Ah so it was America who invaded kuwait in the early nineties to grab 10% of the world's oil supplies! Now it all makes sense!

Please read MY Propaganda Matrix and i'm sure all disputes will dissolve like sugar in water. :p :rolleyes:

I think Mel Gibson plays a wonderful assasin, but I would personally wished that Nicole Kidman saving my life than julia roberts.

(in case you guys don't know, I am talking about conspiracy theory - the movie .. :) .... )

Love every post, wished they were more. Keep them coming.

That movie was vastly underated. Patrick Stewart should really play more evil characters. And it has the most wonderful line-

Stewart Prepares Sodium Pentethol Injection
Gibson (restrained) ... what is that?
Stewart: Gravy for the brain... :)
Gibson: No Gravy! No Gravy!

Who invaded Kuwait? Saddam. Who made Saddam? enough said.

Yes, Saddam was being injected by US intelligence and some arab US allies the ideas to 'take back' Kuwait, and this arrogance came out to him after boosting him against Iran.
Again I tell you, the US completed the play by saying innocently the usual: we are not committed in anyway to defend Kuwait. ha.

Come on do they think people are that dumb???

YES THE FIRST GULF WAR IS A SCENE PREPARED AND PLAYED BY THE US ADMINISTRATION. I SAY IT OUT LOUD. READ HISTORY.
Who funded it? most of the countries in the world. Who helped the US? even arab countries. who ate the whole pie? the US. they settled in the Gulf, orchestrating huge weapons deals, boosting their own economy, and staying there virtually forever. Now the second phase of the war comes to create an American base in the heart of both Asia and the Middle East while swallowing its oil and economy.

You're making fun of the conspiracy theory? so this scenario is unlikely, and you would rather believe the other saint scenario, fighting for the free world, wanting to settle a democracy (yeah right) and preventing a danger from a starving country? are you really serious???? excuse me but I can't help but laugh.

you're giving me Britannica as your truth supplier? yeah sure.. now it all makes sense.
I can't believe you don't make an effort to read behind the apparent events.

Tiger, how did you find arrogant qualities in me? if so, Im sorry I made you feel so. But again I tell you, in case I stick to my beliefs, it's just because, at least to me, they all make sense. You can't ask me to believe the sun rises from the west when I see it rising form the east every morning.

Theoretically though....

Do you have any idea how paranoid you sound with you unplausable and irrational ideas? And I don't think you're arrogant becuase you stick to your beliefs, I think you're arrogan because you are talking down to those of us who have beliefs different than yours, and who "aren't as well educated" (pick up on the sarcasm?)

Do you have any idea how they are litteraly manipulating you so you sincerely believe in what you believe?

unplausable and irrational ideas? well this prove how informed you are.

If you wanna call it arrogance, let it be. I can simply call it arrogance from your side too to just say so.

Im NOT talking down to anyone here, unless you're being paranoid yourself about it. Im simply explaining and defending things that are so clear to me and to millions of other well aware people.

Hey. I find this whole thing to be biased. Nature boy, you think that you are more collected and thus educated than me because you read different stories and obviously think your an intellectual. I find your general "You should know better" attitude particularly offensive. You ARE talking down to the people not on your side.
Everyone knows that this is about oil.
You can't tell me Kuwait didn't benefit from the US in the Middle East. It is one of the richest places in the world.
Saddam treats his people like shit and we all know it. Despite the government controlled census, most people in Iraq live in fear. They cannot say anything against the government. UN scientists can't even talk to local scientists without interference from the government, or indirect influence as in they fear for their families if they do talk to UN officials. This is documented by your hero the UN, not the US. This is not fabricated. Saddam is mistreating his people.
Perspective: You walk down the street and see a bully beating up another kid. Do you walk by, not say anything, or do you respond. By your responces, you'd say to yourself "Screw him, at least it's not me."
And North Korea? North Korea, in my opinion, (see that, opinion) is trying to take the heat off of Iraq because they are like minded countries. They are, in fact, allies against the US.
Saddam is an asshole who we should have stomped in the first war. Don't say that we couldn't have, we were 50 miles from thier capital when we turned around. That is documented FACT.
Oh, and George Bush has a high approval rating. Not sure of the exact numbers, but it is more than 60%. I think its mid seventies. I am not making this up. Watch the news.
We are also being backed by almost all countries. Just cause 3 won't, that doesn't mean nobody does. There is a lot of support for kicking Saddams ass out of Iraq. Even neighboring Middle Eastern countries are telling Saddam to leave. They don't want him there either.
The guy is a thorn in the foot, time we remove it. Otherwise it'll just fester and boil and get worse.

