Ah, I get it now. So, the "pro-war mind" works like this. When a group of mostly Egyptian and Lebanese people who ruled Afghanistan for a while hire people to attack the US, then innocent civilians in another country called Iraq, who have no connection with that incident, "deserve to die." Oh, I see now.

So, when one country kills 3,000 American people, then that's not as bad as America killing over 500,000 Iraqi children alone (in one seperate incident) simply because American lives are worth way more. Everyone knows that! How could I have been so stupid? So even if America has "some connection" with almost a million deaths, we never deserve to die. Unlike those horrible un-American people who you forgot the name of.
OK. I think I understand how the "pro-war mind" works now. Thanks. ^_^

After all, if these (pro-war) people believe theres a connection to the monsters that killed the 3000 people that fateful day, then Iraqi's DESERVE to die.

and that is how a pro-war mind works

Wait! So, if these pro-war people believe there's a connection, then Iraqi people deserve to die? So, Iraqi people deserve to die if a group of American people "say so" or think there's a connection? That must be how the pro-war mind works.

*sigh* Iraq didn't have a connection with 9/11. Though they did root it on because we've killed "those who died in 9/11" X 166.66 and over in their country. But they didn't finance it. And if you're worried about a "connection," then why do you like Bush Sr. since he was the one who originally helped fund the Taliban to begin with (and I'm talking with millions and millions of dollars)? Does he deserve to die for that? Hmm?

Ninja_Scientist... with all the respect... i MUST kiss your ass, cuz you just beat all those pro-war thugs back to dust with all your arguments! Damn... You're good!

You're obviously making assumpions out of nothing. I've been around longer that you think, even though i don't post normally... Funny you saying the argument was not that great cuz i normally don't see such big arguments being so well developed around here... I mean... forget it... why am I even bothering to answer to your pointless comment with nothing to add to this topic?... a comment which related to a pointless comment i made without much to add to the topic as well... Yawn

Wow! Thank you Mjollnir! I really appreciate someone not calling me "anti-American" just because I mention things that are sometimes "unflattering" to America (and it's nice to find someone who doesn't complain about my posts' length). lol. ^_-

I really think it IS scary when you find people who are pro-war and start posts like this without even knowing the name of the country we are fighting. @_o' It's really facinating when you actually read about the US's relations with the world (especially from such muckraker magazines like Harpers or the Progressive or something). If you like, I actually listed a couple of links in this topic. I think you might find them interesting if you wanna check them out. I'm warning you though, they're kinda upsetting (especially the one were we caused about 500,000 kids to be poisoned to death purposefully. I still can't forget that one because they actually have the federal documents there that shows how completely aware they were that the Iraqi civilians and especially children would die from this and then it goes into detail about how they wanted to make absolutely sure that the people could not get clean water, even though it would kill them. @_o' It's frighteningly cold hearted.).

Once again, I'm thankful that someone appreciates the research and reading I've done on this war. ^_^ Thanks again!

At 4/29/03 11:47 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote:

At 4/29/03 11:19 PM, Mjollnir wrote: Ninja_Scientist... with all the respect... i MUST kiss your ass, cuz you just beat all those pro-war thugs back to dust with all your arguments! Damn... You're good!

The argument wasn't that great. You obviously haven't been around too long.

It werent bad at all, Commander. But to see good debate, have a look at mine and Jim's argument about Third world Hunger/Debt.

At 4/29/03 06:30 PM, Ninja_Scientist wrote: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA! THE IRAQI PEOPLE DIDN'T ATTACK US ON 9/11!! THAT WAS THE TALIBAN FROM AFGHANISTAN!!! Jeez,

For your information I beleive that Sadamm funded the September 11th attacks, I don't care how rich Osama Bin Laden was, so yes, Iraq did have something to do with it. And when I mentioned the word "they" in my statement about the September 11th attacks I did not mention the Iraqi's I was reffering to Arabs as a group and Iraqi's and Afghani's fall into this category of people I'm afraid.

