in any way authorize war. Thinking anything else is just deluding yourself.

On the contrary, my misguided liberal friend. The wording of 1441 was: <I>"...demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively ... that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;"</I> NOBODY on the security council thought that 'serious consequences' meant another 8 months of having Hans Blix act like a moron. THEY MEANT WAR!!!! Guess what, in no way shape or form has Iraq even TRIED to cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively.

<B>You're the one deluding yourself.</B>

(Link to resolution 1441 - http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/02110803.htm )

No, this war isn't a legal one. For a war to be legal it must be (as I said before) self defence or sanctioned by the UN. This is neither of those things. Denying that is silly.

We, as Americans, do not need the permission of ANYBODY else to defend ourselves from terrorists, or sponsors of terrorism. We didn't provoke anyone to justify 9/11, but they attacked us anyway. When you mess with us, we're going to take you out. ITS OUR RIGHT TO DEFEND OURSELVES FROM THOSE WHO WOULD TAKE OUR FREEDOM AWAY FROM US! We are a free people, not subject to the UN, except by our own choosing.

[A Black Falcon]

You don't think they've tried to get on the good side of the United States since all this started? Do you even READ the newspapers? You can't possibly believe what you just said, it's too moronic. France has since very much tried to gain favor with the United States.

All I can think of is when they said they didn't want us to lose... not exactly high praise...

Over exageration. Granted, the French are morons because in a recent poll, 33% of them wanted Saddam, a murderous and tyrannical dictactor, to win the war against the U.S. However, to say that 99% of the world is against this war is stupid. The president's approval numbers are SOARING and Tony Blair isn't doing too badly either.

DO YOU REALIZE WE HAVE MORE COUNTRIES SUPPORTING OUR COALITION THAN WE DID IN 1991?!? Over 45 countries officially support the coalition to remove Saddam...how is it that 99% of the world is against us?!?

Not much of one. I saw a poll a while ago. It polled people in all the countries in the world. I've mentioned it before here... Guess how many countries had populations where more than 50% of the people supported this war? Three. The US, UK, and Israel. That's it. In every single other nation the majority of the people are against it. 190 to 3... hmm...

Oh, and that cooalition thing is only true when you stretch the truth so far it breaks... I mean, this "cooalition" is nothing of the sort. It is just a list of nations who don't oppose the war. That's not a cooalition, that's a list of nations who don't oppose us... there's a big difference...

Note how only 2 or 3 nations other than the US and Britain (Austrailia and Poland are all I know of) are contributing forces in this invasion? In the Gulf War several dozen nations did that... and several nations wouldn't let our (ground) troops even go in their territory (Saudi Arabia, Turkey)! Great cooalition partners there!

Oh, and of COURSE the approval ratings are soaring... we're at war and the people support that... the real question is, what happens once its over?

Also note that the reaction is the complete opposite in the Arab world, as anti-American sentiment has gone from being popular to being almost universal hatred, 'friendly' nation or not... and that is not a good thing by any stretch of the imagination...

Not true. On Rush Limbaugh's program, in the following days there were many callers who said that Colin Powells presentation had changed their minds. I think the only people who's minds wouldn't have been changed were those who are only against the war because Bush is president. You liberals are still hating Bush for the Florida 2000 vote count. If Bill Clinton were in office, doing the exact same thing (not that he has the morals to do what is right) you'd be 100% behind the war. It's only because it's Bush that you hate it.

Rush Limbaugh is a complete and total moron who probably has never said anything true on that show in his life.

Oh, and if this were Clinton I'd be protesting it just as much... but it wouldn't be. Clinton would never be so idiotic as to want to antagonize the rest of the world and alienate us from anyone else the next time we want anything from anyone (who isn't Tony Blair or leaders of minor nation sucking up to us for more aid).

Even the first Bush was smart enough to realize that making the entire international community angry at our arrogance and unilateralism and obvious hatred for everything that the international community stands for is a bad idea... but not this one.

On the contrary, my misguided liberal friend. The wording of 1441 was: "...demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively ... that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;" NOBODY on the security council thought that 'serious consequences' meant another 8 months of having Hans Blix act like a moron. THEY MEANT WAR!!!! Guess what, in no way shape or form has Iraq even TRIED to cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively.

You're the one deluding yourself.

(Link to resolution 1441 - http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/02110803.htm )

Ah, so the newspaper article I read which said essentially "international law experts agree that 1441 does not by itsself authorize the use of force" was lying? I doubt it. Sure... you can interpret that statement to mean force is ok... but if you look at it legally, it does not do any such thing. "serious concequences" doesn't mean "force" in the law. Not on its own.

We, as Americans, do not need the permission of ANYBODY else to defend ourselves from terrorists, or sponsors of terrorism. We didn't provoke anyone to justify 9/11, but they attacked us anyway. When you mess with us, we're going to take you out. ITS OUR RIGHT TO DEFEND OURSELVES FROM THOSE WHO WOULD TAKE OUR FREEDOM AWAY FROM US! We are a free people, not subject to the UN, except by our own choosing.