Oh and just cause I quote him doesn't mean he's my friend. Next thing I'll say I'm German (I am) and you'll say I'm a facist (I'm not). Root around for some respect.
And if we were all naked, the argument would be over. Nobody likes arguing when thier exposed and cold.

Fickle has made some very consice statements that, lets face it, hold water.

Do you have an idea how paranoid that makes you sound?

There's that arrogance I was talking about (and it's not even the worst case in this thread)...that is talking down to me and you can't say it's not.

You and I aren't talking about the same thing, when I'm talking about your arrogance, I'm talking about when you say you read from so many sources and assume I do not. I'm talking about when you say Europe is better than the US because they don't want to attack. I'm talking about when you assume you are more educated than us US citizens. Thats what I'm talking about. I am NOT talking about you defending your beliefs.

Please, everyone trying to discuss here. You're moving around the point, and this is not making things more interesting or solid on your side. again it's very easy to say: hey you're biased. I can say that, as well a 5 year old kid. and it's not an intelligent answer too. You're charging me again of showing off Im more educated bla bla bla. can't you come up with something new? I already answered that. Im simply trying to explain what I believe in, and Im not forcing you to believe in anything. Im just stating ideas.
Keep in mind, you are not better in having the same attitude you are whining about.

I wonder who benefited from whom. Kuwait may have pushed back Iraq, right; but again who made Saddam and played the whole scene?
Let's talk plain facts: If the aftermath of the whole operation makes the US army settle in the middle east -middle Asia, which is very strategical against Iran and the other boys, and in the same time you're not even paying for it, and in the same time you're, because of that, dictating the Gulf policy, well if after all this you STILL believe the US is innocently defending Kuwait from an 'enemy' who invaded it, well I can't say no more. Im trying to show you something extremely obvious, but you would never want to get convinced. Fine it's up to you, but I can't hear such comments without replying or at least laughing.

That's not new. not me at least. But I ask you again. why did the US create Saddam? you think they are so dumb to say: oops.. look what I've done.. I created a monster. No my friend, otherwise you're underestimating the US administration who has been putting much efforts in the region to control things. You should get informed more on the underground of politics.

I agree. So let's keep things in the hand of UN, not US.

Exact: well let's start: Rawanda? the Kurds? Palestinians? Chechnya? Indonesia? etc.. etc..
answer is simple: the US administration orchestrates, or at least, manages crisis around the world only according to its own benefits. Period.

Good you said it's only an opinion.

Nice, I couldn't agree less. That explains a lot his raison d'être, I mean Saddam. He was there in the first place for a reason, and will stay 12 more years for a reason too.

only 3 won't? heh. seems you're not aware of the UN council meeting that took place few days ago. or even better, not aware of the millions who invaded streets saying No to Bush in his war, even in the heart of the US.

First, you think the Gulf regimes are free to decide when they have on their soils hundred of thousands of American boots?
Second, yes those countries can't wait for Saddam to leave and are praying the US won't plant another monster in his place.

My friend, seems you didn't get it. That was just an expression used in such context, and of course I know he's not your friend. is it clear now?

And on the contrary, we would start arguing who looks better naked. :D

To you may be because it carries your opinions.

It's also an arrogance on your side to keep judging people. Anyway that's not the point. I might have said for you to get informed, that's true, and it wasn't in a bad sense at all or to you say he you're dumb or ignorant. Simply some facts are so plain that I wonder how people can't grab them. That pushed me to think may be you're too young or unwaware about some issues, and this is why I tell you get informed more before you state such thoughts. Seriously, the way you're talking about politics makes me think you need to know a lot more about its underground, which is nothing to be ashamed of.

well put, fickle, tiger. too bad i'm too stubborn to read the counter-point.

well put, fickle, tiger. too bad i'm too stubborn to read the counter-point.

Enough said.

There's that darn arrogance again. Look, your arguments have much less of an impact when you have an arrogant, condescending tone. You are basically telling my I'm too stupid to argue with you, don't deny it. And about judging people...I'm just calling it how I see it, I actually haven't called you an arrogant person, they way you're acting here is arrogant. And how about you judging us? You are.