At 4/30/03 09:32 AM, Dont_ask wrote:

At 4/29/03 06:30 PM, Ninja_Scientist wrote: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA! THE IRAQI PEOPLE DIDN'T ATTACK US ON 9/11!! THAT WAS THE TALIBAN FROM AFGHANISTAN!!! Jeez,

For your information I beleive that Sadamm funded the September 11th attacks, I don't care how rich Osama Bin Laden was, so yes, Iraq did have something to do with it. And when I mentioned the word "they" in my statement about the September 11th attacks I did not mention the Iraqi's I was reffering to Arabs as a group and Iraqi's and Afghani's fall into this category of people I'm afraid.

Based on what u believe Saddam funded the attack?? Cuz Bush said so??? So of Bush says... hmm... let's see... if he says the brazilian president had something to do with the 9/11 attacks then you would be afraid of brazilians too? Stick to the facts! And how can you be afraid of "Arabs"? I mean... Arabs are a damn huge amount of people! Careful, because there's only a thin line separating fear from prejudice!

At 4/30/03 09:32 AM, Dont_ask wrote: For your information I beleive that Sadamm funded the September 11th attacks, I don't care how rich Osama Bin Laden was, so yes, Iraq did have something to do with it.

huh? what facts prove that?

At 4/30/03 10:57 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: big-shot wannabe wirter babble

It's a matter of opinion. Let's just stop making a parallel discussion in this topic over such a pointless thing. The fact that i liked Ninja_Scientist arguments are a matter of purely non-arguable opinions, so try waisting your time on something else, will ya?

And PULEASE don't answer me back saying i have bad grammar and spelling skills or typos in my messages as an excuse to show how stupid i am because im just tired of ppl who do that (I'm not telling you necessairly do that).

Unfortuantely it is pretty hard to get the facts, not only is Sadamm possibly dead but even if he were still alive he is such a heinous lyer that we wouldn't get the answer out of him anyway, that's what he lives by, lying. And no I am not going by what President Bush says either. If you aren't aware of it already Bush and Sadamm hate each other, if you were to think logically about this and say screw the facts for once you would realise that Sadamm would have considered it a golden oppurtunity to get back at bush by funding the September 11th attacks. But lets not stray off of the subject.

At 4/30/03 12:59 PM, Dont_ask wrote: Unfortuantely it is pretty hard to get the facts, not only is Sadamm possibly dead but even if he were still alive he is such a heinous lyer that we wouldn't get the answer out of him anyway, that's what he lives by, lying. And no I am not going by what President Bush says either. If you aren't aware of it already Bush and Sadamm hate each other, if you were to think logically about this and say screw the facts for once you would realise that Sadamm would have considered it a golden oppurtunity to get back at bush by funding the September 11th attacks. But lets not stray off of the subject.

we don't need Saddam to confirm the facts to be considered true- but we still need the facts to begin with. And if you cannot present ANY facts other than Bush is a better man than Saddam(no arguement here), then that isn't basing your opinion on the "facts presented", its based on either facts created or just your own opinion.

At 4/30/03 11:44 AM, Mjollnir wrote: And PULEASE don't answer me back saying i have bad grammar and spelling skills or typos in my messages as an excuse to show how stupid i am because im just tired of ppl who do that (I'm not telling you necessairly do that).

You do. Dont call JudgeX a wannabe writer either. He's been here ages before you and he's right. You need to back up your arguments with facts and if possible evidence. Type properly here :D

At 4/30/03 01:18 PM, Jiperly wrote:

At 4/30/03 12:59 PM, Dont_ask wrote: Sadamm would have considered it a golden oppurtunity to get back at bush by funding the September 11th attacks. But lets not stray off of the subject.

Saddam had no chance to fund 9/11. Osama Bin Laden is a multi billionaire and has an IQ of 130+. He can do this alone. There is no funding needed.

we don't need Saddam to confirm the facts to be considered true- but we still need the facts to begin with. And if you cannot present ANY facts other than Bush is a better man than Saddam(no arguement here), then that isn't basing your opinion on the "facts presented", its based on either facts created or just your own opinion.

Is Saddam really worse than Bush. Debate. (Dont really, but I could probably find millions of people who are affected by Bushs actions for the worse rather than hundreds of thousands by Saddam) Anyway, we dont need the facts to begin with, but we need the proof NOW and quite frankly, I dont trust them (Bush Administration) as far as I can throw them.