First, this has nothing to do with 9/11 on a terrorism standpoint. Sadaam has nothing to do with Al Quaida or similar groups. Bin Laden and Sadaam didn't like eachother at all, which makes perfect sense when you think about how Sadaam is/was a secular ruler and Bin Laden is a extremely religous zealot... opposite ends of the spectrum...

No, 9/11 was just Bush's excuse for being able to do this act... which is clearly something he really wanted to do but before 9/11 just couldn't justify. Well, afterwards he could -- TERRORISTS! OOH!

Note how that the US Governement has NEVER said, not ONCE, that Sadaam and 9/11 have ANY CONNECTION WHATSOEVER?

(The only thing they've said is that Sadaam funded "terrorist groups". Well, yes. He helped fun the Palestinian terror movement for many years. But he has no connection to international radicals like Al Quaida... his whole philosophy is against their ideals...)

Know why? Because they don't! It just gave Bush (and his hawk buddies, councellors, and coaches) the excuse he needed to go after Sadaam for daddy... and get that oil for those guys who gave so much money to his campaign.

The political boost he'd get from a war probably crossed his mind more than once too...

[CartoonDevil]

Wow, you're so off base, I can barely even bring myself to dignify you with a response.

Let me first start by posting a quote, and I want you to tell me who said it.

<I>"It is in our interest and in the interests of people all around the world. Saddam Hussein has used weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles before. I have no doubt he would use them again if permitted to develop them."</I>


Who said that? Donald Rumsfeld? Bush? Powell? Chaney? Nope.

Bill Clinton said that in 1998. http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1...cript.html

Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Not much of one. I saw a poll a while ago. It polled people in all the countries in the world. I've mentioned it before here... Guess how many countries had populations where more than 50% of the people supported this war? Three. The US, UK, and Israel. That's it. In every single other nation the majority of the people are against it. 190 to 3... hmm...

Show me a link to that poll.

What does popular opinion mean in the face of doing what is right? Nothing.

Note how only 2 or 3 nations other than the US and Britain (Austrailia and Poland are all I know of) are contributing forces in this invasion? In the Gulf War several dozen nations did that... and several nations wouldn't let our (ground) troops even go in their territory (Saudi Arabia, Turkey)! Great cooalition partners there!

I can't believe you. <B>EVERY</B> single time the UN does anything, the United States makes up 70% or more of the military forces and monetary contribution. Of course as the strongest nation in the world, shoulders the biggest responsibility. Without the United States, the UN would collapse.

Oh, and of COURSE the approval ratings are soaring... we're at war and the people support that...

If the people should always be right (and you have made the argument that popular opinion should decide our countries actions) then why shouldn't we be doing this? Don't tell me that Americans have to get permission from a bunch of countries like Libya, France, Russia, or China to protect Unites States citizens and our homeland.

Also note that the reaction is the complete opposite in the Arab world, as anti-American sentiment has gone from being popular to being almost universal hatred,

<B>HELLO?!? DO YOU WATCH TV? THE IRAQI's CHEER OUR TROOPS WHEN THEY ARRIVE!</B>

Rush Limbaugh is a complete and total moron who probably has never said anything true on that show in his life.

Ahh, another person you hate, so obviously anything he does HAS to be wrong (similar to your view of Bush). There is no way that he would have the largest talk show (20,000,000 listeners) in America if he wasn't right more than he was wrong.

First, this has nothing to do with 9/11 on a terrorism standpoint. Sadaam has nothing to do with Al Quaida or similar groups. Bin Laden and Sadaam didn't like eachother at all, which makes perfect sense when you think about how Sadaam is/was a secular ruler and Bin Laden is a extremely religous zealot... opposite ends of the spectrum...

<H1>WATCH THE DAMN NEWS!</H1>

American and British Troops have found a few different Terrorist camps in IRAQ, one of them had a fuselage of a 737 which was being used to teach people how to hijack airplanes.

How about that Bin Laden tape released today, in it Osama urged Arabs to suicide bomb American targets to avenge the Iraqi people. Osama hates Jews, Saddam hates Jews. How is that the opposite end of the spectrum?

No, 9/11 was just Bush's excuse for being able to do this act... which is clearly something he really wanted to do but before 9/11 just couldn't justify.

PROVE to me that this war is CLEARLY something he really wanted to do before 9/11. Go ahead, show me news articles, or some other form of proof...not just your opinion. I want CONCRETE evidence.

Note how that the US Governement has NEVER said, not ONCE, that Sadaam and 9/11 have ANY CONNECTION WHATSOEVER?

Again, you show your ignorance on such matters. Colin Powell made that accusation in the UN security council, and then went on to show proof of communications between Al-Queda and Saddam's regime. That sounds like the government has said that there is a connection. DONT YOU EVER WATCH CNN OR MSNBC???

(The only thing they've said is that Sadaam funded "terrorist groups". Well, yes. He helped fun the Palestinian terror movement for many years. But he has no connection to international radicals like Al Quaida... his whole philosophy is against their ideals...)

Incorrect, read my previous statement.

Know why? Because they don't! It just gave Bush (and his hawk buddies, councellors, and coaches) the excuse he needed to go after Sadaam for daddy... and get that oil for those guys who gave so much money to his campaign.

