Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/11/03 12:23 AM, BuckeyesNate wrote: ya, what the fuck is wrong with them, if we dont go to war, then we will get more of our own killed, we need to go to iraq, and get rid of the leaders there. they are talking about how much this would cost and that it would make the economy worse, but in the past when we have gone to war, it pulled our country together and our economy was raised, it got us out of the great depression!!

You never attack the person, only the opinion. Sure, I disagree with anti war people, but I don't ask what is wrong with them. I try to logically debate with them and try to prove my opinion is more valid. I even have anti-war friends. Do you?

At 3/11/03 11:29 AM, TheEvilOne wrote: Because we don't show agression toward our neighbors. Honestly, do you think Saddam wants these weapons just to defend his country? Of course he's going to use them to attack our allies and interests in the region.

Who really knows what Saddam would like to do with them. For all we know, he's just making them to give to terrorists, or really wants to invade other countries or really is using them for defense. I know that you do know for sure either.

This is the kind of argument that I just can't stand. Plain and simple: Saddam cannot be trusted. If we were to do the so-called "right" thing and destroy our nuclear stockpiles first, Saddam would use his weapons against us right then and there. Nice thought, but unrealistic--just like most of the anti-war arguments.

I know that and I stated it. It's like a stalemate. We can call a truce and one of us has to drop but who's going first? And who says we can be trusted with weapons? What about North Korean, or India or anyone else in the nuclear club, can they be trusted too? No one can be trusted with weapons of that caliber.

They have the right to protest. I have the right to express how uninformed and thoughtless some of those protestors are.

Good for you. You know your rights.

At 3/11/03 11:29 AM, TheEvilOne wrote: Because we don't show agression toward our neighbors. Honestly, do you think Saddam wants these weapons just to defend his country? Of course he's going to use them to attack our allies and interests in the region.

We're showing plenty of aggression now. And actually I do not know what Saddam will do with his weapons and niether do you. Maybe he'll sell them or use them in a campaign or keep them for defense, who really knows what goes on in his mind.

This is the kind of argument that I just can't stand. Plain and simple: Saddam cannot be trusted. If we were to do the so-called "right" thing and destroy our nuclear stockpiles first, Saddam would use his weapons against us right then and there. Nice thought, but unrealistic--just like most of the anti-war arguments.

I know that and I stated it. It's like a stalemate situtation where a truce has been called and one of us has to drop but no one wants to go first. And who are you to say that the US or any other countries can be trusted with weapons of that caliber?

They have the right to protest. I have the right to express how uninformed and thoughtless some of those protestors are.

Good for you! You know your rights.

my opinions about this. i typed this in the order points came to mind, so I ramble a little. I'm sorry if this makes it harder to understand what I'm getting at.

america going to war against iraq is stupid because inspection is working. "but saddam still has hidden weapons of mass destruction." as long as they are hidden they pose less of an immediate threat.
bush: send in the troops, lets get this fucker now.
saddam: I might as well go down fighting. time to dust off the womd's.
whereas if inspection is given time to work, saddam will have to bury his weapons deeper and make them more inaccessible.
currently, saddam is complying, albeit grudgingly. why? because he knows he has a lot to loose. whereas if US go against the consensus of the UN, he will have nothing to loose.
on the matter of the UN, I know most people here see it as irrelevant, but doesn't the mere fact that it represents a consensus between all of the powerful nations in the world count for something? going against the un means the us would be going against other powerful nations, breeding ill will between this. ok, I know you're going to turn this back on france. but I feel their position is more logical than the us position. there's a saying: let sleeping dogs lie. I think that just about sums up the situation. it's not like saddam is an immediate threat. and with the increased scrutiny inspections bring, it also makes it harder for iraq to increase its war capabilities.
america is not a popular country. it is a powerful country. it is an arrogant country. america reminds me of rome. rome was defeated by barbarrians. what are islamic terrorists? not meaning to be coarse, but they are barbarians. the reason rome was defeated by these barbarians was their methods, surprise attacks and what-not. eventually the roman empire disintegrated due to this.
how could this be stopped? well a good start would be to not give the "barbarians" any legitimate reason to harbour resentment against the US. going against the wishes of its allies within the region would definitely add to illwill against america. (it's my understanding that most of the countries within the region wish for inspection to be given more time)
*final point* I watched a current affairs show on tv last night. they interviewed members of the (australia) intelligence community. the general consensus seemed to be that this is a war to be executed on political motives rather than intelligence motives.

thus ends my post. no proof reading, so if I made a typo, deal with it. as I said at the start, I typed this as I thought it, meaning sometimes I was thinking quicker than I could type and vise versa. it also means I kind of jump from point to point quite manicly. I think I've illustrated what I think of the whole issue. My only form of research on all of this btw is watching current affairs shows, in particular lateline on the (australian) ABC.

