Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Early in the war, people were pointing to stiff resistance and the fact that Iraqi civilians were reluctant to express support for us to try to show that they weren't exactly welcoming us as liberators.

They're sure welcoming us now!

There is quite a bit of clean-up work left to be done in Baghdad and elsewhere, but the Iraqi people are obviously no longer afraid of Saddam, and are definitely enjoying their new-found freedom.

France, Russia, China, and Germany should be hanging their heads in shame right now. Now, all we have to do is produce the weaponry, and then we can declare this war to be one of the most successful wars in history, not to mention declare Bush to be the winner in 2004. :)

At 4/9/03 01:01 AM, thenark wrote: a lot of stuff

First of all, you argue about the US trying to rid Iraq of WMDs when we have them ourselves. But, as far as I know, we have never used chemical or biological weapons, and have used nukes only once. There are several documented cases of Saddam Hussein using chemical weapons, not only against other nations, but against his own people. The UN passed resolutions that forbade Iraq, not the US, from possessing such weapons, as Iraq proved to be unworthy of carrying them. It wasn't the US alone that said that Iraq couldn't have those weapons--the international community agreed.

Also, you argue that Iraq doesn't have the means to deliver such weapons to our shores. So they didn't have a missile that could reach US or British shores. (Also, note that as of right now, I am referring to Saddam and his regime in the past tense, as they are essentially no longer in power.) But we have allies and interests in the region. Saddam had missiles that had greater ranges than were allowed by UN resolutions. They may have had missiles that could have reached Kuwait (actually, they DID have missiles that DID reach Kuwait), Turkey, and, yes, Israel (more on that later). These missiles were quite capable of carrying chemical warheads. And if he wanted to bring these weapons to American soil, so what if he didn't (yet) have missiles that could get that far? Just sell the weapons to terrorists, have them bring them over here, and watch the fun!

And finally, as an alternative to the overused and baseless "war for oil" argument, you say that we want to do it to protect Israel, which "has no right to be there". Okay... I suppose that makes it just fine to use chemical or biological weapons against them? As I have said before, Israel has the right to defend itself. Sometimes they go too far, but what would you think if someone blew himself up and killed a bunch of people where you live? And is it wrong to think that maybe, we can stop the cycle of violence over there, and the Israelis and Palestinians could get along with each other? Israel can get along just fine with its neighbors if no one attacks them--but why should we believe that Saddam wouldn't have attacked Israel if he had the chance? In fact, he did just that in the 1991 Gulf War.

In short, there are many reasons why we needed to disarm Saddam. And the international community agreed that Saddam needed to be disarmed, as shown by the unanimous passage of UN Resolution 1441. They just disagreed on whether war was necessary. Our troops discovering weapons in Iraq would seem to be proof that the inspectors weren't getting the job done. It really does do serious damage to anti-war arguments. If Saddam wasn't willing to disarm peacefully, do you think we just should have let him have his weapons? I don't think so.

At 4/9/03 08:49 AM, Slizor wrote: It looked rather intentional to me. If you have snipers shooting at you would you just a rifle......or a tank to shoot back? Stupid lies. There was also a claim for one of the Journalists who survived another "friendly fire" incident that the US were intentionally trying to kill them. I certainly wouldn't put it past them.

Let me ask you this: what could we possibly hope to acheive by killing journalists? It doesn't make sense. We have no reason to do it, and we don't just go around indiscriminately killing people, no matter how much you want to believe we do. If it was in any way intentional, then responsiblity falls on the person who fired the gun, or the person who gave the order to fire, because it certainly isn't US military policy.

Also, if snipers are shooting at you, and you happen to be in a tank, of course you're going to use the tank's gun to take them out quickly and easily.

At 4/8/03 09:53 PM, PreacherJ wrote: Back when someone was running the "Newgrounds: The Gathering" thread, the man was nice enough to make me a card. I figured it'd be slightly relevant.

Any way you could incorporate the logo into that card?

That report went into great detail about the proposed oil deal, mentioning companies and people involved.

Why didn't it go into detail about companies and people involved in selling chemical weapons to Iraq? All it seemed to say is that "the US was providing weapons to Iraq" and a memo saying that they didn't want Iraq to say that the US provided them weapons.