Your hatred blinds your reasoning.

The political boost he'd get from a war probably crossed his mind more than once too... [/B]

If that were really true, why didn't we just attack Iraq in September of 2002, instead of spending months and months in the UN security council?

[A Black Falcon]

First, I'll discuss the situation as it is now (again). We are currently at war. We can't just leave now that we are in... we have to finish this. Once its over we'll see how truthful those statements that the Iraqis will choose their own leaders are... and how long it takes for him to give out the oil rights...

"It is in our interest and in the interests of people all around the world. Saddam Hussein has used weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles before. I have no doubt he would use them again

if permitted to develop them."

Note the last part... I'd say that the inspections were doing a decent job of shutting down Sadaam's ability to do just that... and in the end could have succeeded if given both chance and time and more strength.

Show me a link to that poll.

What does popular opinion mean in the face of doing what is right? Nothing.

I read a while ago... don't remember exactly where... but I DID read it in the news.

And I think the point is that it isn't right...

I can't believe you. EVERY single time the UN does anything, the United States makes up 70% or more of the military forces and monetary contribution. Of course as the strongest nation in the world, shoulders the biggest responsibility. Without the United States, the UN would collapse.

Of course we are always the biggest one... after all, the US's military budget is larger than the rest of the world's combined... but that is really irrelevant to my point, as I thought I made clear. My point isn't about numbers, or strength. Its about trying to foster international goodwill, and not making everyone hate us. We have done the exact opposite of that, and the result is a world that has gone from being pro-American (after 9/11) to VERY strongly anti-American in many, many places... and almost all because of this stupid imperialist war. Good job.

Oh, and yes, without us the UN would be in big trouble. That is why we should do all we can to work within it to get it to work... if we go out of it like this all we do is make the rest of the nations more annoyed at us and sabotage any chances of future success in the UN... which for Bush becomes a self-fuffilling prophecy about the UN being irrelevant.

If the people should always be right (and you have made the argument that popular opinion should decide our countries actions) then why shouldn't we be doing this? Don't tell me that Americans have to get permission from a bunch of countries like Libya, France, Russia, or China to protect Unites States citizens and our homeland.

I didn't say popular opinion should be the right thing always, or that popular support makes something legal. I said that its a major factor and that smart leaders do listen to some extent to it...and when in almost all nations they hate this war I somehow think that that will make them likely to not support the war. Some do, but most of those are nations that do it to try to get more foreign aid out of us (for being in this "cooalition")...

Ahh, another person you hate, so obviously anything he does HAS to be wrong (similar to your view of Bush). There is no way that he would have the largest talk show (20,000,000 listeners) in America if he wasn't right more than he was wrong.

Umm... he has the biggest talkshow because there are a lot of conservatives out there who like what he says... it has nothing to do with any sembelance of truth... because there is none in that show...

WATCH THE DAMN NEWS!


American and British Troops have found a few different Terrorist camps in IRAQ, one of them had a fuselage of a 737 which was being used to teach people how to hijack airplanes.

How about that Bin Laden tape released today, in it Osama urged Arabs to suicide bomb American targets to avenge the Iraqi people. Osama hates Jews, Saddam hates Jews. How is that the opposite end of the spectrum?

I do watch CNN all the time...

Look. Sadaam hates the US and so does Bin Laden. Sure. But do they agree on much of anything except Israel and the US? NO! Religion? Sadaam uses it as a tool to try to get more support. Note how he built huge numbers of mosques and started talking about holy wars and stuff a few years ago as his position got more desperate to try to drum up support... he's at heart a brutal, SECULAR dictator.

Bin Laden? He's a religious figure. He wants to rid the world of the evil of the West and all it stands for and keep them away from his Holy Land (ie Saudi Arabia). He follows a extremely twisted kind of religion, but it IS religion. And he hates Sadaam from everything I've heard... and its mutual. Their political and control views are opposite eachother on the scale they are on...

Look. Sadaam does hate the US. A lot. So I'm hardly surprised that they found that mural with Iraqi Airlines planes crashing into towers, or some 737 to train suicide plane bombers... they probably got the idea after 9/11, I expect. They sure wouldn't have had any contact with Bin Laden beforehand... because they didn't have any.

You say Powell's presentation said there was a connection? I read plenty about it and never once saw anything say that... or even imply that... I have no idea where you got that idea from but it is false. The closest they have gotten is saying that the Iraqis support "Al-Quaida-type" terrorists" because there is just no proof (because it never happened) that Bin Laden and Sadaam were helping eachother.

The US Government is doing its best to get people to think exactly like you are, but if you look really closely at how they word it, you'll see that they never actually say a word of what you say there. They get close... but don't say it because they know that would be lying. And you shouldn't lie in official reports like that...

Oh, and as for Bush I can't think of one relevant policy decision he has made that I agree with in any way.

HELLO?!? DO YOU WATCH TV? THE IRAQI's CHEER OUR TROOPS WHEN THEY ARRIVE!

