The Dink Network

Well? Why or why not?

Edit: Random fact just for thought - It has been calculated that in the last 3,500 years, there have only been 230 years of peace throughout the civilized world.

Wow..this is going to erupt quite quickly..

Well I'm not going to go too deep into it, as that would take a long-ass time, but I do not think that America should go to war. In fact, at our high school we've started an awareness protest and we hand out information and wear arm bands.

Quite frankly, there is no need for war. It is true that Saddam is a really horrible dictator that does need to be taken out. Does this mean that we destroy Iraq? Most the civilians follow Saddam because he can unite them and get them thinking commonly, and right now its against America. Obviously, bombing their country will help. And in the end, we'll have a ruined Iraq, their economy even worse than it already is, with no government. What'll we do? Naturally, set up a democracy, thats the right thing to do. Only, as most people in Washington cannot understand, democracy simply cannot work everywhere. Iraq, right now, needs a dictatorship. A democracy, which will be a puppet democracy anyway, will divide their country and send it into an even worse depression.

The current plan calls for 300-400 cruise missles to be fired a day for as many days as is neccesary, predicted to begin in late Febuary or early March. These missles range in cost anywhere from half a million to ten million dollars a piece. And if you think that they're not planning a land invasion with many predicted casualties, how do you explain the fact that 77,000 body bags have been ordered, where in 1991 only 16,000 were ordered. And is it a coincidence that Bush is stalling the development of the Hydrogen car, despite talking nicely of it in his state of the union speech, by awarding oil companies and giving government money to people who buy SUVs? Bush is trying to push this war to finish what his father screwed up, and for oil. He has no regard for the US economy, the Iraq economy, or human lives.

Saddam could be takken out of power by half a dozen well trained infiltrative specialists. Instead, we ignore the fact that our economy is still bad, and get ready to throw billions into destroying a country that is already in shambles. What will taking out their hostpitals and factories do? It will set them back further, and we'll need to pull them back up. I guess we could not do that, but usually the US steps in as the "good guys" after a war and "helps them out", even if it was our fault they're sitting where they are. And the fact is, it is in a large part this US's fault that Iraq is as bad as it is right now, because we should have takken care of Saddam and started the country down a better road when we had the chance ten years ago.

Of course, the rest of the world is against us, save the British, who have to be with us, and the Australians, who I have no idea why they support us, because we speak english too? Whatever. The point is, everyone else knows how foolish this is. Yes, there's a good chance that Saddam has weapons. But are the weapons the real problem? The US has the most weapons of all, and look how great we are Obviously, the weapon production would be stopped were Saddam taken care of and a good dictator with Iraq's interests, not the US's, was put in place.

I'd get into more as to why we shouldn't go to war, but I'm done rambling for now, and you can find facts all over the place. They're just my opinions anyway. I guess I don't believe blood for oil is a good trade.

Not.
It continues the cycle of violence. Hussein will never be killed by a million dollar bomb. He may be killed by a waiter with a silencer under his drink tray. If americas name is on any action, even in aid, resentment will brew. You need to make his own people feel like they beat him.

Wow, I was gonna rant, but that rant just completely kicked mine's arse... anyways. To put it flat-out: Word, OkalyDDude. I totally agree with you, and you make some truly excellent points.

Yes, I agree with Alli, those are good points. I'll try not totake any sides though, and just point out a few things.

Prove this war is about oil. Of course oil is most likely a side quest type thing, it is definitely not a major reason for wanting to go to war.

Also, war may strengthen US economy. Think about it. What did World War II do? That was one of the turning points in US history. Because we chose to go to war. It's a little different, I know, but still.

On the other hand, something the US should be cautious of. What does a wild animal do when it's cornered? yeah, it tries to escape at first, but what about when it knows it can't escape? It tries to destroy or damage its enemy as much as possible before losing. US is the elephant that was fearful of the poisonous snake. The elephant stomps on the snake, but the snake bites the leg as it dies, crippling the elephant. Then the weakened elephant may be susceptible to hyenas, lions. US's other stronger, and perhaps secret enemies waiting for their chance. Not saying that's how it will happen, but it's a thought.

The US has weapons. True. More weapons than anybody else in the world. But we were provoked, and they're hostile towards us. But I don't agree with the tactics. Still, when somebody smaller than you with a butcher knife and 20 dollars in his pocket is hostile, do you sit back and relax with you guard down? Or do you try to take the knife from him by asking at first, and if he doesn't listen, take it by force with better tactics, knowing that you'd only suffer minor injuries, and 20 extra bucks in your pocket? This is all it is, anyways.

Bush has no regard for human lives? If he didn't, we'd nuke every little square inch of that place. If he didn't, we wouldn't send ground troops in, so there'd be less civilian casualties, instead of sending off missiles to blow up every city they have. You're just exaggerating things, and only looking on one side here.

Also, it could be that Iraq needs a dictatorship right now, but I don't think so. Especially not under Saddam. You know what he does with the oil money he earns? He builds mansions. For himself. Doesn't even help the poor. If anything, we need to help Iraq get back on track here, by first removing Saddam's horrible "leadership".

Hm. There. That wasn't as well said or insightful as yours, but they're sitll thoughts. I'd say more, and say it better, but I don't have much time, and don't feel like ranting insanely.

"It continues the cycle of violence"

Yes, it does. And we shouldn't add or try to continue the cycle. But like you said, it's a cycle. Cycles go round and back again endlessly, and won't be stopped. Why do you think delay is the answer right now? War will come, regardless of how much we try to avoid it. War really isn't THAT terrible a solution. Assassinating him is easier said than done. Simple as getting a waiter to shoot him while serving him food right? Wrong. Think about it. You don't know Saddam's daily routine, or where he is all the time, if you can actually get somebody in, etc. And if the person fails, then he'll be really pissed, and he'll keep his guard up and blame America. Not as simple as it sounds, and far from as secure as an open war.

