Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 10/11/11 05:48 PM, Hybridization wrote: Which is why I said the intention is not the same as the results. What part of that made no sense?

According to you, America's intention was to colonize Iraq and get all its oil and the Brits' intention was to overthrow an evil dictator. The result was chaos and an unstable Iraq.

So who is responsible for this? Is it the US and Britain? Only one country's fault?

At 9/9/11 06:18 PM, Mr-Shark wrote: The American military is par with what the nazis where. Nothing but a bunch of Muslim murderous assholes. Fuck you America.. fuck you... America needs to take a major step back and needs to completely fuck off from the Muslim world. Or better yet, completely back out of world affairs.

Hahahahahaha. Oh wow.

At 10/12/11 03:39 PM, Ranger2 wrote: According to you, America's intention was to colonize Iraq and get all its oil and the Brits' intention was to overthrow an evil dictator. The result was chaos and an unstable Iraq.

So who is responsible for this? Is it the US and Britain? Only one country's fault?

Both are responsible, but it's America's fault for the over-exaggeration and propaganda.

At 10/13/11 01:15 AM, Hybridization wrote: Both are responsible, but it's America's fault for the over-exaggeration and propaganda.

The Russians believed Saddam had WMDs. In 2002 Saddam gave "evidence" to the UN that he had no WMDs, yet the UN did not buy it. It's also likely Saddam was lying because a: he didn't want to seem weak against his enemy, Iran, and b: he thought Bush was bluffing.

But as usual, you seem to be the type that thinks Europe is faultless in every way and that America is responsible for everything from 9/11 to that thunderstorm last week. Both Europe and America believed Saddam had WMDs and it wasn't from propaganda. If Britain was so deadset on the idea that Saddam had no WMDs it would've joined France and Germany in refusing to go in.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e n/wiki/White_House_Iraq_Group

Yeah, much like what Rumsfeld said. We knew these weapons were in the north, the south, the east, and the west. Everywhere. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.

From The movie Black Hawk Down

Eversmann: Look, these people, they have no jobs, no food, no education, no future. I just figure that we have two things we can do. Help, or we can sit back and watch a country destroy itself on CNN. Right?

Is it wrong for me to assume the main reason for Iraq was oil? Not to say that Iraq wasn't doing shit it wasn't supposed to, of course, but at the time it didn't pose any threat to the US. Al Queda did, which is why we went into Afghanistan because at the time we knew that the Taliban and Al Queda were linked, and it was believed that the Taliban could lead us to Al Queda. However, Iraq was completely irrelevant to 9/11 (the reason we went into Afghanistan), so why else did we go in?

At 10/23/11 03:00 PM, Scarface wrote: Is it wrong for me to assume the main reason for Iraq was oil? Not to say that Iraq wasn't doing shit it wasn't supposed to, of course, but at the time it didn't pose any threat to the US. Al Queda did, which is why we went into Afghanistan because at the time we knew that the Taliban and Al Queda were linked, and it was believed that the Taliban could lead us to Al Queda. However, Iraq was completely irrelevant to 9/11 (the reason we went into Afghanistan), so why else did we go in?

Saddam Hussein was an enemy of the US. He praised 9/11, failed to convince the UN that he was not building WMDs, shot at US planes in the no-fly zones, massacred Kurds, ran a minority authoritarian regime, tried to assassinate George HW Bush, and supported Palestinian terrorists. He was a bastard, and while he was not actually planning on attacking the US he was certainly a supporter of terrorism.

You also have to realize that at the time we went in, the UN, England, US, Iran, and Russia all truly believed he had WMDs. Saddam even admitted after his capture that he exaggerated his weapons stockpile because he didn't want to look weak against Iran and he thought Bush was bluffing.

At 10/23/11 04:26 PM, Ranger2 wrote:

At 10/23/11 03:00 PM, Scarface wrote: Is it wrong for me to assume the main reason for Iraq was oil? Not to say that Iraq wasn't doing shit it wasn't supposed to, of course, but at the time it didn't pose any threat to the US. Al Queda did, which is why we went into Afghanistan because at the time we knew that the Taliban and Al Queda were linked, and it was believed that the Taliban could lead us to Al Queda. However, Iraq was completely irrelevant to 9/11 (the reason we went into Afghanistan), so why else did we go in?

Saddam Hussein was an enemy of the US.

So are Kim Jong and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. We're not rolling in N. Korea or Iran any time soon.

shot at US planes in the no-fly zones,

If they were designated and well known no-fly zones, then he had the right to. They were flying in no-fly zones over his country. It was their own damn fault for flying there and not expecting retaliation.

ran a minority authoritarian regime,

North Korea

You also have to realize that at the time we went in, the UN, England, US, Iran, and Russia all truly believed he had WMDs.

Why didn't we pull out in 2006? By 2006, we knew damn well that there were no WMD's whatsoever.

At 10/23/11 08:15 PM, Scarface wrote: Rebuttal

I think Iraq was a mistake too. We should not have gone in. Keep in mind that hindsight is 20/20.
But I still believed we were justified in doing it. However, just because you are justified in doing something doesn't always mean that you should. We should not have gone into Iraq, however, we were justified in doing it.

At 10/23/11 09:36 PM, Ranger2 wrote:

At 10/23/11 08:15 PM, Scarface wrote: Rebuttal

I think Iraq was a mistake too. We should not have gone in. Keep in mind that hindsight is 20/20.
But I still believed we were justified in doing it. However, just because you are justified in doing something doesn't always mean that you should. We should not have gone into Iraq, however, we were justified in doing it.

Fair enough, I guess I was just debating on the definition of "should've". Believe me, I'd like to fix the world as much as anyone else, but America doesn't have the manpower.