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/04/opinion/04FRI4.html

Since the start of the current American-led war, it has been widely noted that celebration by Iraqis has been muted. The most common explanation is that Iraqis are afraid — both of government goon squads and of the possibility that we will withdraw prematurely, leaving them at the mercy of whoever comes next.

This is clearly true. But what I found during my visits is that many Iraqis, perhaps a majority, seemed to believe in and identify with Mr. Hussein. While they feared their ruthless leader, what they feared even more was life without him. I know this seems unfathomable. How could any people support a leader of such cruelty and megalomania? Don't Iraqis, like other people, thirst for freedom?
Maybe, but political freedom is such a foreign concept that most Iraqis have no context in which to thirst for it. The contours of debate within Iraq are so narrow that there is no meaningful way to discuss negative feelings about Mr. Hussein. Indeed, the language of Iraqi politics has been so degraded that it provides no framework for opposition, let alone for what might be imagined as an alternative. It is, as one diplomat put it to me, "like a church — people don't stop to ask if the God they are praying to is good."
This is not to say that Iraqis would not want to live one day in an honest, decent, free society. But it is to suggest that they are likely to misinterpret everything about such a plan, at least in the short term. They believe that the United States, which has led the international boycott of their country, has been keeping them down for the past 12 years. Tell them the same country has decided to spend billions and risk its young people to liberate them, and they will probably have no idea of what you might be talking about.

Very interesting... you should read the rest too... but also...

Huh, I was thinking of all the people who shoot at us when the troops arrive as a sideline, but mainly was talking about the rest of the Arab world. Note how big the peace demonstrations there are? See how vast majorities of them now detest us?

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/06/weekin...6BANE.html

If popular opinion in the Middle East is united on anything, it is that oil — not terrorism, not regional stability and not any intention to bring democracy to the Iraq — is the real reason the United States decided to oust Saddam Hussein. In Jordan, a longtime ally of Washington, a recent poll showed that 83 percent of people there think that the United States wants to control Iraq's oil.

Read that article... interesting. It says how we will have to appoint a Oil Czar and make US oil companies the main factor in rebuilding their oil industry... and by doing that we will confirm the Arab world's worst fears... and it'll just go even further downhill from there...

And anti-American sentiments are at least that high in those parts of the world. This is not good for us in any way you look at it... unless you don't care, which people like you evidently don't. And that just makes no sense at all to me, because they are important to our intrests and having the entire Arab world infuriated at us isn't a good thing.

And it will get worse if this continues on course. Why you don't care is beyond me.

Again from that article I linked.

The impact of this on the Middle East could be "an increase in fundamentalism and increased threats to governments that have been friendly to us in the past," Mr. Walker said. "Some of those governments could pull back from us," he added. "We might have difficulty getting help in the war on terrorism or there might be an uptick in acts of terrorism."

Oh, and the Iraqis are hardly welcoming the Americans with open arms... some do, but ost are VERY wary. And once we take over and give their oil to our companies, they'll definitely not be very friendly... they will be happy Sadaam is gone, but the anti-Americanism so dominant since we started this war in the rest of the Middle East is sure to quickly turn them against us... and some will genuinely miss Saddaam. In 35 years even brutal dictators like that get loved by some people...

PROVE to me that this war is CLEARLY something he really wanted to do before 9/11. Go ahead, show me news articles, or some other form of proof...not just your opinion. I want CONCRETE evidence.

I watched a documentary on PBS a few weeks ago... don't remember exactly, but I do think it didn't say that he wanted to invade Iraq from the start. It was something he could do of course (because of how it humiliated his father), and he surely had pressure to find an excuse (since Wolfowicz and Rumsfeld were, in the first Gulf War, two of the biggest 'lets get Sadaam' hawks), but actually do it? He probably didn't think he'd be able to until 9/11 came along, and suddenly he had the perfect reason in this nebulous War on Terror. Suddenly, actually being a real threat to the US isn't necessary. Only being a "threat" in the eyes of its leader is... and Sadaam met the second of those, but most certainly not the first. He has no nuclear weapons program. Inspections keep that from happening. his army was pathetic. As for SCUDs and chemical/biological weapons, he clearly had some but couldn't do anything with them except hide them in his deepest bunkers... until some or all of of them might have been eventually found...

Of course now in the war note how there hasn't been a single chemical weapon used by the Iraqis? Interesting... :)

If that were really true, why didn't we just attack Iraq in September of 2002, instead of spending months and months in the UN security council?

Because at the last minuite Tony Blair and Colin Powell, who both wanted a resolution that actually acthorize force (if you think 1441 did that why would Blair say that one that authorized force would have helped him a lot?), convinced him to try it... but it was a farce from the beginning. I never believed for a second that he meant it a single time when he said that he wasnted "peace first"... it was so false that it was laughable...

[Weltall]

Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Of course now in the war note how there hasn't been a single chemical weapon used by the Iraqis? Interesting...

Because using one would automatically, and unequivocally validate our war, and he can't have that happening.

Once we get the fighting out of the way, we'll get to inspect anywhere we want without having to worry about anyone impeding the search. Then, and only then, will inspections work. Nothing will be moving, and we'll find whatever is hidden.

