War on Iraq: Bush is gettin pwned

[KoS PY.nq.ict]

I was watching CNN Headline News this morning. There are more and more people joining the anti war demonstrations everyday. To add on to that, Turkey just denied us access to their military bases due to the Turkish population demonstrating against this war. That means if the U.S. and England are to go to war with Iraq, we're going to have a hard time finding a place to attack Iraq from the north. People don't want a war...but then look what happened during ww2. Europe didn't want war and Hitler ended up taking over half of Europe before someone woke up. If we sit back and masturbate, we're giving Sodamn Insane plenty of time to make a military move. AND HE WILL! JUST GIVE HIM TIME!

[*DAMN Bander]

Bah! The only country that has proven to OWN biological, chemical AND nuclear mass destruction weapons is yours. The U.S. - And if i look on the history line since WW2 it has been america who also used that shiat (Agent Orange, Uranium Ammunition etc ...).

So if theres a reason to disarm someone - it would be the U.S.

Northern Corea wants the U.S. to sign a "non agression pact" - but U.S. denies. SO they claim: If the U.S. are a threat for Northern Corea we have full right to go after nuclear weapons - cuz they would be the only chance to DEFEND themselfes from a possible foe that HAS mass killing weapons.

And to Saddam Hussein: The only reason Iraq attacked Kuwait was that Kuwait has been a part of Iraq before british colonial times. Kuweit even was "Created" from brits. Also its known that Iraq contacted the U.S. before "Invading" Kuweit. The U.S. statement was: "Re-Annection of Kuweit would be seen as "regional conflict" and U.S. would stay Neutral in this. Muahahaha. Nice trick - indeed.

So whos there who has to be scared from Saddam anymore? Iran would whoop his ass, Kuweit is defended by U.S. (same thing), the ONLY country that could not match the Iraqi Army is Jordania - but there is no fucking reason at all for Saddam to invade there. LOL - if he would try to touch fucking isreal pseudo-democracy you could collect saddams remains in a 500 squaremiles area. hehe.

Dont talk shit man. If u talk from war then have the balls to say the truth: In this war the formula is: Blood for Oil.

Your own President is chairsman of Bush-Oil something. And Dick Chenexy owns part of the north afghanistan pipeline now.

So suck my hairy balls but fuck of with your pro-war bullshiat here.

peace to the world ~

war is primitive, stupid, apestyle, dumb, cruel, unneccessary and time has come where war as "extended measures of policy" MUST be condamned.

And if Powell & Co continue to threaten the eu and nato with speeches like "either u do what we want or u dont play a role in international buisness anymore" (yesterday in the news) then i can promise u it will end that way that u can fight your fairytale war against terrorism with some BSE fucked brits ALONE.

To all of u who are christians: Hope your God exists and will make sure u will be re-born as Iraquis or Palestinians (or somebody else whos fucked up). Then u will notice that hell exists on earth already.

So - now get some Big Mac from Mac Donalds and be happy.

peace ~

Bander

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Bah! The only country that has proven to OWN biological, chemical AND nuclear mass destruction weapons is yours. The U.S.

Oh, the the old Soviet Union / Russia doesn't count Bander?  And what about China?  Not to mention the ones that you know have then wthout "proof".  (not to mention the chemical weapons used in the Iran / Iraq wars).

And if i look on the history line since WW2 it has been america who also used that shiat (Agent Orange, Uranium Ammunition etc ...).

If you are going to talk about it, you should know what it is.  It's DEPLEATED URANIUM.  It isn't a radioactive weapon, it's just more dense then fucking LEAD.  Cuts through armour better.  It is not the nuclear weapon some people on this board have made it out to be.

So if theres a reason to disarm someone - it would be the U.S.

There's a fucking joke.  While the US government has stuck it's head in places it doesn't belong, for the wrong reasons, it's no different then any other government looking after it's own asses.  

And, while it has done some bad things, it's also one of the first militaries to go in and do the right thing too.  

Plus, Iraq has killed many more people, both of it's own and of others (Kuwaities, Iranians, etc) then the USA has in the last 20 years.  

Northern Corea wants the U.S. to sign a "non agression pact" - but U.S. denies. SO they claim: If the U.S. are a threat for Northern Corea we have full right to go after nuclear weapons - cuz they would be the only chance to DEFEND themselfes from a possible foe that HAS mass killing weapons.

