[Bobboau]

just wanted the numbers again,
if you must close this, could you leave the poll open?
BTW, I don't want this closed so if you want to argue let's make another topic

[Unknown Target]

I'm American, but don't live in continental US, so I'm putting myself down as American

BTW, I agree, we should go to war, but not the way Bush is handling it.

[Bobboau]

well how would you rather we did it,
more international suport?

[Unknown Target]

yes and no...
See, if the other country's would help, that would be great. However, if they don't, Bush should make up his mind, and go to war, and leave the commanding to people smarter than he.
Also, he should stop focusing on Iraq so much, and at least commit our navy to take care of Korea. I mean they have ****ing NUKES and we've seen the proof! We haven't even seen any in Iraq.
I, personally, think that Iraq has the weapons, but we haven't seen them, and the US is making an absolute laughing stock of themselves in the international community. In two years, Bush has changed world-wide sympathy into universal hatred and amusement.
This stupid-ass game Bush is playing is gonna end with too many people dead on both sides.

[Knight Templar]

More international support is a must. The government's attitude of "We are the supreme country: Friends, we could use your help, but if you aren't going to help, then **** off." Is so wrong and anti diplomatic..

That and yes, Sadam is perhaps an insane dictator who tortures his own people, but that should be something along the lines of crimes against humanity, and should be persecuted by an international community. Batman is great, but I don't think the US (and specifically, the US as the country I live in) needs to become the big bad super vigilante that nobody trusts or likes at this point.

Weapons of Mass Destruction: We have em'. China has em'. Korea has em'. Russia has em'. Pakistan has em'. India has em'. Iran (probably) has em'. We are being hypocritical. We can't go around pushing everyoen else who has them. Saddam could still be the Satan the press makes him out to be and more (I say this because I am only reuttering what I have heard and not experianced/seen/heard/read myself) but this si the sort of thing that should be pressed internationally not just by One Super Country with a One Sided mind as leadership.

Hell bush or even America as a whole can and is viewed as worse than Saddam or Bin Laden by other countries around the world. Now wether they would (given that they could ) try to pull the same **** we are pulling, I dunno. But the point is, We've stuck our nose where it didn't necasarily belong before and the results weren't pretty. Someone up high needs to brush up on their history.

Bottom Line: Matters like this should be pressed internationally or at least have some kind of support. Leaving him there could do damage, but Going it alone and all could and I beleive will deffinitly be for the worse. I guess we'll all see in the next week or so (17th?)

[Kamikaze]

I'm a not-american living in the US who thinks this whole Iraq business is trash.....

Funny thing is, even Britain decided to pull its support from Bush... haha, now the US is simply a terroist country that's going to invade without any allowance or approval.

[Unknown Target]

The US has the power to take on Iraq by itself. If it wants to, it should. Diplomatic solutions ended when Bush started to act like a moron. Now, he's dug himself so deep a hole, that he has to go to war by himself.
NOTE: I'm not saying that that's a good thing.
Also, we have nukes, and so do a lot of other country's. But those country's have mostly re-formed, and realize that they have a lot to lose if they try to use those nukes. If they haven't reformed, like China, then they have the brains to see that if they use those nukes, they are signing their own death warrent. Also, like I said before, they have too much to lose. Korea and Iraq don't. Also, Iraq does have a history of using this weapons. There are only two country's, to my knowledge, that have ever used a non-conventional weapon in anger: the U.S. (who did it to end a 6-year-war), and Iraq, who did it to terrorize it's own people.
But the stupid amaeture hour antics of Bush and Co. leave me wondering for my safety. Hell, I live next to the second biggest Oil Refinery in the Western Hemisphere.

[Unknown Target]

BTW, admins, you should probably lock and/or delete this before it gets too nasty

[J3Vr6]

Just like Bush said, we've given them 12 years to disarm.  Why should we give them more?  A lot of people think he is handling this all wrong, but think of it as we're the only ones who actually care.  People make the argument that the US has nukes so we are we being hipocritical?  Yes, we have nukes and so do many countries (Like Uknown Target said), but we are not selling these nukes or weapons of mass destruction to terrorists or have used these weapons on our own people.