As for the rest, I'm not wasting my time on you. You don't seem to live on the same planet as normal thinking people, as evidenced by pretty much every post you make in this particular forum.

[A Black Falcon]

Plenty of people agree with me... but not you. Its not like its uncommon to think the way I do about the war... not near a majority for sure, but still. Its stupid to say that because you have people backing you up and I don't on this issue that makes you right...

[Weltall]

I don't just mean the war.

[A Black Falcon]

Well then, I agree...

You don't seem to live on the same planet as normal thinking people, as evidenced by pretty much every post you make in this particular forum.

Absolutely true. And that goes for Cartoon Devil too... and maybe Alien Space Marine if I could understand what he's saying half the time, I really don't know what his opinions are exactly...

[A Black Falcon]

Great site...

http://www.thismodernworld.com/ ... great comic with a great site whose blog has lots of very nice links... :)

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20030404.html

Myths and misconceptions about the war in Iraq

Accurate information is essential for an informed political debate over the war in Iraq here at home. Yet since hostilities were initiated, politicians and the American media have continued to circulate misinformation, much of which has gone largely unchecked. As with our first column on the debate leading up to the war, we can only deal with information that has been addressed conclusively or near-conclusively on the public record. We do not address most of the apparently mistaken reports that are at least understandable amidst the fog of war. We also do not address allegations from coalition forces that can't be independently verified at this time, nor do we look at the propaganda of the Iraqi regime, which is of course extraordinarily suspect.

Iraq has launched Scud missiles at coalition forces and civilians in Kuwait.

As Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting has recounted, in the early days of the war, it was widely reported that Iraq had fired Scud missiles into Kuwait -- a claim made by Kuwaiti government officials that was quickly given the veneer of fact in media accounts. If the missiles were Scuds, it would have been significant: Iraq is prohibited from possessing such missiles under disarmament agreements it has entered into since the Gulf War. However, the missiles launched at Kuwait were apparently not Scuds, as the military later admitted. While Iraq may still possess the banned weapons, there is no solid evidence that any of the missiles launched at Kuwait so far have been Scuds, nor have any Scuds been discovered by coalition troops in the current war. Instead, according to the Washington Post, "[t]he missiles being fired at Kuwait have not been definitively identified," but US commanders say eight were Ababil-100s, while "[a]t least two" were Al Samoud-2s, which the United Nations says are also banned under Iraq's 1991 disarmament agreement. Despite the inherent factual uncertainty of sketchy early reports, pundits like Mona Charen then rushed to condemn the alleged use of Scuds, bashing the "antiwar crowd" for the supposed failure of inspections to find the Scuds that were launched. She later corrected the record (as did others), but this was a major mistake.

The coalition against Iraq is larger than the one that conducted the first Gulf War.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has claimed that the current coalition "is larger than the coalition that existed during the Gulf War in 1991." While this claim is accurate in terms of the number of countries lending their political support to the effort, it is highly misleading in terms of the actual operational contributions of coalition members. As Dana Milbank pointed out in the Washington Post, "that 34-member group [in 1991] was an actual military coalition, with all members providing troops, aircraft, ships or medics. By that standard, there are only about a half dozen members of the coalition in the current war."

Passage of the Bush tax cut is necessary so that troops have jobs to come home to.

White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer has offered a new rationale for passage of the president's proposed tax cut in recent days: "so that when our men and women in the military return home, they'll have jobs to come home to." But as Milbank has noted, full time military personnel will continue to be employed by the military, and thanks to legislation passed in 1994, reservists are entitled to resume their civilian jobs. The situation is not analogous to World War II, where large numbers of decommissioned troops returned home without guaranteed employment. Fleischer's claim is simply disingenuous.

Evidence found at the Ansar Al-Islam camp ties Al Qaeda to Saddam Hussein.

On March 31, coalition forces raided the camp of Ansar Al-Islam, an extremist Islamic group based in Iraqi Kurdistan that is allegedly affiliated with Al Qaeda. After the raid, coalition leaders claimed to have found evidence demonstrating a link between the two groups. However, the Associated Press story about the raid specifically states that "there was no indication any of the evidence tied Ansar to Saddam Hussein as Washington has maintained."

Nonetheless, Rush Limbaugh simply asserted that the evidence found demonstrates an Al Qaeda-Iraq link, arguing that the very existence of the group in the Kurdish part of northern Iraq proves that Saddam is linked to Al Qaeda. The fact is, however, that Kurdish northern provinces of Iraq have been outside of Saddam's control since 1991 and that his possible knowledge of activities there is not in itself proof of anything. Rather than even making an argument to this effect, the Union Leader in New Hampshire brazenly headlined the AP story "HAVEN FOR TERROR: U.S.-led raid reveals Saddam's al-Qaida ties," ignoring the contradictory conclusion in the text below.

No one in the administration ever claimed the war in Iraq would be easy.

