War on Iraq

[Anonymouse]

worse than Saddam because we find it idiotic to kill innocent irakis for american interests? Your friend from Irak can be happy to be liberated from Saddam, and he has full right to be so. What he doesn't know is that the States don't have the prosperity of Irakis on their mind. By the way, how is Afghanistan going these days? I hear the USA has created wealth and security for the afghan people...............siiigh........

The States will bring the wonders of capitalism to Irak now? While we're at it, let's open another Disney factory in Bagdad too. I hear they've been doing wonders for the other countries in which they're placed...which 14 year old wouldn't be happy to be doing slave work for 11 cents an hour?

And if the States didn't invest their gazillions into the army to start new wars, you wouldn't have the fear of americans dying on the street (which is a groooooss exaggeration). AND FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, IF OIL IS SO TOUGH TO COME BY, WHY ARE YOU PEOPLE NOT INVESTING IN HYDROELECTRICITY AND ELECTRIC CARS???? Or would you then not need to invade a country? wouldn't that be a shame....

Baron Dants, do not think the Iraqi people to be ignorant. They know whats up. More innocent Iraqi's people would have died if we let Saddam stay into power. 5000 babies under the age of five die a month under the rule of Saddam; that is 60,000 a year. If you think that that is ok, then your morals are tiwsted. I bring up morals because you use them as the dominant motivation in your arguements. Sure, people died in this war, innocent people, and may God bless their souls, but I would rather see have seen my little brother mistakenly get shot by a Russian trying to free us from the genocide than being thrown into their air for bayonet practice! And that goes for me too. I do not fear death, I have been close to it many times, and I would make these sacrifices myself...believe me.

Also Baron, you make me sick with your self righteous attitude. You always tell me to get out of my "American mentality." I say that you should get out of your Canadian mentality. You believe that we are the blood thirsty country, out for nothing but our interests. I say the same about other countries. If you think that Canada creats policy to "save the world" and because they "care" about other people, then you are horribly mistaken and very ignoarant in stance. I KNOW that you and other countries only criticize America because we have the POWER to do what we want. Canada and other countries dont have it. If they did they would be doing the same stuff, and believe me...they are...just in different ways. Every country has its problems, I want to hear what yours are. I know that Britan has a dental problem . But seriously, you need to stop being self righteous and see that other countries are not going to war to serve THEIR interests as well. We are not in the Disney movie Robin Hood, where you play the heroic Hood, and steal from the rich to give to the poor. Who ever said the rich was bad? Did you know that for THIS gulf war, France, China, and Russia sold the largest amounts of weapons shares to Iraq? I dont think you did. The reason these "noble" countries backed out of the war is because they are customers. They did not back out of the war because are the moral people that you would like to think of them as. They didnt want to kill their customers. Everything comes down to interests.

You speak of the "evil" coroparations. Well, if you thought the "evil" Saddam was any better, you are again morally skewed.

Just a slight correction. 5000 Iraqis die every month because of UN sanctions and constant aerial bombardment. Now those numbers have skyrockets methinks.

That means 10,000 babies die each month. How said. These numbers are real folks, I dare not tell a lie.

Anon, you should have told Saddam to adhere to the UN. Then, just maybe, the embargoes would have been lifted, and the number would have only gone to 5000 babies dying a month. Would that have made you happy?

Saddam adhere to the UN? What are you saying? The UK and US twisted and manipulated things to keep the sanctions in place. People like Madeline Albright who was Secretary of State said that even if the weapons of mass destruction is destroyed or disposed of, the sactions would remain until Saddam was removed, but that is not what Resolution 687 stated, the one that put the post war sanctions on Iraq. So in essence they created the rules after the fact. That is not how an honest country such as the U.s. who is interested in justice moves about. That is the tactic of a warmonger.

[surferarmo]

worse than Saddam because we find it idiotic to kill innocent irakis for american interests? Your friend from Irak can be happy to be liberated from Saddam, and he has full right to be so. What he doesn't know is that the States don't have the prosperity of Irakis on their mind. By the way, how is Afghanistan going these days? I hear the USA has created wealth and security for the afghan people...............siiigh........

The States will bring the wonders of capitalism to Irak now? While we're at it, let's open another Disney factory in Bagdad too. I hear they've been doing wonders for the other countries in which they're placed...which 14 year old wouldn't be happy to be doing slave work for 11 cents an hour?

And if the States didn't invest their gazillions into the army to start new wars, you wouldn't have the fear of americans dying on the street (which is a groooooss exaggeration). AND FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, IF OIL IS SO TOUGH TO COME BY, WHY ARE YOU PEOPLE NOT INVESTING IN HYDROELECTRICITY AND ELECTRIC CARS???? Or would you then not need to invade a country? wouldn't that be a shame....

Baron Dants, do not think the Iraqi people to be ignorant. They know whats up. More innocent Iraqi's people would have died if we let Saddam stay into power. 5000 babies under the age of five die a month under the rule of Saddam; that is 60,000 a year. If you think that that is ok, then your morals are tiwsted. I bring up morals because you use them as the dominant motivation in your arguements. Sure, people died in this war, innocent people, and may God bless their souls, but I would rather see have seen my little brother mistakenly get shot by a Russian trying to free us from the genocide than being thrown into their air for bayonet practice! And that goes for me too. I do not fear death, I have been close to it many times, and I would make these sacrifices myself...believe me.

