...

Against it. They have no right to go to war, and all their "evidence" that Iraq has WoMDs are based only on indications and assuminations, wich later on has been proven to be wrong. Bush has already shown that he only care about regime change in Iraq instead of disarming them. It is likely that they'll just install a new, USA-friendly dictator.

I'm personaly for it, just a question for you though...

Is Sadam a madman in your opinion?

I do not have any reason to belive he is. He is probably not 100% mentally well, but not a madman.

He kills his own people to test his chemical weapons

They were rebelling him. And they were kurds, wich I doubt Saddam truly counts as his own people.

And BTW, USA killed lots of Japanese to test their nuclear weapons.

They didn't kill them to TEST it, they used it to end WWII

And Saddam used it to end the rebellion. Pretty much the same.

Ok, whatever, you're entitled to an opinion too.

Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn
And Saddam used it to end the rebellion. Pretty much the same.

Well, considering the rebellion wasn't threatening the fate of the world, i'd say it was a lot different. Japan was not going to give up, and many many Americans and Japanese would have died in an invasion. Of course, i guess you're too anti-American to be able to make even a simple distinction like that, because there isn't any other explanation for that view.

Honestly, i don't mind you voicing an anti-war opinion as long as you put forth valid arguments, but you're blatent anti-americanism is getting offensive, and it's completely uneccessary.

Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn
Against it. They have no right to go to war

And who hands out the "rights" to go to war?

Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn
And Saddam used it to end the rebellion. Pretty much the same.

Oh my god are you serious?! You've got to be kidding me...
Ending a rebellion of some beaten down, oppressed people compares to us using nukes to end WW2? Nice analogy... [/sarcasm] Buy a clue.

Well, it's abit too late to discuss whether we are against war now.... :rolleyes:

Against.

And btw, isn't it funny how we're basically saying, "Everyone, get rid of your weapons! ......well, except us, that is, it's ok for us to have them."

I mean, WTF???

Disarmament dosent work, but its ok to try ;)


I'm for this war, there are no bad points to this war when all things are weighed out.

And yes, i do agree... Qui gon's anti americanism is getting slightly annoying

Originally posted by JEDI_MASTA
And yes, i do agree... Qui gon's anti americanism is getting slightly annoying

Gee! You think we aren't annoyed with your BS either! :rolleyes: JM only tells the truth for the most part, but there are some things I might disagree with aswell.

Disarmament dosent work, but its ok to try ;)

I'm for this war, there are no bad points to this war when all things are weighed out.

We shall see soon enough.... :snear:

Originally posted by swgbking
He kills his own people to test his chemical weapons

Eh, that doesn't mean he's mad, just, how shall I say... not nice?!

Originally posted by Billy Shears
isn't it funny how we're basically saying, "Everyone, get rid of your weapons! ......well, except us, that is, it's ok for us to have them."

I mean, WTF???

We aren't saying everyone get rid of your weapons....
we're telling a dictator, who's already agreed to disarm many years ago, to get rid of the crap he's hiding (which he alleges he doesn't have but has proven he does have. eg: the scuds he's recently used.).
Blix has even said Saddam lied about those by saying he didn't have them.
We also don't attack Mexico and Canada... Saddam attacks his neighbors... we're trying to prevent that from happening again.
There's a reason there are no-fly zones in northern and southern iraq....
Soon enough we'll see if he's hiding weapons of mass destruction, though most experts don't think he'll use chemical weapons even if he has them for the sake of his credibility. If he has them, we're validated... if he doesn't... well... that's another story. Let's find out first.*
We're clearly not attacking civilians, and that death toll is skyrocketing to that 2 million mark, eagle... . We're letting people surrender peacefully, it's about the regime, not the people of iraq.

*They think Saddam is either already dead or seriously injured... but won't risk saying he's dead as a credibility issue without sufficient proof (dna tests).

Tie Guy and Jedi_Masta: I am not anti-American. I critizise its foreign politics because I think they're wrong. I take "anti-american" offensive, so do not call me that.

And who hands out the "rights" to go to war?

The UN Security Council. Thought everyone knew that.

Oh my god are you serious?! You've got to be kidding me...
Ending a rebellion of some beaten down, oppressed people compares to us using nukes to end WW2? Nice analogy... [/sarcasm] Buy a clue.