At 4/30/03 01:18 PM, Jiperly wrote: we don't need Saddam to confirm the facts to be considered true- but we still need the facts to begin with. And if you cannot present ANY facts other than Bush is a better man than Saddam(no arguement here), then that isn't basing your opinion on the "facts presented", its based on either facts created or just your own opinion.

When did I say in any statement so far in this topic that Sadamm was a better man than Sadamm? I can and will try to find at least a lead, maybe not a fact, but one lead to what am saying. Anyone who funds terrorism is can be just as bad as the terrorist themselves. Saudi Arabia has and maybe even we have in the past but as long as you fund Al Qaeada(excuse the spelling) or anything else that has to do with them constitutes to terrorism, so I am sure that Sadamm has engaged in this too. Again I will be back with a lead on this.

At 4/30/03 02:49 PM, Dont_ask wrote: When did I say in any statement so far in this topic that Sadamm was a better man than Sadamm?

Excuse me I meant to say Bush was a better man that Sadamm,sorry.

At 4/30/03 02:49 PM, Dont_ask wrote: When did I say in any statement so far in this topic that Sadamm was a better man than Sadamm? I can and will try to find at least a lead, maybe not a fact, but one lead to what am saying. Anyone who funds terrorism is can be just as bad as the terrorist themselves. Saudi Arabia has and maybe even we have in the past but as long as you fund Al Qaeada(excuse the spelling) or anything else that has to do with them constitutes to terrorism, so I am sure that Sadamm has engaged in this too. Again I will be back with a lead on this.

Mind you, you do have to wonder WHY these people want to do this to the US. Do you even know why Osama hates the US so much? Does anyone in America? It doesnt matter though, as that is not the topic at hand. Be back with Facts, not leads.

At 4/30/03 02:49 PM, Dont_ask wrote:

Anyone who funds terrorism is can be just as bad as the terrorist themselves. Saudi Arabia has and maybe even we have in the past but as long as you fund Al Qaeada(excuse the spelling) or anything else that has to do with them constitutes to terrorism, so

tell me where the Iraqi is in this list:
http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/terrorists/fugitives.htm

At 4/30/03 02:49 PM, Dont_ask wrote:

:Anyone who funds terrorism is can be just as bad as the terrorist themselves. Saudi Arabia has and maybe even we have in the past but as long as you fund Al Qaeada(excuse the spelling) or anything else that has to do with them constitutes to terrorism.....

The Taliban, if you look at what Ninja Scientist had already said, were funded by America, as well as Bin Laden had received Billions in order to take over Afganistan. Number of people punished for support terrorism then? 0. Number of people killed in Iraq for "supporting" terrorism, despite the fact that there can be no connection found in this dictatorship, and a dictatorship would never allow terrorists, aka freedom fighters, willingly into his nation to protect him from an enemy on the other side of the world while they are most likely plotting against him? 2000 civilians and an estimated 10000 soldiers. But thats okay, since all Iraqi's supported terrorism, then the deserved to die....Americans that did don't deserve to be punished in any way, save one who literally BECAME a terrorist....but if any other nation supports them?

At 4/30/03 04:28 PM, Jiperly wrote: The Taliban, if you look at what Ninja Scientist had already said, were funded by America.

Where is ninja scientists' evidence that we helped fund the Taliban? What I have heard on many accounts was that we helped them [the afghani's] to build a defense system when they were fighting the Russians, this defense included the caves that we pounded not too long ago. How did we fund the Taliban?

At 4/26/03 09:31 PM, DivineSlayer wrote: #7- I hate you so much.

Dude, he was joking.

Everything Ninja Slayer wrote

...... This is probably the most well-backed opinion on Iraq I've seen, and I agree that the fact that most pro-war people don't know who the enemy is, is scary... but the thing is, that's how the government wants it to be. I was going to comment on that myself, but, you beat me to it =P.

To actually add something though, I'd just like to say that the entire world is looking like a really scary place right now. The US government has been killing for money, expansion, and power for a long time now... and right now, for the most part; the people that have the power either agree with all of this, or can't/won't do anything to stop it.

Greed is escalating death and danger to new levels as technology increases, and all I see for the future of this planet is death. It's a scary scary thing and I don't know what I can do to stop it... for now I'll just try spreading more informed opinions on situations like this and hope someone grows up a little more knowledge and stops (impossible, slow is the word I am looking for) this raging insanity.