Oh, and if arguments don't carry water with you because they don't agree with you opinions, then you obviously don't know the meaning of "it carries water."

HA! The UN doesn't work. If it worked, Saddam would have complied by now...Saddam doesn't care what the UN tells him to do, he's just going to disobey and hide his weapons.

Orchestrates? "Paranoia, paranoia, everybodys comin' to get me."
And of course we do stuff for our own benefit, why the hell wouldn't we?

The UN has council meetings out the wazoo. What is your point? And do you know how small the minority is that actually does those demonstrations...and that they are run by a communist party. And that many of the people attending those demonstrations don't even know that.

You call me arrogant, I can call you so. This is not leading anywhere right and it's not even clever. so let's cut it short and focus on the main point. This applies to arguments too.

So you suggest the US take the lead and decides for the world? Fine.
and then you say And of course we do stuff for our own benefit, why the hell wouldn't we?

Great. So anything would the US decide for the world, would be for its own benefit. That's what I wanted to hear from the beginning, thx.

Try some smarter answers please. again, you call it paranoia, I can call yours the same.
You're too young may be to get into the underground of the history of diplomacy.

“I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves.” -- Henry Kissinger, Secretary of State under Richard Nixon, about Chile prior to the CIA overthrow of the democratically elected government of socialist President Salvadore Allende in 1973

“Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government.” -- Henry Kissinger speaking at Evian, France, May 21, 1992 Bilderburgers meeting.

“We need a common enemy to unite us.” -- Condoleeza Rice, National Security Advisor, March 2000

“[The Third World War] is a war that has been fought by the United States against the Third World. It might also be called the Forty-Year War, like the Thirty-Year and Hundred-Year Wars in Europe, for this one began when the CIA was founded in 1947 and continues today. As wars go, it has been the second or third most destructive of human life in all of history, after World War I and World War II.” -- John Stockwell, former CIA official and author

So what is your point? what kind of an argument is this.
At least the UN has the legitimacy of being a World council, regardless of all is flaws, and let me remind you it was mainly founded by the US.

Small minority? get back to your TV, and please try to diversify in your news sources. A history record in protest is called small minority.. now this funny.

Oh yes. That's even funnier. It's run by a communist party. where is it? who is it? what a powerful party.. amazing.. it mobilizes dozens of millions ALL around the world, even in the heart of the US. I advise Bush to go back to the McCarthy era.

What a ridiculous world is that where you can't even say NO to war.

What is the communist party, well it just so happens those protests were organized and led by the Worker's World Party...hmm seems to me like someone, namely you Natrue Boy, isn't as edumacated as you think. And thats what everyone else says who didn't know the anti-war demonstrations if California and New York were organized and led by. Also, you say that the demonstrations here in the us aren't a small minority...excuse you but you're wrong. Media sensationalism has made it appear that the majority of the US is against the war...wait, I thought they were trying to pump us full of pro-war crap. WRONG...maybe you should trying living here before pretending you know what the media is like and what information we're being "force fed". You honestly don't know what the American media is like...they're democrats and liberals. They are not Bush ass kissers as you would have us believe. Oh, just a little more information for you, 47% of Americans don't like France right now, and only 26% see France in a favorable light. And since when have I been dening the US is getting involved becuase of self-interest? It's called self-preservation. Every country does it. And how could you call my arguments paranoia, I am simply making logical statments and taking past actions into account. For instance, Saddam has a 20 year track record of hiding weapons of mass destruction (THAT IS A PROVEN FACT SO DON'T TRY TO DISPROVE IT), he isn't suddenly going to turn around and let weapons inspector find it all. He isn't going to start behaving. And let me tell you why we're doing...we're the only ones willing to step up to the plate and realize that there is a problem that needs to be taken care before it gets worse. And my comment about the UN having commity meetings out the wazoo means that they do nothing more than sit on their asses and talk about how they're going to pass another resolution that won't do anything. The UN is all talk and nothing more. And please, I never said my arrogance argument was clever...it wasn't supposed to be, I was just letting you know that you were being arrogant, and you still are.

http://www.workers.org/
Thats the Worker's World Party's web site. Has right on the front page, pictures of the rallies they organized...maybe you should read some news. I hate to link you to a web page run by people who honestly have no frickin' clue as to what they're talking about. You might fit in there.

http://forums.winamp.com/showthread.php?threadid=125457
Thats a thred in this very forum discussing the Worker's World Party and the rallies they organized.