I am very suprised on how little 150,000 innocent lives counts. I'll guess the next would be you supporting the bombing of Dresden. Or perhaps 300,000 innocents doesn't matter as long as their German?

Originally posted by swgbking
They didn't kill them to TEST it, they used it to end WWII

That's not true.

They partly used the nukes on civilian population centers to test the effects it had on humans.

Of course, they also used them to establish American world dominance and end WW2.

If they cared only for Japan's capitulation, they could have dropped them off the shore or on military bases.

Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn
The UN Security Council. Thought everyone knew that.


Membership of the UN and other organizations as such are moral bindings, not hard and fast obligations. There's such a thing as not obeying. And when that happens, what's the UN going to do? Attack the USA? No. And that's because it was a moral bond. The USA pledged their membership, and now, essentially, they are going against it, and that was their choice.

As the USA has shown no one hands out the rights to go to war. Be that a good thing or a bad thing, ask me not.

Originally posted by C'jais
That's not true.

They partly used the nukes on civilian population centers to test the effects it had on humans.

Of course, they also used them to establish American world dominance and end WW2.

If they cared only for Japan's capitulation, they could have dropped them off the shore or on military bases.

True, it was partly as a show of force, as it was also getting to be the start of the cold war, but it's called "killing two birds with one stone." Perhaps it was partly out of the extreme anger felt from Pearl Harbor. You may never know, because I'm assuming you weren't alive then.

Originally posted by krkode
True, it was partly as a show of force, as it was also getting to be the start of the cold war, but it's called "killing two birds with one stone."

Make that three birds with one stone.

I'm assuming you can clearly see they wanted to test their new toys by choosing a population center instead of Mount Fiji or a miliary compound.

Note: all of the following posts below are copied from the Senate Chambers. I didn't want to make it one big post as it'd confuse people as they're seperate replies. But they do sum up my points.

Originally posted by Andy867
I must disagree with you there, Echuu. What the US is doing is preventing a WWIII by taking out a tyrant before Saddam becomes the next Hitler.

FYI, WW3 has already started.

Now, Saddam is not capable of becoming a new Hitler. He has no-fly zones in the north and south (where the oil is), he has several sanctions against him, and if he should ever pull a stunt like he did in the 80's, he'd be gangraped into submission. Add to that, that your country has bombed Iraq over the past ten years, and his military is a mere shadow of its former glory - Iraq is simply not capable of invading anything anymore. And no, his little rockets cannot even reach Europe, and definately not USA.

As far as the argument that "he can always use terrorists!" goes - no, there's been no connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda. You can always use the argument that "But they can just use terrorists to hit us!" to support a "preventive" war. Why not attack Iran as well - they hate you too, and they could also just use terrorists to hit you. Or maybe Russia - they're commies FFS and have several terror connections. Or how about every f'king arab country? See how that argument goes nowhere?

Facts on the table people - Saddam is not threatening you. That guy knows that if he so much as takes one step over the Kuwait border, the UN will have a legit reason to castrate him once and for all.

This all comes down to whether the US has the right to make a pre-emptive strike against a country they've got no proof are threatening another. The UN says (and I agree) "No, you cannot". This pathetic argument cannot support anything, as you can use it to justify attacking France as well - they hate you too, no? They have nuclear weapons!

What's even more funny, is that the US feels this rule should only apply to them. Iraq cannot, for example, make a pre-emptive strike against something they feel threatens their nation (the US, fx). Oh no, only USA is on the moral high ground here (despite their seeming lack of interest for human rights and peacekeeping missions).

Look at what you're doing: Your cassus belli is that Saddam has WMDs, but you have not found evidence of this so far. If he had WMDs, he'd not be able to store them any longer, as they require big ass facilities to keep maintained. You're making up evidence of his connections with terror groups and of his nuclear capabilities. It's f*cking frightening that you're forced to forge evidence, and it's even scarier that the press lets you get away with it - "it's nothing serious". :rolleyes:. And finally, Bush has the nerve to use such claims that Saddam is a threat to your country!