When we do nothing, people complain. when we do something, they complain. People will always complain, no matter what you do, or don't do. Look at Afghanistan. All we did was free a country from the Taliban, which treated its citizens like crap, and people complain about how we unjustly invaded them. We aren't, however, by any means, an altruistic country. We do things mostly in our own best interest like other countries do.

But really, if you think war is so horrible, I don't see you people thinking of any good alternative solutions.

Just had to add to my previous thought. The inspectors were allowed into Iraq under the threat of war if the inspections were stopped. If they face war anyway, they no longer have a reason to allow the insections, and they then have every reason to build those weapons.
I'd be interested in knowing what Bin thinks.

Inspectors? Are you kidding me? They had the 90's to do that with thousands of inspectors. And they did nothing. You think a few hundred will makea big difference in a much shorter time period?

Edit: 6000 inspectors.

EatTheRats, a few things.

First off, as far as avoiding war, it can be done. About not being able to get in and take him out, I think you highly underestimate the US's ability to be fellowly.

As far as proving the war is for oil. Well I never said it was just for oil, but it's a reason, and a really horrible reason. The other reasons I listed already.

Helping the economy? Seriously dude, have you been paying attention to Bush's plans? He is attempting to stimulate the economy with less taxes, and getting money back to the 'common family', rather than helping people that actually need help. Bush's plan is like every republican plan to date, make the rich richer and the poor poorer, its no different, he just tries to make it sound nice, it's a redistribution of wealth, after all, just not a good one. And helping the economy? In WWII millions of jobs were created. Minorites and women were getting into factories where men had left and factories were getting reopened by government stimulation. This created supply and demand. This war is nothing like that. Instead, we are taking the money we could be using on education and social welfare and throwing it away. No jobs will be created. If anything, the lack of government money could lead to layoffs in government positions. How could it possibly help our economy? On top of that, you have to look at what we're doing to Iraq. Honestly, you can wave your finger and say they deserve it all they want, but what's it going to help? We need to help the country along, not destroy it. And no, Washington wouldn't let Bush nuke Iraq to hell, even if he wanted to, which he doesn't, he might hurt the oil.

As far as better alternatives? Besides the ideas i've listed, such as taking out the power in Iraq and putting up a reliable power, there is little chance of peace. Saddam simply wouldn't allow any kind of agreements, and he's been given a chance. He's going against charters and agreements, and must be dealt with.

And the idea behind nuclear weapons needs to be dealt with a bit. You have to think about the fact that the US has enough power to destroy the world over dozens of times, yet tries to keep every other country in the world from having any at all. I think the best way to prove that weapons are not the answer is a serious disarment. We do need to keep enough to keep the upper hand, as they can be used as a peace-keeping tool (but not necesarily will be), and that has been proven.

And yes we were provoked, but does that mean that we should lash out against all of Iraq? We can say we're going to war to take out Saddam, but what does that mean to the citizens of Iraq. First off, they feel comfortable under Saddam, for the most part. They see the US as an agressor. The best way to rid ourselves of that portrayel would be to help them out both economicaly and governmentaly. The best way to fuel that hatred would be to kill them. And while sending in ground troops seems the best solution, you have to think of the fact that the civilians will also want to kill the troops. Yes, propoganda is being dropped, telling them not too, but Iraq will use its civilians against us, knowing we will not want to kill them. And as far as the body bags go, those are for us. We wouldn't need them if we didn't send in ground troops the way we plan to.

And the quote: "War isn't THAT terrible a solution" What the hell kinds of drugs are you on? Honestly man, you could possibly have lost more of my respect if you said you believed in underpants gnomes, but not likely.

And Afganastan. Question: When's the last time you heard anything about Afganastan? Think we're still doing anything in Afganastan? If you said "No, we did our job and got out" you're an idiot, congratulations. The fact is, thats not all we did for Afganastan. We rid them of a horrible regime, but as far as their customs and rights for females etc, we had no right to try and change. In an interview with a traveling correspondant, a female their berated American's for not understanding their own custom's, and the fact that they were happy the way they were. And the US is still in Afganastan, but mostly for the sake of keeping the place under control. We could have done that better, but we didn't do too horrible, and not many are arguing that we invaded unjustly, where as for Iraq its the rest of the world arguing against us.

An eye for an eye only makes the world blind.

Even as much as I'd like to compose a long, thought-provoking anti-war rant, I feel that I am too naive (or simply stupid) to do so.

I'm against war aswell and glad to see that my country (belgium, woohoo ), aswell as France and Germany, is able slow down Bush by veto-ing the Navo's plan for army-support in Turkey. I say slow down, cause I'm almost sure there will be a war anyway.

Some american papers criticised France and Belgium for not helping them now, when they helped us in WO II. One publication even headlined with "We were there for you" accompanied by a huge photo showing graves of american soldiers who died here.
That's so ignorant, cause the US didn't even join in WOII before half of europe was already conquered. In the mean time, they getting rich by selling everyone weapons (strenghtening the US economy) .. When the US saw Hitler's war was getting a little bit out hand, they stepped in, but only out of self-cornern. Don't they teach that in school?

Anyway, dagnab the american newspapers and let Bush and Saddam go one on one!!
My 2 euro-cents

I think the question should be: Will America go to war?? Not: Should. America has proven in the past, time and time again, not to take anything lying down. So will America go to war?? I say Yes, and of course being their closet neigbours, we (Canadians) will help if need be. >^..^<

And if it gets really bad, I am moving to the North Pole.