We're the saddest race in existance; not only do we rape the planet, we rape eachother. There are NO positives to this type of action. We may have benefits and power now, but in the end we are really only depriving ourselves (not to mention the earth, but that is a different topic).

XJUDGEX stuff

Sure, there probably were times where better arguements were brought up but, so what? Don't be rushing to make everyone realize how great you/others are, when we see it, we thank you for it.. that should be good enough. Those who should know you, and who's opinions matter/are backed up usually will =P... Ninja did a waaaaayyy better job than many of the posts that cloud newgrounds up daily, so I am pleased.. I don't care if there was better.

The Taliban were created to remove the soveits from power, and they received cash from America during the cold war for doing so. heres some proof I found- the second link when i looked up "The History of the taliban"

http://www.expressnews.ualbert...es/ideas.cfm?p_ID=1517&s=a

funny how easy it is to find something when your looking for it, isn't it?

At 4/30/03 04:47 PM, Dont_ask wrote:

At 4/30/03 04:28 PM, Jiperly wrote: The Taliban, if you look at what Ninja Scientist had already said, were funded by America.

Where is ninja scientists' evidence that we helped fund the Taliban? What I have heard on many accounts was that we helped them [the afghani's] to build a defense system when they were fighting the Russians, this defense included the caves that we pounded not too long ago. How did we fund the Taliban?

It is common knowledge America donated millions of dollars to the Taliban and set them in power. You finded Osama and gave him training between 1980 and 1995. Then he split from you because the Govewrnment treated the Palestinians like shit.

Three countries supported the Taliban, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the USA. Wierd thing is that this wasn't a secret, but after 9/11 people literally weren't allowed to talk about this on TV. One man was actually kicked off a show for talking about it because it made the interviewer, Bill O'Reilly of the O'Reilly factor, "look bad." I read about that incident in the latest edition of Harpers magazine (a muckraker magazine). If anyone is interested, I'll post some snippets from the article after this. ^_^

Most of the support from the US came from Bush Sr. himself (who was head of the CIA at that time) who gave them millions and millions of dollars to train terrorists to combate the Turaki government in Afghanistan. This group later became the Taliban. In fact, the Taliban was what the Bush Sr. administration wanted at the time. They wanted a group to blow down the Turaki government and take over to form a leading party that was pro-USA (and hence, pro-USA trade---particularly oil). In fact, "our" Bush continued what his father did by trying to get business done with the Taliban over an oil pipeline through Afghanistan into Central Asian oil (whose trade was run by Russia). This oil would be cheaper for oil companies to get since it would no longer have to be bought through Russia. I'll include some links on this in my next post as well for anyone who is interested. ^_^

In fact, one reason why I (and France, heh heh) dislike Bush is because of what he did after 9/11. After the Taliban/Al Queda attacked the US in Sept, Bush halted the FBI investigations surrounding the attacks! You know why? He was trying to finish up negotiations with the Taliban for that same oil pipeline. At the same time he was giving his famous, "we will not negotiate with terrorists" speech. lol. This is important, because if Bush hadn't halted the investigations, Osama might not have gotten away.

In fact, the Bush administration threatend the Taliban with war if they didn't agree to the pipeline. The Taliban who, needless to say, hated us at that time, refused negotiations for the pipeline, and we then went to war with them. However, if they had agreed, we may not have gone to war with them at all. @_o'

"...negotiators said to the Taliban, you have a choice. You have a carpet of gold, meaning an oil deal, or a carpet of bombs." CNN

Another reason why Bush is disliked by other countries is because his work in the Caryle Group. The Bush and Bin Laden family worked as business partners in the Caryle Group for years (that's where Bush made his first million). The problem is that the Bin Ladens (who are actually a nice family themselves, excluding their estranged son, Osama) pulled out before the war started while the Bush family didn't, even though they too contributed to the attack on America. I'm pretty sure I mentioned this already. Anyway, since the Caryle Group works with war material, this would pad the Bush family's bank account even more.

"Given that Carlyle's business is "defense," the Bushes and bin Ladens may well profit handsomely from the current war." Wall Street Journal.