In short, if you've failed to get it: You have no legal basis for this war, apart from a far-fetched hunch that "that guy is up to no good, let's remove him". You're not capable of seeing what this needless war will lead to: More terror. More destabilization in the middle east. More hatred towards the West.

The Gulf war in 1991 was legit (even though USA practically persuaded Iraq into attacking). Your frenzy against Afghanistan was also UN backed (though only because of the goodwill from 9/11). And now here we are - the US pissing on the UN, abusing its military power to justify their actions and generally wasting whatever goodwill you had left. Your press acts as the president's lapdogs and have no critical sense left (they brushed off all the forged evidence as "accidents" and decided not to make a fuss about the US spying on UN members and their torturing of two prisoners to death). And you can throw this into the mix as well: When the US needs to "extract" information from prisoners, they ship them over to Egypt and tell them to get whatever information they can with whatever means necessary. After that's done, they're shipped back to the US and your country has gotten the information. What happens if someone questions your methods? You just point at Egypt and say "They did it! Not us!"

Al Jazeera are gonna have a feast on your little crusade here.

One last thing: If I hear one more baseless claim towards France, I'm gonna go vetoed UN resolutions all over Israel's ass.

-C'

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/index.html)

"Intelligence documents that U.S. and British governments said were strong evidence that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons have been dismissed as forgeries by U.N. weapons inspector"

So, what new evidence to justify the war will be "digged up"?

And here are some very interesting facts:

1. Iraq is the most poked, prodded, infeltrated, photagraphed, x-rayed, and spyed upon country on the planet, and yet inspectors have found nothing that really smacks of WoMD. Funny how that is.

2. Most of the 'evidence' is turning out to be pretty much frabricated BS. If the U.S had actual evidence, they should have found something by now. Hitch up your pants, America; your credibility gap is showing.

3. The U.S. has bombed Iraq on almost a weekly basis for the las 12 years, and in doing so has pounded most of that country into ruin, and killed over half a million people. The facilities for creating weapons are mostly destroyed.

4. Much like nukes (of which he has none), Saddam's bio and chemical weapons have a short shelf life, and must be monitered and maintained. Facilities used to store bio weapons in particular are difficult to hide.

Finally, America shouldn't throw stones, when they are terrorists themselves. Here's a short but infamous list of attrocities of which America is responsible for:

1953: U.S. overthrows Prime Minister Mossadeq of Iran. U.S. installs Shah as dictator.
1954: U.S. overthrows democratically-elected President Arbenz of Guatemala. 200,000 civilians killed.
1963: U.S. backs assassination of South Vietnamese President Diem.
1963-1975: American military kills 4 million civilians in Southeast Asia.
September 11, 1973: U.S. stages coup in Chile. Democratically elected president Salvador Allende assassinated. Dictator Augusto Pinochet installed. 5,000 Chileans murdered.
1977: U.S. backs military rulers of El Salvador. 70,000 Salvadorans and four American nuns killed.
1980's: U.S. trains Osama bin Laden and fellow terrorists to kill Soviets. CIA gives them $3 billion.
1981: Reagan administration trains and funds "contras". 30,000 Nicaraguans die.
1982: U.S. provides billions in aid to Saddam Hussein for weapons to kill Iranians.
1983: White House secretly gives Iran weapons to help them kill Iraqis.
1989: CIA agent Manuel Noriega (also serving as President of Panama) disobeys orders from Washington. U.S. invades Panama and removes Noriega. 3,000 Panamanian civilian casualties
1990: Iraq invades Kuwait with weapons from U.S.
1991: U.S. enters Iraq. Bush reinstates dictator of Kuwait.
1998: Clinton bombs "weapons factory" in Sudan. Factory turns out to be making aspirin.
1991 to present: American planes bomb Iraq on a weekly basis. U.N. estimates 500,000 Iraqi children die from bombing and sanctions.
2000-01: U.S. gives Taliban-ruled Afghanistan $245 million in "aid".
September 11, 2001: Osama Bin Laden uses his expert CIA training to murder 3,000 people.

First it said that Iraq was aiding terrorism, supposedly the Al Qaeda. No evidence, and the connection between the two was invented.

