Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

And about this "war for oil" crap: honestly, if it were just about oil, don't you think we would have attacked them already, instead of trying to go through the UN?

At 3/5/03 12:21 AM, thenark wrote: Blah Blah Blah Blah

Do you know how hard it is to read messages where every word is capitalized?

I am only going to tell you this once. It was the UN, and not the US, who issued the order for Saddam to disarm. This isn't a case of a big bully nation telling a small, innocent nation that it can't keep weapons to defend itself. This is a case of the entire world telling a ruthless dictator that he can't use weapons to threaten his neighbors.

Maybe you should stop to think.

Stop. Just stop.

At 3/4/03 10:15 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: France is saying "Peace at all Costs" (re: Oil Investments). It's definitely not the same thing as the real "Peace at all Costs" people.

I am well aware of that, which is one of the reasons I hope Australia doesn't buy into it.

Australia's help would be greatly appreciated. They don't have to help us if they don't want to, but I hope they take the time to analyze the evidence against Iraq and come to the conclusion that war will be necessary. I hope they don't buy into the "peace at all costs" hoopla that France is spouting.

At 3/4/03 12:32 PM, D2KVirus wrote: The US told Iraq that if they wouldn't disarm all their nukes, they would be bombed to shit. So, can you explain to me;

1. Yesterday, US bombers dropped their payload in one of the No Fly Zones of Iraq, killing seven civilians, which they attempted to justify by saying they "looked like infantry." Sort of how a tractor carrying refugees in Kosovo "looked like a tank."

Dude, accidents happen. We don't intentionally kill civilians. If you remember, when we accidentaly bombed Canadian troops in Afghanistan, the pilots involved were disciplined. Do you doubt that we will do the same here?

2. Gordon Brown has today changed the UK Budget so that there is more spending on defence, so that we are prepared in the event of war.

This is a bad thing?

At 3/4/03 08:50 PM, VasIndustries wrote: Anyone remember during the gulf war how Hulk Hulgan fought Sargent Slaughter, a mid eastern bad guy. That was ridiculous.

Actually, I think Slaughter was the all-American good guy, and the mid-eastern bad guy was the Iron Shiek.

As for Bush and Saddam, I think the match will be declared a draw in the 6th round, after the arena blows up.

At 3/4/03 07:27 PM, KiNGHoTSauSe420 wrote: we must kill saddum be for he kills us or posibly you oryour family letsjust hope itdont happen like wayco,texas for those of u who dont know he used his bombs cause we tried to take them

Well, I guess both sides of the issue have their share of idiots. I agree that Saddam must die, but you aren't helping our cause by coming here and posting messages with a complete lack of intelligence.

At 3/3/03 01:27 PM, Slizor wrote: Do you want a list of the number of countries America has attacked without provocation?

I'm well aware of things we've done in the past that were wrong. I just think this is different.

it has already been explained, by myself and others, why an attack is justified.

I would like to know these reasons why you think it is okay to attack another sovereign nation.

Do I really have to say it again? Iraq was guilty of violating past UN resolutions with the goal of disarming them, 1441 was passed to give them one last chance, they still haven't complied, and they aren't going to comply. Has the UN passed any resolutions telling the US to disarm?

Well, the US is more accurately described as a republic, but it's still more of a democracy then the Security Council.

In some ways it is and some ways it is not. The Seurity council would be far far more democratic than the US if they got rid of the veto.

I would like you to elaborate on this. What exactly, in your opinion, is a democracy? And what makes the US undemocratic?

I'm not going into the argument about the polls beause it is fruitless. However, I will make this point. You are saying Bush will not attack because he could be voted out of office in two years. You know, I know and he has been told, that 2 years is a long time. If this is a quick war and by all accounts it will be, it won't be remembered as a bad war, however big the opposition is. It would probably boost his vote.

You could be right. I'm sure that many of the people opposed to war are the kind who wouldn't vote for him anyway. It probably will boost his vote, but remember that his father attained huge amounts of popularity after winning the first Gulf War, but still managed to lose the election. If Bush does not repeat his father's mistake (not paying attention to the economy), he should be fine. But still, if the war takes longer than expected, then he could lose votes. I'm sure that he and his staff have taken that into account.