Now, if anyone wants more information on this, I'll include the snippets from the first article and links to more information in my following posts. ^_^ Thank you! For more information on the war, you can also check out a long post I made called "War on Iraq, Review." It should be located in the Politics section as well. But to warn you, it's pretty dang long. @_o'

Oh, and believe it or not. That picture under this is real. lol. ^_^

Here ya go:

"We Decide, You Shut Up," Harpers Magazine, April-May 2003 edition.

This is an interview made on The O'Reilly Factor, Fox News. This information was given by a man whose father died in 9/11. He spent much of his time after the incident trying to find out why it happened. Here is what he found:

"Our current president inherited a political legacy from his father that's responsible for training militarily, and economically, and situating geopolitically the parties involved in the murder of my father and countless thousands of others."

"Six months before the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan, starting in the Carter Administration and continuing and escalating while Bush's father was head of the CIA, we recruited a hundred thousand radical mujahedeen to combat a democratic government in Afghanistan, the Turaki government."

This is from a discussion made by Jeremy Glick, whose father was killed in the World Trade Center on September, 11. He was conversing to Bill O'Reilly of The O'Reilly Factor (a Fox News program).

Bill O'Reilly had nothing to say to contradict him, so angry with humiliation, he "cut his mike" and did not air the show. Glick reported that after the interview, in his humiliation O'Reilly said to him, "Get out of my studio before I tear you to F@#$ pieces."

So, basically, by doing the same thing we did in the Iranian Conflict (by supplying one group with weapons and funding to battle another group we don't like, which the US is infamous for, especially to France. lol), we propelled the events of 9/11 ourselves (and we did so needlessly---I mean, for an oil pipeline? That certainly wasn't worth 3,000 deaths to me >_<).

If the US would stop giving our "enemies" funding and weapons to fight our other "enemies" (and then go tattle on them to the UN for having the same weapons given to them by the US earlier, in the case of the Iraqi war. @_o')---especially for reasons surrounding financial situations---then maybe we would stop screwing ourselves like this. The war on terrorism should start with the administrations of our own country, since we are often ironically the ones who fund our own terrorists. lol. We should be correcting these administration mistakes instead of making them worse, like Bush has been doing.

If anyone is still interested in this article, you could try the Harper's site at http://www.harpers.org/ though I don't know if it would be there since this is a recent edition. If anyone is REALLY interested in this article (because it is seriously hilarious how O'Reilly loses it and sounds like a moron. lol. ^_^ For those of you who don' t know him, O'Reilly is a really bad example of a right wing activist---so as not to affend any intelligent right wing people here ^_-. He's not a very nice guy as you can tell from that statement he made to Glick, and plus he's a borderline idiot. Sheesh!), then I'd be glad to to post more from that article when I get a chance. Just ask. ^_^
------

Here's some links I found on the other information. ^_^ Enjoy! ^_^

"Osama Bin Ladin joined a Secret Energy Commisson meeting of Senators and Oil execs."
http://www.gwbush.com/archive/index2-5-02.shtml

"Bush thwarted FBI probe against bin Ladens," Hindustan Times
AFP
http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/bush_twarted.htm

"BUSHLADEN"
by Jared Israel [8 October 2001]
Includes report from the 'Wall Street Journal'
http://emperors-clothes.com/news/bushladen.htm

CNN, AMERICAN MORNING WITH PAULA ZAHN, "Explosive New Book Published in France Alleges that U.S. Was in Negotiations to Do a Deal with Taliban." http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0201/08/ltm.05.html

Judicial Watch: Bush/bin Laden Connection "has now turned into a scandal!"
Comment by Jared Israel
http://emperors-clothes.com/news/jw.htm

That's all I have for now. ^_^ Hope you enjoy!

Now, to clarrify a little more about the war. Many people have been in support of this war under the "Hitler Theory." For those of you who are unfamiliar with this, I'll explain. In WWII, Hitler gained control of Germany and began to build weapons, etc. which Germany wasn't allowed to do from the previous war. Then Hitler began "expanding" his country. His military began to advance into the neutral territory surrounding Germany and take it over through militaristic force. Now, the rest of Europe who just got over one war, were reluctant to try to take on Hitler because they didn't think it was worth another war. So, they basically just let him have that land. Well, this was a mistake because Hitler had intentions on taking over the rest of Europe. And taking over that land and building militaristic supplies only strenghted him. If they had stopped him earlier, then WWII might not have lasted so long.