Now it's about his WMDs. No positive evidence. Most (if not all) of his biochemical facilities have been destroyed. Such weapons are very hard to maintain - they'll turn useless if they're left to rot in a bunker in the desert. They need a whole crew of scientists, and big production facilities to maintain them.

Then it was about human rights. When has the US cared about human rights anywhere in the world? Did they not recently torture two prisoners to death?

Now it's about stability in the middle east. Only, this war will bring LESS stability, not more. BTW, I might add, once again, that Israel has broken far more UN human rights resolutions than Iraq, and USA has vetoed against taking action towards, every f*cking time.

Then we get to "fighting terrorism by attacking Iraq". As if. If Iraq actually had some connection to terror groups, I might begin to take it seriously, but even then, invading a country does nothing but increasing resistance movements.

Go figure. And this there's all the crap about forged evidence and invented connections.

My respect for the US is dwindling. Fast.

A question for you C'jais, I respect your opinions even though you seem to disagree with me on EVERYTHING. :D But, if the Us did go to war, Saddam was killed and Iraq was rebuilt with minimal civilian casualties, will your oppinion for the US government grow stronger? Just wondering or do you have a steadfast disrespect for them.

That's a good question.

Unfortunately, we can't just look at the short terms effects of this war. Democracy is not going to pop up from nowhere after Saddam is gone. Afghanistan is pretty much just as worse off now, than before, and the US has stopped rebuilding it by now.

This war will increase terrorism - Big time. No doubt about that.

While and after the war, people won't be speculating in the dollar. Iraq possesses the second largest oil deposit in the world.

CIA and MI6 have both voiced their warning against this war, and they do not fully support Bush.

Do we have a right to invade and remove every single dictator in the world? (Especially considering that the US doesn't give a sh*t about human rights - it does seem a bit hypocritical to me.)

There are simply so many other places in the world where the US could move in and save the day. Just take Tibet, Rwanda or N. Korea as an example. This whole deal is about war and the effects on the dollar. It is not about "saving" the Iraqi people.

Here's a fact on the military in the US: The US military industry is the largest in the world. It provides millions of jobs. The US needs a war to justify all that hardware - otherwise there's plenty of good reasons to disarm.

And speaking of disarmament: Is the US were asked by the UN to produce a full report on all their NBC weapons, would you expect them to give it? Hell no. The US is no better than Iraq when it comes to this.

I could go on and on, but I don't have that time. (:

-C'

Originally posted by ckcsaber
He has mobile chemical labs. The US has evidence of this, one coming from an Iraqi chemical engineer who defected. They still have the labs.

Those mobile labs can only manufacture such weapons. They cannot in any way to be used to store several tons of them.

Do you realize how easy it is to create chemical and biological weapons? You can make chemical weapons out of household materials. You need only ask CIA for permission to create a vaccine from biological samples and you've got yourself a biological nightmare on your hands. Bin Laden's anthrax came from the CIA, in fact (oh, and he was trained by them as well, to fight russians).

What's curious is that Israel has several WMDs (including nuclear weapons), and that they aren't under any kind of agreement from the UN to not spread those weapons. They could sell them to anyone, and it'd never be noticed. They've broken way more resolutions than Iraq, with the US shielding them from actions by vetoing the security council. Al Qaeda could get their weapons from any place in the world - Pakistan, Israel, USA, Iran, Russia etc.

It doesn't matter if Iraq has a few barrels of mustard gas. So what? He's got no connection to any terror organizations, no incentive to use them, and his country is so battered from Gulf War 1 that if he should ever do something, he'd be pounded to dust.

But sure, go ahead and remove him. The country will be torn apart by all the individual factions wanting a slice of the cake, resistance movements and terrorism will increase, and maybe we'll find some planted evidence in Iraq to "justify" your war - but hey, at least your military industry will profit from this, you'll get easy access to oil and people are hopefully going to take actions against Israel as well now.

I am on the fence as of now.....


What troubles me, is that coalition forces are going for these oil wells first, and Iraqi troops seem so stripped down. If they had weapons of mass destruction.... would they have used them by now?