Though the war in Iraq is only about two weeks old, critics have already noted that Bush administration officials implied that it would be quick and easy. In response, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer has suggested that the President repeatedly stated that the war in Iraq could be quite difficult. Fleischer cited three speeches by Bush: an October 7 speech in which he said that "military conflict could be difficult," a January 3 speech during which he stated "I know that every order I give can bring a cost... We know the challenges and the dangers we face" and the January 28 State of the Union passage in which he said, "This nation fights reluctantly, because we know the cost and we dread the days of mourning that always come."

Yet as a number of sources, including USA Today, Dana Milbank of the Washington Post, and Salon.com [subscription or viewing of an advertisement required] have pointed out, Bush officials and advisors were often aggressive before the war in suggesting that it would be relatively quick and easy. Though they occasionally equivocated, the thrust of their rhetoric implied that US troops would face little resistance.

On March 16, Vice President Dick Cheney suggested on CBS's "Face the Nation" that a war would proceed "relatively quickly" and be over in "[w]eeks rather than months." On NBC's "Meet the Press" the same day, Cheney was asked by Tim Russert whether "the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties." Cheney replied, "Well, I don't think it's going to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators." While he stated that "close-in defenders" of Saddam "might, in fact, try to put up ... a struggle," Cheney added, "I think the regular army will not [fight]. My guess is, even significant elements of the Republican Guard are likely as well to want to avoid conflict with the U.S. forces and are likely to step aside."

Richard Perle, a civilian member and former chairman of the influential Defense Policy Board (which advises the Defense Department), was particularly outspoken with his predictions about how quickly Iraqi resistance would collapse. In an interview on PBS's "Wide Angle" last July, he claimed that "we have the ability to remove Saddam Hussein and his regime. And it will be quicker and easier than many people think," and suggested that "Support for Saddam, including within his military organization, will collapse at the first whiff of gunpowder." (In the same interview, he does also backtrack a bit and say that the war "will not be easy"). Kenneth Adelman, another member of the Defense Policy Board, went even further in a February Washington Post op-ed in which he predicted that "demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk."

President Bush doesn't pay attention to war coverage on television.

When the war began, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer claimed that President Bush was not paying attention to television coverage of the conflict, saying "The President may occasionally turn on the TV, but that's not how he gets his news or his information." But in a March 29 New York Times article the administration conceded that this was in fact untrue:
In the opening days of the conflict, White House officials were so eager not to personalize the war as a Bush revenge match against the dictator who tried to assassinate his father that Ari Fleischer, the White House press secretary, at first suggested that Mr. Bush was not even watching the enormous blasts on live television of the first bombs thundering down on Baghdad. Mr. Fleischer said later that the president had indeed been watching television.

In fact, Bumiller reports that Bush "started laughing" when he heard reports that "the president of the United States, according to White House officials, was not glued to the TV" and that he "regularly turned in to the cable channels for updates on Iraq," even calling National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice when he "saw something that concerned him."

The Iraqi military is using terrorist tactics to attack coalition troops / the suicide bombing in Iraq proves Saddam is a terrorist.

Iraqi soldiers have disguised themselves as civilians, attacked coalition troops after feigned surrenders and conducted a suicide bombing of a US checkpoint while dressed in civilian clothes. These are reprehensible violations of international law protecting non-combatants. But contrary to White House press secretary Ari Fleischer's claim that "We're really dealing with elements of terrorism inside Iraq that are being employed now against our troops," these attacks are not "terrorism" as it is almost always defined (as Slate's Fred Kaplan points out). Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke and Major General Stanley McChrystal of the Joints Chiefs of Staff have made similar suggestions.

Kaplan cites the official US State Department definition of terrorism, stating that like all such definitions it identifies the term as referring to attacks on civilian targets that are political in nature: "premeditated, politically motivated violence propagated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience." Saddam's regime has engaged in terrorism and supported terrorist groups (though the extent of this is highly disputed) and has recently endorsed terrorist tactics targeting civilians in its official rhetoric, but attacks on military targets are not a case where the term applies.

Most absurd among those pushing this line was New York Times columnist William Safire, who argued that the suicide bombing of US troops, which was carried out by an Iraqi noncommissioned officer, "vividly demonstrate[s] the Baghdad-terrorist nexus." This is absurd - the alleged "nexus" refers to supposed relationships between Saddam's regime and terrorist groups that are in no way demonstrated by a single copycat attack.

[alien space marine]

Incredible Bullshit made by Liberal Phychobabble.

Comparing a Dog to Bush is pretty lame , If they believe he is just attacking Iraq becuase he felt like it ,Their making a pretty big accusations with no Basis. Also why wait for Terrorist blow us up?why not take action now just like law enforment strikes organized crime and drug trade. I am pretty sure they would said the same thing if america went after Bin Ladin before 9/11.

[A Black Falcon]

The main point of that post was that article I posted in the quote, not that comic (which I find very funny... :) ) which I knew you people would hate...

[Darunia]

Fucking liberal propaganda. Breakfast of retards.

[alien space marine]

Liberty Bacon!

[Great Rumbler]

Hahahaha!! That comic was hilarious! That dog totally barfed on that map! Oh wait..that wasn't the point of the comic? Oh...


:D

[A Black Falcon]

Well, I don't think it was THAT arbitrary about how they chose the nations to attack, but it's still very funny...