Now, the American News stations are portraying Saddam as a "Hitler Theory" threat. They say that if he's allowed to build weapons, then he'll become a threat to the US just as Hitler did in Europe.

However! The "Hitler Theory" does not apply in the case of Saddam. Now here are the first differences:

Firstly, Saddam has not taken over any land that isn't his. Iraq has done no offensive militaristic tactics, only defensive tactics, which was propelled by us in the Iranian Conflict as a further note. Basically, Iraq has not "advanced" across land the way Hitler did (this is the heaviest reason why Hitler became a threat).
---
Secondly, Saddam didn't make the majority of his weapons. Here is another one of my most important points. Most of the weapons found in Iraq were the ones the US gave them in the Iranian Conflict. And, the few that the Iraqis did make were made by the machines and technology we gave them for making these weapons (including Anthrax).

For this info, try here at the Progressive site: http://www.progressive.org/0901/anth0498.html

We basically told them that they were allowed to have these particular materials and tools for building weapons as long as they fought Iran for us "in return." That was the deal. But after less than 20 years, we broke our promise on that deal once Iraq became weak enough through post-war recession following the Iranian Conflict for us to attack them (Sound suspicious? That's because that was our plan---read my previous posts for that info ^_^).

In fact, the weapons that we didn't give them "already built" were shown to be made by the weapon building materials and tools we did give them. In fact, much of the weapons they built themselves (using our supplies) were made for the Iranian Conflict almost 20 years ago. They've made very little militaristic supplies since.

So, does Iraq have weapons?

Yes, but not enough to make them a threat to us.

However, has Iraq actually been building weapons?

Hardly any, if any at all since the Iranian Conflict, and again not enough to make them a threat to us.

Technically however, this makes us the ones who violated UN sanctions by giving Iraq the militaristic materials to begin with. Basically, we told them it was OK. So, unlike the Germans under Hitler at that time, the Iraqi people aren't a militaristic people. They haven't been making their own weapons for offensive militaristic purposes, they've just basically been accepting them from us (they're not violent). Get it?

And quickly, many of you may say that we shouldn't let Saddam have weapons to begin with. However, not letting Germany have any weapons was a strong part of how Hitler came into power to begin with (you can probably find this information in any history book ^_^). Just because a country has weapons and is anti-American, doesn' t mean it will automatically attack America nor does it mean it is a threat at all.

There are dozens of anti-American countries in the world (some are much more violent than Iraq), and yet none of them have attacked us or even threatened to attack us with the exception of a small group made up of people from different anti-American races (Al Queda). And most of these countries already have weapons and are producing them right now. Iraq is the anti-American country that probably has the fewest weapons, so why are we targeting them? Don't you think it would make more since to use this energy to target a country that already is a threat?
-----
Thirdly, Hitler had the support of all his people, which made him a big threat in the event of a war. Saddam has very little support in his own country (like I said, he's just the lesser of two evils) . This breaks any threat his presence might have in a war. For example, most of the Iraq troops are just giving up now rather than fight "for Saddam." Needless to say, this wouldn't have happened with most German troops in WWII.

Fourthly, although Saddam is very anti-American, he has never made a direct threat to the US (before wartime). Like I said, just because a country is anti-American doesn't mean that it will attack us. The Iraqi people may not like the US, but they have never made any threats or plans to attack it. They're too busy trying to get their own country together.

Hitler was continusly making threats to "take over all of Europe" while he was offensively taking over land while backed by his people. Saddam has done none of this: make threats, take over land, mass produce weapons, have a standing economy, and be backed by his people. See the differences? Although a terrible man, Saddam is hardly the threat that Hitler was in his time.
-----
Another difference between Iraq and Germany of that time is that, although Germany's economy was still very bad (due to post war recession and imposed sanctions), thanks to Hitler, their economy became well enough to be able to support a war (one of the reasons Hitler was popular at that time).