Inspections aren't working. It's a facade to placate the appeasement crowd. You can't honestly say that a country can only destroy 5 or 6 missiles with bulldozers in a full work day. The feet dragging is ludicruous. Meanwhile, while eveyone is applauding Saddam for destroying 50 missiles (in how many days?!?) they forget the real reason for UN Resolution 1441 (which passed 15-0): TOTAL DISARMAMENT. No mention still of the tons and tons of anthrax, VX gas, smallpox, ricin, etc. that the UN Inspectors themselves declared in 1998.

I'll give Saddam credit on one thing though. He knows how to play the suckers of the world like a cheap fiddle.

At 3/11/03 04:11 PM, BinLadenmustdie wrote:
Hey idiot, I was talking about the Iraqi oil wells. In the Gulf War, we had completely control over the entire country except Baghdad. We were ready, willing and able to go into Baghdad, but we pulled back because of the UN. The UN thought they could handle Saddam with containment. The question remains: If was only about oil, why didn't Bush keep the oil wells for him and his buddies in the orignal Gulf War. Still waiting for a coherent answer (Wait, apparently you won to War of Independence...WTF?!? Is that English?)

That's funny, didn't I (and several other people) do that? You wouldn't be relying on childish insults in an effort to try and win an agument, would you? Because I wouldn't expect it from such fine, upstanding, intellectual people like you. How depressingly predictible, but what else do I expect from a member of The Herd, thinking?

And by the way, you didn't win the War of Independence - the British just got bored of having to pay the expenses of shipping over soldiers to massacre your hillbilly army on a regular basis. You see, those were the days where an economy mattered. And, if you place a bit of paper above and below each line, you won't see that at any point I say we won. Sorry to break it to you, but your're full of shit.

Whatever educational system you cheated through must have forgotten the basics of reading and comprehending. Disappointing, but not surprising.

HAHAHAHA!!!! You make such funny jokes, I cannot possibly come back from that, ooh you put me in my place, Mr. Bovine Republican!

Apparently, you're 26. May I suggest you take more time while typing, as typos like that can come back to haunt you.

By the way, sign up for the IMDb; non-thinkers like you are very welcome there.

At 3/12/03 11:32 AM, BinLadenmustdie wrote: stuff about disarmament working

while there is any possibility of disarmament even only partially working, it should be persisted with. It is sheer fantasy to think that you could snap your fingers and the goals of disarmament would be accomplished. yet that is the approach george bush seems to be taking...

Typical non-substance response.

Facts:
1. All fifteen countries voted unanimously for UN Resolution 1441.
2. All countries continue to agree that Iraq must be disarmed.
3. The only disagreement is the time frame. The US-led coalition says that 6 months (on top of the 12 years prior) is enough to prove that Saddam simply will not cooperate with the UN Resolutions.

Others think that, given a bit more time, Saddam will cave in and give up all his WMD. (There are a few who maintain he never had them, even though this thought process is in direct opposition of UN Inspectors themselves). Even the pacifist French said that they will support war if the UN Inspectors tell them that their job is being hindered or in any way impossible to accomplish. Not one UN Inspectors has yet to say that Iraq is fully complying.

Why didn't you raise your voice back last fall when every country voted on this Resolution and it passed unanimously 15-0?

Facts:
1. All fifteen countries voted unanimously for UN Resolution 1441.
2. All countries continue to agree that Iraq must be disarmed.
3. The only disagreement is the time frame. The US-led coalition says that 6 months (on top of the 12 years prior) is enough to prove that Saddam simply will not cooperate with the UN Resolutions.