For somone that goes on to bitch about war being bad, you sure are quick to defend a nation that is bringing more nuclear weapons to life.

The USA, along with many other nations, are REDUCING the number and type of nuclear weapons they have Bander.  North Korea is bucking that trend, and threatening war if the USA stops with trade and aid (they don't want us to use chose where our money goes either).  It's North Korea that is talking the smack.  They want non-aggression while they build up weapons and forces.  Why should they be trusted?

And if Powell & Co continue to threaten the eu and nato with speeches like "either u do what we want or u dont play a role in international buisness anymore" (yesterday in the news) then i can promise u it will end that way that u can fight your fairytale war against terrorism with some BSE fucked brits ALONE.

NATO should be threatened for not living up to their own accords.  What the hell good is an alliance if they don't keep their end of the deal.  Sure, many european countries loved having the USA as an ally when they were afraid of the old Soviet Union coming in and taking over.  But now that that threat is gone, they don't want any part of it.  LOL, just like the American government, the European governments want to have it all their way.  

Dont talk shit man. If u talk from war then have the balls to say the truth: In this war the formula is: Blood for Oil.

So suck my hairy balls but fuck of with your pro-war bullshiat here.

peace to the world ~

So - now get some Big Mac from Mac Donalds and be happy.

peace ~

Bander

Bander, you are just outragous.  Your spout your biggotry against America, then say shit like Peace.  HYPOCRITE.  Yes, I agree that Bush wants war too much.  And not for all the right reasons.  That doesn't mean that war may not be necessary.

Next time you think that there should be no war, and that America should be disarmed, think of the jack-boot wearing thugs that would control your country today if it weren't for the USA.  Think about what would happen if one of these petty dictators came to power and wanted your country today?  It took Hitler less then a decade to bring Germany back from economic ruin to one of the greatest world powers.  You think that can never happen again?  

It all starts with hate.  Just like your hate of the USA.  So, you can tongue-jack my hairy shit box with your talk of peace and obvious hate of the USA.

I don't defend Bush.  I don't defend everything this country does.  But your arrogant biggotry against the USA is just as bad as any overzealous American.  You are even worse, you hate America probably without ever being here and knowing what it is really like.

[kami]

I can do nothing but laugh when Bush's allies are failing him, truly funny.

Bander has a point when he says that the US is the only nation to have ever used weapons of mass destruction on a ?large scale?. Russia and China are no longer threats to anyone but themselves.

Just curious here, depleted uranium, hasn't it proven to be harmful on American troops? I thought that was why they stopped using it.

I don't think anyone can defend Iraq for all the atrocities they have commited, but they were fooled into thinking the Kuwait war was a safe bet. Furthermore, they have no power to invade anyone at all, they don't have a cause to do so either.

The American governments world-policing-policies can not be compared to European govenments in the least.

North Korea threatens the US because they don't have a choice, if the US stops all the trading, the NK will starve, that's why they try to get as much power - through nuclear devices - as possible.

[tasty]

I agree with bucc that bander's post was pretty outrageous in many aspects, but since bucc already argued most of the points, I want to point out one especially stupid nugget: "So - now get some Big Mac from Mac Donalds and be happy." This is an offensive and ridiculous stereotype especially considering the fact that Germany is McDonald's most profitable overseas market. McDonalds Deutschland is the biggest restaurant company in Germany, over twice as large as its nearest competitor, and there are now more than a thousand McDonald's franchises in Germany alone.

The main thing I don't agree with in regard to bucc and py's posts is the fact that America is justified in engaging in flagrantly self-serving behavior just because other countries do. Don't you think that America should take the "high road" in regard to international affairs? We are one of the few countries in the world that has the financial and diplomatic capabilities to act morally on a global scale, so don't you think we should set a better example? Its unreasonable to expect less fortunate countries to behave that way when the nation that they look up to most (whether they admit it or not) doesn't act it.

Also I must interject here to say that I think that suspicion of military action by Saddam against us is somewhat silly. Its reasonable to suspect another terrorist attack, but it would be difficult to link anything directly to Saddam. With the exception of the attempted assasination of George Bush Sr., no major acts of recent terrorism have been linked to Hussein. I see some amount of truth in the assertion that Bush's tirade against Saddam is being used to detract attention to the fact that we did NOT find Bin Laden and that the perpetrators of 9/11 have gone largely unpunished, compared to the citizens of Afghanistan who received the brunt of our anger stemming from that incident.

