I support an invasion of iraq.

[PrivatePartsxirbx]

I have posted this exact same post into another thread.
Though i want to get my opinion across for all incase some people dont happen to read the other thread i posted in.

For my second post i would like to say hi. newgrounds is as great as always.

next i would like to say that i support an invasion of iraq.

Im posting out of pure rage for the ignorant that would rather make dull witted comments instead of learing as much on the situation as possible.

Im very sick of the bush hate band wagon protesters. Sick of the human shields. Sick of "war for oil" and im sick of inspect the usa.

Its very childish and ignorant.

Though most anti war protesters do not want to see both sides of a possible war and would rather remain ignorant.

In my opinion kids shouldn't try to debate politics.

I've taken an active effort in trying to under stand both sides of the debate and have worried what will happen in the long run.

But iraq, or should i say saddam hussien, will never have my support. Learning from migrants who witnessed his fascism first hand.
One iraqi soldier who fought for saddam during the first gulf war for example.
He never like the US army, of course. But he said he never hated the US as much as Saddam after seeing the guts and limbs of his country man hung around in trees, after Saddam sent in tanks to clear an "anti-Saddam" protest a short time after the gulf war.
Funny how some people can sit behind their computers nice and safe and claim that Saddam isn't a threat to anyone as long as we don't provoke him
Another talked about being in a prison in iraq. 7 men had simply raised their hands to ask a question and were executed because of it.

No wonder you don't see iraq civilians on television showing support for an invasion. Im sure allot of them live in fear under a dictatorship rule.

Saddam has used chemical nerve agents on his own people in rural locations and I've watched the videos of dead women, children, and men alike laying in the streets.

To let this go unpunished is a horrible thought.

Since the trade embargo was put onto iraq 1 million iraqi civilians have starved to death. without a new government in power its estimated that another 1 million will die of starvation in half the time.

You think saddam gives a crap about his people?
if he did more money would be going into its economy and feeding the people instead of his hundreds of palace's over iraq. He lives the high life.

Now war for oil? please!

The oil issue is worth some extended discussion. The familiar mantra "No War for Oil" takes on an interesting meaning when discussing these countries, and France in particular. A war in Iraq would have very negative effects on French economic prospects in the region. (Why they would have obviously positive effects for the U.S. is something best explained by the antiwar crew, because it is not evident to me.) France is currently Iraq's most favored trading partner, and is heavily involved in Mideast regional energy development. The French energy giant Total Fina Elf recently brought the world's largest offshore natural gas field online in southern Iran, along with Russian natural gas firm Gazprom and the Malaysian company Petronas. Total Fina Elf also has multibillion-dollar oil contracts with Iraq, but because of U.N. resolutions, these contracts have not been signed and cannot be executed until sanctions are lifted. The Russian form Lukoil had a similar $4 billion agreement to develop the Iraqi West Qurnah oil field, but an indignant Saddam recently nullified the deal when Russia established contacts with the Iraqi opposition. Seems like Saddam can't trust anybody these days.
France would also be benefiting from billions of dollars on building radio towers in iraq on top of that.
The Russian imperialists have huge investments in Iraq and long-standing relations with its current government. The New York Times reports (Oct. 17) that Russian companies control the rights to sell 40 percent of Iraq's oil on world markets. And the Russian capitalists are way ahead in the real prize: One Russian oil company estimates that Russian companies have deals covering more than 70 billion barrels of oil--more than half of Iraq's reserves.

War for oil indeed. These countries don't care about war because there sole motivation is money and oil!

Im sure you ignorant bastards haven't even considered this yet have you?

Inspect the united states for weapons of mass destruction?

What a lame brain comment.

Its been over 50 years since america has used a nuclear weapon in a war situation. And that was to end a world war!

An invasion of Japan would of resulted in the deaths of 10 of millions instead of a couple hundred thousand.

For an invasion of japan gas warfare would of been used. Many more people would have died.

anyway to stay on topic america has these weapons. But a dictatorship like the current government in iraq wouldn't be afraid to use such weapons to terrorize the people around the country. the kurds, and the israelis for example.

Now. on to human shields. I've talked with a soldier in the 101st airborne. A combat engineer. so he works with and dismantles explosives.
He is a few months older than myself. has a wife, and father who fought in vietnam.
He has stated to me that human shield or not he is not going to die because of hesitation to attack.
He says that he will do anything it takes to get back to the wife he loves.
He also says that he hopes as many iraqi soldiers surrender that did in the first gulf war. He doesn't enjoy killing but will do what is necessary.

Remember. Its not a soldiers job to create war...But to bring it to an end...

In closing id like to say that i feel in the long run the world would be a much more better place without saddam hussien.
I hope I've swayed a few opinions here by actually using my brain to try and inform instead of making stupid childish comments.

well thats all for now. Im canadian so dont think of me as the typical american war monger. id rather see saddam step down from power instead of an invasion but since that is highly unlikely i support action.