[Great Rumbler]

Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Well, I don't think it was THAT arbitrary about how they chose the nations to attack, but it's still very funny...

What's the deal with using animals in the comic? First a penguin and now a dog.

I'd say it's about as funny as the first one you posted, which, by the way, wasn't.

[Darunia]

*Sigh* I can't believe that even now there are some people who don't support the war, or President Bush.

[Great Rumbler]

I was watching CNN and they were showing shots of the Iraqi people celebrating in the streets, cheering, honking their horns, and waving American flags. A little while later they had a shot of the protestors in Russia still protesting the war. That made me think. How can these people still protest this war? The Iraqi people themselves are celebrating our victory, so what give those protestors the right to say "we don't want this war"?

[A Black Falcon]

Hoping our troops win this war without high casualties (which I do, now that we're in) and wanting us to be fighting there are totally different things... it is just idiotic to say "because we are at war political dissention is wrong and you should support the president". That is just not how it works... and it never has. During wartime the opposing party has always criticized the policies of the administration (while supporting the troops in the war), whatever party they were in... I see no reason that that should change now.

The people who actually want the US to suffer high casualties and/or lose are, I bet, a definite minority of the Democratic party...

As for protestors, why shouldn't there be protests when a government is doing something this blatantly wrong?

Oh, and if you think the majority of Iraqis will welcome the conquering US troops into their country, I expect you will soon be in for a surprise... some will, but I very much doubt that it'll take long for them to agree with the rest of the Arab world and start hating us...

[alien space marine]

If you leave them too die they will , but If you keep your word it may help your reputation as not all Muslimes hate the U.S as many felt bad for 9/11 , Its like saying everybody in europe hates you which is false.

[Great Rumbler]

Originally posted by A Black Falcon
As for protestors, why shouldn't there be protests when a government is doing something this blatantly wrong?

Blatantly wrong? So it's blatanly wrong to free these people from fear and oppression? Saddam was a murderer and lawbreaker plain and simple. He didn't care about his people, he horded money, he lived in lavish palaces, he killed countless numbers of his own people, and he was in violation of international laws. Yet, you say this is blantaly wrong? I'm am proud of what our troops and our government is doing over there and I sincerely hope that government continues to make decisions that I can be proud of.

Maybe some of the Iraqis won't like us, but I think the majority is going to be grateful to our troops. Many Iraqis have already shown their gratitued to the troops.

[A Black Falcon]

See my post where I listed all those countries abusing their people? I'd say that half of them are worse than Iraq... want to invade Saudi Arabia or China next?

The point is we can dislike what they are doing and want them to stop, but to do so we should stay within the legal bounds of international law and actually give it a chance to work... when you dismiss it as obviously as Bush did, of course people will be angry with you and not go along with what you want...

I never said Sadaam isn't evil... I just said that Bush isn't going to war to "save the Iraqis" any more than we went to war in Afghanistan to "save the Afdhanis". As in the only relevance it seems to have to him is to get more points on his popularity polls.

Because if he were really going after the worst regimes to their people Iraq wouldn't be second on the list.

No, Iraq is about "terrorism", oil, helping friends and donors, and keeping polls up... don't fool yourself into thinking that this administration cares about the people. Or any administration. Because the US has supported or ignored stuff far, far worse than this (and continues to do that in many countries around the world) to make that a valid point...

There is the fact that it is hard to get stuff through the UN because all nations are in it and some will protect other ones that violate rights... like China does with Korea, or the Arab nations all do for eachother... but what we should do is do all we can -- actually work IN the UN. Be a good member. Pay our dues... act like the world does matter. And eventually we will see results... and will get some stuff through to try to discourage 'bad' nations... and once you have some of that, CONCRETE UN resolutions, you can do more... sanctions, whatever...

And supporting the UN Peacekeepers would help a lot too. They do a very important job, and its stupid to say that we should just use our troops in war. I'd think that PREVENTING WARS FROM EVER BEING NECESSARY would matter to people, and that's what a good application of peacekeepers can do... that wouldn't work in Iraq of course (there, beefed up inspections were the way to go), but in many places (read: AFGHANISTAN) it'd help a LOT...

But what we are doing -- acting essentially alone, with little international support and no popular support outside of our country -- is dangerous to both our standing in the world and the future of the world... the bad effects are already being seen...

[WhiteFleck]

My biggest misgiving with the war is the way they go after Saddam. He's supposedly hiding in thickly populated areas, which we then bomb. Who doesn't see that as a set-up? Why can't we just track him down with some secret missions or something? We have the best military in the world, I think one man would be easy for us. Then again, we still don't have bin Laden.

[Darunia]

As for protestors, why shouldn't there be protests when a government is doing something this blatantly wrong?

You're decidedly misconstuing your opinion for fact. I could just as easily say "how can anyone protest something this blatantly right." Is it a coincidence that nearly all the protestors are liberal or democratic? I think not. Even Clinton was against it, until he eventually conceded to "support our troops"...

[A Black Falcon]

Darunia, did you read my last post here? Because it doesn't look like you did...

[Darunia]

Can't say I did...nothing personal, but I had ADD for posts longer than a paragraph.

