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.

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 :)

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...?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

"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.

Re: Just My Opinion...
 

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"!

Re: Re: Just My Opinion...
 

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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*

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?