Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

What the fuck are you talking about? The Kurdish massacres occurred years before Bush was President, or even in the public eye...

At 2/23/03 05:38 PM, DenkSmoker wrote:

At 2/23/03 10:12 AM, swayside wrote:

At 2/23/03 09:56 AM, Slizor wrote:

not agianst our own people, and not against civilians in other countries.

Vietnam.

america has never intentionally killed civilians of other coutries. the vietnam war was to beat back communism.

You have ignored the response. He was not asking what the purpose of the Vietnam War was. He was asking about America intentionally killing civilians - I don't know if the bombing of every North Vietnamese major city to the ground was "intentionally" killing civilians, but that was who was in the cities. :

Vietnam is irrelevent because it is an ad hominem tu torque. This has nothing to do with Iraq and their actions against civilians.

Why not take some time and let the inspectors and recently implemented U-2 spyplanes do their job?

Iraq has had 13 years.

Lets put in another puppet like Karzai, Iraq will be for all purposes our 52nd state. :

A good idea.

Vietnam.

america has never intentionally killed civilians of other coutries. the vietnam war was to beat back communism.

You have ignored the response. He was not asking what the purpose of the Vietnam War was. He was asking about America intentionally killing civilians - I don't know if the bombing of every North Vietnamese major city to the ground was "intentionally" killing civilians, but that was who was in the cities. :

Vietnam is irrelevent because it is an ad hominem tu torque.

That's not a response, that's a fobbing off. Speak in English.

This has nothing to do with Iraq and their actions against civilians.

State the obvious. It is an example of the hipocrisy about how America can attack civilians and get away with it, but Iraq can't.

Why not take some time and let the inspectors and recently implemented U-2 spyplanes do their job?

Iraq has had 13 years.

The Inspectors haven't.

Lets put in another puppet like Karzai, Iraq will be for all purposes our 52nd state. :

A good idea.

Ah, neo-imperialism, great!

Iraq may have has 13 years, but the inspectors have not. They've been out for years, and now they've hardly had time tog et back in.
We've waited 13 years, what's wrong with waiting a little longer for the inspectors?

At 2/23/03 10:12 AM, swayside wrote:

At 2/23/03 09:56 AM, Slizor wrote:

also, america is not known to use weapons frivilously.

You've had 21 wars in the past 50 years!

forst of all, "you"? if that's me, then who are you?

The American people! You're just checking his grammar! Why don't you give facts to try getting him on your side instead of telling him not to use you if he means the Americans, and you know he meant the Americans!

not agianst our own people, and not against civilians in other countries.

Vietnam.

america has never intentionally killed civilians of other coutries. the vietnam war was to beat back communism.

But they DID kill civilions, didn't they?

sadaam would (and will if we back off) use any kind of weapon he has against the rest of the world.

You agree then, that Saddam has no WMDs, because if he did, he'd use them, no?

you moron. do you think he'd do such a thing under the current scruteny of the world?

If he wouldn't use them, why do you fear he will use them? Because this whole war is there to prevent that Saddam will use his weapons! If he wouldn't use them, why fighting this war!?

sadaam must be taken out of power for the sake of his poeple

And who would be put in his place?

don't tell me that you believe the yin yang removal of evil thing. just because you remove one evil, doesn't mean you leave a whole that will inevitably be filled with a greater evil.

It may unchain a civil war, and the winner of that war will lead the country and will oppress the losing side and the losing side will unchain a revolution and the circle is round again.

if that wasn't what you meant, good. i'll leave that for those that think that way.

i say screw the spread of democracy. give them a republic.

Indeed!

At 2/24/03 07:26 AM, Boco_the_Choco wrote:

At 2/23/03 09:56 AM, Slizor wrote:

america has never intentionally killed civilians of other coutries. the vietnam war was to beat back communism.

But they DID kill civilians, didn't they?

To say more about that:
The American soldiers were only trained to eliminate the Viet-Cong. Their slogan was: "A dead slit-eyed is a dead Viet-Cong"
They couldn't see the difference between a farmer and a Viet-Cong, so they killed all the farmers. A child walking through a village could have a gun, so they killed them. Women working in the rice-plantation could be a member of the Viet-Cong, so they killed them all.
They burned down villages filled with innocent people, so don't you say that they never intentionally killed civilians of other coutries, because that's crap!

At 2/24/03 07:20 AM, Ted_Easton wrote: We've waited 13 years, what's wrong with waiting a little longer for the inspectors?

..correct, but the reverse argument is that inspectors will only make progress with the THREAT of military force.

BUT, DISARMAMENT BY THREAT OF WAR doesn't make any sense. Tonite i heard the British parliment say that even if certain missiles and other "defensive" weapons are destroyed, it DOES NOT mean an attack on Iraq won't still happen...

THAT SOUNDS FECK'N KRAZY TO ME!!!! :(_same illogical behaviour with Israeli incursions)

3rd-world countries forced to destroy weapons of minor destruction, ..and possibly (while cowering on the ground) THEN GETS THUMPED BY THE WORLDS MOST BEWEAPONED COUNTRIES !!!