Although WWII makes for an interesting comparison to the current situation, Saddam would have to do many more heinous things than he already has to even get close to the point Hitler was at when Europe continued to appease him. I think we have learned our lessons from that war, and when Hussein attempted to invade Kuwait the US, with the assistance of Japan and Germany, soundly stopped him. I think that if Saddam ever tried anything he would quickly find himself in deep shit again. He knows this, and that's why he won't try anything. Another thing to note would be that every time the US was justified in military force, we had waited for the enemy to attack first. Every time we have tried to launch a war as an overthrow of unfriendly leadership (bay of pigs), against an amorphous enemy (terrorists), or against a concept (communism) it has resulted in failure. If we are truly to learn lessons from history, we will not take military action against Iraq at this time.

[jn.loudnotes]

Well, I could Bucc Bucc and point out every slightly flawed detail in his post, but I think if you view the large picture, we're all essentially in agreement.  But Bucc. . .lay off Bander at least a little.  Can you say "depleted uranium" properly in your second language?  

And I think most of the American stereotypes he mentioned were justified. . .afterall, they are just that.  They don't have to apply to everyone (or even everyone on this board) to be true.  When you look at MOST of the people in this country (to use another stereotype, the one's who support bush ) they really are hamburger loving airheads.

But I will take issue with Pyrex's idea that Hussein is a threat of equal to Hitler.  Yes, when Europe ignored germany after WWI they allowed Hitler to build a huge army and assemble massive power.  However, Hussein is tightly watched, he's economically sanctioned, and he keeps to himself.  In truth he's no longer a real threat to anyone except himself and his own country, and that's not really another nation's business.

Also Bucc, tasty is right in that the United States is still the only nation every to have used nuclear weapons against an enemy, and one of very few ever to have used chemical and biological agents.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

The main thing I don't agree with in regard to bucc and py's posts is the fact that America is justified in engaging in flagrantly self-serving behavior just because other countries do. Don't you think that America should take the "high road" in regard to international affairs?

By all means, and I tried to be clear that I don't support Bush and his overzealous desire to attack Iraq.  I will agree to it, only if a threat is verified by the UN.  I know that Bush has his own adgenda, and it has little to do with the public good.  However, if it is found that Iraq is working on more chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, then I support the force necessary to remove that threat.  It is the moral high ground, since Iraq has proven that it will use them, and not just against the USA.

Also I must interject here to say that I think that suspicion of military action by Saddam against us is somewhat silly. Its reasonable to suspect another terrorist attack, but it would be difficult to link anything directly to Saddam.

Which is exactly what I am interested in finding out.  If he is supporting terrorists, then it's a valid reason. If it's just the old smoke and mirrors, it's not.

Although WWII makes for an interesting comparison to the current situation, Saddam would have to do many more heinous things than he already has to even get close to the point Hitler was at when Europe continued to appease him. I think we have learned our lessons from that war, and when Hussein attempted to invade Kuwait the US, with the assistance of Japan and Germany, soundly stopped him. I think that if Saddam ever tried anything he would quickly find himself in deep shit again. He knows this, and that's why he won't try anything.

They know better then to mess with anyone again.  It's ok if they re-arm, turn a blind eye to it, they aren't stupid enough to do it again.  They just got their asses handed to them 15 years ago.  Quick, am I talking about Iraq today or Germany in 1935?  Because that's what most of the world said back then.  

I'm not saying that Saddam is as bad as Hitler, I'm saying that he shouldn't be given the oppertunity to demonstrate it.  Hitler hadn't done anything "that bad" until after Germany was almost impossible to stop.  Do you really want to ignore someone That fits the murderous pattern of Saddam?

Another thing to note would be that every time the US was justified in military force, we had waited for the enemy to attack first. Every time we have tried to launch a war as an overthrow of unfriendly leadership (bay of pigs), against an amorphous enemy (terrorists), or against a concept (communism) it has resulted in failure.

Not completely correct.  We instigated the Revolutionary War.  If the modern theories are true, we really started the Spanish American War.  We were also never directly attacked in WWI, nor the Gulf War.  All of those could be considered successful.  Also, the USA pretty much did win the war against "communism", at least it won the biggest fight in that one (so long USSR).  

