Just My Opinion...

[Ravishing Rick Rude]

So i was sitting in my family room, watching BBC World News. When all of a sudden, President bush is quoted to say " Treat our POW's Humanely" Yes, much like he is doing with all the afgans sittin in cells smaller than most mid-sized cars. He as well as most americans make me sick. I'm Saying this not as a "North American" but as a european, north america in general, i hate. The opinions of most people on this side of the world sway with what everyone else has to say, not only has originality left society, but Public Opinion is all Flowers and Sunshine simply because people are against a war they have no idea about in the first place.

All this talk about War, and some American cities having mass Anti-War protests got me thinking. Why are most people for this war? " Because saddam needs to be taken out of power", A quote often heard on CNN, but beyond that, have they got any logical and well thought out. No, of course they can't, because they merely feed off the information given to them by a bias news station. I'm all for war. Diplomacy was given a chance yes, but instead of having a more traditional war, what do the americans do?
Call in the Air Support! According to reports there were less than 100 Iraqi soldiers and conscripts holding a town, and America, being the brave state they are, called in
F 16 fighters to Napalm them into next week, lovely don't you think?


Also, the recent " Accident" Involving a British helicopter, being shot down by a US Patriot missle.... Umm, Patriot missles have to be fired manually, doesn't anyone else see a problem with this? This would be the second set of friendly fire casualties within the last 2 years involving americans.... First they bomb four innocent Canadian soldiers ( The Pilot was dis-honourably discharged in the end, so some closure for that) and now this. American efficiency at it's best i suppose.


I'll be watching CNN tonight when i am getting ready for bed, like i have been for the better part of 2 weeks, to see what the continuing " Shock and Awe" campaign will leave on Iraq. This may sound incredibly cold, but when America finally reaches Baghdad and 100s upon 1000s of Americans are slaughtered in the worst Urban Combat situation since Stalingrad begins, i will be smiling at every drop of blood that comes out of there body.

Because then, and only then, will they realize that the world isn't going to be a pushover anymore.

[Stonecutter]

You know. I can understand why one would feel this way. Watching thousands of ignorant american's waving flags on TV with no thought to the consequences. Without even considering what this war means. That they are being lied to by their governments. I am an american and I am not in favor of this war. If I actually believed that this was a war to liberate Iraq and not to gain control of vast amounts of oil I would be in favor of it, but we know that when Baghdad is taken, a government will be set up, probably much like the one in Afghanistan, with no democracy what so ever.


So as I said, I am not for this war.


But you have to go and say something like this......

ut when America finally reaches Baghdad and 100s upon 1000s of Americans are slaughtered in the worst Urban Combat situation since Stalingrad begins, i will be smiling at every drop of blood that comes out of there body.

You prove once again why I will never actively protest this war.

That may be one of the most ignorant statements I have ever read. You WANT americans to die. I suppose the Iraqi's lives are more valuable than the Americans?

I don't support this war because during war people will DIE and but this point, the quickest path to the end of the war, and the end of death is a quick american victory, which is what I hope will happen. I'd like to think this is what the majority of protesters believe but unfortunately morons like you prove me wrong.

In this country I see people comparing George Bush to hitler. These people should do the gene pool a favor and go jump in the lake with cement shoes. George Bush is an awful president but he also hasn't killed SIX MILLION JEWS out of pure hatred, nor has he slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Russians, Slavs, Poles or other people simply because of their nationality. George Bush is not a good man, but to compare him to Hitler is sheer Ignorance.

Legitimate protesters of the war protest it because it will mean the deaths of many lives, you however are only against the American side out of ignorance and hatred. Don't you realize that this makes you no better than the many raciest Americans that support this war out of a desire for bloodlust and revenge against arabs?

You want us to suffer and for that I wish upon you the shame to realize the mistakes you have made in hopes that you will see the errors of your ways.

[Ravishing Rick Rude]

Actually,i dont' wish for Americans to die. When 9/11 happened i felt remorse for America.

Soon after that they have started there little game of Imperialism, and have basically tried to start an empire by putting themselves all over the map.

This war by all rights shouldn't be happening, but you know what, if Americans die because they are in something they shouldn't be, so be it.

I don't support this war because during war people will DIE and but this point, the quickest path to the end of the war, and the end of death is a quick american victory, which is what I hope will happen. I'd like to think this is what the majority of protesters believe but unfortunately morons like you prove me wrong.

Yes, a " quick " war, clearly the war wouldn't last 2 weeks like most americans and others thought, why do you think the UN had such heavy protest towards this attack, they knew it was going to be drawn out, Air Strikes do what? Jack ****, it just makes for more rubble to be faught on when ground troops reach the capital. If anyone is being ignorant, it's you.

To argue your other " Points". I am not only against an American side of this war, because the iraqis are far from innocent, but when you bring in AIR STRIKES to kill under 100 people, it isn't a war, it's a ****ing joke, they shouldn't have sent in ground troops if they aren't going to be used, they are honestly making a mockery of war.

Of course we all want a quick outcome, it's just not going to happen, If Saddam is going down, he will take as many people down with him as possible, so instead of saying useless **** like " People compare Bush to hitler" i'd like you to point out ONE person who has said that btw. Try and make logical points instead of accusing me of being Racist simply because of how i
think one country is handling a delicate situation

And to further argue your point, i'm not against war, i'm for it, it has to be done, but i just think the Americans are going at it the wrong way, thinking it's going to be easy, remember WWI " We'll be home by christmas" 4 years and like 4 million dead later, they were home. Well most at least.

[One Winged Angel]

Originally posted by Ravishing Rick Rude
Actually,i dont' wish for Americans to die. When 9/11 happened i felt remorse for America.

Soon after that they have started there little game of Imperialism, and have basically tried to start an empire by putting themselves all over the map.

This war by all rights shouldn't be happening, but you know what, if Americans die because they are in something they shouldn't be, so be it.

I don't think you know why we're fighting this war do you. That was the most ignorant post I've ever read.

[Ravishing Rick Rude]

Originally posted by One Winged Angel
I don't think you know why we're fighting this war do you. That was the most ignorant post I've ever read.

Well there are many Theories actually, one of which. Oil, makes the most sense. Taking out Saddam? Hardly, he has become a less than primary focus in this attack. They are trying to make a point to the middle east? The Afgan strike had the same effect, nothing like attacking a nation with less than adequite firepower and technology.

Anywho, back to the topic at hand.

I try very hard to not get sucked into the Propeganda put forth by your government, i am actually pretty even on this war, i honestly couldn't give a **** who wins, although clearly we all know America will, they have the numbers to do so.