4. Resolution 1441 does not authorize military interevention. What it does do is warn Iraq it will face serious consequences.
5. The inspectors have not had 12 years, who ever estimates it. They had 1991-8 and now.

Others think that, given a bit more time, Saddam will cave in and give up all his WMD. (There are a few who maintain he never had them, even though this thought process is in direct opposition of UN Inspectors themselves).

Others think that he destroyed them, or don't really care.

Why didn't you raise your voice back last fall when every country voted on this Resolution and it passed unanimously 15-0?

The Security Council voted, not every country.

At 3/12/03 11:49 AM, D2KVirus wrote: And by the way, you didn't win the War of Independence - the British just got bored of having to pay the expenses of shipping over soldiers to massacre your hillbilly army on a regular basis. You see, those were the days where an economy mattered. And, if you place a bit of paper above and below each line, you won't see that at any point I say we won. Sorry to break it to you, but your're full of shit.

Well well well. Are you the only one over there who's still bitter about the Revolution? Yes, economic interests were a factor in ending the war... but so was the crushing defeat we dealt to you at the Battle of Yorktown. It was then, after Cornwallis surrendered, that most people in the British government decided that the war was no longer worth fighting. Just a quick history lesson, nothing more.

At 3/12/03 12:26 PM, Slizor wrote: 4. Resolution 1441 does not authorize military interevention. What it does do is warn Iraq it will face serious consequences.

What are "serious consequences" if not military intervention?

5. The inspectors have not had 12 years, who ever estimates it. They had 1991-8 and now.

That's still more than enough time to disarm. Why haven't they done so?

What about the United States aggression towards other countries? The United States bullies EVERYONE, yet they go unpunished.

I'm not going to try to defend past foreign policy blunders (key word being PAST)

Why then do you attack Iraq for things it did 10 years ago? Or is that the present?

but when was the last time we invaded another nation strictly for its oil, as Iraq did with Kuwait?

Why would Iraq invade Kuwait for its oil? That's like America invading Canada for fat stupid people.

And don't say that's what we're doing now; I've already debunked that theory millions of times.

Not once...not once.

I never once said that. Only a fool would believe that. But it is our right as a nation to defend ourselves.

Pre-emptive attacks, when there is no immeadiate threat is terrorism. Actually no, it is just a plain unjustified attack, terrorists normally have reasons.

We aren't going to destroy our nuclear stockpiles when nations like Iraq and North Korea are attempting to acquire nuclear weapons so they can threaten us with them.

That is one of the most egotistical things I've heard. Who says they will threaten you? How do you know they don't just want them as a detterant?

Iraq forfeited their right to carry nukes and other weapons of mass destruction when they invaded Kuwait. Plain and simple.

Wait...here's the past coming up again!

And from reading what you have written, I can infer that you hold a general hatred/resentment of the US, which seems to be clouding your judgement in this matter ("If the US is doing this, it must be wrong!") If I am wrong, I apologize, but if I am right, then please wake up.

Go back to your media bullshit and stay there. It is a myth that there is anything such as anti-Americanism. It's just a response from the right-wing media which sees anger at the unilateral actions of America and can't understand why.

And the media has got an extreme right-wing bias,along with your political parties.

At 3/12/03 12:26 PM, Slizor wrote:

Facts:
1. All fifteen countries voted unanimously for UN Resolution 1441.
2. All countries continue to agree that Iraq must be disarmed.
3. The only disagreement is the time frame. The US-led coalition says that 6 months (on top of the 12 years prior) is enough to prove that Saddam simply will not cooperate with the UN Resolutions.

4. Resolution 1441 does not authorize military interevention. What it does do is warn Iraq it will face serious consequences.

With a straight face, you're trying to say that serious consequences doesn't mean war? Were you under the impression it meant a tongue-lashing?

5. The inspectors have not had 12 years, who ever estimates it. They had 1991-8 and now.

If you re-read, you will see that I said Saddam has had 12 years to comply. I didn't say the Inspectors have had 12 years of inspecting. Just because the Inspectors haven't been in there from 1998-2002 doesn't mean that all 17 UN Resolutions (which Saddam continues to violate) are suddenly null and void. Saddam has yet (yes, in 12 years) to fully comply with ONE of the 17 UN Resolutions. And the clock is still ticking....