Also Baron, you make me sick with your self righteous attitude. You always tell me to get out of my "American mentality." I say that you should get out of your Canadian mentality. You believe that we are the blood thirsty country, out for nothing but our interests. I say the same about other countries. If you think that Canada creats policy to "save the world" and because they "care" about other people, then you are horribly mistaken and very ignoarant in stance. I KNOW that you and other countries only criticize America because we have the POWER to do what we want. Canada and other countries dont have it. If they did they would be doing the same stuff, and believe me...they are...just in different ways. Every country has its problems, I want to hear what yours are. I know that Britan has a dental problem . But seriously, you need to stop being self righteous and see that other countries are not going to war to serve THEIR interests as well. We are not in the Disney movie Robin Hood, where you play the heroic Hood, and steal from the rich to give to the poor. Who ever said the rich was bad? Did you know that for THIS gulf war, France, China, and Russia sold the largest amounts of weapons shares to Iraq? I dont think you did. The reason these "noble" countries backed out of the war is because they are customers. They did not back out of the war because are the moral people that you would like to think of them as. They didnt want to kill their customers. Everything comes down to interests.

You speak of the "evil" coroparations. Well, if you thought the "evil" Saddam was any better, you are again morally skewed.

Just a slight correction. 5000 Iraqis die every month because of UN sanctions and constant aerial bombardment. Now those numbers have skyrockets methinks.

That means 10,000 babies die each month. How said. These numbers are real folks, I dare not tell a lie.

Anon, you should have told Saddam to adhere to the UN. Then, just maybe, the embargoes would have been lifted, and the number would have only gone to 5000 babies dying a month. Would that have made you happy?

Saddam adhere to the UN? What are you saying? The UK and US twisted and manipulated things to keep the sanctions in place. People like Madeline Albright who was Secretary of State said that even if the weapons of mass destruction is destroyed or disposed of, the sactions would remain until Saddam was removed, but that is not what Resolution 687 stated, the one that put the post war sanctions on Iraq. So in essence they created the rules after the fact. That is not how an honest country such as the U.s. who is interested in justice moves about. That is the tactic of a warmonger.

He wasnt good for his country. He was totally oppressing his people. He is a dictator, and he was not ruling in the interest of this people. So he needed to leave office. The actions of an honest ruler should not be to stay in power even though he serves the interests of no one but himself. I have no problem with that rule added to the embargo. Why should we let him stay in power?

[Anonymouse]

worse than Saddam because we find it idiotic to kill innocent irakis for american interests? Your friend from Irak can be happy to be liberated from Saddam, and he has full right to be so. What he doesn't know is that the States don't have the prosperity of Irakis on their mind. By the way, how is Afghanistan going these days? I hear the USA has created wealth and security for the afghan people...............siiigh........

The States will bring the wonders of capitalism to Irak now? While we're at it, let's open another Disney factory in Bagdad too. I hear they've been doing wonders for the other countries in which they're placed...which 14 year old wouldn't be happy to be doing slave work for 11 cents an hour?

And if the States didn't invest their gazillions into the army to start new wars, you wouldn't have the fear of americans dying on the street (which is a groooooss exaggeration). AND FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, IF OIL IS SO TOUGH TO COME BY, WHY ARE YOU PEOPLE NOT INVESTING IN HYDROELECTRICITY AND ELECTRIC CARS???? Or would you then not need to invade a country? wouldn't that be a shame....

Baron Dants, do not think the Iraqi people to be ignorant. They know whats up. More innocent Iraqi's people would have died if we let Saddam stay into power. 5000 babies under the age of five die a month under the rule of Saddam; that is 60,000 a year. If you think that that is ok, then your morals are tiwsted. I bring up morals because you use them as the dominant motivation in your arguements. Sure, people died in this war, innocent people, and may God bless their souls, but I would rather see have seen my little brother mistakenly get shot by a Russian trying to free us from the genocide than being thrown into their air for bayonet practice! And that goes for me too. I do not fear death, I have been close to it many times, and I would make these sacrifices myself...believe me.

Also Baron, you make me sick with your self righteous attitude. You always tell me to get out of my "American mentality." I say that you should get out of your Canadian mentality. You believe that we are the blood thirsty country, out for nothing but our interests. I say the same about other countries. If you think that Canada creats policy to "save the world" and because they "care" about other people, then you are horribly mistaken and very ignoarant in stance. I KNOW that you and other countries only criticize America because we have the POWER to do what we want. Canada and other countries dont have it. If they did they would be doing the same stuff, and believe me...they are...just in different ways. Every country has its problems, I want to hear what yours are. I know that Britan has a dental problem . But seriously, you need to stop being self righteous and see that other countries are not going to war to serve THEIR interests as well. We are not in the Disney movie Robin Hood, where you play the heroic Hood, and steal from the rich to give to the poor. Who ever said the rich was bad? Did you know that for THIS gulf war, France, China, and Russia sold the largest amounts of weapons shares to Iraq? I dont think you did. The reason these "noble" countries backed out of the war is because they are customers. They did not back out of the war because are the moral people that you would like to think of them as. They didnt want to kill their customers. Everything comes down to interests.

You speak of the "evil" coroparations. Well, if you thought the "evil" Saddam was any better, you are again morally skewed.

Just a slight correction. 5000 Iraqis die every month because of UN sanctions and constant aerial bombardment. Now those numbers have skyrockets methinks.

That means 10,000 babies die each month. How said. These numbers are real folks, I dare not tell a lie.

Anon, you should have told Saddam to adhere to the UN. Then, just maybe, the embargoes would have been lifted, and the number would have only gone to 5000 babies dying a month. Would that have made you happy?