Another thing, you didn't honestly think the they would surrender did you? i am willing to bet 90 percent of those 2000 or how many of them surrendered were all conscripts and they had no desire to fight, this isn't like Gulf War I , instead of being an Invading force, they are now defending against a invading force, in there country, and will be damned giving it up without a fight.

[Bond]

You went a little over the line here Rick.

Have you no respect for human life?

[Ravishing Rick Rude]

Originally posted by Bond
You went a little over the line here Rick.

Have you no respect for human life?


Yes, i do have respect for human life, innocent human life, i have great compassion for, i would rather have 5 to 1 ratio on soldiers to innocent civilians die, of any race, or culture, innocent deaths upset me the most in war.

Hearing stories about Iraqi soldiers using Women and Children as SHIELDS makes me sick.

[Bond]

Originally posted by Ravishing Rick Rude
Yes, i do have respect for human life, innocent human life, i have great compassion for, i would rather have 5 to 1 ratio on soldiers to innocent civilians die, of any race, or culture, innocent deaths upset me the most in war.

Hearing stories about Iraqi soldiers using Women and Children as SHIELDS makes me sick.

when America finally reaches Baghdad and 100s upon 1000s of Americans are slaughtered in the worst Urban Combat situation since Stalingrad begins, i will be smiling at every drop of blood that comes out of there body.

I won't say anything more.

[Ravishing Rick Rude]

Originally posted by Bond
I won't say anything more.

Ok, Soldiers, are not innocent people, they enlist for the opportunity to KILL others, that is not innocent, and if you think it is. You've got a problem.

[Stonecutter]

Originally posted by Ravishing Rick Rude
Well there are many Theories actually, one of which. Oil, makes the most sense. Taking out Saddam? Hardly, he has become a less than primary focus in this attack.

You do realize we may have killed him with the FIRST airstrike. 4 Bunkerbusters and 18 Tomahawk Cruse Missles were droped on a compound belived to have been housing saddam on wednesday night.

Saddam has not appeared on tv live since then (Two videos were released, and both of them were obviously pre recorded to be shown in event of something like this happening) He is believed to be in serious condition, and no state to lead the country. One of his sons is believed to be dead.

[One Winged Angel]

Originally posted by Ravishing Rick Rude
Actually,i dont' wish for Americans to die.


I'll be watching CNN tonight when i am getting ready for bed, like i have been for the better part of 2 weeks, to see what the continuing " Shock and Awe" campaign will leave on Iraq. This may sound incredibly cold, but when America finally reaches Baghdad and 100s upon 1000s of Americans are slaughtered in the worst Urban Combat situation since Stalingrad begins, i will be smiling at every drop of blood that comes out of there body.


It sounds like you want us to die. What is your problem? We're fighting to give Iraqi's freedom. I have a friend and her father is Iraqi. He almost died getting out of the country and much of his family is starving. Some even dead. By what I'm hearing from you your probably French. We've wanted this war to happen for a long time. We're not taking over we're saving Iraq. You really don't know what your talking about. :\

[Ravishing Rick Rude]

Originally posted by Stonecutter
You do realize we may have killed him with the FIRST airstrike. 4 Bunkerbusters and 18 Tomahawk Cruse Missles were droped on a compound belived to have been housing saddam on wednesday night.

Saddam has not appeared on tv live since then (Two videos were released, and both of them were obviously pre recorded to be shown in event of something like this happening) He is believed to be in serious condition, and no state to lead the country. One of his sons is believed to be dead.

That is a very good point Stonecutter, you at least are knowledgeable.

But in saying that, Most of the major news stations said they Fatally injured Bin Laden in a strike in the mountains in December 2001, turns out he wasn't even there.

So the credibility of the reports can be questioned. But i am very glad you brought that up :)

[Ravishing Rick Rude]

Originally posted by One Winged Angel
It sounds like you want us to die. What is your problem? We're fighting to give Iraqi's freedom. I have a friend and her father is Iraqi. He almost died getting out of the country and much of his family is starving. Some even dead. By what I'm hearing from you your probably French. We've wanted this war to happen for a long time. We're not taking over we're saving Iraq. You really don't know what your talking about. :\

LOL " we're not taking over, we're saving iraq" so a full scale invasion of a country isn't taking over its " Saving ". So when saddam is over thrown and a government is put in place that will be no more democratic then the one put into place in afganistan, the only difference? This government will be in America's Back pocket.

So PLEASE instead of lining off all these bull**** one liners like " We are fighting for freedom" learn what the **** you are talking about.

[One Winged Angel]

Originally posted by Ravishing Rick Rude
LOL " we're not taking over, we're saving iraq" so a full scale invasion of a country isn't taking over its " Saving ". So when saddam is over thrown and a government is put in place that will be no more democratic then the one put into place in afganistan, the only difference? This government will be in America's Back pocket.

So PLEASE instead of lining off all these bull**** one liners like " We are fighting for freedom" learn what the **** you are talking about.

whatever, I'm not going to argue this anymore, believe what you want to believe.

[Ravishing Rick Rude]

Originally posted by One Winged Angel
whatever, I'm not going to argue this anymore, believe what you want to believe.

Ok, answer me this, in all honesty, do you know ANYTHING about Politics of War?

[One Winged Angel]

Originally posted by Ravishing Rick Rude
Ok, answer me this, in all honesty, do you know ANYTHING about Politics of War?

Yes I do know politics of war. I know what happens in war. If there is a war I know why we are going. You think we're are going to war for oil. Where the **** are you getting your information?

I'm done with this.

[Bond]

Originally posted by One Winged Angel
Yes I do know politics of war. I know what happens in war. If there is a war I know why we are going. You think we're are going to war for oil. Where the **** are you getting your information?

I'm done with this.
Well, actually oil is part of the reason we are going to war with Iraq. Although it is not the main one.

Freeing up all of the oil will bring wealth to the Iraqi people, and it will also lower oil prices. And probably stimulate our economy.

[One Winged Angel]

Originally posted by Bond
Well, actually oil is part of the reason we are going to war with Iraq. Although it is not the main one.

Freeing up all of the oil will bring wealth to the Iraqi people, and it will also lower oil prices. And probably stimulate our economy.

I'm aware of this, I'm just saying oil is not reason we're sending soldiers in Iraq.

[BreakABone]

Well, I generally hate to get into political discussion with anyone whether online or not because many folks ake their political belief to heart, but I got to side with Marc on this one, no matter how you cut it I don't see this war being just.

1)To remove Saddam from office, I'm sure all of you folks will tell me how evil he is and so on, but does the US really have the right to go to another country and change their regime? I mean heck, the US was formed because the US didn't want interference from Britian and yet here we are doing the same exact crap.