InSaNeFooL--I believe that even the staunchest war opponents on this board would agree with me that you are an idiot.

Please go away, and can we get a mod to lock this thread?

At 3/1/03 11:19 AM, Judge_DREDD (in thread "Idiots in Iraq") wrote:

you are listening to the 6 o'clock news every night arn't you!

Do you know that the "iraqi opposition" have already made deals with western oil companies to legitamize their power-play position when Saddam is removed, and the REAL battle for iraq begins in earnest behind closed doors. Opec will be on it's knees, and countries like Saudi Arabia will no longer be able to set their own oil price compared to the discounted contracts that have already being signed.

Russia knows this. The united Arab States know this. Texan Oil Merchants know this. But truth is, the American public would never complain about cheaper oil, and will care less if big business rides rough-shod over the assests of the "post-war" iraqi people...

so plz don't be so selfish with pro-war comments

Are these the comments you were referring to? They were in a response to a post that I made, so I would like to respond to them.

Yes, we are going to buy oil from post-war Iraq. That does not mean that the war is strictly about oil.

There are economic benefits from toppling Saddam. But many of the countries opposed to war, while claiming moral/ethical reasons for opposition to war ("Inspections are working, and war should only be used as a last resort!"), are opposed for economic reasons. France and Russia have oil contracts with the current regime, and are worried that they would lose these contracts if the government were overthrown.

You talk about the results of post-war oil trade as if they were a bad thing. What's so bad about OPEC not having as much control over oil prices? I doubt OPEC member nations would be hurt too much, and I like the idea of not paying as much at the pump. We need to reduce our dependence on OPEC, anyway.

As for your comment about big business "running roughshod" over the Iraqi people... the Iraqi people certainly have it good right now, don't they? Starving to death while Saddam uses oil money to build more weapons? The oil belongs to the people of Iraq, and it would be my assumption that the people would see more of the money from the oil trade under the post-war system.

And don't go saying that I support a "war for oil", because I would not support a war that was strictly about oil. This war is and always has been about disarming Saddam. Just think of the oil as a nice bonus.

At 3/3/03 02:05 AM, karasz wrote: Bush and Cheney used to work for oil companies, that is the only arguement i ever need, for their term they will be under a cloud of oil lust...

Whoop-de-doo. They have a background in the oil business. That is what irritates me. Anti-war people take the President's oil background, combine it with the fact that Iraq has oil, and then just assume that he just wants the oil, without giving it any more thought. Let me say this again: if we just wanted oil, we could just lift the sanctions and start buying oil from the current regime.

but here is an example North Korea has nukes we are not doing anything, IRAN the 3rd member of the axis of evil is not doing anything at all, so what makes them part of the axis? lets see iraq has oil... iran and north korea have little to NO oil... (i am well aware of the fact that iran can be useful to set up a large pipeline into afghanistan from the caspian sea which will be FUCKIN HUGE) why are we not going after other countries instead why IRAQ what about IRAQ frightens teh BUSH administration so much?

I'm tired of people saying stuff like "we're ignoring North Korea/Osama/the economy". Do you think that when the administration does one thing, that it neglects to do all other things? Yes, something should be done about North Korea. It's just that we have to be more careful with them, because they have already acquired nukes. I still don't think they have the balls to use them, though, and I think they will back down if we take a tough stand. I think that once we're through in Iraq, we'll do something about North Korea.

As for Iran, they were included in the Axis based on hostility that they have shown us in the past, and it wouldn't surprise me if there were some terror cells in Iran. But why bring up Iran? You said it yourself: Iran isn't doing anything, and no one is talking about war with Iran.

its called a spin, the best weapon in a political war... i took ur question for where the 'war on oil' came from and showed how the bush administration uses the same tool... people are less likely to rally behind a guy goin for a black liquid then trying to 'democracize a region' (dont get me started on that)

Are you saying that Bush is putting a spin on the situation by saying we're goin there to do other things when we're actually going there for oil? I think that the facts speak for themselves--Iraq has yet to fully comply with the terms of UN Resolution 1441. I personally think you're putting a spin on it by using two facts that seem to be related but actually aren't and using them to show that it's a war for oil. Perhaps we should declare this board a No Spin Zone™.