I personally don't think we're handling this wrong.  If Bush was being so hardlined for war, why would he be still waiting for the UN backing?  If he was the way everyone is saying, Iraq would have been a dust cloud and a us flag jutting out the center a while ago.  Bush understands the importance of the UN, he's not an idiot (although the press and certain comments/actions on his part would say otherwise, c'mon guys, he wouldn't be in that position of power if he was as half as dumb as people claim he is), but he has to look out for the best interest of this country.  He may look to other countries as someone who is pressing too hard and too fast, but those other countries haven't recently been attacked with terrorism or have a country so fueled with hatred for them that they would do anythign to hurt them.  Now,you may cite countless countries who suffer terrorist attacks every day, but these countries (unfortunately) do not have the ower to actually do something about it.

The United States does, and is doing it for the benefit of the world, and we're looked at as bad guys.  Yes, the war is going to be messy.  People are going to get hurt.  Some of our men and women won't be coming home.  We'll be looked down upon by the world for a while.  But I'm telling you right now, when this is done, everyone would be better off that Sadam is not around.  And everyone is going to be thankful that it was the United States who started it.

Just my two cents. :wink:

[Stryke 9]

How will everyone be better off? Colonies never did anyone any good except the colonizing country, and they sure don't help the colonized. Saddam isn't bothering anyone, except maybe his own people, and them not much- actually, he's keeping them alive right now, when US embargoes would have lead to them starving to death otherwise. Remember that 60% figure? That's more than just an inconvenience for colonization.

I'll agree that it doesn't seem Bush really is doing this for personal gain (except in the political sense, in which it's apparently backfiring and thus doesn't count), but good intentions alone don't keep people from dying or living in misery.

[J3Vr6]

We wouldn't be colonzing them, by no means.  Yes, in the beginning there will be an American presence in Iraq until the people of that country can formalize a government that is suitable to Iraqs needs.  And yes, we'll probably have a hand with reconstruction.  But I guarantee you, we won't be the only ones trying to put their hands in that cookie jar.  All these countries who are trying to slap our hand for ridding the region of a monster are all going to put their pinky's to their mouths and ask, "Can I have some pwease?"

Now, to answer how would we be better off.  We'll be better off because for one the region would be a lot more stabilized.  Economies around the world will benefit because of free enterprise (and I don't mean just in Iraq, but any country who joins the world market efficiently and follows the "invisible hand" of supply and demand makes the world economy better).  Not just the world, but including Iraq.

Second, we'll be ridding the world of a government that harbors and condones terrorism.   That in itself shouldn't need explanation.

Third, we'll be ridding the world of one more oppressive dictator. A government that freely tests their biological weapons on their own people is beyond excuse and we (as the world) have a moral obligation to do something that they themselves can't do.   Anyone who has EVER lived under an oppressive government will know how that feels.

[Stealth]

that's all crap.

Iraq has done nothing to us, and suddenly the United States gets involved with them.  doesn't that seem a little suspicious?

Sure, we're "peace-makers"... doesn't that seem a little pathetic that we're doing something to Iraq, when much worse things have been going on with the United States knowing about them for years and years without the US doing anything.


America says "but they have weapons of mass destruction".
Everyone says "but so do you, so does Korea, so does Britain, so does Russia and a handful of other countries, why can't they?"
America says "two reasons:  
1) They were not authorized to have them
2) They'll use them against us
Everyone else says "
1) So who the hell "authorizes" countries to be allowed to carry nuclear weapons?  Who "authorized" the US to be able to produce them?  God?  hell no...
2) America has no room to talk.  America is the only country in the world to have used nuclear weapons / weapons of mass destruction against anyone.  the only country.  if anything, they should be the ones not allowed to have them.

That's what i think

[Stealth]

oh, and just so everyone knows.

Tomorrow, March 13th.  The United States is going to declare war on Iraq.

watch.

[Stryke 9]

J3etc.:Of course they will. Doesn't change the fact that Iraq's gonna be a colony, or that we'll be hesitant to share. Did you miss out on that whole spiel about using Iraqi oil to "compensate" the US for the war?

The region would be "stabilized" in that a somewhat unstable dictator would be out of the way, but as it is he's no longer in any position to invade anyone. Problem is, that won't really be any good at stabilizing when it means that every other Arab state is suddenly going to become quite convinced that they're on the hit list (Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia already KNOW they are) and be polarized accordingly, that with the new wave of utter hatred towards the US that will naturally come to any occupied region terrorism will flourish (look at Palestine- ****, that's the CAUSE of all this- now multiply that many, many times), and that the local governments will instantly lose popular favor (as indeed they are now), be severely weakened, and many many times more likely to be taken over by some militant group or other- a militant group that will most certainly not be so willing to bend over and let the US stick its big military * in there. In fact, militant groups that will be many times worse than Saddam ever was- most of the prime contenders resemble a better-organized Taliban in politics.