2)To help the Iraqi people? I mean that is all well and dandy, but there are problems at home that need to be dealt with first, I mean it makes no sense to go visit someone's home and complain about it's problem when your house is in the same shape. And while we are at it, why don't we feed thekids in Africa, find cures for diseases and install technology in 3rd world countries. It isn't nor will it ever be the US's job to make the world a better place for everyone.

3)Oil? Well that is the main reason most folks bring up, and god knows we better not be going to war for some goddamin oil.

[Stonecutter]

Well........



The second we freed Umm Quasr or whatever that port town is called, the tankers were fillin up on free gas. I can't prove this, but trust me. This is about oil.

[Ravishing Rick Rude]

Originally posted by Stonecutter
Well........



The second we freed Umm Quasr or whatever that port town is called, the tankers were fillin up on free gas. I can't prove this, but trust me. This is about oil.

Bingo, that's what people fail to realize, Oil = Gasoline.

You notice how much the prices were inflating during the " tension " period?

What do you think will happen when America controls those Oil wells. The prices will drop to a steal.

[One Winged Angel]

Originally posted by Ravishing Rick Rude
Bingo, that's what people fail to realize, Oil = Gasoline.

You notice how much the prices were inflating during the " tension " period?

What do you think will happen when America controls those Oil wells. The prices will drop to a steal.

ok, when I see this I'll believe it. Then I'll say I'm wrong.

[Stonecutter]

The thing that would **** the US over in this would be an OPEC embargo, there would be no gas, but I'm fairly confident that the US took care of that long before the war started. They know we can't have it like the 70s again when gas went up a dollar.

Warning #1
-TheGame

[Ravishing Rick Rude]

Originally posted by One Winged Angel
ok, when I see this I'll believe it. Then I'll say I'm wrong.


Uhh, Half of it has already happened........You don't drive do you?

Even we in Canada are feeling it, Prices were up to High 80's per Litre, and and that is Obsurd.

So unless you really are living in a cave, you have already been proven wrong.

[One Winged Angel]

Originally posted by Ravishing Rick Rude
Uhh, Half of it has already happened........You don't drive do you?

Even we in Canada are feeling it, Prices were up to High 80's per Litre, and and that is Obsurd.

So unless you really are living in a cave, you have already been proven wrong.

I was meaning to your last statement.

[Ravishing Rick Rude]

Originally posted by One Winged Angel
I was meaning to your last statement.

Again, it's already happening, why do you think they are having all the british soldiers protect those oil wells?

[Stonecutter]

Well, I'll belive they're protecting them to save them from being set on fire, that's not a good thing.

[Professor S]

Wow Rick... I'm not even going to dignify your posts by pointing out the facts I've been pointing out over and over and over again. You are filth, and I won't waste another word on you.

Warning #1
-TheGame

[gekko]

I'm sorry, but you are a complete idiot.

Originally posted by Ravishing Rick Rude
So i was sitting in my family room, watching BBC World News. When all of a sudden, President bush is quoted to say " Treat our POW's Humanely" Yes, much like he is doing with all the afgans sittin in cells smaller than most mid-sized cars.

Afghans are treated better than any POWs in the entire world ever have. Let's see, they get to stay in cells, get fed, get medical treatment, and do not get abused in any way, shape, or form. All that's left is giving them a 5-star hotel. What part of prisoner do you not understand?

Or maybe you're too busy bitching about other people who you claim know nothing, to actually learn something yourself. How are the US prisoners treated? Well, they are given no medical treatment, they are hardly fed, they are severly beaten regularly, and they are also assasinated.

Get your head out of your ass. Try having a ****ing clue what you're saying before you open your uneducated mouth next time.

All this talk about War, and some American cities having mass Anti-War protests got me thinking. Why are most people for this war? " Because saddam needs to be taken out of power", A quote often heard on CNN, but beyond that, have they got any logical and well thought out. No, of course they can't, because they merely feed off the information given to them by a bias news station.

What the hell do you want, a 20-page report? A lot of people who oppose the war know little. Those in favor are aware of the major reasons for this war.

As for bias, surprising coming from you, American televisions slants left you idiot! Yes, left! Anti-war, not pro-war.

Diplomacy was given a chance yes, but instead of having a more traditional war, what do the americans do?
Call in the Air Support! According to reports there were less than 100 Iraqi soldiers and conscripts holding a town, and America, being the brave state they are, called in
F 16 fighters to Napalm them into next week, lovely don't you think?

Hey, here's an idea, let's get more troops killed! Oh wait, here's a better one, how about you get a ****ing clue?

As for the report which you seem to know little about, the Iraqi soldiers were a joke. Being the humane state that we are, though it may come to a surprise to you, we called in tanks, who used machine gun fire on these guys to try to prevent any innocent people from getting hurt. It was later learned that the town was occupied by 120 Iraqi soldiers, and after a long stand-off, where the Americans played nice, they called in a strike from a Harrier. We could've demolished the whole town hours ago, but we didn't. But hey, wouldn't expect you to know the story.

Also, the recent " Accident" Involving a British helicopter, being shot down by a US Patriot missle.... Umm, Patriot missles have to be fired manually, doesn't anyone else see a problem with this? This would be the second set of friendly fire casualties within the last 2 years involving americans.... First they bomb four innocent Canadian soldiers ( The Pilot was dis-honourably discharged in the end, so some closure for that) and now this. American efficiency at it's best i suppose.

And this coming from someone with a lot of experience in battle and knows what he's talking about. Oh wait, that's right, you don't have a ****ing clue. Why don't you describe what it's like to be an astronaut next?

Because then, and only then, will they realize that the world isn't going to be a pushover anymore.

Every American soldier who dies, which unfourtunately is a honorable human being, unlike the worthless piece of **** that you are, is a direct result of American morals, and dignity.

[Xantar]

One of the things we often forget about World War II is how little people like us really knew about what was going on. The D-Day landing took us all by surprise, for example. Oh sure, we knew it was coming, but we had no idea where it would be, how big it would be or how successful it would be. Why should we have? The Germans didn't know that stuff either.

It was a big, confusing mess. We've been spending the decades afterward figuring out what happened. It'll be the same way with this war. All we know is that a number of Americans died on this particular date. There's no way of telling whether this "shock and awe" strategy will work in the end because if it goes as planned, it's going to take a lot longer than a few days. In the meantime, we'll only be hearing about the number of deaths and what cities have been taken.

We all generally agree now that World War II turned out more or less the right way. I wonder if somebody back in the day would have come to the same conclusion looking at the flattened rubble that used to be cities and the enormous death count.

I don't know what this war will look like in the final analysis. Neither do you. We only know a few things. One is that the war is happening and that nothing will stop it. Another is that Saddam Hussein will be out of power one way or another. Instead of talking about justifications and past mistakes, I suggest that we start worrying about the future.