Saddam adhere to the UN? What are you saying? The UK and US twisted and manipulated things to keep the sanctions in place. People like Madeline Albright who was Secretary of State said that even if the weapons of mass destruction is destroyed or disposed of, the sactions would remain until Saddam was removed, but that is not what Resolution 687 stated, the one that put the post war sanctions on Iraq. So in essence they created the rules after the fact. That is not how an honest country such as the U.s. who is interested in justice moves about. That is the tactic of a warmonger.

He wasnt good for his country. He was totally oppressing his people. He is a dictator, and he was not ruling in the interest of this people. So he needed to leave office. The actions of an honest ruler should not be to stay in power even though he serves the interests of no one but himself. I have no problem with that rule added to the embargo. Why should we let him stay in power?

Actually, on the contrary. Under his leadership Iraq had the highest literacy rate ever. The hospitals were functioning. Health care was provided for the majority of the people. Public education was in full effect. He did very good things. Of course this was reported in a non corporate magazine called Z-Magazine. But then the sanctions came and obliterated the country.

The assertions that Saddam is evil and oppresses are true but to what degree? I trust non corporate non-US media first as that is the majority opinion as opposed to simply hearing U.S. Judeo-corporate opinion. Sure he killed Kurds and was a dictator, but then what about Suharto of Indonesia? He was roughly the same thing yet he was praised by Clinton and he murdered way more of his people than Saddam did. Why the double standards?

Your assertion that because Saddam is evil ( which is a matter of opinion because if you ask Iraqis they will praise him ), and that was a necessity for war is fallacious.

[surferarmo]

worse than Saddam because we find it idiotic to kill innocent irakis for american interests? Your friend from Irak can be happy to be liberated from Saddam, and he has full right to be so. What he doesn't know is that the States don't have the prosperity of Irakis on their mind. By the way, how is Afghanistan going these days? I hear the USA has created wealth and security for the afghan people...............siiigh........

The States will bring the wonders of capitalism to Irak now? While we're at it, let's open another Disney factory in Bagdad too. I hear they've been doing wonders for the other countries in which they're placed...which 14 year old wouldn't be happy to be doing slave work for 11 cents an hour?

And if the States didn't invest their gazillions into the army to start new wars, you wouldn't have the fear of americans dying on the street (which is a groooooss exaggeration). AND FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, IF OIL IS SO TOUGH TO COME BY, WHY ARE YOU PEOPLE NOT INVESTING IN HYDROELECTRICITY AND ELECTRIC CARS???? Or would you then not need to invade a country? wouldn't that be a shame....

Baron Dants, do not think the Iraqi people to be ignorant. They know whats up. More innocent Iraqi's people would have died if we let Saddam stay into power. 5000 babies under the age of five die a month under the rule of Saddam; that is 60,000 a year. If you think that that is ok, then your morals are tiwsted. I bring up morals because you use them as the dominant motivation in your arguements. Sure, people died in this war, innocent people, and may God bless their souls, but I would rather see have seen my little brother mistakenly get shot by a Russian trying to free us from the genocide than being thrown into their air for bayonet practice! And that goes for me too. I do not fear death, I have been close to it many times, and I would make these sacrifices myself...believe me.

Also Baron, you make me sick with your self righteous attitude. You always tell me to get out of my "American mentality." I say that you should get out of your Canadian mentality. You believe that we are the blood thirsty country, out for nothing but our interests. I say the same about other countries. If you think that Canada creats policy to "save the world" and because they "care" about other people, then you are horribly mistaken and very ignoarant in stance. I KNOW that you and other countries only criticize America because we have the POWER to do what we want. Canada and other countries dont have it. If they did they would be doing the same stuff, and believe me...they are...just in different ways. Every country has its problems, I want to hear what yours are. I know that Britan has a dental problem . But seriously, you need to stop being self righteous and see that other countries are not going to war to serve THEIR interests as well. We are not in the Disney movie Robin Hood, where you play the heroic Hood, and steal from the rich to give to the poor. Who ever said the rich was bad? Did you know that for THIS gulf war, France, China, and Russia sold the largest amounts of weapons shares to Iraq? I dont think you did. The reason these "noble" countries backed out of the war is because they are customers. They did not back out of the war because are the moral people that you would like to think of them as. They didnt want to kill their customers. Everything comes down to interests.

You speak of the "evil" coroparations. Well, if you thought the "evil" Saddam was any better, you are again morally skewed.

Just a slight correction. 5000 Iraqis die every month because of UN sanctions and constant aerial bombardment. Now those numbers have skyrockets methinks.

That means 10,000 babies die each month. How said. These numbers are real folks, I dare not tell a lie.

Anon, you should have told Saddam to adhere to the UN. Then, just maybe, the embargoes would have been lifted, and the number would have only gone to 5000 babies dying a month. Would that have made you happy?

Saddam adhere to the UN? What are you saying? The UK and US twisted and manipulated things to keep the sanctions in place. People like Madeline Albright who was Secretary of State said that even if the weapons of mass destruction is destroyed or disposed of, the sactions would remain until Saddam was removed, but that is not what Resolution 687 stated, the one that put the post war sanctions on Iraq. So in essence they created the rules after the fact. That is not how an honest country such as the U.s. who is interested in justice moves about. That is the tactic of a warmonger.

He wasnt good for his country. He was totally oppressing his people. He is a dictator, and he was not ruling in the interest of this people. So he needed to leave office. The actions of an honest ruler should not be to stay in power even though he serves the interests of no one but himself. I have no problem with that rule added to the embargo. Why should we let him stay in power?