The biggest problem with things like the Bay of Pigs (unlike when Teddy Rosevelt went down there and took Cuba in the first place) is the US military wasn't behind it.  It was a covert war.  Same way that Vietnam started.  The only reason Cuba isn't another US territory today is because we were afraid how the USSR would have reacted, so we never let the military in on it.  With Vietnam, there was just so much political pressure here, that the US never fully comitted to winning it.  Look how few Americans were actually in Vietnam at any one single time.  Then look at how many were in Europe and the Pacific in WW2.  At the height of the Vietnam war, I think there was still under 300k Americans there at one time.  For most of it, far less.  



I'm not a war monger.  I don't want to see war if it can be avoided.  But, I don't like someone basing America off one person, and thinking that we blindly back him.  Especially one that spouts hate at America while preaching peace.  Two faced.  It disgusts me.

[cookie]

And to Saddam Hussein: The only reason Iraq attacked Kuwait was that Kuwait has been a part of Iraq before british colonial times

I'm really surprised nobody else mauled this statement. Iraq didn't want Kuwait back.. Iraq was pissed that Kuwait was flooding the oil market and thus they lost more revenue and buisness during a time in which they REALLY needed cash. Plus, Iraq suspected Kuwait was drilling diagonally into Iraq's oil reserves, which pissed them off even more. The result: the conflict. In addition, your statement is also false because Kuwait was never part of Iraq. In 1961, Iraq had claimed Kuwait, under the PRETENSE that Kuwait had been part of the Ottoman Empire subject to Iraqi suzerainty... however this proved false and Iraq recognized Kuwaits sovereignty.

Northern Corea wants the U.S. to sign a "non agression pact" - but U.S. denies. SO they claim: If the U.S. are a threat for Northern Corea we have full right to go after nuclear weapons - cuz they would be the only chance to DEFEND themselfes from a possible foe that HAS mass killing weapons.

You have this completely backwards. The US and N.K. previously had a non aggression pact that involved the US giving them aid in exchange for them not building up their nuke aresnal. Does that sound like the US was threatening them? Trying to shatter the peace? I don't think so. Last time I checked promoting economic and social growth while reducing the number of weapons around doesn't strike me as a particularly disagreeable circumstance. North Korea is just trying to stir up trouble.

So whos there who has to be scared from Saddam anymore? Iran would whoop his ass, Kuweit is defended by U.S. (same thing), the ONLY country that could not match the Iraqi Army is Jordania

IRAN would whoop his ass? HA HA.

[BTs_Colin]

Well I'm just from little ol' Canada but we gots opinions too.

Now this weapons issue in Iraq could be simplified alot. The UN should tell the US that they get to sit this one out. This isn't their job. They should be told 'great job in '91, you did us proud, now go away'. Why not have another country appointed by the UN to use force against Iraq in the event of a problem with the inspectors?

Would people really have as big a problem if it wasn't the US that was leading the coalition?

I think they should get some of the other countries to do it on behalf of the UN. China, Russia, Canada, Austrailia, Germany,France, Pakistan, South Africa could all enforce the UN resolutions just as well as the US (if they teamed up of course).

Oh and Cookie, Iraq and Kuwait were once both part of the Ottoman Empire. They were both administered from Baghdad.

[Ace]

With all this bullshit that flies around, especially from Europe, I think sometimes that we would have been better off if we had let Europe rot in the hell it created for itself. George Washington really knew what he was talking about when he warned us on his way out of office. I admit the US is not perfect, but we have done a lot to help out other countries. If you don't believe this, just look at what happened before we played World Policeman: the two most far-reaching, devastating wars in history. Ever since we took over the role of looking out for everyone else, nothing even coming close to that scale has happened. And for what? So dumbfucks could say shit like this:

So - now get some Big Mac from Mac Donalds and be happy.

Thanks, but no thanks.

And to you personally Bander, fuck off. I don't call you a slurpee-making, cab-driving, raghead terrorist son of a bitch just because you are part Arab, even though you make the same sweeping generalizations against Americans. So please, either cut that bullshit or take your hyopcritical rantings elsewhere.

[tasty]

Since the pick-apart style seems to be the modus operandi for forum argument, I'm gonna give it a whirl. For the first two quotes of mine that you responded to Bucc we seemed to be generally in agreement, so I'm not going to address them. The only difference between us on this seems to be that I would require a more dire set of circumstances under which to justify military action.