[Stonecutter]

Originally posted by Ravishing Rick Rude


Also, the recent " Accident" Involving a British helicopter, being shot down by a US Patriot missle.... Umm, Patriot missles have to be fired manually, doesn't anyone else see a problem with this?


Forgot about this part.

Patriot missles don't necessarly have to be fired manualy. They can be set to shoot at anything that doesn't send out a proper IFF signal (Incoming friend or foe) Chances are the Brittish Tornado that was shot down turned off it's IFF squak to avoid being picked up by iraqi radar. If they forgot to turn it back on, on the way in there would have been nothing to stop a Patriot missle from identifiing it as a unfriendly. If it was travling slowly it could easily have bene confused for a sucd missle even if the Missle was being activaly manned and fired.

[One Winged Angel]

I'm retracting my comments. This is war is useless. America is going overboard in this war. I thought this was a war about killing Saddam and establishing a new government for Iraq, but this is aparently a load of ****. This is just trying to lower oil prices for us and we're killing innocents for our own greed.

Sorry for the bull**** I was mentioning earlier

[Jewels]

Originally posted by One Winged Angel
I don't think you know why we're fighting this war do you. That was the most ignorant post I've ever read.


well said! you dork, we are fighting this war to help the better half of the iraq people, there leader is a butcher/rapist and is building nuclear weapons without anyone knowing, why do you think nato was int here for months trying to find and disable bombs, we gave saddam a chance to not fight the the lil beitch refused and now he wants a fight, ya good luck, there a country damn near the size of texas when we have how many troops, somewhere around 700,000 haha! i still dont think it wont last anymore than a month.

[DeathsHand]

Originally posted by Jewels02
and is building nuclear weapons without anyone knowing

Funny how he's building them without anyone knowing, but you know of them! :eek:

[gekko]

Originally posted by One Winged Angel
This is just trying to lower oil prices for us and we're killing innocents for our own greed.

Shows how little you know. But your opinion is always welcome, it's just not a valid opinion, and it's not respected. But hey, this wouldn't be America if people weren't allowed to voice their opinion where it is not wanted, nor welcomed!

well said! you dork, we are fighting this war to help the better half of the iraq people, there leader is a butcher/rapist and is building nuclear weapons without anyone knowing, why do you think nato was int here for months trying to find and disable bombs, we gave saddam a chance to not fight the the lil beitch refused and now he wants a fight, ya good luck, there a country damn near the size of texas when we have how many troops, somewhere around 700,000 haha! i still dont think it wont last anymore than a month.

We are going to war because it's in our best interest to go to war. It's about getting rid of a regime that we should've years before, and getting rid of the regime before it becomes a bigger threat on the American people. We do plan to help the Iraqi people, but we didn't go to war for them. If that were the case, we'd be fighting all over Africa as well.

NATO was not inspecting weapons, that was the UN, and they were in for years, not months. The country is roughly the size of California, not Texas, and there are 300,000 troops, not 700,000.

[One Winged Angel]

Originally posted by gekko
Shows how little you know. But your opinion is always welcome, it's just not a valid opinion, and it's not respected. But hey, this wouldn't be America if people weren't allowed to voice their opinion where it is not wanted, nor welcomed!



We are going to war because it's in our best interest to go to war. It's about getting rid of a regime that we should've years before, and getting rid of the regime before it becomes a bigger threat on the American people. We do plan to help the Iraqi people, but we didn't go to war for them. If that were the case, we'd be fighting all over Africa as well.

NATO was not inspecting weapons, that was the UN, and they were in for years, not months. The country is roughly the size of California, not Texas, and there are 300,000 troops, not 700,000.

I'm saying we shouldn't be attacking Iraq yet. I think we're attacking so early because of their oil. If it was to take out a regime we wouldn't be in this war at all. North Korea has even more people tortured and starved to death than Iraq. Why aren't we attacking them? N. Korea even has at least 2 nuclear weapons.

I'm just saying this war is not all about taking out Saddam and his government.

[sdtPikachu]

Actually, One Winged Angel, I would disagree with you there. I would tender that it IS about removing Saddam and his gov, and replacing it with one primarily under US control. And anyone who got in with the US on the ground floor (eg UK) gets a divvy up of the proceeds, and anyone who opposed the US invasion doesn't.

It's called Imperialism, and it's one of the things that we Brits did well in the past. You know, "liberating" a country and claiming ownership.

[Smuggletrain]

Maybe you should educate yourself a little more before opening
your pie-hole.


Originally posted by Ravishing Rick Rude
President bush is quoted to say " Treat our POW's Humanely" Yes, much like he is doing with all the afgans sittin in cells smaller than most mid-sized cars.

Captured Afganis are not POW's. They do not form an Army as it is defined in the Geneva convention.


Call in the Air Support! According to reports there were less than 100 Iraqi soldiers and conscripts holding a town, and America, being the brave state they are, called in
F 16 fighters to Napalm them into next week, lovely don't you think?

Napalm is not an anti-infantry weapon. Artillery strikes were called
in, which is in line with modern combat procedure. If the enemy has
dug in, soften them up with artillery. War isn't about who's bravest,
it's about who wins.



As for the "NO BLOOD FOR OIL" rhetoric, if the U.S. wanted Iraq's oil
then why didn't they take it in '91 when the war was already won?
If the U.S. were that concerned about oil prices, we would have
attacked
Argentina when the oil workers went on strike, since we get more oil
from there than we get from the Middle East.

As for the WMD debate, it doesn't matter whether Saddam as WMD or not, the Scuds
he is currently launching violate the U.N. resolution 1441 because of the range that
they are capable of being fired. Whether or not he has the missile armed with nuclear,
biological, or any other warhead is a moot point.

As for the charges of imperialism, they are completely laughable.
The U.S. spent the first half of the 1900's giving emancipating all the foreign
territory it had acquired up to that point, Phillipines anyone?

The UN had given Saddam 12 years to conform to the regulations that had
been placed upon Iraq. Said regulations were suppose to be conformed to within 45 days.
The regulations passed the UN security council unanimously, so then why
were France, Russia, and China unwilling to enforce the same rules that they supported?
Peace was given a chance, and a very lengthy one at that.

[Bond]

Originally posted by sdtPikachu

It's called Imperialism, and it's one of the things that we Brits did well in the past. You know, "liberating" a country and claiming ownership.
Actually the United States is rather bad at Imperialism. We want to set up a temporary government, and then give the country back to the Iraqi people.

If that's where you were going with your statement...

[gekko]

Well, at least we have the Virgin Islands! It's too bad, we could have half the world by now :(

[mickydaniels]

This invasion is nothing but a big old joke. We're going in there to 'liberate' Iraq's people. JOKE!