______________________

[Aliz]

meh, go lick bush's ass.

[PrivatePartsxirbx]

id prefer it if people read my comments before posting.

As ive said. kids shouldnt debate topics if all the have to add are crap remarkes.

please use that thing in your skull called a brain before posting.

[Aliz]

Your one to talk about using a skull. Anyone who agrees to this dumbass war isn't any smarter than are friend here. Please, go away no one wants to hear from an asslicker.

[RoboTripper]

George Bush played right into the hands of OBL - he has stripped away civil liberties and by scapegoating Iraq he draws attention away from the recession that we are now in. The biggest tragedy that occured on 9-11 is that the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania didn't smash into the White House while Bush was in it. George Bush: how dumb is too dumb?

[PrivatePartsxirbx]

i sense a little anti-american opinion from you.

have you considered the million that have died because of starvation and the millions more that will starve under saddams rule compared to the thousands in a possible war?

you cant just send relief aid to iraq because the currency would not go to feeding the people under iraqs government.

something has to be done and will be done.

lets see if you can post once more without resorting to profanity.

[Aliz]

Woot 500,000 kids are dying a month because of not Saddam's rule, but foreign policies, sanctions that prevent medicines, food and common stationary into Iraq, god bless the UN for this excellent sanctioning
</sarcasm>.

<George Bush's Mind> Hmm... Lets attack Iraq, make it look like we are 'helping' the Iraqs to free themselves from sanctions from MY own country and call it the 'War On Terrorism' since people have been deeply affected by 9/11. </George Bush's Mind>

[RoboTripper]

At 2/15/03 03:32 AM, PrivatePartsxirbx wrote: i sense a little anti-american opinion from you.
have you considered the million that have died because of starvation and the millions more that will starve under saddams rule compared to the thousands in a possible war?

Millions died? That sounds like propaganda. Before we bombed Iraq into squalor in the first gulf war they were a prosperous nation and one of the more progressive nations in the Middle East in terms of education, health care, and women's rights. And even if many people have died from hunger, it is diddly-squat compared to the suffering in North Korea, which by the way now has nuclear capabilities and long-range missile capability. But fighting them would be difficult, as opposed to Iraq who Bush knows he can kick the crap out of and get some easy approval points.
BTW don't blame me... I voted with the majority.

[PrivatePartsxirbx]

iraq shouldnt of invaded another country and lite their oil fields on fire if they didnt want to be bombed.

and the sactions are put on iraq by the united nations and not meerly the us.

sanctions will never be lifted until saddam is dead or another goverment is in power.

1 million have died of stavation yes.. do a little research.

[Aliz]

I've done my researh obviously anyone who supports the hick hasn't.Gotta sleep,

Peace All

George Bush is a pansy!

[RoboTripper]

At 2/15/03 03:50 AM, PrivatePartsxirbx wrote: iraq shouldnt of invaded another country and lite their oil fields on fire if they didnt want to be bombed.

Iraq invaded Kuwait, a tiny-ass little nothing of a country and the US pounced on the opportunity in order "to preserve democracy", regardless of the fact that there was never and still is no democracy in Kuwait. As far as doing a little research, if you had done some you would realize that Iraq lit the oil fields on fire as they were retreating - after being bombed.

and the sactions are put on iraq by the united nations and not meerly the us.

The US put forth those sanctions and pressured as many countries as possible to comply - the only things the sanctions have accomplished are to empoverish a once healthy country and to actually strengthen the resolve of the Iraqi people to support their government and hate the US

sanctions will never be lifted until saddam is dead or another goverment is in power.

Sad enough, it is probably true

1 million have died of stavation yes.. do a little research.

I choose to do my research someplace other than the FOX news channel

[Ted-Easton]

At 2/15/03 03:32 AM, PrivatePartsxirbx wrote:

have you considered the million that have died because of starvation

million iraqi civilians have starved to death
one million have died of starvation yes

Hmmm. One million, you say?
Exactly one million?
Kind of odd that this so called "research" brings up such a nice, round number. That's a thing called estimation from analysis.
Someone thinks- I saw some guy starve on TV. There must be millions of people in Iraq. (1X1000000)

A million people have starved!

Stop trying to "save" these "innocents" in Iraq. There are dozens of countries who are just as bad. There is no "war for oil", there is no "disarmament", it's just Bush's little games.
There's no good reason to invade Iraq, and here, listen to this.

We have no right to dictate what weapons Saddam Huessein may have in Iraq.
We have no right to "overthrow" his government. There are, and have been, dictatorships all throughout history, and this one is no different.

[PrivatePartsxirbx]

of course its an estimate. does it really matter if its 900,000 or 1.2 million?

no. The point is that the amount of people who have died of starvation in iraq is up there.