I also want to add, that my hearts are with the troops first and foremost. As a veteran, I know what the reality of conflict can do to the human psyche. Even if troops do not suffer physical casualties, the effects and threat of war can often leave a lasting medical/mental condition that takes years of therapy to treat. My prayers stay with all of them.

we're telling a dictator, who's already agreed to disarm many years ago, to get rid of the crap he's hiding

But it has not been confirmed that he does have these weapons. So basically, we're in a war, risking thousands of lives (our military, Iraq's military, and Iraq's civilians) to find out if they have them?????

It's not about WMDs. Other countries have WMD, ourselves included.

It's not about evil dictators. There are other countries with them, and innocent people suffering under them.

It's about finishing what his daddy started, and getting vengeance on the guy that tried to kill him. Risking all of those lives for such a personal cause, doesn't that make Bush a "not nice guy" willing to spend so many lives for himself?

1991 to present: American planes bomb Iraq on a weekly basis. U.N. estimates 500,000 Iraqi children die from bombing and sanctions


5000 die every month in Iraq from starvation,... witnesses have seen Saddam order his own people put thru shredders to maintain his rule with an iron hand.

One last thing: If I hear one more baseless claim towards France, I'm gonna go vetoed UN resolutions all over Israel's ass.

We all know there is only two reasons why France won't attack

1. Iraq supplies France with there oil

2. France wants the gravey... they just don't want anything to do with the nitty gritty

Originally posted by Lord Fergie
5000 die every month in Iraq from starvation,... witnesses have seen Saddam order his own people put thru shredders to maintain his rule with an iron hand.

Oh, so now it's about Saddam being a brutal dictator. Why didn't you bust Khomeni's ass? Or why not Mugabe? Or Il Jong? Can you make up your mind about what kind of legal reason to you have to go in there? First it was his WMDs. You've found none (even though you loved to forge evidence of that). Then you switched to his supposed Al Qaeda connection. Damn, it appears he has no connections, and that the only evidence you were able to dig up was invented.

Now we're here with human rights. When has the US ever cared about human rights? Don't you think it's a bit worrying that your country keeps changing arguments to suit their end?

We all know there is only two reasons why France won't attack

1. Iraq supplies France with there oil

2. France wants the gravey... they just don't want anything to do with the nitty gritty

Alright, get this:

You're accusing France of stopping the UN from doing what it was supposed to do. Now, France has used their veto power a total of 6 times since WW2. Your country, OTOH, has used it over 70 times. 38 times to stop the UN from taking action against Israel's who's broken more resolutions than Iraq has, has nuclear weapons, and doesn't give a sh*t about human rights.

I'll let this quote speak for itself:

"I don't know something called International Principles. I vow that I'll burn every Palestinian child (that) will be born in this area. The Palestinian woman and child is more dangerous than the man, because the Palestinian childs existence infers that generations will go on, but the man causes limited danger. I vow that if I was just an Israeli civilian and I met a Palestinian I would burn him and I would make him suffer before killing him. With one hit I've killed 750 Palestinians (in Rafah in 1956). I wanted to encourage my soldiers by raping Arabic girls as the Palestinian women is a slave for Jews, and we do whatever we want to her and nobody tells us what we shall do but we tell others what they shall do."

-Ariel Sharon, in an interview with General Ouze Merham, 1956

Now, if anything it's the US of A that's stopping the UN from doing what it was meant to do. Not France.

As for Oil: I'll admit that France is probably just in it for the oil. But your country isn't? That's pretty ignorant.

Based on what we've learned USA does with many countries it "liberates", they're going to install a "USA-friendly" leader in a now "democratic" society (tough for them, but if their government can only be a USA-friendly one, it's not really a democracy, is it?), secure a new market for their goods, pump out all the resources it can via this new leader and generally leave it to rot and bleed when all is said and done. A few years from there, a new dictator will arise in this country (strangely enough, he's pissed at USA) and the cycle is ripe for starting all over again.

This war might be different, but why should it?

I'm at my wit's end here, people!

Just listen to yourselves, all of you! "Israel this...", "Israel that..." and "France this...", "France that...", or "Bush this and that". Do you even realize that in the last month there have been over 15 threads relating to Iraq and the War thereof, and every last one of them has digressed into the same repetitious rhetoric?