I'll bet the whole city of Baghdad will be in ruins before this war is over. We are acting no differently than terrorists. Before the war started, there thousands of pregnant women lining up for Cesarean(?) sections because they knew that they would be putting themselves in a terrible position if they acted later. That's just like all the cowards here in NYC who are stocking up on all kinds of unnecessary supplies in fear of attacks. THis war is costing us billions every week. Billions that could be better used to fix the crappy school systems in big cities. Billions that could be used to actually provide healthcare for poor prople. Billions that could be used to help fix a damaged NYC and American psyche caused by 9/11. We're going after a useless Saddam, when we should be invading Saudi Arabia, who provided the breeding grounds for most of the 9/11 hijackers.

We've got enough problems over here. I don't see the point of lowering our standard of living by pouring BILLIONS out of this country into one that WILL NEVER BE CIVILIZED. Say what you want, but as soon as the troops leave, they'll just elect another dictator than will oppress them based on their Muslim teachings.

[gekko]

I wouldn't worry about NYC. 3,000 dead is a joke, to use your words. Let Saddam go on, and you'll be toying with the lives of tens of thousands.

[mickydaniels]

Originally posted by gekko
I wouldn't worry about NYC. 3,000 dead is a joke, to use your words. Let Saddam go on, and you'll be toying with the lives of tens of thousands.

Toying with the lives of tens of thousands?
Are you talking about here in America? Do you actually believe that crap? This nation is fairly isolated geographically from those savages. THe only nation I could ever see giving us problems in a war is Canada. Know why? Because when we fight wars, we fight on other people's land? Even if we 'lose', we still haven't lost a lot. But even if Iraq wins, they'll have to rebuild their nation as if it didn't exist. They'll have to start from ruins. We'll only lose the President's slaves.

But you know what I really like? The fact that Bush can't wait to get Sadddam out. The same guy that to this day, prolly didn't even win. Little does he know he's prolly setting himself up for the same thing come next year.:D :D :eek: :D :-o :)

[sdtPikachu]

Originally posted by gekko
you'll be toying with the lives of tens of thousands.

And declaring war on Iraq isn't toying with Iraqi lives somehow? Or perhaps your American lives are more worthy than those of the Iraqi civilians...?

[gekko]

Well you truly know nothing about chemical and biological weapons. Let's use bio, it's easier and more effective as a terrorist weapon.

How hard do you think it would be to sneak a shoe box into America? Not by plane, through the Canadian border. The answer is: very easy. Now, little did you know, that shoe box is filled with a biological weapon. It's a very fine power, as soon as it's put in the air, it disappears. You can't see it, smell it, taste it, you don't know it's there. Symptoms don't show up for 3 days, after that time, everyone's already affected. Now release some of that power in a crowded area, such as a large shopping mall, or the streets on New York, and you'll have another 3,000 dead without a problem. But you don't need to empty the full shoe box, just a handful to get that affect. But we have a shoebox, so let's go for a more effective target, like the water supply. Hit the supply of a large city and you'll easy see tens of thousands drop like flies, or if you're lucky, you might hit half the city.

And then we can go back to the Democrats, now whining and bitching because no one did anything to stop it, and we can thank them for the deaths of every person.

[gekko]

Originally posted by sdtPikachu
And declaring war on Iraq isn't toying with Iraqi lives somehow? Or perhaps your American lives are more worthy than those of the Iraqi civilians...?

Saddam's getting his own people killed. 3rd world countries are famous for trying to use US morals against us. Non-uniform cobatants are everywhere, human shields are used a lot. Even cows have been used as shields. But we can't help that.

Saddam is trying to get his own people killed, and will continue to until he is gone.

[mickydaniels]

See that? American lives are much more precious than anyone elses.

People can't see fine powder?

Okay gekko. I see how easy that is. Want a solution. Put up a muthaf$#ing wall. That's right. If we're so scared of $#!+ like that then we should just put a big old wall like like the Chinese did on the Canadian and Mexican border. Problem solved.

[gekko]

No, it doesn't matter if Saddam is hiding behind an Iraqi or American shield. Is someone is shooting at you from behind another person, you don't stand by and take the bullet, you have to shoot, and likely both will go down. Same thing applies here.

And no, people can't see fine power. Do you see the millions of dust particles floating around you? Same thing, only smaller. Ever thought instead of asking questions you should actually figure out what you're talking about?

And with that, I'm off to play Zelda.

[Professor S]

I always love to hear the reasons why the US is getting into this war from those who are against it. The sheer amount of ignorance shown is hilarious.

1) War for Oil - Only 20% of US oil comes from the Middle East and none of that comes from Iraq. Compared to the rest of the world, US oil is dirt cheap. So I guess by your theory Canada and France would be at the forefront of this war... oh wait, they;re against it. There goes that theory.

2) American Imperialism - The US has occupied 2 Nations after successful modern wars. Germany and Japan. We rebuilt them to the point that they were stronger than they ever were and then left. Oh boy, we Americans sure do love to conquer and oppress people. So there goes that theory too.

Anyone have anything else?

[mickydaniels]

Originally posted by gekko
No, it doesn't matter if Saddam is hiding behind an Iraqi or American shield. Is someone is shooting at you from behind another person, you don't stand by and take the bullet, you have to shoot, and likely both will go down. Same thing applies here.

And no, people can't see fine power. Do you see the millions of dust particles floating around you? Same thing, only smaller. Ever thought instead of asking questions you should actually figure out what you're talking about?

And with that, I'm off to play Zelda.

Same thing only smaller, huh? And you carry it in a shoebox? You must think these people are really dumb, huh? Maybe you should stop watching the TV's horror stories that get you in support of the war and think for yourself.

I can't see fine POWER.
You are obviously talking about a gas.

[TheGame]

Please... stop the cursing in this thread... I was going to go over post by post and edit them out, but I stopped after I realized how much you guys are doing it.

I hear one more flame, and the thread is closed, and my friend Mr Gekko would get the last word because there is no way I can stop him. :D

[sdtPikachu]

Originally posted by The Strangler
I always love to hear the reasons why the US is getting into this war from those who are against it. The sheer amount of ignorance shown is hilarious.

I'm against the war because I don't see why it's neccesary, despite your wonderful insight into the danger of Enemies in Possession of Shoeboxes. And yes no doubt you will call me ignorant, blind, stupid etc etc, but I can't see why Iraq poses such a threat compared to other countries which not only have been thought to have NBC weapons but have also freely admitted to having them. Plenty of those countries don't care much for the US either, what makes Iraq such a threat that there's no alternative but to invade them right away? And before calling me blind and stupid again, please explain exactly why I'm blind and stupid.