Actually, on the contrary. Under his leadership Iraq had the highest literacy rate ever. The hospitals were functioning. Health care was provided for the majority of the people. Public education was in full effect. He did very good things. Of course this was reported in a non corporate magazine called Z-Magazine. But then the sanctions came and obliterated the country.

The assertions that Saddam is evil and oppresses are true but to what degree? I trust non corporate non-US media first as that is the majority opinion as opposed to simply hearing U.S. Judeo-corporate opinion. Sure he killed Kurds and was a dictator, but then what about Suharto of Indonesia? He was roughly the same thing yet he was praised by Clinton and he murdered way more of his people than Saddam did. Why the double standards?

Your assertion that because Saddam is evil ( which is a matter of opinion because if you ask Iraqis they will praise him ), and that was a necessity for war is fallacious.

You should ask Bill Clinton why there was a double standard. Did Indonesia threaten the US? Did they express hatred toward America? What wwere those children reading in those school in Iraq? They were singing anthems to the dictator, being brain washed by anit-westernization books. The schools were quite militant.

Though those magazines are non-corporate, they still have a business to run...

Let me ask you then: Since you oppose the war on Iraq, what do you think we should have done with Saddam? How do you think we should have approached the problem? You told me in a couple of posts that Saddam is an evil man, and is a "psycopath," so it is obvious that a civilized meeting could not have done much.

[Anonymouse]

worse than Saddam because we find it idiotic to kill innocent irakis for american interests? Your friend from Irak can be happy to be liberated from Saddam, and he has full right to be so. What he doesn't know is that the States don't have the prosperity of Irakis on their mind. By the way, how is Afghanistan going these days? I hear the USA has created wealth and security for the afghan people...............siiigh........

The States will bring the wonders of capitalism to Irak now? While we're at it, let's open another Disney factory in Bagdad too. I hear they've been doing wonders for the other countries in which they're placed...which 14 year old wouldn't be happy to be doing slave work for 11 cents an hour?

And if the States didn't invest their gazillions into the army to start new wars, you wouldn't have the fear of americans dying on the street (which is a groooooss exaggeration). AND FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, IF OIL IS SO TOUGH TO COME BY, WHY ARE YOU PEOPLE NOT INVESTING IN HYDROELECTRICITY AND ELECTRIC CARS???? Or would you then not need to invade a country? wouldn't that be a shame....

Baron Dants, do not think the Iraqi people to be ignorant. They know whats up. More innocent Iraqi's people would have died if we let Saddam stay into power. 5000 babies under the age of five die a month under the rule of Saddam; that is 60,000 a year. If you think that that is ok, then your morals are tiwsted. I bring up morals because you use them as the dominant motivation in your arguements. Sure, people died in this war, innocent people, and may God bless their souls, but I would rather see have seen my little brother mistakenly get shot by a Russian trying to free us from the genocide than being thrown into their air for bayonet practice! And that goes for me too. I do not fear death, I have been close to it many times, and I would make these sacrifices myself...believe me.

Also Baron, you make me sick with your self righteous attitude. You always tell me to get out of my "American mentality." I say that you should get out of your Canadian mentality. You believe that we are the blood thirsty country, out for nothing but our interests. I say the same about other countries. If you think that Canada creats policy to "save the world" and because they "care" about other people, then you are horribly mistaken and very ignoarant in stance. I KNOW that you and other countries only criticize America because we have the POWER to do what we want. Canada and other countries dont have it. If they did they would be doing the same stuff, and believe me...they are...just in different ways. Every country has its problems, I want to hear what yours are. I know that Britan has a dental problem . But seriously, you need to stop being self righteous and see that other countries are not going to war to serve THEIR interests as well. We are not in the Disney movie Robin Hood, where you play the heroic Hood, and steal from the rich to give to the poor. Who ever said the rich was bad? Did you know that for THIS gulf war, France, China, and Russia sold the largest amounts of weapons shares to Iraq? I dont think you did. The reason these "noble" countries backed out of the war is because they are customers. They did not back out of the war because are the moral people that you would like to think of them as. They didnt want to kill their customers. Everything comes down to interests.

You speak of the "evil" coroparations. Well, if you thought the "evil" Saddam was any better, you are again morally skewed.

Just a slight correction. 5000 Iraqis die every month because of UN sanctions and constant aerial bombardment. Now those numbers have skyrockets methinks.

That means 10,000 babies die each month. How said. These numbers are real folks, I dare not tell a lie.

Anon, you should have told Saddam to adhere to the UN. Then, just maybe, the embargoes would have been lifted, and the number would have only gone to 5000 babies dying a month. Would that have made you happy?

Saddam adhere to the UN? What are you saying? The UK and US twisted and manipulated things to keep the sanctions in place. People like Madeline Albright who was Secretary of State said that even if the weapons of mass destruction is destroyed or disposed of, the sactions would remain until Saddam was removed, but that is not what Resolution 687 stated, the one that put the post war sanctions on Iraq. So in essence they created the rules after the fact. That is not how an honest country such as the U.s. who is interested in justice moves about. That is the tactic of a warmonger.

He wasnt good for his country. He was totally oppressing his people. He is a dictator, and he was not ruling in the interest of this people. So he needed to leave office. The actions of an honest ruler should not be to stay in power even though he serves the interests of no one but himself. I have no problem with that rule added to the embargo. Why should we let him stay in power?

Actually, on the contrary. Under his leadership Iraq had the highest literacy rate ever. The hospitals were functioning. Health care was provided for the majority of the people. Public education was in full effect. He did very good things. Of course this was reported in a non corporate magazine called Z-Magazine. But then the sanctions came and obliterated the country.