I know what is the communist party for goodness sake, and if you didn't get the irony of it, then it's your problem.

It's fully known that there were millions protesting against the war: some for humanitarian reasons, some for ecological ones, some for justice, and surely some for political reasons. So it's a large chunk of the world saying NO to one thing, no matter what are their motivations, and that what matters. If in the US this party alone did motivate this amount of population, well I think the system is in danger then. I know it had a sure effect, but that doesnt wipe the essential point: there are people saying NO to war. You can't deprive humans of their free will: some really say no to war without any specific background. plain simple.

Don't try to explain things for me; you might find it unlikely, but I know well how things go in the US and I know what type of media exist there for I read and research in various types of sources from different backgrounds.

So you agree the US is doing this war for its own benefits? great. now you're talking.

Im not. So does Pakistan, for example. Isn't it a threat on its neighbours? didn't go in war with India few times? isn't Musharraf a dictator?
Got the point???

So you believe the US has the Divine right to solve problems around the globe? do you know how dangerous is this? what if China.. or France.. or Russia.. or whoever, decide that they too, want to solve the world problems. what makes the reference?

So you want the world problems to be solved with the sweet B-52's?
I say again that the UN, created mainly by the US back in 45, at least a world reference, regardless of all its flaws. do you know that it's a plain tyranny to let one country rule the world?? please think about it.

Aren't we done with useless answers? Don't fall into what you are condemning yourself.

I haven't been posting in this thread for a while because I don't feel like reading these incredibly long posts, but I happened into it again and felt compelled to say something.

Tiger is right. The rest of the world isn't doing anything with Saddam. Saddam has been left free to himself for way too long. It's just like WWII being replayed. Sure he has restrictions placed on him, but he's violating them just as Hitler did. He hasn't done anything major yet(at least that we know of), but Hitler didn't either until he invaded the Rhineland. After that, there was no way to stop him. The same thing could easily happen again if we don't stop it ahead of time. Leave Hussein to himself and we could have WWIII on our hands instead of a more minor war against just Iraq(and possibly N. Korea).

I don't think comparing both cases is accurate.
Hitler's army and arsenal were ready even before going into Rhineland. so even if the allies wanted to do anything about it then, the balance of powers was already set on the Western front.

While here the threat is ridiculous to Iraq's neighbours, considering the wide US forces in the Gulf, the difference in technology used, (quality and quantity, whether in equipments or even in the means like satellites, etc..) and that the Iraqy army itself is being rotten since 12 years, and their people are starving; that was talking about the neighbours.. so what about the Iraq's threat on the US? please. Again I state the Pakistan example here.

Now.. is Saddam the only one who violated resolutions? you know the answer.

My friend.. I have a full admiration for how mighty, organized, and well built are US forces to an extent I find it ridiculous to fear a country cornered for years almost starving.

Plus.. how could a war be 'minor' if casualties are expected, in some scenarios, to reach half a million? or how could it be minor when a nuclear power like Korea might use its missiles?

I was saying that it would be more minor than if we let Hussein get nuclear technology. I don't think that we have to worry about N. Korea using the nuke. They aren't mad enough to do that, but Hussein might be.

And in my comparison to Hitler I wasn't saying that they are exactly the same scenarios. Instead of invading another country, Hussein may initiate a chemical terrorist attack on the US or another country. He may not have the most powerful army, but he could do this easily enough. It may not be really easy for him to pull it off, but it is definitely within his power to.

You see, but most of these demonstrators have no idea what the heck they're talking about. If you confronted most of them, they would be clueless.

You obviously don't, becuase you are arguing that the mass media here is supporting Bush when it IS NOT.

It's nice that you're putting words into my mouth. Of course it benefits us. I said before, self preservation.

Not the same threat level as Saddam.

Once again, you're putting words in my mouth. I said the US is the only country willing to step up to the plate meaning that other countries don't want to take out the garbage, which would leave just us. If we are the only ones who are willing to do it there isn't much other choice. Besides, we aren't the only country incase you haven't noticed...which you obviously haven't.

First of all, the UN being created by the US doesn't have any bearing on this conversation. Second of all, I don't want the world's problems to be solved by B-52's, I simply want them solved, and the UN is doing no such thing.

So you've giving up on trying to deny being condecending.