Originally posted by The Strangler
1) War for Oil - Only 20% of US oil comes from the Middle East and none of that comes from Iraq. Compared to the rest of the world, US oil is dirt cheap. So I guess by your theory Canada and France would be at the forefront of this war... oh wait, they;re against it. There goes that theory.

US has also seen oil prices rise sharply recently, as has the rest of the world. Why? It's getting more expensive. Iraq practically floats on the stuff. France doesn't want a war because they have been friendly with Iraq for centuries, and planned to buy their oil and other produce cheaply in return for investment once trade embargoes and been dropped.

The US doesn't have any substantial oil reserves left, and is extremely reluctant to pay extra for the stuff that Saudi pumps out. Hence why it makes more sense just to "find" new reserves to control.

Note that since 1984, US oil consumption has increased over 30%, from about 15 to about 20 million barrels per day. In 1985, only about 4 of the 15 million barrels were imported. Now you import almost 11 out of 20. That is, your total use has increased about 30% but your Middle East imports have increased nearly 200%.

The USA is much more dependent on imported oil that you were in the past, and you're using more oil than you did in the past.

You seem to think France is opposed to this because they are afraid of iraq. You think Canada is afraid of Iraq. You think Germany is afraid of Iraq. If they aren't fighting the big bad Iraq it may just be because they don't see it as the epitome of terror, or they aren't afraid of it if it is.

Originally posted by The Strangler
2) Oh boy, we Americans sure do love to conquer and oppress people. So there goes that theory too.

Maybe you can start with Afghanistan. Remember those grandiose promises of democracy and rebuilding? Well, last week Bush sent Karzai home mostly empty-handed. And it seems you're only hanging around Afghanistan in the hope of catching some more of bin Laden's thugs. I don't see much rebuilding of any kind going on, and certainly no financial aid that would do the original promises any justice. What reason is there to think that Iraq will be any different?

[Joeiss]

I find it funny when people always bring up the point that America gets little to none of their oil from Iraq. So what? Just because America is not buying from them doesn't mean that there isn't any there. The fact that America isn't buying oil from Iraq doesn't hide that one of America's reasons for going to war is oil.

[gekko]

America gets 4.9% of their oil from Iraq. And if you know anything about the oil industry, or listened to anyone who actually does know something, America could easily get more oil without going to war with any country. This war has nothing to do with oil, in any way, shape, or form, and to say so, is only a demonstration of your own ignorance.

[Rndm_Perfection]

Originally posted by Joeiss
I find it funny when people always bring up the point that America gets little to none of their oil from Iraq. So what? Just because America is not buying from them doesn't mean that there isn't any there. The fact that America isn't buying oil from Iraq doesn't hide that one of America's reasons for going to war is oil.

"one of the reasons"? Well then, I suppose World War II should not have started being that "one of the reasons" was possibly maintaining economic safety in Europe.

Everything that a person does lacks the 100% selflessness that some people see fit to be mandatory before actions are taken.

For example, if someone would return a lost pet to its owner, would it be wrong of that person to have felt somewhere inside "It'd be nice if a reward was involved", or if someone saved three drowning children... would it be wrong of the person to ever think "I'm doing this in part for respect"?

The examples may be pretty lousy, but I hope the point shows through. Just because oil is involved, does not mean the whole focus of the war is to gain the oil.

[Rndm_Perfection]

Originally posted by Ravishing Rick Rude
The opinions of most people on this side of the world sway with what everyone else has to say, not only has originality left society, but Public Opinion is all Flowers and Sunshine simply because people are against a war they have no idea about in the first place.

First, let us all hate those American scum with their "greedy" ways, their lack of culture, and their lust for "technological advancement"!
...
And good God, how I bet you love your American NWO, and the PC in front of you.

Reminds me of the time the Palistinians celebrated after getting word that the World Trade Center had finally collapse.

"Woohoooo," one said, underneath his Chicago Cubs cap. And, "Huzzah," exclaimed the other, as he lifted his rifle... exposing his nice watch made in America.

Let us all spite those Americans... but... GO CUBS! Aaah Yeah!


Get a clue, ignorants of the world... just because North America (excluding "south of the border") lacks Sombreros, Sushi, Castles, Temples, and "interesting" accents... the NA does not lack a culture.

For a region to lack culture, it would have no form of communication, and no form of history at all. In fact, every single member of the region would have to stare blankly into the sky, have not mating patterns, no form of interaction, and ... by God, why they'd even be seen as the culture that "does nothing but look at the sky"!

[Ravishing Rick Rude]

Originally posted by Rndm_Perfection
First, let us all hate those American scum with their "greedy" ways, their lack of culture, and their lust for "technological advancement"!
...
And good God, how I bet you love your American NWO, and the PC in front of you.

Reminds me of the time the Palistinians celebrated after getting word that the World Trade Center had finally collapse.

"Woohoooo," one said, underneath his Chicago Cubs cap. And, "Huzzah," exclaimed the other, as he lifted his rifle... exposing his nice watch made in America.

Let us all spite those Americans... but... GO CUBS! Aaah Yeah!


Get a clue, ignorants of the world... just because North America (excluding "south of the border") lacks Sombreros, Sushi, Castles, Temples, and "interesting" accents... the NA does not lack a culture.

For a region to lack culture, it would have no form of communication, and no form of history at all. In fact, every single member of the region would have to stare blankly into the sky, have not mating patterns, no form of interaction, and ... by God, why they'd even be seen as the culture that "does nothing but look at the sky"!

Oh, i see, so having a Computer built in Korea and a Watch made in the Uk :P.

Besides, i do not consider myself at a Cultured lack, quite the contrary, Canada is very Cultured, Multi-Cultured.

SdtPika, you my dear sir, have most of the facts right, and Gekko, no one can doubt your deep knowledge of this subject. Hats off to both of you for arguing without flaming.

[Shadow_Link]

If America is hell bent on freeing countires from ruthless dictators, why didn't they start with China?

Sorry, I forgot China is no Iraq in terms of power.

[Professor S]

Oh yes, Shadow, since we can't help everybody, we shouldn't help anyone. Excellent logic. You should run for office :rolleyes:

[Shadow_Link]

Originally posted by The Strangler
Oh yes, Shadow, since we can't help everybody, we shouldn't help anyone. Excellent logic. You should run for office :rolleyes:

That well and truly was an excellent answer. :rolleyes:

One of the main objectives of this war was to 'free' the Iraqi people, and install a democracy. Do America have any plans to liberate the chinese people in the near future?

'Why' can't they help the chinese people?