People are dying! Troops, innocents, political figures etc.., and all you guys can do is fight the same god damned fight over and over! Those of you who oppose the war, and/or the United States on grounds of humanitarian issues are defiling the very reasons for your disapproval and disgust by your insensitivities and inability to stop your crusade for just a minute and realize this isn't debate class, this is real life, and human life is being extinguished! You can't stop it, so stop trying to fix a broken world that cannot be fixed and try to relate to those who are waking up amidst the explosions and gunshots of war.

Those of you who support the war and the US's call to action, is it not good enough that America has initiated what you have been supporting? Isn't it enough that 35 nations have pledged their support to the cause? No, instead we have to point fingers at France and Germany, and call them "asses" and "cowards". I have news for you, France was only exercising their right on the UN Security Council. It was not out of Left field! It was their right and duty to veto the resolutions that they believed were unfounded, or unjust. So what? The fact is, we still went to war, and the fact is, we will still win the war, with or without their support. So move on already. You are being selfish and overbearing, it is individuals like you that give us the "Warmongering" branding, and perpetuate the image of an arrogant United States.

We are at war folks, and people are losing their lives even as I type this rebuke. Whether you believe in God or not is irrelevant. Whether you wanted it or not, does not stop the horror of it from being true! Those troops, US & British and Iraqi, both troops and civilians, are under immense stress, and live in constant threat of their lives. They live in fear, and sleep in terror. Let's put aside our differences for the sake of those individuals who have the right to feel and say what you have been saying. And instead of wasting effort, time and energy making the same damn points over and over, direct that energy into care packages, prayers, letters, and other positive measures so that they may know that we care for those involved in this war. Those individuals that are there despite what they think or believe, and are completely innocent of what ever government did what or said what. They are merely following orders and doing their jobs, or even much less controllable, they happen to live in a nation torn by war.

Grow up people! Stop pointing fingers and placing blame. The war rages on whether you want it to or not. The real issue here is what will become of the troops and civilians who are directly involved in this war. They need support. They need to know that life will indeed go on after war is over. They need to know that there is still hope. Our arguing will not provide any of that, but instead it will plague the troops with misgivings, doubts and fears, and the innocents will fear for the new world that waits for them when this war is over.

We are the future, folks, we must prove ourselves worthy and responsible to inherit it. Let's start right here and right now. Just put down your arguments and stop your crusades long enough to care about the human lives we tend to forget in the heat of debate. In this debate, fought 5,000 miles away in a desert nation with a bloody war, nobody wins. In the end we are all humans and each of us will have suffered loss....


*sigh*

Havoc, thank you. I grow weary of always seeing new threads about the war. I am against ALL war. No matter the justification. Arguing over why we're at war or who's responisble for the war or who's worse than Saddam is all irrelevant. It doesn't matter. I dislike war, but I will still support my country and will most definitely support the troops. I pray for a swift end with as little loss of life as possible for both sides.

I guess I'd support the soldiers, but not what they're doing.

What I mean is... anyone here seen Glory ? We watched it about 3 yrs ago in history. There's a scene were the Colonel and his regiment have to burn down a village, but while doing it they lower thier flags becuase they are not proud of what they are doing.
That's what I mean.

And speaking of disarmament: Is the US were asked by the UN to produce a full report on all their NBC weapons, would you expect them to give it? Hell no. The US is no better than Iraq when it comes to this.

I don't wanna get involved or anything, but, would any country disarm themselves? No, I don't think so. And I agree with whoever said WW3 has started. It may not be the entire world at war, but most countries are attacking Iraq...

YOU DON'T BELIEVE THE ISRAELI'S ARE BEING FAIR?!?!?!? And that was 47 years ago. I bet he doesn't think the same. And did you know that they give money to the mothers of suicide bombers as compensation for their work? That's disgraceful.

there are now over 40 countries in the coalition, so they said.

I don't know about you, but Saddam scares me because I don't know what he has, and he has had stuff like that before.

Originally posted by Heavyarms
YOU DON'T BELIEVE THE ISRAELI'S ARE BEING FAIR?!?!?!?

That is not the case.

What's important is that they've broken several UN resolutions and human rights, and that USA as the single member of the UN has protected them from intervention by using their veto power 38 times. 38 times.

What's important is that a select few Americans have got the idea that they can state France is preventing the UN from doing what it was supposed to (intervene) without their country looking like a big bad hypocrite (at best).