They know better then to mess with anyone again.  It's ok if they re-arm, turn a blind eye to it, they aren't stupid enough to do it again.  They just got their asses handed to them 15 years ago.  Quick, am I talking about Iraq today or Germany in 1935?  Because that's what most of the world said back then.  

This ignores the fundamental difference I was trying to point out between Germany 1935 and today. We let Hitler take significant military action against neighboring areas. Right now we have only scant evidence that Hussein is even arming himself, much less for any major military onslaughts. What I was trying to point out with my post is that we will be justified only after military action is taken. Until Saddam takes action against another country, (in which case we will certainly attack him) no comparison can be accurately drawn between Germany and Iraq.

We were also never directly attacked in WWI, nor the Gulf War.  All of those could be considered successful.  Also, the USA pretty much did win the war against "communism", at least it won the biggest fight in that one (so long USSR).  

In WWI, aggression existed between our allies. In the Gulf War, although Saddam was attacking Kuwait he was doing it to get to us and the rest of the Western world. And although you are right with the Revolutionary War comment, its disingenuous to say that we won or "pretty much" won the war against Communism. Considering all the ridiculous things we did to battle it, all the resouces we wasted, all the time we spent, it still exists (in one form or another) in North Korea, China, and Cuba, and its ideals still live on in countless revolutionaries all over the world. Although we certainly contributed to it, the US cannot take credit for the fall of the USSR. It was a bloated state with a ridiculous economic system that was doomed to fail anyway. Even the idea of "fighting" Communism is ridiculous because essentially to admit that it needs to be fought is to admit that in some capacity it works.

I'm not a war monger.  I don't want to see war if it can be avoided.  But, I don't like someone basing America off one person, and thinking that we blindly back him.  Especially one that spouts hate at America while preaching peace.  Two faced.  It disgusts me.

This I dont completely understand... is it supposed to be about me? If it is, I have much to say in response to it. However in previous situations I have been mistaken with who posters were addressing with their comments, so I'm not going to respond until I know I'm not just making some foolish mistake.

Also, I attended a speaker tonight who addressed the whole Iraq issue within his speech. He was pointing out what an Orwellian concept it is for us to justify action aginst Iraq through a pre-emptive strike (ie, we believe you will attack us so we are going to attack you first). If this can be used as a justification for war, than isn't Iraq justified in attacking us right now? The US has flatly stated that we intend to take action against Iraq... what more proof would they need to attack us under a pre-emptive strike? Currently, they have more and better evidence for a pre-emptive strike against us than we do for a strike against them! This whole concept just perpetuates itself... if everyone used it, full scale wars would erupt in Israel, Pakistan, and anywhere else where armed countries have unfriendly relations.

[Ace]

They know better then to mess with anyone again.  It's ok if they re-arm, turn a blind eye to it, they aren't stupid enough to do it again.  They just got their asses handed to them 15 years ago.  Quick, am I talking about Iraq today or Germany in 1935?  Because that's what most of the world said back then.  

This ignores the fundamental difference I was trying to point out between Germany 1935 and today. We let Hitler take significant military action against neighboring areas. Right now we have only scant evidence that Hussein is even arming himself, much less for any major military onslaughts. What I was trying to point out with my post is that we will be justified only after military action is taken. Until Saddam takes action against another country, (in which case we will certainly attack him) no comparison can be accurately drawn between Germany and Iraq.

So you don't think modern Iraq and Germany from 1935 are the same? Well then think about this:

1) Saddam treats the Kurds how Hitler treated the Jews.
2) Saddam has created chemical weapons (we found some of the empty warheads proving this) and built his arsenal up against the terms of the UN resolution ending the Gulf War, just like Hitler built up his army in excess of what the Treaty of Versailles permitted.
3) Saddam has shot at planes flying over the no-fly zone, thus violating the UN resolution. This sounds awfully familiar to Hitler remilitarizing the Rhineland in violation of the Treaty of Versailles.
4) Saddam is a leader who has proven that he is willing to push the UN and the US to their limits to see how much he can get away with, just like Hitler did with the League of Nations, espcially France and Britain.

So basically, short of invading Poland, Saddam has done as much as possible to make himself into a damn Hitler. Hell, I take that back, Saddam invaded his Poland (Kuwait) and we were dumb enough to leave him in power. Since we are dicking around with him and letting him get away with so much, he will surely strike again. Have you ever thought that G.W. doesn't want to go down with Neville Chamberlain as a complete and utter moron in history who should have acted but didn't?