[Joeiss]

Originally posted by The Strangler
Oh yes, Shadow, since we can't help everybody, we shouldn't help anyone. Excellent logic. You should run for office :rolleyes:

Did you even read what he said? If so, you really need some help on reading comprehension, or should just stop making up bull****.


I think what Shadow was trying to say is why start with Iraq? Why not go against stronger countries that post more of a threat?

[One Winged Angel]

Originally posted by sdtPikachu



US has also seen oil prices rise sharply recently, as has the rest of the world. Why? It's getting more expensive. Iraq practically floats on the stuff. France doesn't want a war because they have been friendly with Iraq for centuries, and planned to buy their oil and other produce cheaply in return for investment once trade embargoes and been dropped.

France is strongly against this war because of oil. I have a feeling that they have made illegal deals with Iraq for their oil. thats why they strongly refused to go to war. Once the government is destroyed, it's going to be uncovered.

[Professor S]

Originally posted by Joeiss
Did you even read what he said? If so, you really need some help on reading comprehension, or should just stop making up bull****.

I think what Shadow was trying to say is why start with Iraq? Why not go against stronger countries that post more of a threat?

Did you read what I wrote, even though you quoted it? I said, do what you CAN do. War with China or North Korea would not ony endanger millions of lives of both China/North Korea and the US, but the fact that they are both Nuclear powers would endanger the entire continent. War with them is not in the cards. I know this, you know this, and thats why you bring it up. Iraq is a regime that we CAN unseat, and thats why we shoulkd act now before we CAN'T unseat them.

One of the big reasons why we are involved in Iraq is to PREVENT them from becoming another North Korea. All they need is time. We are now forced to deal with them diplomatically, because dealing with them in any other way could lead to a nuclear armageddon. Government estimates are that an estimated 3-5 million would die in a war to unseat the leaders of North Korea. God knows what those numbers would be for China. Once the Nuclear pandora's box is open, everything changes.

[TheGame]

Ok, you guys don't want to listen... due to the fact that this is a good thread, I won't close it. But If I see a post with even one flame in it from this point on it (the post) will be deleted w/o hesitation.

[Shadow_Link]

Thanks Joeiss, and that was a nice post Strangler (your second one). That does actually make sense.

But just a question (not trying to be smart or anything), but America have said time and time again that Iraq has Bio/chemical weapons. Wouldn't it be just as dangerous to go to war with a country that has supposedly a full arsenal of these dangerous weapons, as it is with a Nuclear Power such as China?

I mean, just like Strangler said, pushing China too far could reek havoc in a nuclear sense. But wouldn't pushing Iraq too far pose a similar threat in the chemical/biological sense?
Could this war against Saddam not actually backfire against America and Britain?

I know there have been reports of large factories being found in isolated areas, but what if at the end of this war, Iraq never actually used any of it's ('supposed'?) weapons against America. Wouldn't it make you wonder if they had any in the first place to use? (Maybe they are in the process of building them, and haven't actually got any ready, but I don't know).

Remember, I'm only trying to stimulate some good responses, and this is in no way or form a bash against America.

[DeathsHand]

Originally posted by Shadow_Link
I know there have been reports of large factories being found in isolated areas

I heard on the news that the suspected chemical plant building they found hadn't been used in a long time if it even was used to produce chemicals in the first place... *shrugs*

[Bond]

Originally posted by Shadow_Link

I mean, just like Strangler said, pushing China too far could reek havoc in a nuclear sense. But wouldn't pushing Iraq too far pose a similar threat in the chemical/biological sense?
Could this war against Saddam not actually backfire against America and Britain?

I don't really understand your reasoning here Shadow Link.

Where did you ever get the sense China is a threat to the United States, and may use their unclear weapons against the United States? Remember those images showing chemical weapons factories in Iraq Colin Powell presented to the U.N.? Those were provided by China.

China will also most likely help solve the North Korean problem, considering they don't want a nuclear Korean peninsula. China has never wanted Imperialism, they have enough problems in their own country. They will also eventually convert into democracy, several large countries within China are already doing so.

Before you start saying that China is a threat, I would look at Russia.

I get the sense I am missing your point here. Could you restate it?

[Ravishing Rick Rude]

Bond, in that quote, from what i can get out of it, i think he is saying, if you won't push a force with a KNOWN nuclear arsenal why would you push a country that is thought to have WMD and Chemical Weapons ready?

I hope i got that right.

[Shadow_Link]

Originally posted by Bond
I don't really understand your reasoning here Shadow Link.

Where did you ever get the sense China is a threat to the United States, and may use their unclear weapons against the United States? Remember those images showing chemical weapons factories in Iraq Colin Powell presented to the U.N.? Those were provided by China.

China will also most likely help solve the North Korean problem, considering they don't want a nuclear Korean peninsula. China has never wanted Imperialism, they have enough problems in their own country. They will also eventually convert into democracy, several large countries within China are already doing so.

Before you start saying that China is a threat, I would look at Russia.

I get the sense I am missing your point here. Could you restate it?

What reasoning? Firstly, I wasn't the one who mentioned that China were a threat to America. I was just asking why America chose to free the Iraqi people of a dictator over freeing the Chinese people of theirs. And Strangler gave me an answer. I just asked based on Strangler's answer whether it would be a wise move to go against a country with these dangerous weapons, if the outcome of going against a nuclear power would be so grim? I'm not looking for an argument or anything, I just want people's views on the matter.

Oh, and Marc, you got it right.

[Bond]

Originally posted by Shadow_Link
What reasoning? Firstly, I wasn't the one who mentioned that China were a threat to America. I was just asking why America chose to free the Iraqi people of a dictator over freeing the Chinese people of theirs. And Strangler gave me an answer. I just asked based on Strangler's answer whether it would be a wise move to go against a country with these dangerous weapons, if the outcome of going against a nuclear power would be so grim? I'm not looking for an argument or anything, I just want people's views on the matter.

Erm... right...

I didn't mean to start an argument, I just didn't understand what you were trying to say. Now I barely get it.

[Ravishing Rick Rude]

Well shadow you have a point, i mean, one minute they were after Bin Laden, and all of a sudden they target saddam with alligations that he has WMD and Chemical weapons, altho, North Korea goes on National Television and proclaims they are re-starting reactors :S.

It doesn't make much sense but meh, them's the breaks.

[Professor S]

My response was to the argument of "Well if you go against Iraq because they have a tyrannical dictator, why not China and North Korea?" It was in that context that I answered.

China has improved a lot in terms of human rights, but that doesn't mean that they are without reproach. Their history speaks for itself in terms of horrors committed on their own people. But then again, long term diplomatic pressure and western influence has also made them very near a capitalistic society, and I think that after the current dictator dies there is a very good chance it will be a democratic society as well.