And if it gets really bad, I am moving to the North Pole.

So Canada finally took out Santa Claus and his Weapons of Mass Destruction? Cool.

I have to say at this time that I am embaressed to be "represented" by Tony Blair.
He is simply George Bush's lapdog, and goes along with whatever he wants.
I do think a large factor is the oil, and the American economy, though they are obviousl not the main driving force.
But I am certainly against war with Iraq...Australia maybe...but not Iraq.

:"Even as much as I'd like to compose a long, thought-provoking anti-war rant, I feel that I am too naive (or simply stupid) to do so."

Nonsense.

And yeah, I agree with most of this anti-war stuff. And I cannot understand why Britain is supporting us, except maybe so they can become the 51st US state. (Yes, I'm kidding, and sorry about the link, I've been doing most of my Dinkboarding at school and bbspot is blocked... so I can't find the actual article. But you'll know it when you see it, and I'll likely edit this again when I get home.)
In related news, this was in my local newspaper... apparently some guy got sick of seeing "Say No to war on Iraq" signs, so he started making pro-war signs. (Yes, the newspaper is very Republican, but the Democratic one has sucky comics, so we subscribe to this one instead. )
(edited by allikitten multiple times)

Of course America shouldn't go to war... There's absolutely no reason why they should. In fact, if America chooses to start a war, (it propably does) I actually hope that Iraq would drop an atom bomb there. (Sorry americans..) Pretty cruel, but it'd be their own fault.

"There's absolutely no reason why they should"

I disagree with that. They are some good reasons in favour of going to war, even if I, or you do not agree with them.
If Saddam does have nukes, or chemical weapons or whatever, and IS hiding them from us, you have to ask why? If these weapons exist, and they are hiding them, then everybody has a case to get very worried, and war may be the answer. I am not saying it is, but it could be.

Um...you're an idiot scratcher. It was "japan's fault" that they got nuked, but does that mean it was a good thing? Oh ya, it ended the war...with a massive amount of civilian casualties and generations of disfigured japanese from the radiation... Did they deserve it? Would america deserve it? Would anyone? Dumbass.

And on another note, yes there are reasons to go to war...are they valid is the question, and is war the best alternative. Of course not. Are we going to war? Yes, its been decided, long ago. In fact, it was September 17th 2001 I believe that Bush signed the first secret document stating he would do whatever is necesary to disarm countries like Iraq, and got the approval for war. The secret meetings went on for years, and we've been mobilizing troops for over 6 months, now we've ordered the body bags, and they've even stated that the current plan is to start bombing late feb / early march. Yes, the US is going to war. I feel it is my responsibility, though, to point out that this was not the only option, nor the best.

i kinda agree with scratcher that america should get nuked- an insane amount of countries have had wars on them, america is normally the attacker, but when america gets attacked, they go insane and start crying and whining and buying millions of miniature of american flags and constantly saying *god bless america*. And didn't bush even say that god was on america's side *laf* (if god is so smart, then why make his side the dumbest?) Another thing: bush wants the whole world to be a democracy... democracy has not worked at all in the country, (bush being president shows how true that is). When people vote(i think this is an example for america only), they arent voting for who they think will lead a country to peace and a better life, but who is seen on tv more and who has the better name- lets put it this way, if John Smith and Max Power were running for president, its obvious that Max Power would win since he has the cooler name. But anyway (kinda stupid of me) if there was a guy named dink smallwood running for president, would you vote for him if you were old enough? remind me to never post again. But anyway, if iraq does have chemical and nuclear weapons, why would they use them on the U.S. if U.S. would just keep to their own business? America should live like the canadians, the canadians are almost never in a war, and its a great country. But whats also bugging me is that there is something going about in the newspapers about usama BIN laden telling the iraqi's to suicide bomb america (or something like that), but how would the iraqi's in america get the message if the reporters would use some brains and stop giving out the information that would help terrorism! stop me if im wrong, probably about a lot of things, but i HATE america, but what most countries need to realise is that there are a lot of good hearted people who are just caught up in a country that is run by a war provoking nation, but honestly, dont go to war, just prepare to defend yourselves

i kinda agree with scratcher that america should get nuked- an insane amount of countries have had wars on them, america is normally the attacker, but when america gets attacked, they go insane and start crying and whining and buying millions of miniature of american flags and constantly saying *god bless america*.

Um... huh? Yeah... those dang mini flags... they just hurt everyone else in the world. So you're upset that Americans didn't do anything, and when they decide to do something (i.e. attack Iraq) that's a big no-no?

And didn't bush even say that god was on america's side *laf*

Religious folk are a bit weird like that... but its no different than in sports and such. Everyone who is religious believes that God is on their side (usually). It isn't any more complex than that.

lets put it this way, if John Smith and Max Power were running for president, its obvious that Max Power would win since he has the cooler name.

That's the stupidest thing I've ever read in my entire life. GORE is a kick-ass name, whereas Bush... ooh, a shrub. I want some blood and GORE with my government, please.

if there was a guy named dink smallwood running for president, would you vote for him if you were old enough?

Depends if he was another stupid politician (ala Bush, Gore, etc.) or a (mostly) honest guy like McCain.

if iraq does have chemical and nuclear weapons, why would they use them on the U.S. if U.S. would just keep to their own business?

Aha, but why would Iraq develop chemical and nuclear weapons if it didn't intend to use them on the Big Satan (ala America)?