The assertions that Saddam is evil and oppresses are true but to what degree? I trust non corporate non-US media first as that is the majority opinion as opposed to simply hearing U.S. Judeo-corporate opinion. Sure he killed Kurds and was a dictator, but then what about Suharto of Indonesia? He was roughly the same thing yet he was praised by Clinton and he murdered way more of his people than Saddam did. Why the double standards?

Your assertion that because Saddam is evil ( which is a matter of opinion because if you ask Iraqis they will praise him ), and that was a necessity for war is fallacious.

You should ask Bill Clinton why there was a double standard. Did Indonesia threaten the US? Did they express hatred toward America? What wwere those children reading in those school in Iraq? They were singing anthems to the dictator, being brain washed by anit-westernization books. The schools were quite militant.

Though those magazines are non-corporate, they still have a business to run...

Let me ask you then: Since you oppose the war on Iraq, what do you think we should have done with Saddam? How do you think we should have approached the problem? You told me in a couple of posts that Saddam is an evil man, and is a "psycopath," so it is obvious that a civilized meeting could not have done much.

So much unsubstantation assertions you have in your post, it's scary. So because someone doesn't like the U.S. we have to attack them? That means we have to attack the whole Middle East and North Korea, Africa, south America? Alot of places don't like the U.S. And when did Iraq openly threaten the U.S.? I don't remember such a thing. North Korea did, but who did we bomb? Iraq. You even contradict the claims the government gave for going in this war.

What evidence do you have that the schools were militant? If a country is making progress towards the better, without being plunged in exhorbitant interests rates by U.S. banks or somehow enslaved to U.S. policy, then they are automatically somehow invalid in whatever they achieve without the U.S. Only the U.S. can bring eternal bliss to the ailment of nations. They can never do it alone, and if they attempt, how dare they. Right? Mind you that it was the U.S. who decided Iraq was our enemy back in the Gulf War, not the other way around.

No one questions whether the magazines have a business to run, the point is they report news far more accurate than the U.S. Judeo corporate media that is why they are hush hush and not allowed any air time. So much for freedom of the press when Judeo corporate outlets have monopolied the whole system. You attempting to defend the U.S. media shows how much your argument relies on what you want to defend to the bitter end, as opposed to dealing with the obvious media bias. The rest of the world reports something different from U.S. media.

You speak of Saddam like he was armageddon. He made NO threat to the U.S. He was not a problem to begin with. His country was in shambles from the sanctions and the children were dying in great numbers as you yourself admitted. What threat could he possibly have been? The problem was with North Korea. Why not deal with an actual threat? Your republican bias disallows you to see that the Jewish Neo-cons are running the show here, yet admitting to their power in other threads, aligned with big oil and Israel they make whatever rules are necessary.

[xBaron Dants]

When I said xxxx HOLE i did not mean physical housing or cars or any other material bullxxxx. I meant xxxxhole as in living in fear, no water, unpaved roads, xxxxed up economy. You must be greedy to think that all I am talking about here is physical property and stake.

Jahannam, you can not take an opposing point of view. It seems you all have problems with people who dissagree with you. Please be more open minded. Now, I will totally accept the fact, if it is PROVEN, that there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. They were used in kuwait, and in other places; therefore, they do exist somwhere. OK they havent found them, I know that. But you are stubborn in your refusal to admit that they HAVE been used. They are somwhere, they do not just dissapear.

ANd please I am looking for the answer from someone. Everyone here has claimed Saddam a psychopath. What do you think we should have done with him? It is obvious we couldnt have a meeting with the guy, he would have killed everyone, maybe even himself. Yes you are defending him. I mean, how could you live more secure life with someone like that ruling your land. Yes I would rather die twice than live in a mansion on northshore living in fear of death by the hands of an extremely corrupt ruler. So what do you propose we should have done with him?

Correction: Irakis have been deprived of water only SINCE the american attacks. Oh, and freeing all prisoners from Baghdad jails was quite a bright idea also maybe, just MAAAYBE not all of them were imprisoned for speaking against Saddam....

As for what should have been done..maybe had the UN and the US had a talk with both Irak and Koweit, where Koweit would promise to stick to their oil production quotas, things would've been different. But of course, that wouldn't serve your interests as much as enforcing an embargo which kills thousands of children every year.

I also consider Bush just as dangerous as Saddam was. Just because he doesn't scream out "death to the Middle East" doesn't mean innocent people won't die because of him.

Now that I answered your question, please answer the one I asked a while ago. Have you ever tried to find a reason showing WHY many muslims hate you so much?

[surferarmo]

When I said xxxx HOLE i did not mean physical housing or cars or any other material bullxxxx. I meant xxxxhole as in living in fear, no water, unpaved roads, xxxxed up economy. You must be greedy to think that all I am talking about here is physical property and stake.

Jahannam, you can not take an opposing point of view. It seems you all have problems with people who dissagree with you. Please be more open minded. Now, I will totally accept the fact, if it is PROVEN, that there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. They were used in kuwait, and in other places; therefore, they do exist somwhere. OK they havent found them, I know that. But you are stubborn in your refusal to admit that they HAVE been used. They are somwhere, they do not just dissapear.

ANd please I am looking for the answer from someone. Everyone here has claimed Saddam a psychopath. What do you think we should have done with him? It is obvious we couldnt have a meeting with the guy, he would have killed everyone, maybe even himself. Yes you are defending him. I mean, how could you live more secure life with someone like that ruling your land. Yes I would rather die twice than live in a mansion on northshore living in fear of death by the hands of an extremely corrupt ruler. So what do you propose we should have done with him?