There's no evidence that Saddam supports terrorism, other than the fact that he recompenses the families of some Palestinian suicide bombers- which is pretty weak evidence, considering.

And finally, you forget that every country used to be under one oppressive regime or another. They all had revolutions, deposed the king/dictator/premier/czar/whatever, and are doing just fine on their own. Isn't it kinda patronizing to assume that the people still under dictatorships can't be trusted to make a good government on their own?

Think about what would have happened if, instead of America having its revolution, it was seized by an army of, say, heavily armed Japanese spouting all sorts of stuff about freedom and democracy, and saying that the American region needed to be placed under a Japanese-controlled military dictatorship for the time being until the then-colonists were grown up enough to be entrusted with a real government. Though I'd be slightly more inclined to trust the sushi, you'd better believe we'd never get to even the limited representative government we have now.

[Knight Templar]

Originally posted by Stealth
oh, and just so everyone knows.

Tomorrow, March 13th.  The United States is going to declare war on Iraq.

watch.

I thought Bush said he'd give till the 17th before he declares war or the next UN resolution or summat..

[Stryke 9]

I'm not making any more predictions. There've been too many that turned out wrong already.

[J3Vr6]

*Bows* I must say that was an excellent reply, Stryke.  Although I still feel very strongly about what I said, you made excellent points that have merit.  As such I will concede *bows again*.  

Thanks guys for taking the time to read my opinion, even though many do not agree

And I think we'll at least wait til the 17th, but it wouldn't surprise me if that actually did happen.

[Dan1]

Um......International Support?  Why does america need international support?  Apparantly many are not willing to commit..so they shouldn't ... The only thing is..when the Iraqi gov't is on their own they have the ability to become one the most prosperous countries in the world (next to Vatican City).

Why would anyone want help from the UN in the first place?  
THEY PUT LYBIA IN CHARGE OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOR GOD'S SAKE!

And you know who they're planning to put in charge of disarmerment?  IRAQ.  UN says...disarm yourself..LOL

BTW:  if it was just about oil, America could just declare victory in Kuwait right now.  (it's not like they have any military;7 !)

As for those protestors, they aren't really against war, they're just against Bush.  I mean, only a week ago on Meet the Press, one of those protesting leaders said that there's no proof Sidam had weapons of mass destruction...but then turned around and said that if we went to war, that he would use those weapons on the troops!  (those exact weapons which he just said didn't exist)...

Originally posted by Knight Templar
Weapons of Mass Destruction: We have em'. China has em'. Korea has em'. Russia has em'. Pakistan has em'. India has em'. Iran (probably) has em'. We are being hypocritical. We can't go around pushing everyoen else who has them. Saddam could still be the Satan the press makes him out to be and more (I say this because I am only reuttering what I have heard and not experianced/seen/heard/read myself) but this si the sort of thing that should be pressed internationally not just by One Super Country with a One Sided mind as leadership.

Yeah, but who's most likely to use em?  India/Pakistan had a stint about a year back or so..but they both backed off because they both came to their senses and realized what war would mean for the reason..even Nukes lobbed at each other.  Siddam isn't so reasonable and he probably won't come to his senses if backed in a corner.


I'm going to support my fellow americans who are in the armed services right now.

[Stryke 9]

Originally posted by Dan1

As for those protestors, they aren't really against war, they're just against Bush.  

Wow. Way to summarize an opinion you utterly don't understand. IN YOUR FACE, VIETNAM PROTESTORS! YOU JUST WERE BITTER YOU DIDN'T VOTE LBJ!

[Mr. Vega]

I heard on the radio that Israeli Intelligence estimates that Iraq has about 20 working scuds. 20.

Probably the number one thing that makes me sick of Bush is that he claims that he is using military force as a last resort, yet he has said repeatedly that he can give Iraq "no more time". Why is he rushing it? I suspect he really does think Iraq directly threatens us. But that's still no excuse.

Military power should only be used as a last resort, and maybe even not then. I'm going to call up "violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" again. If you can't get achieve your ends by diplomacy, etc., then get the hell out of the way and let someone better do it. We are making progress, still very slowly, but it is progress nonetheless, into disarming what few weapons Iraq has, which means no force is required. I don't care how much Iraq threatens anyone, if you can solve the problem by any other means than force, then call off your bombers. There's my 2 cents.

America is, in a sense, uniting the world.