America should live like the canadians, the canadians are almost never in a war, and its a great country.

America doesn't go to war all too much. Really. Let's see...

1) Revolution, to get away from Britain.
2) War of 1812, where Britain decided to try to take the US back.
3) Civil War, which didn't really bother anyone else.
4) World War I, to save Europe's butt.
5) World War II, to get revenge on Japan and save Europe's butt.
6) The Korea and Vietnam military actions, to try to stop the 'plague' of communism.
7) The Gulf War, to get some cheap oil while saving a country from being invaded.
8) Misc other small actions... Milosevic (I forget what country that was in), Afghanistan, etc.)

So... the USA is war-provoking. I half-agree. But... really, are you afraid that George W. Bush is going to send a Nuclear Missile or other Weapon of Mass Destruction at any other country without provocation? There really isn't any chance of that.

However, there is a somewhat good chance (in my mind) that the Iraqi government might send missiles at another country (USA or Israel) unprovoked. Well, there is a better chance of Saddamm doing it than GWB.

And why do you hate America? It isn't like its a dictatorship under an iron fist... its a government that (usually) works, where votes were almost 50/50, unlike in Iraq where Saddamm got like 100% of the votes.

Yes, there are plenty of problems with America, and it seems to have found itself in the terrible position as the most powerful country in the world. Really... lets say tomorrow all of America gets wiped out by an alien invasion, only interested in the McDonald's-fed masses of America. What would happen if your country all of a sudden got thrust upon it the designation of the most powerful country in the world? All of its actions with other countries would then be a big event...

Eh, that's enough of a (incoherent) rant, but I do want to touch on one more thing, that I think was discussed in this thread.

The Nuclear Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki... horrible. But wars are horrible.

Here is the decision Truman faced:

1) Send ground troops in to force Japan to surrender. High US casualties, and high Japanese civilian casualties (at least a million each). The Japanese governement was training the civilian population for months to repel a US invasion... most were going to die fighting, and little kids were taught to stab any US soldiers with sharpened sticks.

2) Use nuclear bombs to harm Japan's war industry... Japanese civilian deaths would be quite substantial (as they would be in option 1), but it would save many US troops.

There really isn't any reason to pick option 1. Japan was ready to fight to the death.

What the hell is wrong with you guys!? Trav666, you and scratcher are the two most asinine twits i've seen on the network yet. Yes trav666, lots of countries have had wars...so OBVIOUSLY some americans should die...to prove to america..that ... people can die... ya! I don't like most Americans, and i hate fake patriotism, and the way americans are ignorant to the rest of the world, but it appears from you two that the rest of the world is as ignorant as the stupidest americans. And ya, bush has said god is on america's side. *laf* Ya well, first off bush is an idiot, and second, thats a tactical ploy used by nearly every country. If you knew anything, you'd know that in WWII one of the biggest confusions for soldiers was the fact that German soldiers carried "God's on our side" belts and other gear. "Democracy has not worked at all in the country" Obviously, because...America has been doing so bad..and you know..it is a pure democracy and everything... not sure if you're old enough to understand sarcasm, so maybe i should stay clear of it..

And yes, if saddam has these weapons, he will use them on the US, as well as his neighbors and his own people. Even if the US 'minded its own business' Yes canadians are cooler than americans, they're not as stupid, but remember that the unemployment in canada is always two or tree times, if not more, than that of the US. And if you think that America should stay out of everyone's business, and never interfere with foreign affairs, you obviously haven't studied WWI or WWII very well, because thats kinda what we tried, Wilson during WWI kept us out of the war even when German U-boats sank vessles with americans on it, and in the end, the longer we delay the worse the war gets.

And trav666 you say stop you if you're wrong, so i'm going to, because you are. Everything you've said is rediculous and immature, obviously naieve and uneducated. Start thinking for yourself, rather than listening to the propaganda you hear. Maybe once you're in high school you'll learn about some of this.

Thank you redink1, for having some common sense.

While it is true that the US does some things wrong, that doesn't make it a horrible place full of horrible people. And the rest of the world is better? I disagree with the fact that the US supports wars by being the world's biggest arms dealer, and supporting wars that should be stopped instead, but thats not the issue here.

Saying that anyone should be nuked, let alone the americans, is just rediculous and pathetic.

The whole problem with Irag, and muslim terrorists can be put down to a few things I learnt a while back studying psychology.
People ask "Why do the muslims from Iraq hate the Western civilization SOOO much they crash planes into twin towers etc".
It's not because of what the west has done. It's not even because of what the west has NOT done...it's because of what the west is. Scary eh?
And before someone has a go at me, I'm not generalizing ALL muslims into this, just the psychotic ones.

I'm too tired and lazy to bother with you Sabre.

Unless someone says something that really really pisses me off, I'm not gonna waste my time with this anymore, so we'll just see how stupid it gets and if I need to slap some people around some more.

Sorry trav666, but I'm one canadian who agrees with redink on those counts. America is proven to be the most generous and supportive nation in history.( even despite how short its history is!) Any disaster in the world, and americans pitch in. Unfortunatly, most americans are a bit short sighted about how that support denies the supported thier dignity. The blame for that is NOT americas', but I think its' "global influence" should be thought out more carefully. I'll stay here in Canada just the same, but ya, god bless America. ( war is global influence- avoid it.)

Yeah, I got to agree with ya, some Americans can be a little ignorant at times. (ex Rick Mercers "Talking to Americans!!" lets send ground troops into Saskatchewan joke. God, I
laughed my ass off for the special. Ya also got to love the National Igloo. hehehe. back to topic now...)
Well, IMHO I think that Iraq should just be left alone.