I was saying that it would be more minor than if we let Hussein get nuclear technology. I don't think that we have to worry about N. Korea using the nuke. They aren't mad enough to do that, but Hussein might be.

Now.. is Saddam really getting those nukes?
at first the US didn't want to give even a chance for the inspectors to check. Until now evidences are not that sharp, even inspectors suspected those presented by Powell. So is it really human to start such a deadly war just to be on the 'safe' side?
How would you know Koreans are not that mad? they were threatening to turn east Asia into a burning hell if Americans started any aggression..

And in my comparison to Hitler I wasn't saying that they are exactly the same scenarios. Instead of invading another country, Hussein may initiate a chemical terrorist attack on the US or another country. He may not have the most powerful army, but he could do this easily enough. It may not be really easy for him to pull it off, but it is definitely within his power to.

Again, it's not yet clear he got those tools. and his link to terror activities so far is really a plain theory.
Let us at least complete the checking. Bush couldn't even wait for that. he's just obsessed about war.

He does have chemical weapons. There is no doubt about that. And he is well on his way to getting nukes. We need to stop him before he can get them. Many countries have them now - what's going to stop him?

You see, but most of these demonstrators have no idea what the heck they're talking about. If you confronted most of them, they would be clueless.

Did you? did you confront most of them and they were clueless?
a weak answer, because I could also say that all pro-war have no idea what the heck they're talking about.

You obviously don't, becuase you are arguing that the mass media here is supporting Bush when it IS NOT.

wrong again. I do. Because I was not arguing the whole mass media is supporting Bush. I was rather saying there are some main professional channels who are talking the lead in selling the war project.
Turn on the TV and tune in Brokaw, Rather, Jennings, Blitzer or Lehrer, to name five of the journalistic imposters who control what you hear and see.


It's nice that you're putting words into my mouth. Of course it benefits us. I said before, self preservation.

Im not, it's rather you who says it. Under the self-preservation context, in other terms benefits, you find it legal to destroy and conquer.

Not the same threat level as Saddam.
why not? let's talk facts. they have clear and undisputable nukes. he doesn't, or at least not undisputably. they are in continuous tension with their neighbours (mainly india, and sometimes Afghanistan) and they fought wars, and they are threatening each other everyday. Many Pakistanis are known to be in Qaeda. plus, it includes a huge radical islamic movements. so imagine what happens if they overrule Musharraf?
let's admit it. US has put both Saddam and Musharraf in power each for a reason. and now it's saddam's big finale.

Once again, you're putting words in my mouth. I said the US is the only country willing to step up to the plate meaning that other countries don't want to take out the garbage, which would leave just us. If we are the only ones who are willing to do it there isn't much other choice. Besides, we aren't the only country incase you haven't noticed...which you obviously haven't.

this is not putting words in mouth, this is called a conclusionary statement in the glossary of conversation.
All other countries, including France and Germany and others, want to make sure Saddam isn't a threat. Only they are turning to a more legitimate reference, the UN. while the US didn't even want to give it a chance. and this makes the difference. In order to show you respect laws, you have yourself to abide by them. The US can't say hey I want to impose laws the way I see it by force. In this case, I would prefer it to be less hypocrite and say: hey those are our benefits, we want to possess geo-political dominance in the region will all the juicy profits. we got the power, who would stop us?
That would really make more sense.

First of all, the UN being created by the US doesn't have any bearing on this conversation. Second of all, I don't want the world's problems to be solved by B-52's, I simply want them solved, and the UN is doing no such thing.

Of course it does. To be civilized is, when you make rules, just don't be the one to break them.
The UN is doing nothing? fine.. so you accept the US bomb Israel because it has been defying UN resolutions since 1967?

So you've giving up on trying to deny being condecending.

I won't comment a self-condeming answer.

You can't bring in the fact that N. Korea has nukes into this(IMO). N. Korea does not have the will to use the nukes. Hussein does, but he just doesn't have them. If he gets them, he is likely use them. Thus, one of the major points of this war.

He does have chemical weapons. There is no doubt about that. And he is well on his way to getting nukes. We need to stop him before he can get them. Many countries have them now - what's going to stop him?

He might have chemical weapons, I know, but is it really a threat on the US? plus check out who gave him those weapons in the first.
Nothing is sure yet about the nukes, at all. this is what we have to wait the inspectors to see. You're illustrating the Iraq as a superpower that will terrorize the world.. Im affraid such a war will really turn back to us with much more hate sensations and will create many Bin Laden mutants all over.