Is there any harder proof that there was a link between the oil deals and the weapons deals?

I'm just playing devil's advocate here. I'm still not denying that deals may have happened, and I stand by my statement that if they did happen, they are irrelevant.

I have a few things to say. I have never claimed to be an expert on the Iran-Iraq war. If I recall, I just said that I had never heard anything about US weapons sales to Iraq. I do not deny that they may have happened (though some on this board have shown evidence that France, Russia, and China were the main suppliers of Iraq's weapons, but I digress). But the main thing to understand about US weapons sales to Iraq is that IT IS IRRELEVANT. As it has been said here before, common enemies lead to strange partnerships. And after the end of the Iran-Iraq war, when the US and Iraq no longer had a common enemy, they became enemies with each other during the 1991 Gulf War. After the US victory in that conflict, the UN passed resolutions that banned Iraq from carrying weapons of mass destruction. The US may have made the mistake of providing weapons to Iraq, but does that mean that we don't have the right to correct that mistake by disarming Iraq now?

I'm well aware that my age precludes me from having a good understanding of certain things that happened during that time. But I try to keep well-informed, and I think I have a fairly good understanding of the current situation. And it is my opinion that the current situation calls for the disarmament/removal of Saddam Hussein.

The report I've heard is that snipers were shooting from the general direction of the hotel, and we accidentaly hit it when returning fire, killing a couple of reporters. Binladenmustdie had a great point: if we did it on purpose, we would have killed them all.

And on another note, we here at the Politics forum are often inclined to tell a newbie who comes in and say something stupid to shut up and get out, but I like the fact that Binladenmustdie intelligently stated why he was wrong. That's something that we should do when that happens, and leave the "OMG STFU" to the General forum.

At 4/8/03 12:14 AM, implodinggoat wrote: Who gives a flying fuck if they have weapons of mass destruction or not? I don't the point is, is that we are ridding the world of one of the last of the few true tyrants.

Talking to a man like Saddam Hussein accomplishes nothing, his record on human rights shows that he needed to be removed.

Valid point. Saddam is a man who needs to go anyway. But the international community wouldn't go for removing him just for the sake of removing him. They needed a reason. So we pointed out the fact that he was blatantly violating UN resolutions requiring his disarmament, and got 1441 passed (unanimously, I might add). Saddam failed to comply with the terms of 1441, and continued to lead inspectors around in a wild goose chase. And yet certain nations still refused to support military action.

At this point, all finding WMDs means is that we can say, "Hey, we were right and you were wrong." But damn, I want to be able to say that. The French need to be put in their place.

Syracuse... why Syracuse?

It was bad enough that they beat my Pokes, but beat three other Big 12 schools and win the title?

Why? Why?

Trogdor was a man... then he was a dragon-man... then he was... just a dragon!

Oh, the game's back on. Be back later.

At 4/7/03 08:43 PM, Jiperly wrote: the newest report shows that its agircultial gasses, not weapons grade

That's what the first report turned out to be, but I mentioned another report that seems to be the real deal.

This is a report from FOX News of an apparently different site, found outside Karbala. I'm going to be more careful with this one.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83449,00.html

I stand by my earlier statement that this would deal a serious blow to anti-war arguments if confirmed... but this time, I want to emphasize the "if confirmed" part. :)

You think the protests are worthy of coverage? The protestors are saying nothing that we haven't heard before. The only time it's newsworthy is if they cause massive disruptions (which they often do). I think the networks are right to focus their coverage on the war itself.

As for that "we support genocide" remark... that was incredibly dumb.

I was trying to not be too quick. Note that I said, "if it turns out to be true."

Maybe I shouldn't have opened with "Well, here they are!" But I wanted to grab your attention.

That sarin thing may have turned out to not be true, but there were reports of them finding missiles with chemical warheads. I just got back from school, and just now read some reports about these. I read the story about the sarin gas being debunked, but these reports haven't said anything about the missiles. Has anyone heard if that report has been confirmed?