Others think that, given a bit more time, Saddam will cave in and give up all his WMD. (There are a few who maintain he never had them, even though this thought process is in direct opposition of UN Inspectors themselves).

Others think that he destroyed them, or don't really care.

Well, UN Resolutions 1441 specifically states that he must declare and provide proof of what happened to the tons of chem/bio weapons he has---whether he destoyred them or not. Again, all fifteen UN votes were unanamous 15-0 in signing off on 1441. Sorry you personally don't really care, but the Resolution is clear and concise in this matter. Saddam has provided no proof thus far...and the clock is still ticking....

Why didn't you raise your voice back last fall when every country voted on this Resolution and it passed unanimously 15-0?

The Security Council voted, not every country.

Point taken. Still 15-0 though.

4. Resolution 1441 does not authorize military interevention. What it does do is warn Iraq it will face serious consequences.

What are "serious consequences" if not military intervention?

That's not the important word. The important word is warn, it does not authorize the aggressor states to carry out these serious consequences, merely warns Iraq that they will face consequences if they do not fufill their obligations (something which they are doing). The UN is "seized of the matter".

5. The inspectors have not had 12 years, who ever estimates it. They had 1991-8 and now.

That's still more than enough time to disarm. Why haven't they done so?

Still not the point. That was the past, when they were given many chances. This is their last chance, and it still isn't over. Your view seems to be that of someone who didn't want the second set of inspections in the first place.

At 3/12/03 12:39 PM, Slizor wrote:

I'm not going to try to defend past foreign policy blunders (key word being PAST)

Why then do you attack Iraq for things it did 10 years ago? Or is that the present?

Maybe because the same man who invaded Kuwait 10 years ago is still in power? Things have changed quite a bit over here. They have not changed in Iraq.

but when was the last time we invaded another nation strictly for its oil, as Iraq did with Kuwait?

Why would Iraq invade Kuwait for its oil? That's like America invading Canada for fat stupid people.

I seem to remember that being the reason Iraq wanted Kuwait. Or wait, is that something our "biased, right-wing media" made up?

And don't say that's what we're doing now; I've already debunked that theory millions of times.

Not once...not once.

Okay then, I'll say it again: if we wanted oil, we could just lift the sanctions and start buying from them.

I never once said that. Only a fool would believe that. But it is our right as a nation to defend ourselves.

Pre-emptive attacks, when there is no immeadiate threat is terrorism. Actually no, it is just a plain unjustified attack, terrorists normally have reasons.

I was referring to carrying nuclear weapons. As for Iraq supposedly wanting to carry weapons as a deterrant, I'll get to that in a moment.

We aren't going to destroy our nuclear stockpiles when nations like Iraq and North Korea are attempting to acquire nuclear weapons so they can threaten us with them.

That is one of the most egotistical things I've heard. Who says they will threaten you? How do you know they don't just want them as a detterant?

Oh yeah, I forgot, Saddam is only seeking to protect his people against the evil American Empire. Never mind that he dumped nerve gas on his people. Can someone with no qualms about killing his own citizens really be trusted with the world's most deadly weapons?

Iraq forfeited their right to carry nukes and other weapons of mass destruction when they invaded Kuwait. Plain and simple.

Wait...here's the past coming up again!

And once again, Saddam is still in power. Is Theodore Roosevelt still in power? He was the one behind all the intervention in Latin America.

And from reading what you have written, I can infer that you hold a general hatred/resentment of the US, which seems to be clouding your judgement in this matter ("If the US is doing this, it must be wrong!") If I am wrong, I apologize, but if I am right, then please wake up.

I would like to say that this is something that I maybe shouldn't have said. I apologize. Opposing the war doesn't make you anti-American. But I just can't stand it when people try to paint us as the bad guy by pointing out things we did in the past, while ignoring the things that Saddam has done. Anger is capable of blinding good judgement, but I've had a little time to think about that statement and wish I hadn't made it.

Why then do you attack Iraq for things it did 10 years ago? Or is that the present?

Maybe because the same man who invaded Kuwait 10 years ago is still in power? Things have changed quite a bit over here. They have not changed in Iraq.