I'm not intending to give Iraq anywhere near superpower status, but Hussein can launch an even more devastating terrorist attack on America than 9-11 was. He has enough chemical weapons to kill millions and millions of Americans.

No I did not, but I watched and interview of someone who did.

Actually, it is you who are wrong. Brokaw, Rather, Jennings, Blitzer, and Lehrer are part of the mass media, not to mention liberal.

Actually you were putting words in my mouth by saying that the US is crazy to be doing anything for it's own benefit. Also, a country has the right to self preservation.

Yes, lets talk facts, not your opinions. Pakistan isn't as big of a threat becuase they are more angry at India which keeps them busy. Saddam is angry at the US, Israel, and other numerous nations.

Actually it is putting words into my mouth, and it's also ASSUMING, not conclusionary statement (stop using big words to try and disguese your lack of knowledge). You are ASSUMING that I'm saying to hell with due process, which I am not. You see, we've tried the UN route already...it's not working...we've been trying it since the Gulf War. IT DOES NOT WORK! Why can't you understand that. The UN is also unwilling to admit it can't do something. We have shown respect for the system, and it has failed, time to try something else.

Just becuase we helped for the UN doesn't mean the US made those rules. What the hell kind of conclusion is that. The UN isn't the US. Just becuase we helped form the UN doesn't mean that it expresses out opinions. Also, the UN is unwilling to do anything to help Israel, and they, like the US, realize that it is futile to try and go through the UN.

I'll take that as a yes.

But how can you assume they don't have the will to use them????
plus you didn't mention the Pakistan issue.

If they did, they would have used them already. They've had plenty of oppurtunities that would have helped them out nicely. The reason they won't is because they still value life some. If Hussein gets nukes before we go to war with him, then he will gladly use them at the first sign of his country going down, if not sooner. He would rather take out the entire world including himself than go down alone. Sure it will be a costly war, but it could save many many lives.

Again.. did he interview 'most' of them? how many were the ones who knew what they were doing but were cut-off out of the report?

Did you read the full article?

Fine. so Korea has also the right to self-preservation. so if US strike Iraq, Korea has the right to say, hey, may be they will hit us next, so in order to self-preserver ourselves, we should do a preemetive strike against the US.

You were telling Saddam should be shoved cuz it's a threat to its neighbours, and now you clearly say it: Pakistan is busy with India, which is also a neighbour. need more to say?

You haven't tried the UN route already completely yet. A UN resolution was taken, and inspectors are doing their work. so at least wait for them to finish.

Plus let us sum up the UN argument like this: someone stole your car. you have proofs and went to court, but the other guy has a good lawyer, and he could gain some time. first, wouldn't you give him some time?
and second, seems this guy has a really good lawyer and he could get away with the whole thing. so what would you do.. you go and destroy his house regardless of the court decisions because they don't work?

First, you can go back to how the US was formed, and see that the US helped write most of its laws. the UN isn't the US, that's right, because the UN represents the world while the US only represents itself.
You misunderstood me in the last statement. I was hinting at the UN resolutions that ordered Israel to back-off from the territories it occupied in 1967. So why don't the US force Israel to follow the UN resolutions as it's forcing Iraq to? and the neighbouring countries of Israel tried, too, the UN route and didn't work since then. are they allowed now to try the US method?


and if you are sincerely irritated by arrogance, please let me remind you of your own words here in this thread, let alone the previous ones, and let your conscience judge:

Actually, it is you who are wrong.

Yes, lets talk facts, not your opinions.

we aren't the only country incase you haven't noticed...which you obviously haven't.

stop using big words to try and disguese your lack of knowledge.

anubis.. sincerely talking: Do you think the US doesnt have the means to control the Iraq without doing a war? I fully believe in the US intelligency machine because it proved to be very effective. with planes all over it (now Iraq allowed the U2 planes) and satellites, with ally countries from all sides (even Iran is against Iraq) and with US army in the Gulf, I don't think it's a difficult task for a country like the US to monitor Iraq and make sure he gets no nukes.
This is why I think it's way more than this, it's about the war itself as a purpose.

The US has been trying to keep Iraq from furthering it's advancement in chemical weapons and the like for a while now, and yet Iraq has managed to keep getting more. Sure it would be hard for Iraq to get them, but I think they could.