[cookienumerodos]

Oh and Cookie, Iraq and Kuwait were once both part of the Ottoman Empire. They were both administered from Baghdad.

Kuwait, while battling for sovereignty from the Ottoman Empire, retained it's de facto independence. In like 1897 or something, Kuwait asked Britain to help.. and thus Kuwait became free. It is in that way that Kuwait was never truly a part of the Ottoman Empire... and thus that gives IRaq no claim whatsoever over the nation.

Next to tastys post

What I was trying to point out with my post is that we will be justified only after military action is taken

this is the biggest pile of poo i've ever heard. It's like letting a guy walk around with a loaded gun, and not doing anything about it until he shoots someone.

its disingenuous to say that we won or "pretty much" won the war against Communism.

I think what bucc was getting at was that it wasn't literally a win, however it was a victory symbolically. Because the USSR was pretty much where it all began, its collapse signified a victory over communism by the US. Also, I think that despite it's so called existence, there is no true communism around today. Sure, China claims to be communist be it's a fas?ade.. they're capitalists just like everyone else. They want money as much as the next nation. In the cases of Cuba and North Korea, they can also be claimed as victories, because of the economically stagnant situation they have on their hands. Their failure just proves the triumph, i suppose.

Communism is ridiculous because essentially to admit that it needs to be fought is to admit that in some capacity it works.

Do we always fight things that work? Nay... people often fight things because they are certain they won't work and do more harm than good, such is the case with communism. Your logic is flawed.

Currently, they have more and better evidence for a pre-emptive strike against us than we do for a strike against them.

The concept is not Orwellian in that it doesn't perpetuate a totalitarian state, it justifies pre-emptive strikes. I give you that.. it could lead to conflict emerging prematurely. However perhaps it will open the door to earlier confrontation of problems, and instead of letting the problem fester like we so often do the countries may be able to resolve them earlier and more peacefully.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

This I dont completely understand... is it supposed to be about me? If it is, I have much to say in response to it. However in previous situations I have been mistaken with who posters were addressing with their comments, so I'm not going to respond until I know I'm not just making some foolish mistake.

Good choice.  I wasn't talking about you, I was talking about Bander's comments and why my Irish is up.

The only difference between us on this seems to be that I would require a more dire set of circumstances under which to justify military action.

You are right.  I don't need to wait until he actually kills thousands more.  Just proof that he was going to attempt it.  Or even proof that he is violating many of the sanctions he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War.

This ignores the fundamental difference I was trying to point out between Germany 1935 and today. We let Hitler take significant military action against neighboring areas. Right now we have only scant evidence that Hussein is even arming himself, much less for any major military onslaughts. What I was trying to point out with my post is that we will be justified only after military action is taken. Until Saddam takes action against another country, (in which case we will certainly attack him) no comparison can be accurately drawn between Germany and Iraq.

First, it's not scant evidence.  We are waiting to hear just how much there is, but don't sell it short either.

Second, I got your point, didn't ignore it, but I guess I didn't make my position clear.  The rest of the world shouldn't have waited for 1939 and Hiter invading France, or Poland before it.  No, they should have acted when he was obviously rearming and lying his ass off about it (how much did he say the fucking Bismark weighed?  just one example).  No, my point is that if the world hadn't ignored the steps that he took years before invading any neighbors, that were still in violation of a treaty signed just a decade or so earlier, after the previous time they got out of line, then, WW2 and all that death could have been avoided.  That was the point I obviously didn't make well enough Tasty.  I don't want war, but I don't want that sick fuck building up that kind of power again either.  So I have no problem if it's found, having it removed.  

Loudnotes, I'm not picking on Bander's english at all.  I assume that whatever papers or other media he gets his news from comes in his native language.  And that they would understand the concept of depleted uranium.  Or at least the definition of the word "depleted".  Otherwise, those highly vaunted unbiased European news organizations aren't worth shit either.

Also Loud, have to correct you on the fact that less then half the country voted for Bush.  Hell, less then half the Americans that voted actually voted for Bush (remember, Gore won the popular vote).  

As for his stereotypes on Americans, I don't treat the Germans and Austrians here like jack booted neo nazi's that want to take over the world and kill all the jews, so I don't expect him to throw those kind of insults at us.  It's for the weak minded.