Correction: Irakis have been deprived of water only SINCE the american attacks. Oh, and freeing all prisoners from Baghdad jails was quite a bright idea also maybe, just MAAAYBE not all of them were imprisoned for speaking against Saddam....

As for what should have been done..maybe had the UN and the US had a talk with both Irak and Koweit, where Koweit would promise to stick to their oil production quotas, things would've been different. But of course, that wouldn't serve your interests as much as enforcing an embargo which kills thousands of children every year.

I also consider Bush just as dangerous as Saddam was. Just because he doesn't scream out "death to the Middle East" doesn't mean innocent people won't die because of him.

Now that I answered your question, please answer the one I asked a while ago. Have you ever tried to find a reason showing WHY many muslims hate you so much?

Muslims in the mid-east to hate us. That is a common fact, maybe it isnt true for all, but it is for most. I think Saddam, and Osama was making a mockery of these nations and of Arab people. I do not hate these people, nor am I racist. I just believe they hate us for reasons different than they say.

You never asked why we have distress with them Baron. Why do you only see it one way? You conceptualize the mid-east as the victims and the US as the intruder. You polarize it to the extremes. It doesnt work that way. They hate us because they are jealous. They want to take over and make everyone Muslim. The infidel, as they call us, is an obvious indicator of hatred. When they bombed and killed 5000 civilians in the WTC do you think I am going to sit down with them and ask why they did that? NO. They got a civilian target...knowingly. I dont stress the pentagon that much because it was a military target. Although I do care about the people in those buildings, that target being hit was more understandible. The people who endorse terrorism are sick. How can that be denied? I am serious. THey dont like us because they want something they dont have. They say we are greedy, and selfish, and they put themselves on a pedastool thinking they are the righteous country in the land. Bullxxxx. Women are beaten, people are tortured, houses burned all in the name of the Koran.

Now I told you before, and only minimal observation would point this out. All we have seen are the extremeists. Where are the moderates? I have not heard anyone from the middle east say that the practices of Osama and Saddam are not mainstream Muslim faith. If you can find one printed source, then tell me what it is. It needs to clearly illustrate that the terror extremists are a minority. I dont care if 10 Muslims say they are moderate, they are the exception, the rest hate us, and want us dead. I will not another building get burned.

If there are any moderates, they are not able to speak up maybe because of fear of retribution. Just an example of the government they live in. As far as I am concerned, the majority are what we call extremeists, who hate us because they have less resources, and they use the respectful Koran to back it up. And I refuse to ask someone why they hate us and implement an approach that shows the acceptance, and makes OK the tactics of bombing buildings with innocent civilians in them.

What do you think those children felt when their moms and dads didnt come home from work that day?

[jahannam]

They hate us because they are jealous. They want to take over and make everyone Muslim. The infidel, as they call us, is an obvious indicator of hatred. When they bombed and killed 5000 civilians in the WTC do you think I am going to sit down with them and ask why they did that? NO. They got a civilian target...knowingly.

after all that wait... all we get from you is "because they're jealous"??
lets see... so is that the reason France and Spain and Russia and Korea and Morocco and ALL those other countries hate us?
cuz they're jealous?
come on Surfer... I thought you knew better...
and yet another correction.... it wasn't "5000" civilians... in the beginning they threw in a number like 10,000 or something and after they were done looking all "feel bad for us... we lost souls"...and after they were done with all the accusations and everything... it turned out the numbers were barely 3000..
well isn't that sad...
you need to go through some history books surferboy just to compare those numbers with other so called "terrorist" act numbers...
and I don't know why you're stressing about "civilian targets..knowingly"
no one said it was unknowingly.. I mean if you were to attack your enemy... would you bomb some random desert in the coutry? lol
ya... anyway.. i would love to go on and on but I'm starving... gotta go get lunch...my stomach's saying In n Out

[Anonymouse]

Muslims in the mid-east to hate us. That is a common fact, maybe it isnt true for all, but it is for most. I think Saddam, and Osama was making a mockery of these nations and of Arab people. I do not hate these people, nor am I racist. I just believe they hate us for reasons different than they say.

First off, there is no link between Osama and Saddam and none has ever been established which makes me question why you state it here and now as some sort of an established fact. Secondly the only reason the Muslims in the mid-east hate us is not becuase they are "jealous" which is in itself a silly answer. The conservative elements have a way of trying to make the world into a morally unambiguous conflict of good and evil. We are "good" and they are "evil" because they hate us and are jealous. No, the reason they hate us is because of our support for Israel which uses American tax dollars and weapons to kill Muslims. They hate us because we constantly intervene in the middle East bombing their lands, homes, schools and hospitals, in essence killing them.

What puzzles me is no conservatives ever ask the question of why they hate us and they never look for an answer short of "they are jealous". That is being a critical nor analytical thinker.

You never asked why we have distress with them Baron. Why do you only see it one way? You conceptualize the mid-east as the victims and the US as the intruder. You polarize it to the extremes. It doesnt work that way. They hate us because they are jealous. They want to take over and make everyone Muslim. The infidel, as they call us, is an obvious indicator of hatred. When they bombed and killed 5000 civilians in the WTC do you think I am going to sit down with them and ask why they did that? NO. They got a civilian target...knowingly. I dont stress the pentagon that much because it was a military target. Although I do care about the people in those buildings, that target being hit was more understandible. The people who endorse terrorism are sick. How can that be denied? I am serious. THey dont like us because they want something they dont have. They say we are greedy, and selfish, and they put themselves on a pedastool thinking they are the righteous country in the land. Bullxxxx. Women are beaten, people are tortured, houses burned all in the name of the Koran.