Actually, he did:

Pakistan isn't as big of a threat becuase they are more angry at India which keeps them busy. Saddam is angry at the US, Israel, and other numerous nations.

US is in it for it's own gain. France isn't because it stands to lose the UN illegal oil and arms trading that has been going on. Look at the news. FRENCH planes landing on Saddams airstrips.

And the media doesn't like bush. They think he's going over the edge, just like you do. So how is that supporting him?

---
Turn on the TV and tune in Brokaw, Rather, Jennings, Blitzer or Lehrer, to name five of the journalistic imposters who control what you hear and see.
---
How can you tell me this can't be biased? Prove that it is fully 100% unopinionated without any other motives. There is no such thing as writing an article without a slant. everyone knows that. When a person writes, the vibe of the whole story is towards thier own point of view. take this thread as an example.

And I watch Fox News, as most Americans do. It being the highest rated News program. You would have known that, had you actually researched anything news worthy. Please don't make generalised comments about a place you don't know. (You say you do, but how much? Prove to me you know American lifestyle. And don't throw a quote at me. PROVE to me you know what it's like to be an american. PROVE what it's like to have your own soil attacked. PROVE to me that you know what is in every heart and mind of an American. This is a challenge to all you I HATE THE US BECAUSE I DON'T LIVE THERE AND HAVE NO IDEA WHAT IT IS TRULY LIKE people.)

And I've heard it done before, so don't tell me that the towers are not relevant or downplay the two towers as something that was not a travesty of the Modern World. DO you know what it's like to have a place that adourned postcards and private photos, a huge part of your culture desimated in less than 12 hours?
....I didn't think so.

I agree with most of what you are saying fickle, but I know it will upset nature spirit. Oh and the two towers don't have anything to do with this. The twin towers do however.:p Until hobbits return to middle earth and sauron and saruman rebuild the two towers we won't have to worry about them.
*me waits for nature spirit to post something*:p

Actually, at one point in my post I said "Pakistan"

Fickle already brought that up tiger. But yeah, I don't even thing nature spirit read it all(I may be mistaken though).

I would first like to thank annubis and fickle...finally some intelligent people on my side joined this conversation. Not to say anyone else supporting me isn't intelligent, it's just there are far more people on the other side.

No, it's called statistical sampling. They interview a variety of people. Thats how your precious polls that you use do their job so don't give me any crap about how thats not acurate.

The author of that article is a liberal and the article is therefore bias./

Yes, but if they do, we will kick their ass.

Iraq...Saddam rather is more of a threat to more people and nations than is Pakistan.

BULL! We have been using the UN's way since after the Gulf War...IT DOESN'T WORK! Remind me again how many UN resolutions have been passed to try and fix the problem?

There's just ever so slight (and I can't emphasize slight enough) a difference between grand theft auto and genocide. It's also different when a country commits crimes. And if I had the resources, yes I would take the matter into my own hands if the court failed to do so.

First of all, the UN is an entirly different oraganization than it was back in the mid 20th century. And we aren't using military force on Israel, one becuase they're our ally and maybe we agree with their actions, and two, they aren't endangering the rest of the world.

Actually, it is you who are wrong.
This is just another way of me saying you're wrong, it's not arrogant, I am not talking down to you, I didn't call you an idiot or insult you.

Yes, lets talk facts, not your opinions.
I was merely pointing out that you have a habbit of presenting your opinions as facts.

we aren't the only country incase you haven't noticed...which you obviously haven't.
Well, have you noticed that other countries have promised to support us?

stop using big words to try and disguese your lack of knowledge.
You're just mad becuase I saw through your smoke screen.

Tiger, I was just as happy to see your posts in this thread. I posted quite a lot back at the beginning of this thread, but stopped because I was tired of reading paragraphs and paragraphs of what nature spirit and others were saying with nothing that made sense [to me] in between. I just looked into this thread and saw some of the stuff you were saying and noticed they were the same as what I thought. They keep saying the same things(let inspections continue, Iraq isn't a threat, etc.), but they don't seem to see how desperately we need to get rid of Hussein. They are against the US(as far as I can tell) partially out of jealousy and partially out of fear. They are tired of seeing this power being used by the US because they can't do anything themselves. They would rather see Hussein take over the middle east before they attack than see the US attack first.