Collin, I like your idea, only one problem.  Without the American military, the others don't like to go play as much.  They don't have the military budgets to sustain long engagements like this without American assistance.    Some others just don't care about UN work.  Then there's China.  LOL.  No offense towards you.  Just thinking that they'd never get involved.  Hell, if the countries that signed the NATO alliance can't keep their end of it (some, not all), there is no way the UN will do it without the USA there.

[Cossack]

Bander you need to phrase yourself better. As someone from Vienna you should be a bit more cultured than to resort to steryotyping. As for Iraq, well I am not sure that there is enough proof, even with those empty war head that could have possibly been used for chemical weapons. Ace, I think Bush and many other people in the country are going to fast. There has been no hard scale proof yet. Also on the subject of Depleted Uranium, it is true what Bucc says to a degree. It is not radioactive, but it is toxic, and it has polluted the water supply of the city of Basra. Remeber water is more important than gold over there.

The one difference between Hitler and Sadaam, is that Sadaam is not invading other countries. He has invaded Kuwait in the past, but was pushed out and remains in power due to the Treaty we signed with him.
Unless he is found to have Nukes, made partially made, being planed to be made, or if he actually sends Iraqi troops over the borders, we have no pretext to invade.

By the way I am sorry if my post seems unorginzed and confusing, I am very sleepy and cant think very straight at the moment. That last statement probablly dosent help my argument that much.
In short I go with Bucc on this one, George II has his own agenda for he and his cronies that is not good for the public welfare. He is looking to invade Iraq for mostly commerical gains, however Iraq could pose a threat.

[BTs_Colin]

Wait actually I think we should just capture Iraq and turn it into another of Canada's territories.

They would be so confused they could not possibly be upset. No has anything against Canada. We would bring them hockey and donuts. Canada would then have even more oil.

Actually on second thought, we should just go in occupy the oilfields, pump 'em dry, then nuke the whole region so it's a giant layer of glass and build habitats under the sea.

[<FBI>"Sixhits"]

I don't give a crap about Iraq. Really, who does?

Personally, I'd like America to focus on preventing conflict rather than stirring the pot of hate and anger in an attempt to bully the rest of the world into doing what we want them to.

If Iraq truly was an enemy, truly was a threat of the magnatude suggested in Bushian rhetoric then there would be no purpose in engaging in dialogue with allies to support invasion, there would be no need to convince neighbors nor politicians, nor the public. If Iraq was a true enemy, and an immeadiate threat, we would have no need to validate invasion. we simply would have done it. When he has threatend before, we struck. Where is the threat? The threat lies in small political/social groups based within numerous countries (within allies and foes alike) who have goals more sinister and more frightening that Saddam can wet-dream of. The attacks of a year ago are a cake walk compared to that which our true enemies would like to perpetrate. Saddam, conversely, has at best sought to expand his nation's territory. Sub goals have been roused by American aggitation, most notable being the attempted assassination of Bush senior.

In looking back at history, and at previous moments when the US stood under direct threat, when we were challenged with the greatest of weapons and armies, how did we respond? During the Cold War, did we attack Russia? Did we invade Eastern Europe or bomb Moscow? Did we threaten, did we EVER threaten to remove the leaders of Russia from power, by force? Of course not, because to do so is madness - to directly threaten the leaders of an opponent nation is to inspire both in the people and those leaders the most harsh of responses - our essential clam with Russia secured us peace and demonstrated to the world, a world at fear, that America could be trusted both in the defense of freedom, and as the garanteer of peace.

[<FBI>"Sixhits"]

When conflict did seem ineviatable, when Cuba was filled with SRMs and Russian and American forces actually shot at one another, what was our response? We desperately sought to avoid war. True that our weapons were prepared and ready, but our heart was not for Armmeagdon.

Of course, the szicofrinzic (jeez I need to learn to spell) current Bush foreign policy, one of verbally assaulting Iraq, preping for war, building a coliation of allies, drumming up popular support, et all, compared to Bush policy on N. Korea, one of back bending, prostration, appeasement, Big Talk, convinces me that the purpose behind our impending invasion of Iraq is not about self defence nor protecting Americans or their allies. It's about something else - and we intuitively know that. Instead of being up front about the goals and purposes behind American agression, we instead get a pitch, coupled with the denounciation of any who oppose war as Anti-American (http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/opinion/0103/22marketing.html)

It is becoming more and more apparent as Bush and Blair, the two greatest aggitators for war, fall in the polls that war is last thing their citizens want. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=68&ncid=716&e=15&u=/nyt/20030126/ts_nyt/blair_s_stand_on_iraq_costs_him_popularity_at_home

It is clear that Bush wants nothing to do with the actuallized threat of a nuclear armed N. Korea, equipt with long range missles that can hit China, Russia, Japan, S. Korea, and the West Coast of the US. Instead of bringing forces to bear, both diplomatic and military against Korea, he is focusing our minds and efforts on the fools errand of Iraq and a pitifully pathetic despot whose own people could be counted on rejecting him, if given a choice.