Actually the U.S. is the intruder in that region since it is meddling in their affairs, and bombing their people for the self interest of a select few and of course Israel. The survival of Israel requires that there exist no Islamic power in the region and therefore all Islamic states must be kept in check. If the U.S. is not the intruder, then I am to guess that Republican methodology portrays the U.S. as the savior?

As for the WTC, there is no evidence that Osama bin laden was behind it. You sit here and make an unsubstantiated assertion to the general Muslim population and say "they did it" and offer no evidence. Sure there were muslim names recovered after the tragedy but the media never said that half of the names mentioned were people who lived in the Middle East and why on earth were their identities being used here? You forget that it was the FBI and CIA who funded and trained these same terrorists, who were also in charge of trying to blow up the WTC in 93, and one FBI agent by the name of John Anticev comes to mind who helped give them the supplies necessary and the funding.

The people who endorse terrorism are indeed sick and you should look no further than the U.S.A. which in essence started the whole war on terrorism as the terrorists themselves are a by product of U.S. thinking and ingenuity. Put the blame where it ought to be. It's easier to believe in the George Bush explanation of "Why they hate us?" and more comforting, as they resent our "freedom" and "democracy" and the cultural failings. What this ignores is that Islam once had a golden age. The present Algebra is an invention of Islam. Our number system is from Islam. When much of the world was in the dark ages, and certainly Europe, Islam was the world power connecting distant lands through trade and knowledge. They developed trigonometry. They made more accurate maps of latitude and longitude and knew before anyone that the earth was not flat. The Persian Omar Khayyam developed a calendar so reliable that over 500 years it was off by only one day. Of course all this is ignored and never mentioned because they are "jealous" and "hate us".

Now I told you before, and only minimal observation would point this out. All we have seen are the extremeists. Where are the moderates? I have not heard anyone from the middle east say that the practices of Osama and Saddam are not mainstream Muslim faith. If you can find one printed source, then tell me what it is. It needs to clearly illustrate that the terror extremists are a minority. I dont care if 10 Muslims say they are moderate, they are the exception, the rest hate us, and want us dead. I will not another building get burned.

Again this goes back to the fundamentals which I mentioned up top. There are reasons why they hate us. Nothing is without justification or provocation. If you cannot accept this on its face value, then you are trying too hard to believe in the reasons offered by FOX news.

If there are any moderates, they are not able to speak up maybe because of fear of retribution. Just an example of the government they live in. As far as I am concerned, the majority are what we call extremeists, who hate us because they have less resources, and they use the respectful Koran to back it up. And I refuse to ask someone why they hate us and implement an approach that shows the acceptance, and makes OK the tactics of bombing buildings with innocent civilians in them.

What do you think those children felt when their moms and dads didnt come home from work that day?

What you are in essence saying is because they hate us and they are extremists we should destroy them. Nevermind that you and others who defend the American imperialistic campaign of death and destruction on innocent people without any evidence that the were involved in WTC bombings, or possessing weapons of mass destruction. By that logic other countries have a right to destroy us because we are hateful of anyone who doesnt comply or adhere to U.S. standards and we ourselves have chickenhawk extremists like Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfowitz, the latter two being Jews in key positions. Perle is also a dual citizen of Israel. Why is such a person allowed to hold office? Where do you think his ultimate loyalty lies?

Quite frankly, I am tired of the regurgiated unsubstantiated assertions used to make headway for a 'case for war'. There has been no evidence that the government can offer to the UN or the world, other than doctored papers, what makes you think you have any that justifies an illegal war, curtailing the constitution and international law? This thread should either produce more fruitful results or else it is a trip down the road of circular logic where no progress has been made.

Again let us reiterate some basic ideas. There is no evidence that Osama bin Laden was behind 9-11. There is no evidence that Iraq was behind 9-11. There is no evidence that Iraq has any weapons of mass destruction. There is no evidence that Iraq threatened the U.S. with any weapons of mass destruction. It used to be that all we heard was Osama. Now it is Iraq and Saddam and that miscellanous and mythical link has been established between Saddam and bin Laden, mind you without any evidence as usual. Unsubstantiated assertions are merely that. The onus or the burden of proof lies on those who assert the claims and 'facts', not the other way around. Those who state their case must provide evidence. That is the way it works everywhere in all legal systems. You don't have to like it, that is the way it is.

[surferarmo]

Muslims in the mid-east to hate us. That is a common fact, maybe it isnt true for all, but it is for most. I think Saddam, and Osama was making a mockery of these nations and of Arab people. I do not hate these people, nor am I racist. I just believe they hate us for reasons different than they say.

First off, there is no link between Osama and Saddam and none has ever been established which makes me question why you state it here and now as some sort of an established fact. Secondly the only reason the Muslims in the mid-east hate us is not becuase they are "jealous" which is in itself a silly answer. The conservative elements have a way of trying to make the world into a morally unambiguous conflict of good and evil. We are "good" and they are "evil" because they hate us and are jealous. No, the reason they hate us is because of our support for Israel which uses American tax dollars and weapons to kill Muslims. They hate us because we constantly intervene in the middle East bombing their lands, homes, schools and hospitals, in essence killing them.

What puzzles me is no conservatives ever ask the question of why they hate us and they never look for an answer short of "they are jealous". That is being a critical nor analytical thinker.