Here is my ideas on what the states should but probably won't do. me thinks.
Help Afganistan out. Some way or another. But just don't try to interfear. Heavily.
Get the hell outa Iraq. And also apologise. Will greatly help improve Americas would position I think -- as in even the 'Great' can be wrong
Inquire what Korea is trying to do. Are they trying to provoke America, or what?
Mayby look at what China is up to for a while, mayby even invite them to the ISS project. It's not like we should keep them out, they probably will make their own in a few years.

Yeah, thats about all. I'll edit if I think of any more.

Flamers - Ready your burning arrows.
Click!

PS.
Redink, whats this about The plauge of Communism? I basicaly like in a communist state, cept its not 'officaly' one. You'd be surprised at the similarities. Also, was 1812 fought over that? I'd like to see the reasoning before I hastily say you are Wrong or Stoopid or something of the utterly foolish like.
Meh.

ric, seriously, america is so generous, but any country can be extremely generous, they just have to go into an insanely high debt! what does the united states owe?... like 8 trillion?

exactly. If USA cuts back on its forien aid, some will suffer, but learn and grow. If the u.s. economy goes tits up, everyone will suffer huge! ( especialy canada. As for the bullies in the middle east, I realy wish thier own neibors would deal with them. I guess the just are'nt any easy answers....

Um...you're an idiot scratcher. It was "japan's fault" that they got nuked, but does that mean it was a good thing? Oh ya, it ended the war...with a massive amount of civilian casualties and generations of disfigured japanese from the radiation... Did they deserve it? Would america deserve it? Would anyone? Dumbass.

First of all, how do you defend your statement that "it was Japan's fault they got nuked"?

Second, an atom bomb dropped in America wouldn't be a very nice thing, but only chance for Iraq to win the war.. And no, the japanese did not deserve it. Nothing wrong with the japanese. But way more than Saddam, I'd wish that they took Bush out of command...

And by the way: Someone stated that war is never a good choice.. Bah. Wouldn't it be boring if there would be no wars? I want to blow of steam sometimes.. So does all of humans, and so does countries, 'cause they're filled with humans. Yes, war isn't a very nice thing, (Especially when fought with chemicals etc.) but life would just be very boring if there never was any.....

Wouldn't it be boring if there would be no wars?

Um... no. It would be boring if there was no conflict. Conflict does not have to be a war... it can be competition, chance, and a multitude of other things. And when is the last time you fought in a war because you needed to blow off some steam?

Wait, I have a great idea. Why don't you travel to Iraq and fight for what you believe in, hrm? That certainly would alleviate any of your boredom, and you could come back here and speak with experience, instead of just yammering on about nonsense.

If you ask me, the majority of people in America are plain stupid! God, over 50% think that smackdown is real fighting! And what about the dark-skinned people... If stated cruel, they generally have better bodies and reflexes and senses than the white, but are stupider! That's a cruel fact..... And it always isn't a bad thing.

umm... I'm getting way off the sucbject now. Cya

If you had 10 000 dollars, would you chose how to spend based on the one dollar on top? ( sure go buy 10000 bottles of pop.) The differance between one race and another is one part in 10000. Look at a "dark skinned man". You are 99.99% the same as him. As for americans, I will once again defend them. There are some differances in upbringing, but I'll bet you cannot call them stupid without calling yourself stupid! You are falling into the same rut the arabs are, hating what is stronger and more powerfull, without thinking about how even you are depending on them.

Um... no. It would be boring if there was no conflict. Conflict does not have to be a war... it can be competition, chance, and a multitude of other things. And when is the last time you fought in a war because you needed to blow off some steam?

I pretty much agree... But wars don't happen when a single person wants to "blow off steam"... They happen when the whole country or a REALLY powerful person wants to blow of steam! But I do agree.. Wars could be solved with things that cost no human lives, like a chess-competition. The problem is? It's too little for us humans.. We wanna do everything we can for something that we really want, (e.g: Win a war) and winning a chess competition certainly isn't all!

That certainly would alleviate any of your boredom, and you could come back here and speak with experience, instead of just yammering on about nonsense.

No, propably not. If I went to a war, I'd certainly get experience, but my personal traumas could affect my opinions.. So no, that wouldn't do any good. (Although if there was something that I believe in so much that I could die for it, I certainly would go to a war)
And: More about experience: Are you saying me that you have more experience on these things, as you're older? Or what? Yes, you certainly are older than me... Then in other hand, what the heck does that affect?

And BTW: This arqument certainly is a mini-opinion-war... Wars are ALL the same kind, just in different scales.
This does prove, how simple we humans are... Then of course, I have nothing against that. I live a pretty happy life, try to make it better, (in deeped chasms of the mind, anyway) try to solve the mysteries of life, and other things like that. This is how "god" made us like. ("God" because I don't know what it is.. Some force? Dunno.)

Ric: I usually don't think about what I say that much.. If I happen to "anger" anybody or something.. Certainly I do not think about what I say in a childish arqument like this too much.. But although all races are 99.99% the same, there's still a difference. That's what matters... And after all, it's more of a good, than a bad thing. (And when I am referring to "childish arqument like this", I'm certainly not saying that I MYSELF wouldn't be childish... Hehe, actually, this is pretty enjoyable. Maybe I'm embrassed when I look at what've I written tomorrow.. But I'll also remember, that I did enjoy it. )

Man, I really wanted to stay out of this argument. Okaly has really summed up how I feel about this whole conflict quite nicely. Others, Trav666 and scratcher have have revealed themselves as total idiots. Dukie tried and failed miserably to to put a different spin on things.