Indeed, no one but Bush and pals want to go to war - http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/article/0,13005,901030203-411381,00.html    -     http://www.alternet.org/print.html?StoryID=15012      -     http://www.alternet.org/print.html?StoryID=15012

Compared to N. Korea, the one remaining true communist state, where each member of society is raised to believe and desire a death that benifits the state, where each member of society is trained to kill with out remorse, a country that takes pride in it's vast army, a country that agressively pursued and countinues to pursue nuclear arms, a country with KNOWN stocks of fissionable material, a series of weapons grade nuclear plants, and numerous delivery systems (planes, missles, and artilery - the artilery being the greatest threat, capable of hiting the capital of S. Korea any time, day or night), a country that repeatedly threatens war if we do not bend to their demands, and lastly, a country which could, by conservative estimates, produces numerous nuclear weapons given a handful of MONTHS ... who the fick should I, we and the rest of the world, worry about?

Should we buy into propaganda produced to benifit the man with a strange goal of war with Saddam Hussien, or should we be and act rationally, and realize that there are more and truer threats in the world that back yard bullies like Saddom? Indeed, the whole situation is comical - http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/03/01/14_Irony.html

Where is our investigation into the 9/11 attacks?

Where is our vanted war on terror?

Where o where is the might of America when it comes to despors who control nuclear material?

When will we actually accomplish any of the basic goals laid out after 9/11?

Why must we bribe our allies instead of actually confincing them? (http://www.iht.com/cgi-bin/generic.cgi?template=articleprint.tmplh&ArticleId=84705)


It saddens me that there are those out there brash enough to simply lust for war. It depresses me as an American, an American raised to believe in the righteousness of our causes and our believes. In the case of Bush and Iraq, it is clear that there in no righteousness nor cause. The world, which just a year ago was united in support and sympathy is now instead forced more and more to realize how little we can be trusted, how amoral our leaders are (and, thusly how ignorant and sanguine our people), and, instead of backing us are backing off. We could have done something. We could have accomplished a revitilization of world afares if we cared to. We could have fought real evil and hate, with the support of a united world. Instead, Bush and those running him want to invade Iraq. What sense does it make, when Osama is missing and terrorists and our hunt for them is put on the back burner?

My country ashames me.

[EUR_Zaitsev]

Sixhits ......you get 10 extra brilliant points. For a while now I think tasty and I agree with you. Here are my answers.....

Where is our investigation into the 9/11 attacks?<>It stopped, we started assuming

Where is our vanted war on terror?<> It was always just a cover up to hit Iraq, Afganistan was a pawn.

Where o where is the might of America when it comes to despors who control nuclear material?<>Thats a toughie

When will we actually accomplish any of the basic goals laid out after 9/11?<>Nothing because we acted like bullied out ugly ducklings instead of thinking what we did to cause it.

Why must we bribe our allies instead of actually confincing them?<> Because they are too smart to ally with the US.


NEXT i have a question for you guys.......

Why does Iraq have to be proven innocent? I thought this was america people? Innocent until proven guilty.

[EUR_Zaitsev]

Jeez you know what sorry for the double post but Sixhits is right We just want oil and Bush wants to clean the family name. I saw this same shit over 9-11 we need to stop acting like the little abused child because I hate to break it to some of you but America washes its hands in blood every day. I mean we say we want to free the people of Iraq? What about freeing the people in Africa what have we done there? We havent done a damn bit of nothing there and its because they dont have shit for natural resouces. The minute someone strikes oil in Africa I gurentee we will be there but seeing as that wont happen we leave them to die. And we say we are protectecting freedom, WHAT FREEDOM. Our ruler didnt get elected by the popular vote even and you know what else Its call Collateral Damage. They have nukes we have nukes and nobody dies.