Just watched French news broadcast
 

Ouch. You think CNN has a slant? You should see the French. C-SPAN just ran a French news broadcast. Damn! Talk about Anti-American BS.

"US troops raised the flag over Umm Qasr today, a foolish move that makes the Americans look like conquerors."

"The US reported this would be an easy victory. They spoke too soon as the death toll rises to 25 for today. When does the propaganda stop and the truth begin?"

US and Marine Corps flags flying over Iraq. OORAH!

Well I don't really see the big deal either way... They raised a flag, oh no... Although I could see how it would make it look like we're trying to take over Iraq, which isn't the goal (that being regime change)... *shrugs*...

As for the death toll, most of those deaths (infact, last I heard, all but 2) were caused by accidents... *shrugs shrugs*

atomic bomb+baghdad=the end of this retarded propaganda

and the start of some more lovely problems.

You mean atomic bomb + Paris.

That is so irrational and would create so many problems it's not even funny.

No comment.

You just commented, idiot.

;)


And... I disagree with them raising the American flag. I mean, they should have either kept the same flags up, or if Saddam changed the flag, put up the old one.

I disagree with what they did, but it really does not matter. I mean, it is such a minor thing, but I guess anti-American websites have to cling on to little things and create bull**** about them.

The flag raising is very arrogant, but meh what are you gonna do.

Arrogant? Give me a break.

The US is at war with Iraq. When you take over a city, you fly that flag high. Why? Because you just kicked Iraq's ass and your damn proud of it. It also boosts troop moral.

For political reasons (which are never good reasons to do anything), we removed the flag and put back up Iraq's. But the US flag will still temporarily be raised many more times in Iraq.

Is it possible to have a war against President Bush and not America? No.

Is it possible to have a war against Saddam Hussein and not Iraq? No.

Good point

As far as dictionary.com is concerned;

War:

1. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.
2. The period of such conflict.
3. The techniques and procedures of war; military science.
4. A condition of active antagonism or contention: a war of words; a price war.
5. A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something considered injurious: the war against acid rain.

Bearing in mind that the first is the most appropriate in this sense, I think rephrasing is as "invasion" would be a more grammatically and contextually correct alternative.

Everyone will no doubt disagree, but can someone please tell me exactly what it was that Saddam did to warrant invasion?

LOL!!!! Go educate yourself and then come back here. The reasons have been pointed out over and over and over and over and over and over and over...

So everyone keeps saying, I've just yet to make any sense of them yet other than the US has appointed itself moral guardians of the world (hohoho, like I believe THAT one). The world is full of psychopathic despots with possible access to the much lauded WMD's, yet for some reason none of them are important. Hence the moral argument doesn't hold water.

Maybe I should rephrase my question. Why do you think the US is invading Iraq?

P.S. future flames will be ignored.

First, I never flamed you, I simply pointed out that you're questions smacked of ignorance. I for one know that you have been a part of several of these arguments and know everyones reasons for the war quite well. Your question is disengenuous at best.

The reasons for the US going into Iraq are not as single minded as one would believe. The moral argument seems to be the one that do nothing peaceniks seem to respond to the most, thoughy, so it is used the most. Myself, I have pointed out that Iraq has smacked the international community in the face repeatedly over the last 12 years. I have pointed out that they are missing 1,000 tons of chemical and biological weapons that can evry easily be given to terrorists. I have pointedout that the UN's inaction with Iraq is sending a direct signal to other despotic rulers that they don't have to pay attention to whatever the Un tells them to do. Just look at North Korea now. I have pointed out numerous points that have little to do with moral superiority, even though it is obvious that we have it in this case.

BTW, arguments like "Well they're doing it too, why not fight them?" hold little water. I suppose you would rather do nothing than do what you can.

But you know what? I'm tired of arguing about this with those who refuse to actually do the research or look at the big picture. If you can't see why it is important to remove Saddam from power, you are either blind or stupid.

Of course, everybody that don't agree with the US's decisions are blind and stupid right?

"LOL!!!! Go educate yourself and then come back here."

"If you can't see why it is important to remove Saddam from power, you are either blind or stupid."

These are both flames.

You may consider it disingenuous, but you're right that I have participated in similar discussusions in tha past. And yes, I do know the supposed reasons for the invasion. I'm just wondering how you justify them, that's all. As in your explanation of why such extreme measures are neccesary.

The reason your so-called do-nothing peaceniks refer to the moral argument the most is that it's the one that holds so little water yet is continually paraded as the sole reason why Saddam must be killed.
When you say "smacked the international community in the face", what do you mean? The way that the Iraqi regime has already tenured trade agreements with numerous countries once the embargoes are lifted? Or do you mean they haven't done just what the US told them to do?
The weapon argument is also very shaky. There's plenty of countries which are far more likely to flog any weapons they have to the highest bidder. The former USSR is missing dozens of nuclear warheads of various sizes, shapes, types and yields. Korea. China. India and Pakistan. There's plenty of countries where leaks of NBC weapons are a danger, or more often a reality.

Whilst I don't agree with despotic regimes, I abhor even more countries that think they can appoint themselves moral guardians of the rest of the world purely bacuse they think they are right. How would you feel if the entire European/Russian/Asian/world community decided that America was ruled by a bunch of plutocrats, and decided to invade you to teach you the error of your ways? If I ermember correctly, the US was originally founded on the basis that it would be free from the control and colonial Imperialism of Europe, and especially the British Empire. With invading Iraq, the US is being terribly hypocritical and arrogant saying that theirs is the One True Way and anyone who disagrees with them is in danger if being invaded. Besides, it's a helluva lot easier to assassinate dictators than wage war against their country. I know it's a cliché, but please try to remember that one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

Frankly, your petulance in this respect doesn't do your argument much good in terms of reasoning and credibility. You seem to think that your view is the only possible view that any sane person could have. Fine, you're entitled to your opinion. I'm just wondering what brought you to this particular conclusion.