That's not true, many people have died due to the sanctions. And was the US reprimanded when it has done all the terrible things it has? No, not once, even when the same people were in power.

but when was the last time we invaded another nation strictly for its oil, as Iraq did with Kuwait?

Why would Iraq invade Kuwait for its oil? That's like America invading Canada for fat stupid people.

I seem to remember that being the reason Iraq wanted Kuwait. Or wait, is that something our "biased, right-wing media" made up?

Who knows, maybe it is something you made up.

And don't say that's what we're doing now; I've already debunked that theory millions of times.

Not once...not once.

Okay then, I'll say it again: if we wanted oil, we could just lift the sanctions and start buying from them.

That's misrepresenting the oil argument. Firstly, if you invaded you could get it cheaper. Secondly, if you invaded you would get control of the oil, something which helps with negotiations with OPEC and it also means the country is secure for a few more years. Thirdly, America wants American oil companies in there to start developing all the untapped oil fields. Fourthly, it also involves the back up currency that OPEC uses, as they are thinking of changing to the Euro, control of Iraq would stop this.

We aren't going to destroy our nuclear stockpiles when nations like Iraq and North Korea are attempting to acquire nuclear weapons so they can threaten us with them.

That is one of the most egotistical things I've heard. Who says they will threaten you? How do you know they don't just want them as a detterant?

Oh yeah, I forgot, Saddam is only seeking to protect his people against the evil American Empire.

Mocking the idea does not disprove it. You then go on to change the subject to more familiar territory.

Never mind that he dumped nerve gas on his people. Can someone with no qualms about killing his own citizens really be trusted with the world's most deadly weapons?

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0131-08.htm
And it is not for other countries to decide what sovereign nations do.

But I just can't stand it when people try to paint us as the bad guy by pointing out things we did in the past, while ignoring the things that Saddam has done.

I do not ignore what Saddam has done. I just point out what the US has done.

At 3/12/03 10:56 AM, OMGWhoIsIT wrote:
america going to war against iraq is stupid because inspection is working.

Then why isn't Saddam disarming?

"but saddam still has hidden weapons of mass destruction." as long as they are hidden they pose less of an immediate threat.

Did you hear what you just said!? If they are "hidden" he could be doing anything with them, selling them to anybody. And besides, are we going to inspect his country forever?

bush: send in the troops, lets get this fucker now.
saddam: I might as well go down fighting. time to dust off the womd's.
whereas if inspection is given time to work, saddam will have to bury his weapons deeper and make them more inaccessible.
currently, saddam is complying, albeit grudgingly. why? because he knows he has a lot to loose. whereas if US go against the consensus of the UN, he will have nothing to loose.

He has nothing to lose but his life. He knows that if he uses WMDs in a war, it will look all the worse at his war crimes trial.

on the matter of the UN, I know most people here see it as irrelevant, but doesn't the mere fact that it represents a consensus between all of the powerful nations in the world count for something? going against the un means the us would be going against other powerful nations, breeding ill will between this. ok, I know you're going to turn this back on france. but I feel their position is more logical than the us position. there's a saying: let sleeping dogs lie. I think that just about sums up the situation. it's not like saddam is an immediate threat. and with the increased scrutiny inspections bring, it also makes it harder for iraq to increase its war capabilities.

"Let sleeping dogs lie"?! Excuse me, but Saddam needs to be held up to the standards that were set after the Gulf War. Believe me, he is not "sleeping." A dictator like that does not just "sleep." He's doing something and I bet it involves WMDs.

america is not a popular country. it is a powerful country. it is an arrogant country. america reminds me of rome. rome was defeated by barbarrians. what are islamic terrorists? not meaning to be coarse, but they are barbarians. the reason rome was defeated by these barbarians was their methods, surprise attacks and what-not. eventually the roman empire disintegrated due to this.
how could this be stopped? well a good start would be to not give the "barbarians" any legitimate reason to harbour resentment against the US. going against the wishes of its allies within the region would definitely add to illwill against america. (it's my understanding that most of the countries within the region wish for inspection to be given more time)

Eventually, this will be true. Any "great power" falls. However, we cannot just become isolationists. The world is not like that anymore. We're all connected and international affairs are important.