Iraq, on the other hand, has a very bad economy due to post war recession from the Iranian Conflict (in which we gave Iran weapons to be used on them to add to the damage). And, their economy is not getting much better. Their country cannot handle a war with the US, and Saddam knows this. Hence, his reason for never actually threatening an attack on the US. Why would you threaten a country your own country cannot afford a war with? Hence, Iraq was never a militaristic threat to the US the way that Germany was to Europe. And once again, why don't we try to "defend" ourselves against an anti-American country that actually can afford a war with us?

----
And finally (and most importantly), the entire "Hitler Theory" falls apart at one issue. At his time, Hitler was the greatest threat to the interest to Europe and the rest of the world. Now, let's look at Saddam and the USA. Out of all the countries who are a threat to us, Iraq is towards the bottom, if even on the list at all.

Know who is towards the top of the list?
Korea.

Korea has actually been building their own militaristic materials without our help, which goes against our sanctions. They even started up a nuclear reactor, which could be used to make atom bombs (which we told them they couldn't do) to test us. And Bush did nothing.

Now this is a creepily similar example of the "Hitler Theory," in which Hitler kept breaking more and more sanctions on Germany to "test" if the rest of Europe would "punish" them. Europe didn't and so Hitler began taking over. Bush didn't "punish" Korea for this, and now they're starting to become even more of a threat.

Korea has an economy well enough to attack America.

Korea has the support of all its people in strong favor of attacking America.

Korea has been mass producing weapons of mass descruction against sacntions which could be used on America.

Korea has been training anti-American soldiers and even terrorists.

And most importantly, Korea has actually made threats to attack the US and is even suspected of having plans to attack US soil in the near future.

Bush has been doing nothing to stop this. So, for any of you who are wondering, what's the difference between Iraq and Korea?

Well for one thing, Korea has no oil. And Iraq has the second largest supply in the world. I hope that makes the even most pro-war of you wonder.

Now, the "Hitler Theory" means strategically going after the greatest threat to interest before it gets too strong to fight. Iraq is towards the bottom of threats, while Korea is towards the top. Why are we attacking a country that could never even have the ability to attack us for many many years, while we let another extremely anti-American and dangerous country continue to build weapons to be used on us?

The "Hitler Theory" can be applied to Korea, but not to Iraq. And yet, just like Europe did, we completely ignore this threat. Does anyone aside from me wonder what the result of that will be? I see another example of WWII coming some day, simply because we did the same ignorant thing that Europe did in WWII all because we were applying this "threat" to the wrong area just so our country could get oil. So much for the "war on terrorism."

If all you pro-war individuals truly love and support your country, then even you should be alarmed that we are wasting our efforts on fighting a weak, non-threatening country, while a stronger one gets ready to attack us. I love my country, that's why I want to protect it from true threats. And that's another reason why I'm mad at Bush. In fact, if all you pro-war individuals really do love your country and favor it's protection, then you would hate Bush. Which is why I sometimes don't understand why there are so many people who like both.

The Bush administration just sits there and lets these other countries like Korea get ready to attack us. If they really were concerned with "the war on terror" then wouldn't they actually be fighting a war with real terrorists? Did anyone ever stop to think that while we're off fighting this "war on terror" another 9/11 could easily happen? While we're fighting one country, then we're supposed to believe that no other anti-American country will come and attack us behind our backs?

After 9/11 Bush has done little to aid national defense, but has done much to aid national offense. This means that we can attack (pull offensive militaristic tactics) other countries really well (we have bombs, and troops, etc), but we can't even defend our own from a few men on some airplanes. Bush has put hardly anything into protecting our borders and aiding the professionals who deal with attacks such as the one on 9/11.

And what will we do now if something like that happens again? Nuke a plane? Send troops into a delicate negotaiting situation? How will we secure our borders? Anthrax our own land? We are still vulnerable to attacks simply because we just don't believe that anyone would really attack US soil. But it's happened before and it could happen again.

Look at Pearl Harbor. They kicked our butts that day and that was an army base they attacked to boot! In fact, the Japanese were the same threat at that time as Korea is now. Makes you think.