North Korea is another matter, but once again I think they really don't care about who they nuke, but I also think they just want some more monetary support. They are like the whiny baby who wants more candy (except this whiny baby has a .357 magnum with the safety on). Plus they have not shown any tendency towards expansion or hawkishness, unlike Iraq.

Iraq has a long history under Saddam of trying to rule the entirety of the Gulf region. Saddam has spent the better part of his dictatorship at war with his brothers and sisters, and even tried to develop nuclear weapons before during their 10 year conflict with Iran (thank god for Isreal bombing their reactor back in 1981). Only 2 years after the war with Iran ended, Saddam attacked Kuwait. Then after that war he has spent the last 12 years defying the UN and developing more and more banned weapons. There is not reason to believe that Saddam WON'T try and conquer the Middle East again. All of these reasons are why I believe that Iraq has garnered so much attention compared to other oppressed nations.

[Ravishing Rick Rude]

Originally posted by The Strangler
My response was to the argument of "Well if you go against Iraq because they have a tyrannical dictator, why not China and North Korea?" It was in that context that I answered.

China has improved a lot in terms of human rights, but that doesn't mean that they are without reproach. Their history speaks for itself in terms of horrors committed on their own people. But then again, long term diplomatic pressure and western influence has also made them very near a capitalistic society, and I think that after the current dictator dies there is a very good chance it will be a democratic society as well.

North Korea is another matter, but once again I think they really don't care about who they nuke, but I also think they just want some more monetary support. They are like the whiny baby who wants more candy (except this whiny baby has a .357 magnum with the safety on). Plus they have not shown any tendency towards expansion or hawkishness, unlike Iraq.

Iraq has a long history under Saddam of trying to rule the entirety of the Gulf region. Saddam has spent the better part of his dictatorship at war with his brothers and sisters, and even tried to develop nuclear weapons before during their 10 year conflict with Iran (thank god for Isreal bombing their reactor back in 1981). Only 2 years after the war with Iran ended, Saddam attacked Kuwait. Then after that war he has spent the last 12 years defying the UN and developing more and more banned weapons. There is not reason to believe that Saddam WON'T try and conquer the Middle East again. All of these reasons are why I believe that Iraq has garnered so much attention compared to other oppressed nations.


Excellent post, but with one addition perhaps, you say Korea really might not care who they nuke, that's the only thing i disagree with, i don't think they really have the minerals to attack, if they do, China cuts them off cold .... wouldn't be good for there economy

[Professor S]

Yes, but if they are facing the end of their regime through allied efforts, I don't think they'll hesitate to nuke indiscriminately. What would they have to lose? Their people? North Korea has already shown they don't care about them. My worry is that if North Korea has their back to the wall, they'll nuke Japan or even South Korea to show that they have the cajones to do it.

[Joeiss]

Originally posted by The Strangler
Then after that war he has spent the last 12 years defying the UN and developing more and more banned weapons.

I think this is the main reason why some people are confused about this war. I mean, why is America just all of a suddenly enforcing the UN's ruling on Iraq? Why didn't they start as soon as Iraq defied it 12 years ago?

[Bond]

Originally posted by Joeiss
I think this is the main reason why some people are confused about this war. I mean, why is America just all of a suddenly enforcing the UN's ruling on Iraq? Why didn't they start as soon as Iraq defied it 12 years ago?
Because Clinton was President for 8 years...

And Iraq signed a treaty after the first Gulf War, which they have completely violated.

[Professor S]

Originally posted by Joeiss
I think this is the main reason why some people are confused about this war. I mean, why is America just all of a suddenly enforcing the UN's ruling on Iraq? Why didn't they start as soon as Iraq defied it 12 years ago?

That was ustrying to resolve this situation diplomatically, and under a different administration I might add. Please remember that Clinton was not the most internationally active President when it came to world terror. He responded to 3 terrorist attacks on the US overseas by sending a single cruise missile into a camp where the thought Bin Laden might be. I won't say that Clinton's inaction passively allowed Bin Laden to attack the Twin Towers as I'm not even sure, but its something to think about. Would Bin Laden have been able to plan the attack if he been running for his life? Curious.

[Joeiss]

Then why didn't Bush go after Saddam right when he got into office?

He says that there are links between Al Quada and Saddam, but has the Bush administration show anything?

[Xantar]

Originally posted by Joeiss
I think this is the main reason why some people are confused about this war. I mean, why is America just all of a suddenly enforcing the UN's ruling on Iraq? Why didn't they start as soon as Iraq defied it 12 years ago?

I would chalk that one up to the president. Back then, we had the elder George Bush who was a very diplomatic man. After him came Clinton who was even more cooperative with everyone and never ever wanted to actually risk American lives (he resorted to cruise missiles and bombing from way up high instead).

Whatever else you can say about George W. Bush, he does what he says he's going to do. Since it's ultimately the President's decision to send troops into war, whether or not we went into Iraq pretty much depended on who was sitting in the Oval Office.

Speaking of that, I kind of wish the elder Bush were running this war instead of his son. He used to be the ambassador to China, after all. He knows how international politics works, and he understood that whether France could actually do anything about the situation didn't matter. He knew that he would have a much easier time if he at least had the appearance of international backing even if the only people in Iraq were American and British. To that end, he was very good at listening to other countries and making them feel as if their opinion mattered. He went on from there to build an international coalition against Iraq.

And the thing is George W. Bush had a chance to do the same thing. Anybody remember Russia suddenly becoming big buddies with the United States? Putin reached out, and the current Bush took what was offered. It was looking like Russia was on the verge of some major changes both in its economy and in its relationship with the world. Many people at the time considered the Russia situation to be one of the diplomatic successes of the Bush administration.

So why couldn't Bush get Russia to vote for the war on Iraq in the Security Council? We may never know the answer, and maybe I'm missing something. But I have the feeling that Bush just stopped listening to Putin's concerns about the war. He wouldn't make concessions. He probably decided that Russia would be militarily irrelevant, and that's probably true. But the thing is if he had gotten Russia to vote for the war, he would have had three out of five votes on the UN Security Council. He would automatically get four votes from there because China almost always votes with the majority. He would have ended up with the U.S., Britain, Russia and China in favor of the war and France probably not in favor of the war. How would that have made the French look? And one thing is for certain: France wouldn't have dared to veto the resolution.

With a majority vote from the permanent members of the Security Council, Bush could have easily persuaded the non-permanent members to go along. And with that, he has all he needs to claim international backing for his war.

The U.N. may be irrelevant from an economic, military and even political point of view. But that doesn't mean that our President should snub the U.N. if he can avoid it. Look at all these protests we've been seeing around the world. A lot of them didn't need to happen, or at least they didn't have to be so big. Why go through the trouble if you don't have to?