At 4/7/03 01:08 PM, el_foka wrote: 2. The anti-war movement is not solely based on the assumption that there aren't WMDs. That would be dumb. Try instead to grasp that people genuinely believe that conflicts can be settled peacefully. Forgive us for hoping....

But that's the thing. Hope is fine, but it should be based on realism. Can anyone realistically believe that Saddam Hussein would be willing to respond to diplomacy? He let inspectors in, sure, but the discovery of WMDs would seem to prove that he was misleading them. What does it make you believe if our troops found in two weeks what the inspectors couldn't find in eleven years?

At 4/7/03 12:35 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: who decides who gets Iraq? the UN or US?

Who's freeing Iraq? The UN or US?

Well, HERE THEY ARE!!!

This report hasn't yet been completely confirmed, but it seems pretty damning...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/ne...0407/ts_nm/iraq_usa_cache_dc_3

Several barrels of sarin, and ready-to-fire missiles equipped with sarin and mustard gas.

If this turns out to be true, then the credibility of the anti-war movement is shot.

I believe Halliburton has withdrawn from consideration for the contract to rebuild Iraq.

This news is so old that it's not even true anymore.

How long has Basra been under siege?

From what I'm hearing, British troops have control of the city. There's still some resistance, but the British can move in and out without a whole lot of trouble.

Let me take a crack at this...

1. Thomas Jefferson
2. Robert E. Lee
3. Colin Powell

At 4/6/03 07:47 PM, Commander-K25 wrote: For those of you that don't already read Real Life Comics, take a look at this

That's how the war should end :)

Hahahahahahaha...

Ahh, if only the real world were more like Final Fantasy...

What exactly would Saddam transform into?

At 4/6/03 04:27 PM, Niteshade wrote: I think its possible that the world may end sometime soon here. Like according to Biblical stuff it seems very likely, but I'd have to read up a little too. My memory has gotten a little rusty.

Holy crap, I'm posting in General.

But anyway, I think if you want to go by the Book of Revelation™, then we've still got a little ways to go. We still need an Antichrist and a one-world government, and I think that with this war showing the ineffectiveness of the UN, one-world government isn't going to happen anytime soon.

Does he hold British citizenship? If he does, then they can't very well kick him out for talking.

But he probably does need some sense slapped into him.

As I said before, Israel has the right to defend itself. But I don't like the idea of siezing land in a war. However, Israel has returned most of the land that it siezed in those wars. They still have some of it (West Bank and Gaza Strip), but I'd bet that some of that will eventually be set aside for a Palestinian state.

At 4/5/03 01:32 AM, Evanauto wrote: but the supreme court stopped the recount remember? and after all the the recounts whould have been done Gore would have won by just 7 votes. those 7 vote would have swung the electoral college and Gore would have won.

I beg to differ. Gore would have won by 7 votes if the votes were counted the way HE wanted them counted. The votes had already been counted several times over under the standards set by Florida's election laws, and Bush won every time. But Gore wanted votes that shouldn't have counted under the law to be counted.

I hope I have put this issue to rest forever. It's been almost 3 years--doesn't anyone just want to move on?

To clarify my last post: I'm sure that there are Sunnis in Iraq who are dissatisfied with Saddam. But Saddam is a Sunni, and does not represent Iraq's majority Shi'ite population. The Shi'ites don't like him very much. Which side do you think they'll take?

You say that Sunnis are more likely to help than Shi'ites, but who are the Sunnis in Iraq?

Saddam and his regime, that's who.

Can we please stop arguing? This thread wasn't made for insults to be tossed around.

What we will gain from the war:

-A brutal dictator removed from power.
-A people free to rule themselves.
-A threat of weapons of mass destruction removed.
-A new trading partner, with oil agreements that will be MUTUALLY beneficial (contrary to what anti-war people say, that we'd just be taking the oil from the Iraqi people).
-A nation in the region that is actually friendly to us.

There's plenty to gain.

For constitutional reference: the Congressional power to declare war is defined in Article I, Section 8.

"The Congress shall have power... to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water."

Congress did pass a resolution authorizing the President to use force in Iraq, although it was not a formal war declaration. Also remember that Congress has the power of the budget. If at any time they do not wish to continue the war, they can simply pull the funding for it.