Im sure you would all say it was none of the usa's bussiness to invade afghanistan if it was before the 9/11 attacks.

Allowing saddam to stay in power would only allow him to do the same thing to another country like israel.

If israel was to be attacked by iraq with a chemical or biological weapon they would respond with nuclear weapons. He hasnt had a problem with using nerve agents on the kurds in the north..

Does bush look like the type smart enough to play games?

if i had a choice between trusting saddam hussien, a man who killed his teacher with a revolver when he was just 11 years old, a man who used political assassination to take power of iraq then made a movie glorifying it, and as ive said a man who has used chemical warfare on his own people compared to a man like george bush who seems more the type that would sit at home and watch spondge bob square pants,
I think i would trust george bush.

[Ted-Easton]

I would also say the US had no right to invade Afghanistan if it was before 9/11. Up until then, they had no right/reason to.
If the US invaded Great Britain tomorrow, the US would be considered a monster. But, if Great Britain nuked a major US city, and the US invaded, everyone would have said afterwards "Oh, why didn't we invade sooner".
It's because there was no reason to. And no right to.
Saddam has done nothing against the US, and they have no right to do anything to him.

[PrivatePartsxirbx]

he's done enough over the decade to justify an attack. Not to america but his own people, the kurds, turks, and the israelies.

Lets pretend that 9/11 happened in saaaaaaaay...japan.
japan does not have a large offensive military force because of their constitution after ww2. They dont want to have a force capable of invading other countries.

If japan was attacked and not the united states wouldnt that be enough justification to help japan and invade afghanistan?

For me it would of been enough.

I dont feel its any different to what saddam has done.

[Ted-Easton]

If Japan was attacked, Yes, it would be right to help.
But Saddam has done nothing that justifies an attack. Anything he has done has been within his own borders, which makes it a civil issue, giving the US no right to intervene.

His invasion of Kuwait has been paid for.

[swayside]

At 2/15/03 03:20 PM, Ted_Easton wrote: I would also say the US had no right to invade Afghanistan if it was before 9/11. Up until then, they had no right/reason to.
If the US invaded Great Britain tomorrow, the US would be considered a monster. But, if Great Britain nuked a major US city, and the US invaded, everyone would have said afterwards "Oh, why didn't we invade sooner".
It's because there was no reason to. And no right to.
Saddam has done nothing against the US, and they have no right to do anything to him.

have you ever heard of reasonable suspicion? that's the rule that says that school officials have the right to check your car, bags, locker, person, or whatever if they have a reasonable tip-off or hunch that you are carrying or doing something you shouldn't. there's no reason to suspect britain of an offensive against us. we certainly have plenty of reason to suspect that sadaam has the potential and the initiative to attack america.

[Sirterox]

At 2/15/03 03:41 AM, dukeali wrote: Woot 500,000 kids are dying a month because of not Saddam's rule, but foreign policies, sanctions that prevent medicines, food and common stationary into Iraq, god bless the UN for this excellent sanctioning
</sarcasm>.

<George Bush's Mind> Hmm... Lets attack Iraq, make it look like we are 'helping' the Iraqs to free themselves from sanctions from MY own country and call it the 'War On Terrorism' since people have been deeply affected by 9/11. </George Bush's Mind>

The reason for that is that the americans and the brits tried to give iraq food. Tons of food a year actually and for many years. Every time we sent food over there in crats they gathered it all and burned it. so why are you complaining about the sanction? If we try to give them food they burn it all so it is a compleat waist. If they want to starve then let them.

[Sirterox]

At 2/15/03 08:04 AM, Ted_Easton wrote:

At 2/15/03 03:32 AM, PrivatePartsxirbx wrote:

have you considered the million that have died because of starvation

million iraqi civilians have starved to death
one million have died of starvation yes

Hmmm. One million, you say?
Exactly one million?
Kind of odd that this so called "research" brings up such a nice, round number. That's a thing called estimation from analysis.
Someone thinks- I saw some guy starve on TV. There must be millions of people in Iraq. (1X1000000)

A million people have starved!

Stop trying to "save" these "innocents" in Iraq. There are dozens of countries who are just as bad. There is no "war for oil", there is no "disarmament", it's just Bush's little games.
There's no good reason to invade Iraq, and here, listen to this.

We have no right to dictate what weapons Saddam Huessein may have in Iraq.
We have no right to "overthrow" his government. There are, and have been, dictatorships all throughout history, and this one is no different.