At 10/23/11 04:26 PM, Ranger2 wrote: You also have to realize that at the time we went in, the UN, England, US, Iran, and Russia all truly believed he had WMDs.

So the UN sends in inspection teams to find these WMDs. They had US intelligence on where these WMDs were and where to search. But they couldn't' find anything except stuff still under UN lock and key from previous inspections. The only thing they found that was illegal was some rockets that flew further than they were allowed to, and those were quickly destroyed.
The UN inspection team nullified the US/UK claim that Saddam had WMD. That is why they (US-UK-Spain) went on their own and signed a war pact.

Hans Blix, the inspection leader referred to the US intelligence on Iraqs WMD as "going on a wild goose chase".

Both Saddam and Gaddaffi threatened US affairs, Saddam wanted to trade oil in Euros, and Gaddaffi wanted to resurrect the Gold standard. That's your justification.

At 10/25/11 09:54 AM, bcdemon wrote:

At 10/23/11 04:26 PM, Ranger2 wrote: You also have to realize that at the time we went in, the UN, England, US, Iran, and Russia all truly believed he had WMDs.

So the UN sends in inspection teams to find these WMDs. They had US intelligence on where these WMDs were and where to search. But they couldn't' find anything except stuff still under UN lock and key from previous inspections...
The UN inspection team nullified the US/UK claim that Saddam had WMD. That is why they (US-UK-Spain) went on their own and signed a war pact.

Hans Blix, the inspection leader referred to the US intelligence on Iraqs WMD as "going on a wild goose chase".

Both Saddam and Gaddaffi threatened US affairs, Saddam wanted to trade oil in Euros, and Gaddaffi wanted to resurrect the Gold standard. That's your justification.

Well said.

Indeed, the whole WMD thing was a red herring purely as justification of an illegal war. At the very most was a potential concern that Saddam was still a loose cannon and might have at some stage fired something at Israel, but Israel has REAL WMDS (nukes!) so that would be fully suicidal, not to mention the no-fly-zone covered a good proportion of Iraqi land (mostly in the south) which pretty much nullified any such risk.

Not in the slightest.

At 10/25/11 11:51 AM, JudgeDredd wrote: Indeed, the whole WMD thing was a red herring purely as justification of an illegal war.

It's almost comedic that people who say there were no WMDs always manage to ignore the reasons we had to suspect he might have WMDs. Things like his chemical weapons program, the fact that he refused U.N. inspectors access they needed to properly search for weapons, as well as so many others like the trucks he ran around the country to give the appearance of moving nuclear materials and lying about the amount of weapons he had.

At 10/29/11 09:14 PM, djack wrote:

At 10/25/11 11:51 AM, JudgeDredd wrote: Indeed, the whole WMD thing was a red herring purely as justification of an illegal war.

It's almost comedic that people who say there were no WMDs always manage to ignore the reasons we had to suspect he might have WMDs. Things like his chemical weapons program, the fact that he refused U.N. inspectors access they needed to properly search for weapons, as well as so many others like the trucks he ran around the country to give the appearance of moving nuclear materials and lying about the amount of weapons he had.

Wow, that entire was a comedy skit at best.
Iraqs chemical weapons program was NOT working after 1998. This is proven by the lack of an ongoing chemical weapons program when Hans Blix entered the country in late 2002, and by the lack of any NEW checmical weapons. This was known before March 19 2003.

Your link of 'refusing inspectors' is from 2000 and it deals with humanitarian inspectors who want to check the living conditions of Iraqis. Just to clarify, the UN pulled it's inspectors out in 1998 just days before the US/UK started bombing Iraq. This link shows how the media confused the public (including you) on whether UN inspectors left Iraq on thier own or were kicked out.
Furthermore, In January 2003, Hans Blix (lead weapons inspector in Iraq) said "access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect" and Iraq had "cooperated rather well".

And the trucks running around the country, he (Saddam) is about to get invaded by the worlds leading superpower, good chance some military trucks are gonna roll.

Bottom line is, the inspectors that were in Iraq from Nov 2002 - March 2003 to find WMD, found absolutely nothing in the way of WMD. If/when they did find something "illegal", they destroyed it.
With the UN inspection team not finding anything, the US and UK knew they would not get UN support for an invasion. That is why Bush, Blair and Aznar of Spain met in the Azores, to sign their own Iraq war pact. 3 days later, bombs were dropping in Iraq.

At 9/9/11 10:41 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote:

At 9/9/11 10:02 PM, Psil0 wrote:

At 9/9/11 03:56 PM, TheAngelZlayer wrote: Over 100,000 innocents including children were killed. Do the math.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

people die, vary simple fact.

Oh, look people dying in war? Surprise, surprise!!! OUTRAGE!!!!!!

you mean people dieing in meaningless war.

seriously, the only war ever to be meaningless, would be one that had no emotion, and that the people were just fighting because they could.

At 10/12/11 09:00 PM, GrumGrix wrote:

At 9/9/11 06:18 PM, Mr-Shark wrote: The American military is par with what the nazis where. Nothing but a bunch of Muslim murderous assholes. Fuck you America.. fuck you... America needs to take a major step back and needs to completely fuck off from the Muslim world. Or better yet, completely back out of world affairs.

Hahahahahaha. Oh wow.

who are the ones making the big investment to CLEAN the place up, sure there may be oil, but that's a side deal.

ohh and lets see how well negotiations go in the UN without the U,S watching everybody's actions. and actually giving a sh*t what happens

So what happened with those "confirmed" nukes in Iraq??
They mysteriously "evaporated" ,or somebody carried them in a small handbag to a different location? Probably to Iran?
Yep, soon it will be "confirmed" that Iran has them all.