WTF ??!!?!?!!

Yes, I think they should have, and I don't think it's ALL about the oil.

It certainly plays a big part, though.

At 2/26/03 06:04 AM, PreacherJ wrote: Yes, I think they should have, and I don't think it's ALL about the oil.

It certainly plays a big part, though.

It plays a VERY big part! There has almost never been a war in which the attacking party had no economic reason to start it.
Why would it be different here?

Really:

At 2/26/03 10:28 AM, Boco_the_Choco wrote:

At 2/26/03 06:04 AM, PreacherJ wrote: Yes, I think they should have, and I don't think it's ALL about the oil.

It certainly plays a big part, though.

It plays a VERY big part! There has almost never been a war in which the attacking party had no economic reason to start it.
Why would it be different here?

Because we don't have to go to war to get the oil. If all we wanted was the oil, then we could just lift the sanctions against Iraq and make an oil trade agreement with them. Of course, if we did that, we would be helping fund Saddam's regime, thus helping him kill his own people and helping him build more Weapons of Mass Destruction™.

I don't see this as starting a new war, but finishing an old one. Saddam was guilty of violating the treaty that ended the Gulf War. UN Resolution 1441 gave him one last chance to comply. You can make the argument that Iraq is cooperating better with the inspectors now, but he is still not fully complying with the resolution. I still think he is playing the shell game. If a nation violates a treaty that ends a war, then war resumes. Period.

Once Saddam is out of the picture, are we going to buy oil from the new Iraq? Absolutely. Does that mean that this war is about oil? No.

At 2/26/03 10:57 AM, TheEvilOne wrote:

At 2/26/03 10:28 AM, Boco_the_Choco wrote: Oil plays a VERY big part! There has almost never been a war in which the attacking party had no economic reason to start it.
Why would it be different here?

Because we don't have to go to war to get the oil. If all we wanted was the oil, then we could just lift the sanctions against Iraq and make an oil trade agreement with them. Of course, if we did that, we would be helping fund Saddam's regime, thus helping him kill his own people and helping him build more Weapons of Mass Destruction™.

But this would have a smaller chance to start when the wouldn't be no oit in Iraq. America goes to war to disarm Saddam, and the oil is a very attractive bonus! That is probably one of the reasons why Bush doesn't want to give Saddam more time!

I don't see this as starting a new war, but finishing an old one. Saddam was guilty of violating the treaty that ended the Gulf War. UN Resolution 1441 gave him one last chance to comply. You can make the argument that Iraq is cooperating better with the inspectors now, but he is still not fully complying with the resolution. I still think he is playing the shell game. If a nation violates a treaty that ends a war, then war resumes. Period.

The inspectors are making progresses now. Saddam has agreed to destroy the rockets of which he claims that the range doesn't break any rules. Give them some more time to keep searching and Saddam will maybe give in because of the threat of this war!

Once Saddam is out of the picture, are we going to buy oil from the new Iraq? Absolutely. Does that mean that this war is about oil? No.

If Saddam is out of the picture, America will rule Iraq until it thinks that the country is strong enough to stand on its own feet, that's as simple as 1+1=2. In that time America will own Iraq (at least, that's what they will think) and its oil, so they can ship it to America and make money with it there!

At 2/26/03 11:17 AM, Boco_the_Choco wrote: The inspectors are making progresses now. Saddam has agreed to destroy the rockets of which he claims that the range doesn't break any rules. Give them some more time to keep searching and Saddam will maybe give in because of the threat of this war!

I did say that you could argue that they are cooperating better. Maybe the inspectors will find something. Maybe Saddam will still disarm peacefully. But I still don't trust the guy. I wouldn't put it beyond him to just destroy whatever weapons the inspectors already knew he had or what they happened to find, in order to look good in the eyes of the international community, while still hiding the bulk of his arsenal. I would feel more comfortable if he made a declaration of what weapons he has or had that more closely matches the numbers we have from intelligence, and showed us proof of their destruction. We might have been willing to give him more time, but he has time and again proven to be untrustworthy, and at some point, you just have to say, "Enough is enough."

If Saddam is out of the picture, America will rule Iraq until it thinks that the country is strong enough to stand on its own feet, that's as simple as 1+1=2. In that time America will own Iraq (at least, that's what they will think) and its oil, so they can ship it to America and make money with it there!

I don't see it that way. We've made some foreign policy blunders in the past, but I don't think any of them involved forcefully taking another nation's resources while we occupied them after a war. We probably couldn't do it without seriously angering the international community.

Why would it be different here?

Because we don't have to go to war to get the oil. If all we wanted was the oil, then we could just lift the sanctions against Iraq and make an oil trade agreement with them.

I don't think the issue is getting the oil, but controlling it. Like recently, due to the Venzuelan strike America wasn't in a good position (they ended up importing more from Iraq.) With a friendly regime they could be assured of having oil for the next few years.
Note: There has also been numerous actions by OPEC in the 70s which demonstrate how little America is in control of oil and how dependent their economy is on it.