-----

So, all in all, the "Hitler Theory" does not apply to Saddam as of now, but applies more to other countries such as Korea. And Bush himself is only making this worse. One reason I don't support Bush, is because by ignoring real threats to the USA, and attacking minor ones, and by putting all militaristic finances into offense instead of defense, he only makes our country more vulnerable and hated by the world. For those of you who believe that Bush is "righting the wrongs" of past presidents, not only is he continuing the "wrongs" (such as this war in relation to the Iranian Conflict, and negotiations with the Taliban in relation to his father's reign), but he is even making our situation a whole lot worse (as I listed above). ^_^
----
For those of you interested in the Korean threat. Here are some links you might like: ^_^

"Preserving the North Korean Threat": http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2001_04/focus.asp
Spurgeon M. Keeny, Jr.

"U.S. shrugs off North Korean threat": http://www.johnworldpeace.com/e030207c.htm

"US plays down N Korean threat," BBC News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2776841.stm

Also, even though Clinton may not have been a great guy, he actually was the one who stuck with protecting us from the Korean threat. After Bush took over, he completely dropped protecting the US from the Korean and went after less dangerous countries that had oil. Go figure.

So, now Korea is getting more and more threatening to our interests (while Bush does litteraly nothing to stop them), and even other countries are starting to voice their concerns about this. If you really believe in the "Hitler Theory" then look here. ^_^

The end. lol. Sorry for the length. No one has to read it if they don't want to. I just put it here in case anyone is interested. ;P

If all you pro-war individuals truly love and support your country, then even you should be alarmed that we are wasting our efforts on fighting a weak, non-threatening country, while a stronger one gets ready to attack us. I love my country, that's why I want to protect it from true threats. And that's another reason why I'm mad at Bush. In fact, if all you pro-war individuals really do love your country and favor it's protection, then you would hate Bush. Which is why I sometimes don't understand why there are so many people who like both.

The Bush administration just sits there and lets these other countries like Korea get ready to attack us. If they really were concerned with "the war on terror" then wouldn't they actually be fighting a war with real terrorists? Did anyone ever stop to think that while we're off fighting this "war on terror" another 9/11 could easily happen? While we're fighting one country, then we're supposed to believe that no other anti-American country will come and attack us behind our backs?

After 9/11 Bush has done little to aid national defense, but has done much to aid national offense. This means that we can attack (pull offensive militaristic tactics) other countries really well (we have bombs, and troops, etc), but we can't even defend our own from a few men on some airplanes. Bush has put hardly anything into protecting our borders and aiding the professionals who deal with attacks such as the one on 9/11.

And what will we do now if something like that happens again? Nuke a plane? Send troops into a delicate negotaiting situation? How will we secure our borders? Anthrax our own land? We are still vulnerable to attacks simply because we just don't believe that anyone would really attack US soil. But it's happened before and it could happen again.

Look at Pearl Harbor. They kicked our butts that day and that was an army base they attacked to boot! In fact, the Japanese were the same threat at that time as Korea is now. Makes you think.

-----

So, all in all, the "Hitler Theory" does not apply to Saddam as of now, but applies more to other countries such as Korea. And Bush himself is only making this worse. One reason I don't support Bush, is because by ignoring real threats to the USA, and attacking minor ones, and by putting all militaristic finances into offense instead of defense, he only makes our country more vulnerable and hated by the world. For those of you who believe that Bush is "righting the wrongs" of past presidents, not only is he continuing the "wrongs" (such as this war in relation to the Iranian Conflict, and negotiations with the Taliban in relation to his father's reign), but he is even making our situation a whole lot worse (as I listed above). ^_^
----
For those of you interested in the Korean threat. Here are some links you might like: ^_^

"Preserving the North Korean Threat": http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2001_04/focus.asp
Spurgeon M. Keeny, Jr.

"U.S. shrugs off North Korean threat": http://www.johnworldpeace.com/e030207c.htm

"US plays down N Korean threat," BBC News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2776841.stm

Also, even though Clinton may not have been a great guy, he actually was the one who stuck with protecting us from the Korean threat. After Bush took over, he completely dropped protecting the US from the Korean and went after less dangerous countries that had oil. Go figure.

So, now Korea is getting more and more threatening to our interests (while Bush does litteraly nothing to stop them), and even other countries are starting to voice their concerns about this. If you really believe in the "Hitler Theory" then look here. ^_^

The end. lol. Sorry for the length. No one has to read it if they don't want to. I just put it here in case anyone is interested. ;P