[A Black Falcon]

Then why bother being in this forum? Because most of the posts that are worth reading are long.

[Geno]

Then why bother being in this forum? Because most of the posts that are worth reading are long.

To tell you the truth, I don't read every post in a thread either. I read the recent ones and the posts they traced their roots from. I also read posts that catch people's attention LIKE THIS!!!

[alien space marine]

:lovelycow:

[Darunia]

Mmmm...steak.

[Geno]

EET MOR CHIKEN

[alien space marine]

if only you print food like you can with pictures.:(

[A Black Falcon]

Well, now that the war's over, lets analyze.

-Sadaam: Unknown
-Sadaam's sons: Unknown
-Nuclear weapons program: None found.
-Chemical weapons program: None found.
-Biological weapons program: None found.
-Power, Water not working in most Iraqi cities.
-Looting destroys much of what is left, and destroys almost the entire collection of most Iraqi museums.

+Agricultural pesticides and labs: Found.
+Conventional weapons: Found.
+Department heads, relatives of Sadaam, other minor officials: Found.


-Jubilant crowds: Dubiously thin.
-Democracy: None in sight; assassinations of rival power figures have already started, though.
-Military Governor: Coming Soon, I expect.
-Bush Vs Everyone: As bad as ever.
-Arab Public Opinion: Not improved.

+New World Order: On track. Next targets: Syria, Iran, North Korea.
+Oil contracts: Starting on the process now. The first rebuilding contract just went out.
+Islamists: Already gaining strength for a push to make Iraq a Islamic Republic.

Sounds great! Good job, hawks!

[Darunia]

Oh, I doubt that they'll find any WMD either...sad, really. As for Saddam, I truly think he's dead; and even if he isn't, he's worthless. He's not like Bin Laden in as much as he can sneak around and coordinate terrorist attacks.

As for power and water not working in most cities, I was aware only of one in Southern Iraq.

How is it that your blaming the looting on us...? The heathen baboon Iraqis are uncultured and are looting, not us...the British are trying to stop them in the south. If they loot museums, it's their own loss, not our fault.

They'll be organizing an interim local government soon, trust me. Even if it is a military governor, whats wrong with that? Worked fine in Japan and Germany didn't it. As for Bush vs. everyone, what else is new...all those countries have always hated us...and what do we care. They need us more than we need them obviously. :D

Arab Public Opinion; don't make me laugh. That'll never change.

[Geno]

The chances of making the Arab public opinion change are about as good as the chances of making Hillary Clinton the most beautiful woman in the world.

But hey, some good came out of the war. Saddam's regime is over. Like Darunia said, even if he's alive, he's useless. Bin Laden, on the other hand, can still be a threat if he's still alive, which I'm sure he is. I can't say the same about Saddam though. I didn't believe it at first, but at this point, I'm convinced he's dead. The worms have probably already begun eating his brain out.

[A Black Falcon]

How is it that your blaming the looting on us...? The heathen baboon Iraqis are uncultured and are looting, not us...the British are trying to stop them in the south. If they loot museums, it's their own loss, not our fault.

Actually, it was a mix of random looters and organized crime rings that looted the museums. Some stuff stolen was carefully chosen for being valuable... which means well organized crime rings.

Oh, and two libraries were burned, destroying large numbers of priceless and irreplaceable ancient scrolls... great job at protecting Iraq's cultural heritage, guys! Is there even any left? ... these losses truly are a tragedy for all humanity... why couldn't they have anticipated crime and looting and tried to protect these sites sooner?

As for WMD, its looking more and more likely that in the days just before the war, Iraq was telling the truth when they said that they'd destroyed or gotten rid of their WMD weapons... which makes this war a complete farce.

And now, some new comics!

The heathen baboon Iraqis are uncultured and are looting, not us...the British are trying to stop them in the south

[Weltall]

We haven't even started looking for WMD yet... we've checked out a few too-obvious spots that yielded nothing, but there's a whole country out there that we haven't searched, you know?

This of course coming from the same ideocracy who was telling us via the media that our war plans had failed and that we were trapped in a quagmire of Vietnam proportions. After a week.

On another note, one must chuckle when you realize that so-called "peace" protests so often turned violent, and the Pro-America rallies never had a single instance of violence.

I mean, it's not unexpected when you consider that it's usually moron college kids and liberal moguls who comprise the anti-American mobs. But I digress.

One other thing, why post those comics? They're not funny at all, and you're the only one who finds any credibilty in them.

[A Black Falcon]

We haven't even started looking for WMD yet... we've checked out a few too-obvious spots that yielded nothing, but there's a whole country out there that we haven't searched, you know?

False. We've been looking ever since we went in there.

On another note, one must chuckle when you realize that so-called "peace" protests so often turned violent, and the Pro-America rallies never had a single instance of violence.

Because the Pro-America rallies never had a fiftieth of the amount of people as the antiwar rallies...

One other thing, why post those comics? They're not funny at all, and you're the only one who finds any credibilty in them.

Because they are funny and completely accurate... especially the middle Sunday Doonesbury one. That fact is very, very scary...