Everyone always says that the US should stay out of others affairs. I half agree. Dukie complains that the US entered WWII too late...the one time we tried to stay out and become a more xenophobic nation. Fact is, if we had never entered at all, the world would be a much different place, and I believe for the worse.
Many things the US did in WWII helped liberate the folks of France and Belgium. Now Dukie says we were to late. Jeesh. He is certainly entitled to his opinion, however, and I respect that.

Now Iraq. Doesn't Iraq's chemical and biological weapons pose more of a problem for the folks of Europe than it does to the US? I would think so, as they have no technology for ICBMs. Isn't it even a little more prudent to stop Saddam now, than to wait till he's pointed the dang things at Turkey, Isreal and others, as well as sending goons to the US, Britain and France with dirty nukes? I think so...and as Okaly said, other ways should be explored to take him out, rather than just war...but certainly war would be an option if nessesary.

Fact is, many of us know little about WWII, and what Hitler was capable of. There is so much info that will never be released. I bet our grandparents could tell us a thing or two from those days...and how it effects the way they feel about this conflict.

Lastly - Scratcher, let me just say that you are quite possibly the most idiotic person on the planet. I won't even give proof of why, as others can simply read the garbage you have posted above.

I really want to stay out of this, so I won't even get into my feelings on the current conflict, other than to say that Okaly and redink, seem to be on the right track.

PureEvil: "Lastly - Scratcher, let me just say that you are quite possibly the most idiotic person on the planet. I won't even give proof of why, as others can simply read the garbage you have posted above.

I really want to stay out of this, so I won't even get into my feelings on the current conflict, other than to say that Okaly and redink, seem to be on the right track."

uhm... no. You see, I agree with you that Redink and Okaly are right, I think most of us do. But that doesn't make Scratcher's opinion wrong. You don't have the right to say what is absolutely *right* or *wrong* You *agree* or *disagree* but nobody's right and nobody's wrong. Scratcher: Almost everyobdy disagrees with you. Doesn't make you an idiot, however, you said some things that are just NOT true though...
Nobody's an idiot, everyone may have his own opinion on things. To call someone an idiot just because he has an other opinion doesn't make you look nice

not on america's side not on iraq's!
I'm against the war itself!

Wrong Christiaan. Stating an opinion requires one to be at least a little educated of that which they opine on. Scratcher was clearly not stating an opinion, therefore there is no right or wrong as you worded it. Scratchers diatribe was worthless rubbish with no solid backing or knowledge. You can be for war, or against it, with reasons why. His post contained no real "reasons".

Even if you prefer to go by the literal meaning of "opinion" (A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof), I still don't think it was an opinion. Saying "I hope Iraq bombs..." is not an opinion, but a statement. And an idiotic one at that.

I agree, heh. I'm actually anti-war, but when people make really silly anti-war posts... I feel compelled to go the other way.

For me... there are too many unanswered questions to go to war. Then again, I haven't really been paying much attention, heh.

You're right PureEvil, an opinion requires arguments. Maybe Scratcher indeed didn't back up his statements with proper arguments, but that could have something to do with the fact he live in Finland heh, to stay on the serious side, I still think you have no right to call his opinion 'wrong'. He may brought it kinda 'incomplete' but if he hopes America will get nuked... then he is indeed a nutcase, 'cause we all know it will affect us heavily, including Scratcher. However, it remains HIS opinion. You don't agree, which is ok ofcourse. I just have trouble with people saying that certain opinions are *right* or *wrong*. But appearantly you didn't mean his statement, but the way he said it. ok

"there are too many unanswered questions to go to war."

That's part of the reason though. If we had the answers, we'd already be at war, or we wouldn't be contemplating it.

God dammit scratcher, pull your head out of your ass and put it near a text book! Obviously sarcasm is beyond you, even when my post is dripping with it. I stated that Japan deserved to be nuked as much as the US does. Actually, Japan had a good chance to avoid it and was rather stubborn, and even after one nuke they were stubborn. They deserved it more than the US, but the fact is, nobody deserves it, and you obviously can't get that from my post. Nobody deserves to be nuked. Do I have to say it again, or maybe you understand now?

Iraq dropping a nuke on the US would not give them any chance to win any war. In fact, it would almost definately lead to their country being completely obliterated, which could lead to retaliation from nearby countries, which could drag more countries into war, and ultimately end in a full fledged war. There are enough secret alliances and old partnerships around that if anyone dropped a nuke on anyone it could cause a chain reaction. It's just the way WWI started, and because the 14 points were ignored, there's still a good chance of it happening.

And I bet you'd "wish to took Bush out of command..." Way more than Saddam? Now, I won't say Bush is a great president, or a smart man..but uh.. I will say that you're not. I won't even get into how much worse Saddam is, despite everything bad about Bush...

And yes life would be boring with no wars..and meaningful..and peaceful..and would lead the human race to greater developments in science, rather than in weapons..

I'm not even going to continue with you, because either you're being sarcastic, which I wouldn't mind too much as flaming idiots is fun, or you really are one of the stupidest people I've ever talked to.

And as far as people "wanting to blow off steam"....thats just stupid. War's aren't about blowing off steam, most are about superiority, conquest, imperialism, religion, things like that, not just being bored. In a recent poll, it was the young people, 18-24, that sided with going to war, while about 70% of people 40+ are against it. Wonder why? Maybe because they've been there, know what its like, and what it accmoplishes. Why is there going to be a gulf war II? Maybe because there was a gulf war I, and afterwards it was not handled properly.