You never asked why we have distress with them Baron. Why do you only see it one way? You conceptualize the mid-east as the victims and the US as the intruder. You polarize it to the extremes. It doesnt work that way. They hate us because they are jealous. They want to take over and make everyone Muslim. The infidel, as they call us, is an obvious indicator of hatred. When they bombed and killed 5000 civilians in the WTC do you think I am going to sit down with them and ask why they did that? NO. They got a civilian target...knowingly. I dont stress the pentagon that much because it was a military target. Although I do care about the people in those buildings, that target being hit was more understandible. The people who endorse terrorism are sick. How can that be denied? I am serious. THey dont like us because they want something they dont have. They say we are greedy, and selfish, and they put themselves on a pedastool thinking they are the righteous country in the land. Bullxxxx. Women are beaten, people are tortured, houses burned all in the name of the Koran.

Actually the U.S. is the intruder in that region since it is meddling in their affairs, and bombing their people for the self interest of a select few and of course Israel. The survival of Israel requires that there exist no Islamic power in the region and therefore all Islamic states must be kept in check. If the U.S. is not the intruder, then I am to guess that Republican methodology portrays the U.S. as the savior?

As for the WTC, there is no evidence that Osama bin laden was behind it. You sit here and make an unsubstantiated assertion to the general Muslim population and say "they did it" and offer no evidence. Sure there were muslim names recovered after the tragedy but the media never said that half of the names mentioned were people who lived in the Middle East and why on earth were their identities being used here? You forget that it was the FBI and CIA who funded and trained these same terrorists, who were also in charge of trying to blow up the WTC in 93, and one FBI agent by the name of John Anticev comes to mind who helped give them the supplies necessary and the funding.

The people who endorse terrorism are indeed sick and you should look no further than the U.S.A. which in essence started the whole war on terrorism as the terrorists themselves are a by product of U.S. thinking and ingenuity. Put the blame where it ought to be. It's easier to believe in the George Bush explanation of "Why they hate us?" and more comforting, as they resent our "freedom" and "democracy" and the cultural failings. What this ignores is that Islam once had a golden age. The present Algebra is an invention of Islam. Our number system is from Islam. When much of the world was in the dark ages, and certainly Europe, Islam was the world power connecting distant lands through trade and knowledge. They developed trigonometry. They made more accurate maps of latitude and longitude and knew before anyone that the earth was not flat. The Persian Omar Khayyam developed a calendar so reliable that over 500 years it was off by only one day. Of course all this is ignored and never mentioned because they are "jealous" and "hate us".

Now I told you before, and only minimal observation would point this out. All we have seen are the extremeists. Where are the moderates? I have not heard anyone from the middle east say that the practices of Osama and Saddam are not mainstream Muslim faith. If you can find one printed source, then tell me what it is. It needs to clearly illustrate that the terror extremists are a minority. I dont care if 10 Muslims say they are moderate, they are the exception, the rest hate us, and want us dead. I will not another building get burned.

Again this goes back to the fundamentals which I mentioned up top. There are reasons why they hate us. Nothing is without justification or provocation. If you cannot accept this on its face value, then you are trying too hard to believe in the reasons offered by FOX news.

If there are any moderates, they are not able to speak up maybe because of fear of retribution. Just an example of the government they live in. As far as I am concerned, the majority are what we call extremeists, who hate us because they have less resources, and they use the respectful Koran to back it up. And I refuse to ask someone why they hate us and implement an approach that shows the acceptance, and makes OK the tactics of bombing buildings with innocent civilians in them.

What do you think those children felt when their moms and dads didnt come home from work that day?

What you are in essence saying is because they hate us and they are extremists we should destroy them. Nevermind that you and others who defend the American imperialistic campaign of death and destruction on innocent people without any evidence that the were involved in WTC bombings, or possessing weapons of mass destruction. By that logic other countries have a right to destroy us because we are hateful of anyone who doesnt comply or adhere to U.S. standards and we ourselves have chickenhawk extremists like Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfowitz, the latter two being Jews in key positions. Perle is also a dual citizen of Israel. Why is such a person allowed to hold office? Where do you think his ultimate loyalty lies?

Quite frankly, I am tired of the regurgiated unsubstantiated assertions used to make headway for a 'case for war'. There has been no evidence that the government can offer to the UN or the world, other than doctored papers, what makes you think you have any that justifies an illegal war, curtailing the constitution and international law? This thread should either produce more fruitful results or else it is a trip down the road of circular logic where no progress has been made.

Again let us reiterate some basic ideas. There is no evidence that Osama bin Laden was behind 9-11. There is no evidence that Iraq was behind 9-11. There is no evidence that Iraq has any weapons of mass destruction. There is no evidence that Iraq threatened the U.S. with any weapons of mass destruction. It used to be that all we heard was Osama. Now it is Iraq and Saddam and that miscellanous and mythical link has been established between Saddam and bin Laden, mind you without any evidence as usual. Unsubstantiated assertions are merely that. The onus or the burden of proof lies on those who assert the claims and 'facts', not the other way around. Those who state their case must provide evidence. That is the way it works everywhere in all legal systems. You don't have to like it, that is the way it is.

And the the liberals constantly conceptualize the rest of the world as good, and us as evil. This arguement can go both ways and would last a life time. You never got to my question stated earlier. You think it is ok for a ruler to go and kill his own people, and gain power through means of aquiring territory? You obviously dont think imperialism is ok, and you constantly criticise the US for that, yet there have been no assertions of actually taking over a territory and keeping for ourselves. That said, what do you think we should have done with Saddam? Just left another Stalin figure go about and eventually amass to something great that could get us later?