Iraq said the missles didn't violate any resolutions. The UN said they did, and Blix ordered them destroyed. Who are you going to believe, the UN... or Saddam Hussein? And where are the rest of his weapons? UN Resolution 1441 says that he must show the inspectors exactly what he has, and destroy it. Can you honestly tell me that he has done so?

the same UN that Bush is threatening will be irrelevant if they dont approve a resolution supporting a war with iraq? can u tell me where any of his weapons are? attacking someone for not proving he HAS stuff is wrong... and there is still no smoking gun...

UN Resolution 1441 places the burden of proof on Iraq, not the United States. And if the UN fails to act on its own resolutions, then yes, it is irrelavent.

but he is disarming... u said urself disarming 6 missiles isnt even, maybe not the best way to go about things but it is a start...

It's a start, but I won't be satisfied until I see a finish.

personally my time is the same time it was 9-10-01 attack after we are attacked... u might not like it but its better than pissing off the world to attack someone that hasnt done anything to the US... oh and to ur 'so let's wait for another 9-11 rebuttal' that is inevitable of the 19 hijackers 15 were from saudi arabia, 0 from iraq so then lets take out saudi arabia they are more threatening to the US...

I never said Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. I know Bush has made the "ties with al-Qaeda" argument, which may or may not be true, but is in my opinion irrelavent--the weapons are the only justification we need. And I don't know about you, but I'd rather piss off the world than see more of my countrymen die.

At 3/3/03 01:19 AM, jazz_mazter wrote: I don't think you CAN win. We're not fighting a single entity, but a vast network consisting of a myriad of devout people. Much too big of a fight to win. All we can do is deter them.

What do you define as a victory? If you are referring to the complete destruction of all terrorist networks, then you're right, that is a little much to ask for. But if we're talking about capturing top operatives in these terror networks, and crippling their ability to hit us again, then in that sense, you can say that we are winning. Maybe it's just deterring them, but it's better than letting them strike again.

And war opponents say that focusing on Iraq means we're no longer trying to catch Osama... ladies and gentlemen, the War on Terror continues, and I believe we are winning.

At 3/3/03 12:09 AM, karasz wrote:

At 3/2/03 11:27 PM, TheEvilOne wrote: This isn't a war for oil, revenge, or for the sake of having a war.

based on what? Iraq has the second largest oil deposits in the world, and are beginning to disable their missles, something 'stubborn' saddam said he wouldnt do...

I don't think destroying six al-Samouds counts as fully disarming as demanded by the UN. And just because they have large oil deposits, that makes it a war for oil? What proof can you offer that the main purpose of the war is to acquire Iraqi oil?

Where did you guys come up with that stuff anyway?

the same place where the WAR on MARIJUANIA claims that weed impairs your judgement but says nothing of alcohol... weed is considered a gateway drug to harder drugs... but those commercials also say that at 90% (dont quote me on that number but i know it is high) of drunk driving accidents weed is found in the persons system... well if alcohol is also there, then 1 can assume alcohol is the true GATEWAY drug...

More ignorance. I never said I supported the war on drugs. In fact, I think marijuana should be legalized. The war is a separate issue.

But the point is pretty much moot--Saddam has said that he isn't going to leave, and just knowing how stubborn the man is,

he's disabling the missles that he IS allowed to have by a previous resolution (odd how others are using the same statements the Bush admin is against the Bush admin) and they are only in breach of the resolutions if there is no payload on the missle... making it a dud and useless...

Iraq said the missles didn't violate any resolutions. The UN said they did, and Blix ordered them destroyed. Who are you going to believe, the UN... or Saddam Hussein? And where are the rest of his weapons? UN Resolution 1441 says that he must show the inspectors exactly what he has, and destroy it. Can you honestly tell me that he has done so?

I doubt he will change his mind, no matter what kind of international pressure is placed on him. It's time to go bonk some heads.

he's letting the inspectors in, he's disabling missiles, and has not been attacked in 12 years by knowing when to say when...