And that was 47 years ago.

Was it? If it was revealed that Bush has said that horsesh*t in his past, he'd be politically slaughtered. We can't have racists running around disguised as leaders of our countries.

I bet he doesn't think the same.

I also happen to think Saddam is a nice guy - we can't really use that, can we? What we think of a specific person is irrelevant here - it matters only what they've said and done. And what these two guys have said and done isn't pretty.

And did you know that they give money to the mothers of suicide bombers as compensation for their work? That's disgraceful.

Yes.

Did you know that your country has helped Saddam attack other countries, installed a brutal dictator in Chile and sends 3 billions in "aid" each year to Israel for them to buy more WMDs?

1954: U.S. overthrows democratically-elected President Arbenz of Guatemala. 200,000 civilians killed.
1963: U.S. backs assassination of South Vietnamese President Diem.
1963-1975: American military kills 4 million civilians in Southeast Asia.
September 11, 1973: U.S. stages coup in Chile. Democratically elected president Salvador Allende assassinated. Dictator Augusto Pinochet installed. 5,000 Chileans murdered.
1977: U.S. backs military rulers of El Salvador. 70,000 Salvadorans and four American nuns killed.
1980's: U.S. trains Osama bin Laden and fellow terrorists to kill Soviets. CIA gives them $3 billion.

Overthrow of democratically elected leaders, political assassination and training of terrorists.

Here's what I dont get:

Every time someone says "Clinton", everyone automatically thinks, "Liar, liar, liar, evil" etc. But now that Bush is president, most are automatically agreeing with everything he says, and believeing everything he says. Now I'm not ignoring the fact that what Clinton did was wrong, but what I'm saying is, why is everyone else so trusting of Bush when you now know that a president is not some all mighty figure that never lies, is holy, etc. It's happened before. Why are you putting your full trust in this guy?

Another interesting point (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=564&e=6&u=/nm/iraq_nuclear_un_dc).

Originally posted by pbguy1211
Oh my god are you serious?! You've got to be kidding me...
Ending a rebellion of some beaten down, oppressed people compares to us using nukes to end WW2? Nice analogy... [/sarcasm] Buy a clue.

Dont' get me wrong... I'm not saying either or neither was acceptable use of force, but I'm just curious: are you saying that as long as the victims of violence are poor, periphery people and not affluent, industrial ones then there's a difference?

Personally, I find life valuable in any situation.

My next question is: where do we (as American's) draw the line. Are we now to be expected to squash any world leader that oppresses his people? Is there a number of deaths that has to be achieved that will trigger a U.S. invasion? Will the lives of our service members be risked for nation-states that do not threaten us? (which Iraq clearly did not).

These are valid concerns that each American should consider, especially at the polls of the next national elections. I assure you, if it becomes necessary for our troops to enter Bagdad proper in order to complete the mission, public opinion will turn more and more away from the Emperor Bush and Darth Rumsfeld. It will not be pretty when we engage in urban conflict with guerrilla forces.

Originally posted by krkode
Membership of the UN and other organizations as such are moral bindings, not hard and fast obligations. There's such a thing as not obeying.

Didn't Milosovich say that first?

Originally posted by krkode
And when that happens, what's the UN going to do? Attack the USA? \

Yeah... you tell 'em. Bring it on! [/sarcasm]

Originally posted by krkode
As the USA has shown no one hands out the rights to go to war.

Except the U.S.... we seem to reserve exclusive rights in that area.

Originally posted by Heavyarms
there are now over 40 countries in the coalition, so they said.

Doesn't that leave some 230+ countries that aren't sided with us? And as the Bush admin made clear, "if you're not with us, your against us."

Originally posted by Heavyarms
I don't know about you, but Saddam scares me because I don't know what he has, and he has had stuff like that before.

India/Pakistan scares me. N. Korea scares me. Former soviet satellite nations in near anarchy scares me. They each have or have had missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons. At best, Saddam is one of 16 periphery nations to have chemical weapons. There's little chance they can be delivered to the U.S.

Its not about WMD's! It's about economic control of the region! How can that not be clear?! How can anyone discount that?

That's a Medieval reason to go to war.