OH COME ON TED! What do you mean we have no reason to go over to iraq and invade? They attacked us!! A lot of people are failing to realize this. Because of bin laden 10,000 americans are dead. 2 of the tallest buildings in the word are destroyed. Many people were laid off jobs for the airlines and we have had to spend MORE money to keep out airlines safe. And yet you say that iraq didnt do anyhting to us so we shouldnt go over there and kick his ass? PLUS! Like i just posted, we tried to help them! we tried to give them LOTS of food but they BURNED it all! ALL OF IT!! houndres of tons of food burned by a country that publically executes people in what used to be a football stadium.

[Sirterox]

At 2/15/03 05:14 PM, Ted_Easton wrote: If Japan was attacked, Yes, it would be right to help.
But Saddam has done nothing that justifies an attack. Anything he has done has been within his own borders, which makes it a civil issue, giving the US no right to intervene.

His invasion of Kuwait has been paid for.

I see then. So your saying that a man with nuclear power who HATES the US should not be reconed with? "oh hello mr. sadam. Lovley day today isnt it? you know about those nuke things were talking to you about? just forget it. its no big- BOOOM!!

[Ted-Easton]

Yes, I agree with reasonable suspicion. They check bags, cars, homes, etc. That is what the weapons inspectors are doing. They are looking for weapons.
But if they suspect someone has a joint, do they immediately open fire?
No, they check first, and sieze it if they do.

And Iraq did not cause 9/11. Saddam didn't order a plane into the WTC, he didn't cause lost jobs or lives.

[karasz]

I have a question to everyone saying Saddam has killed his own people... AND??? granted it sucks for the Kurds and Shia are being killed for no reason, but against the Taliban, the guys that beat their women we didnt care... FOR 3 years noone did a DAMN thing againt the taliban then AFTER the US is attacked then we take out the TALIBAN... Saddam is a menace to his people, let them deal with it...

Also still hasn't been proven that Saddam has any WMD weapons... and don't even think about telling me that Powell going to the UN sec. council with that phony dossier from Britian is proof, they stole it from a student and he did it on the Gulf War...

[Sirterox]

At 2/15/03 08:40 PM, Ted_Easton wrote: Yes, I agree with reasonable suspicion. They check bags, cars, homes, etc. That is what the weapons inspectors are doing. They are looking for weapons.
But if they suspect someone has a joint, do they immediately open fire?
No, they check first, and sieze it if they do.

And Iraq did not cause 9/11. Saddam didn't order a plane into the WTC, he didn't cause lost jobs or lives.

Ted i totaly agree, sadam did not order a plane into the WTC, OSAMA DID!!! Not just one plane, but 2!!! Along with about 5 other planes which all had different targets! Osama planed this for months. He sent some of his men to Emry rittle where they learned to fly. Then, boom! There goes 2 buildings and 1/5 of the pentagon. Along with some other planes that the passengers took over and crashed into nothing so that the terrorists couldnt do anything.

Second thing, why would a wheapons inspector be looking for a joint? That cant blow some one up. Now when you are looking for something that can wipe out an entire city, thats another story. Arresting drug users and arresting terrorists who attack and kill our people along with THEIR OWN are 2 different things.

[Ted-Easton]

At 2/15/03 05:54 PM, swayside wrote:

.

have you ever heard of reasonable suspicion? that's the rule that says that school officials have the right to check your car, bags, locker, person, or whatever if they have a reasonable tip-off or hunch that you are carrying or doing something you shouldn't.

I was replying to this, Sirterox, with my comparison of a joint as a Nuke. swayside was talking about searches and reasonable suspicion, and I was replying to that.

[Darkfang34]

Yes Cool! DEATH TO HUMANS EVERYWHERE WEE HHHEEEHHAAA

[Darkfang34]

At 2/15/03 03:15 AM, PrivatePartsxirbx wrote: id prefer it if people read my comments before posting.

As ive said. kids shouldnt debate topics if all the have to add are crap remarkes.

please use that thing in your skull called a brain before posting.

STFU BITCH!

[PrivatePartsxirbx]

i was hopping for at least a few people would of made an intelligent reply.

I guess i shouldn't of expected too much on a politics forum with debates by children.

i leave you all now to dwell in your arrogance. stay on the bush hate bandwagon and dont worry about the big picture.

[karasz]

what do u mean there are no intelligent posts??? there are they just disagree with ya...

[MarijuanaClock]

At 2/15/03 03:03 AM, PrivatePartsxirbx wrote: I have posted this exact same post into another thread.

Then why the fuck would you post it again?

[AukeSam]

At 2/16/03 02:04 AM, PrivatePartsxirbx wrote: i was hopping for at least a few people would of made an intelligent reply.

I guess i shouldn't of expected too much on a politics forum with debates by children.

i leave you all now to dwell in your arrogance. stay on the bush hate bandwagon and dont worry about the big picture.

I think YOU are the person with the arrogance! Why don't you listen to the people who have another opinion and replie to that! The only thing you do is saying that we are all wrong! But why??? You don't say a damn wor dabout that! That's arrogance!!!