I was referring to him going into exile. But that statement would also apply to disarmament. The bottom line is that he ain't disarming, and he ain't leaving. When is it time for you to say when?

At 3/2/03 12:51 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote:

At 3/1/03 07:32 PM, Ted_Easton wrote: No, it would be considered a gift to society, and we would all turn a blind eye.

But yes, there have been cases of Euthanasia.
The famous Dr.Kevorkian, for one.

What ever happened to Dr. Death?

I think they got him on a second-degree murder charge.

At 3/2/03 07:26 PM, JuggaloKilla wrote: GW Bush would probably just say saddam is a backseat driver and bomb Iraq and any other country saddam set's foot in. There isn't a chance in hell GW is not going to want a war. And as you see from his past, whatever George wants George gets, cocaine, oil, a free ride through yale, draft protection, and someone else's white house

Jeez, how ignorant can you be? Ladies and gentlemen, this post basically takes the most common arguments thrown out by the ignorant members of the anti-war movement. This isn't a war for oil, revenge, or for the sake of having a war. Where did you guys come up with that stuff anyway? Exile would be a win-win-win situation--US wins, Iraq wins, world wins. The only loser is Saddam.

But the point is pretty much moot--Saddam has said that he isn't going to leave, and just knowing how stubborn the man is, I doubt he will change his mind, no matter what kind of international pressure is placed on him. It's time to go bonk some heads.

At 3/2/03 08:10 PM, Mr_Y wrote: I guess if they didn't drop the bombs the Japanese, who were allied with Hitler in WW2, and who destroyed Pearl Harbor, maybe even more people would've been forced into war and killed on both sides.

That was the whole reasoning behind dropping the bomb. They felt that they would rather drop the bomb than launch an invasion of Japan, which would have cost many, many lives on both sides.

At 3/2/03 07:00 AM, Slizor wrote: It's not even a democracy in the sense that 5 countries have veto power. However, it can be argued that the UN is a democracy. The people elect the Government, the Government sends representatives to the UN, those representatives have to represent the will of the government, which is the will of the people.

I can see what you mean when you argue that the UN is a democracy, but I still think that the US has rights as a sovereign nation, including the right to declare war.

Although you didn't allow Iraq such a right.

Iraq's attack on Kuwait was unprovoked, and the US and UN decided to come to their aid. If Iraq were threatened by, say, Iran, then sure, they could go to war, I wouldn't care. And don't give me any crap about a US attack on Iraq being unprovoked; it has already been explained, by myself and others, why an attack is justified.

The US is a democracy

Hah, the US is no where near a democracy.

Well, the US is more accurately described as a republic, but it's still more of a democracy then the Security Council.

and if the people don't like the idea of war, then they can voice that opinion at the polls in 2004.

"If they don't like this war, they can show this after the war!"

Well, I think Bush would have second thoughts about attacking Iraq if it would hurt his chances of reelection. But right now, the polls indicate otherwise.

I think I did mention in another thread that reciting the pledge was strictly voluntary at my high school. That's the way it should be, both for the pledge in general and "under God" in particular. But I don't want a judge to say that it can't be recited even on a voluntary basis.

At 3/2/03 12:59 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Just wait until we go to war without a resolution from our own CONGRESS. Or so it seems.

I think Bush should seek a congressional resolution. I'm pretty sure he would have no trouble getting one. I just think we don't need the UN, which continues to ignore its own resolutions.

At 3/1/03 08:11 PM, mighty_potato wrote: Why would the United States government go through with their military plans if the United Nations Security Council vetoes the measure? Because they can. But wait a minute, isn't the United Nations Security Council a democracy?

No, the UN Security Council is not a democracy. Do you or I have any say in the decisions the security council makes? Do we elect representatives to the security council? Just because a bunch of people get together and vote doesn't make it a democracy. A democracy means that the people have a say in it too.

If the United States goes through with their military plan against the wishes of the Security Council, then they will be violating two key principles of the world. Number one, the principle of the United Nations, to avoid war at all costs.

War is something that should generally be avoided, but I don't think a peaceful solution is possible. The inspections system is based on trust, and I don't think we should rely on a trust-based system when dealing with a man who dumps nerve gas on his own citizens.