Seriously, just compare the end of WWI to the end of the Gulf War. The denial of the 14 points, the Leage of Nation, the German Reperations and War Guilt Clause, those all set up for another war. We did just the same in Iraq. We kept Saddam in power, with limitations that he broke anyway. We didn't help their economy. We kept troops stationed to do nothing but look good. We just abandoned them, and thats why they hate us. That's why there's going to be another war.

"Dukie tried and failed miserably to to put a different spin on things."

I just wanted to say "No war", brag about my country's 'influence' and tell some history that they don't teach *you* in school.

"Everyone always says that the US should stay out of others affairs. I half agree. Dukie complains that the US entered WWII too late...the one time we tried to stay out and become a more xenophobic nation.

The US has a history of xenophoby and only looks outside of their borders to futher their own interests.

"Fact is, if we had never entered at all, the world would be a much different place, and I believe for the worse.
Many things the US did in WWII helped liberate the folks of France and Belgium. Now Dukie says we were to late."

You are right 100%, if the US hadn't stepped in, the world would be a different place, maybe there wouldn't be a US anymore. And that's just why the US stepped in when they did. But that doesn't justify the fact we had to wait 2(3-4?) years for them to come. Hundreds of thousands had to die while the US were selling everyone weapons. Are you telling me that did not came in too late? They didn't care. Only when *they* were feeling threatened, they intervened. The US only goes to war for their own interests.

But that was then, this is now. The NATO wasn't formed back then, so the US had no obligation to help us. It's not that I blame them. It's just like that.

"Jeesh. He is certainly entitled to his opinion, however, and I respect that."

And you are to yours, and I respect that aswell

Eh, sorry about not responding earlier, I was going to, but I just found myself too lazy before.

First of all, I'm not contradicting you to piss you off or be a jerk. Okay, moving on.

"First off, as far as avoiding war, it can be done. About not being able to get in and take him out, I think you highly underestimate the US's ability to be fellowly."

Maybe I do, but if I do, I have an equal chance to also highly underestimate Iraq's abilities. Government estimations are much better than mine, but estimations are, after all, just estimations.

"Well I never said it was just for oil, but it's a reason, and a really horrible reason. The other reasons I listed already."

I remember something like blood for oil is a bad trade. Or something like that. Anyways, you just restated that it's a reason, and still you've proved nothing. I do believe that is an afterthought however, but nothing close to one of the main reasons.

Concerning the economy. Do you think people operating daily in fear of terrorist attack is helping the economy? Also, since oil isn't a reason for going, but an afterthought after finishing, we could obtain oil for lower prices. And I won't have to explain why that's good for America, I hope.

"As far as better alternatives? Besides the ideas i've listed, such as taking out the power in Iraq and putting up a reliable power, there is little chance of peace. Saddam simply wouldn't allow any kind of agreements, and he's been given a chance. He's going against charters and agreements, and must be dealt with."

Uh. That's the thing. You haven't listed anything. You said for yourself that if Saddam had weapons, which the US government is fairly sure of, he would use them on the US, if we minded our own business. You just stated the obvious here though, saying that he does have to be dealt with, and he must be taken out of power. HOW? If we can't even find their weapon factories how can we expect to get Saddam and his followers? Do us a favor by enlightening us with your alternatives that government officials who analyze these kinds of things for life haven't thought of, and decided that war IS the best way.

"And the idea behind nuclear weapons needs to be dealt with a bit. You have to think about the fact that the US has enough power to destroy the world over dozens of times, yet tries to keep every other country in the world from having any at all. I think the best way to prove that weapons are not the answer is a serious disarment. We do need to keep enough to keep the upper hand, as they can be used as a peace-keeping tool (but not necesarily will be), and that has been proven."

What are you trying to point out here? Sure we have nuclear weapons, but we have them as a last resort. We're the world's police. We can't deal with everything, but what we think is most pressing, we deal with, keeping in mind that nothing can go perfectly.

"And yes we were provoked, but does that mean that we should lash out against all of Iraq? We can say we're going to war to take out Saddam, but what does that mean to the citizens of Iraq. First off, they feel comfortable under Saddam, for the most part. They see the US as an agressor. The best way to rid ourselves of that portrayel would be to help them out both economicaly and governmentaly."

No, not all of Iraq. But we can't do this efficiently without harming some civilians. When you get chemotherapy for cancer, you harm the normal parts of the body too, but the main cells that die are cancer cells. There is no perfect war. And help them economically? If you mean give them money, Saddam controls it all. We'd just be givin him money for palaces and weapons. And the only way to help them in their government is to get rid of the dictatorship, which is possible now only by taking over their government and helping them reconstruct it.

"The best way to fuel that hatred would be to kill them. And while sending in ground troops seems the best solution, you have to think of the fact that the civilians will also want to kill the troops. Yes, propoganda is being dropped, telling them not too, but Iraq will use its civilians against us, knowing we will not want to kill them. And as far as the body bags go, those are for us. We wouldn't need them if we didn't send in ground troops the way we plan to."

Like I said, there's no perfect war. You're talking like there's a way for nobody to die. While these are some good reasons why NOT to go to war, I haven't seen one good alternative yet.

Okay, war is a terrible solution. But what'll happen if we dont' go to war? Do you want them to nuke us and then go to war? We've waited long enough. Saddam has his mind set. We HAVE to take action.

"And the US is still in Afganastan, but mostly for the sake of keeping the place under control. We could have done that better, but we didn't do too horrible, and not many are arguing that we invaded unjustly, where as for Iraq its the rest of the world arguing against us."

We could've done better, but a lot of things in this world could've been done better. Deal with it. That's how it was done. The faultfinder can find fault even in paradise. But again, are you waiting for Iraq to invade us first and then strike? That's what your'e implying, so I could call you a dumbass, but I won't be a jerk like you were to others. But we'll see what the UN decides soon.