Number two (and this is a biggy), they will be violating the same principle that their country was founded upon...democracy. If the US goes to war without the UN approval, they will be tearing up democracy and paving the way for another imperialistic society as seen in the 1800's.

Wrong again. See my above remark about the UN not being a democracy, and remember that the US is a sovereign nation with the right to declare war. The US is a democracy, and if the people don't like the idea of war, then they can voice that opinion at the polls in 2004. But at this point, it looks like Bush is well on his way to four more years. It seems that many of the people here (myself included) support his war policy.

Economic left/right: 1.50
Authoritarian/libertarian: -0.92

Closer to the middle than I expected on economic issues, but about where I expected socially.

At 3/1/03 08:06 PM, mighty_potato wrote: OK, what I'm trying to say is, if you are going to disarm one country, all of them should be disarmed. Also, the hypocritical thing that I think I forgot to point out was that the US is willing to use WOMD on Iraq to stop them from makeing WOMD. Oh how I miss the Cold War days and the MAD Principal.

Okay, maybe I was a little hasty in calling you an idiot (it really irks me when people say that we shouldn't have weapons if Iraq can't have them), but my opinion on Iraq disarming before we do stands.

As for us not ruling out the nuclear option against Iraq, I think it's pretty obvious that nukes will not be used. I don't think the option is ever ruled out when we launch a large-scale invasion, but nukes would only be used in the event of Iraq trying to use WMDs against us, our allies, or his neighbors in the region.

I'm sorry for being so quick to call you an idiot; maybe you did put some thought into it. But I still disagree with you.

At 2/28/03 12:22 PM, Slizor wrote: Both countries would be in complete disarray until a dictator arrived. Because frankly both wings have in-fighting. No-one could ever agree on anything.

Wow, I actually agree with Slizor on something! It's a miracle!

In the left-wing country, you'd probably have in-fighting between moderate left-wingers (Democrats), more extreme ones (Socialists), and finally, the most extreme of all (Communists). There'd probably be something similar going on in the right-wing country, too. I don't think a dictator would step in, but I think it would be more of a situation where they all split into a bunch of smaller countries.

At 2/28/03 08:57 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: If they're so eager to die they could always jump in front of a subway, no one will miss their anti-american asses. The only "statement" they're making is "I'm willing to die because I think the president pronounces words incorrectly."

I'm not sure about "anti-American", but I agree with the part about how the "president pronounces words incorrecly." The sad thing is how truly uninformed many of these anti-war protesters are. A few things to say about them:

1. They refuse to accept that inspections don't work and have never worked.

2. They can't seem to grasp the fact that Iraq is not a peaceful nation that seeks the weapons for peaceful purposes. I can't stand it when people say that "If Iraq can't have them, then the US shouldn't have them either." This is SADDAM HUSSEIN we're talking about, people!

3. They are very quick to make the "it's all about oil" accusation, despite the fact that there is NO GROUNDS WHATSOEVER for that ludicrous claim.

I think it's time that these people received a nice dose of Reality™. Quit living in a dream world and realize that Saddam is a threat to global security.

Just in case it wasn't clear who I was calling an idiot, it was the author of the original message.

You're an idiot.

We aren't making everyone disarm, just the nations *cough*Iraq*cough* that have proven to be unworthy to be equipped with such weapons. It would be nice if the whole world could agree to destroy all of their nuclear arsenals, but we aren't going to be so foolish as to disarm ourselves first and leave ourselves open to attack. Think of it like this--if Saddam had nukes and we didn't, he'd nuke us in 2.3 seconds. This is why we are attacking them--because a brutal dictator who has used such weapons against his neighbors and even his own people should not be allowed to acquire more chemical or biological weapons, or take the next step and develop nuclear weapons.

Next time, try thinking before you open your mouth.

More news...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/ne...re_us/peta_holocaust_display_3

Apparently, according to PETA, people who eat meat are now Nazis.

If they don't like the idea of war, that's fine, but if they're so convinced that they are right and Bush is wrong that they will endanger their lives in order to stop a military strike, then they are fools indeed.