I've sort of taken sides now by arguing only against anti-war people, but oh well. Screw it. I was expecting pro-war people to post, and debate that too, but whatever.

I'm not really sure why I'm posting this. Or no, I am, I saw the silliest and most idiotic song I've ever seen anywhere yesterday, called "bomb iraq" and thought I could post the lyrics here, but then I came to wonder if everyone realised that doesn't mean 1)I agree with the song, 2)I think all americans are stupid.

Oh yeah, life sure makes things hard. I don't know about politics that much, but common sense says there'll always be some kind of conflict going on somewhere due to human nature. Our territorial sense is too much for the common sense... and when given enough power, the common sense is just wiped away, most often. Happens everywhere.
Not just between countries, but in schools, jobs, cities, families...

There's no stopping us.
Anyway, as I don't dare post the song I was going to, here's another: Darcane - Beyond the Violence

YES sharp! all [most] of the amreicans are stupid.Look at all the propagandathere is about iraq [i'm still neutral]. Like i heard there was a propaganda film about why people should'nt buy big cars.Because big cars need a lot of gas,and when you buy a lot of gas you support the terrorists!
and I aggree wiht "bowling for columbine", but that's out of the matter.

Well, this is such a long and unuderstandable thread, that I'm not even trying to get any sense out of it. people shout out their opinions, talk about reasons to go to wars, history, atom bombs, flame others, most call me stupid, etc. So what? Obviously it seems that this is like anywhere else.. Americans go for war, and others are against it. Even though I wouldn't like to continue this, I must point that I certainly don't want that an atom bomb will be dropped to USA, but if Bush really thinks he has to attack Iraq, or destroy Usama Bin Laden, so be it. Also: I don't believe that anybody can judge anybody from a couple of messages sent in a place like the dink board.

I don't believe that anybody can judge anybody from a couple of messages sent in a place like the dink board

Exactly. I know you probably a little better than those judging you here, and I must say you're definately not an idiot nor are you stupid. Not at all.

YES sharp! all [most] of the amreicans are stupid

Eh.. you sure you shouldn't read it again? She said "That doesn't mean I think all americans are stupid". Although I get why you misunderstood it... Cause it was horribly formulated, shame on you Sharp, you even confused me! (Not that that would be anything new or unusual...

I wasn't being confusive. What, can't you people read simple lists?
Anyway, won't go any deeper into it, i've no idea about politics you see. (and scratcher isn't an idiot, yeah.)

Of course!!!!! American soldier should kill all irak soldiers and alqaita men! fudge satanizer!

Well guys, I'm not an American... and I really think that America shouldn't go to war. War is the answer for nothing. And please guys, NOONE deserves to get nuked, be it americans or Iraqis, or afghans, or pakis, or indians.... noone. Weapons dont look at who they are destroying, they just destroy wotever comes in their way. And with weapons 70-100 times stronger than what they were when dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we can't imagine what will happen to the world if they were used.
Anyway, I'm proud to be a Dinker, coz I have realised that a number of people from many different nationalities enjoy Dink, without difference and discrimination. Long Live Dink!!

this is obviously a DN posting record . Anyway, i sort of agree with *most americans are stupid*, from my experience, it only seems to be those people that are like 40 and above. I remember i was eavsdropping on my dad talking to some of my uncles, and he was sayin stuff like- *look upon foreigners with suspicion, dont let them feel welcome, or else they will kill you and blow up your family*, and whats incredibly annoying is he is worried about having my computer attacked by terrorists... god i hate that man. Ever see a 20 yr old say stuff like *dont buy gas that comes from the middle east!*? i didnt think so... its seems like the older americans tend to be the most ignorant *im not saying all are, but a lot are*
and AS, "weapons 70-100 times stronger than what they were when dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we can't imagine what will happen to the world if they were used." were hiroshima and nagasaki the only places nuked? *besides testing*

First...Sorry Scratcher, I shouldn't have called you an idiot. But lets review a few of the things you said...

America should be nuked...
Americans are stupid...
"Dark Skin" americans are "stupider"

You know, the US is truely a melting pot of races and religions. You'll find white, black, asian, and hispanic in nearly every city. Name a religion and many cities have a church, mosque or temple to accomodate them. Schools are multicultural, multilingual, and many cities have parochial schools. Local goverments likewise constitute all the aforementioned people. Every country on earth has people that now call the US their home.

This is something most nations don't have to deal with. Certainly the middle-east has such a "melting pot", and you can witness what has been happening there for centuries. All in all, the US deals with these multiple cultures, religions and nationalities quite well. And even if we aren't always happy with our elected officials, we have an opportunity to elect someone else in a few years. Am I happy with a possible war in Iraq? Hmm, two friends I grew up near are in the Navy, 1 a pilot. Two friends active duty Marines, and 3 more in the Army. War, in my oppinion is always a last resort. Always. Perhaps Bush's thinking is that 12 years of games from Saddam is enough. The French Foriegn Minister spoke elequently today about the French position, and I kind of agree with him. Yet I can also also understand The UK's, the US's and Spain position. You'll never be always thrilled with an elected bodies decisions, but I think it beats the hell out of chaos.

At any rate...It's easy for you, Scrather, to make generalizations about people and the intelligence or lack there-of. It just as easy to simply dismiss you ignorance with disdain. I live with blacks, hispanics and whites and asians. I live with muslims, hindu, christians, jews and buddist. I live with Sweds, Fins, Norweigians, African, Spanish, Potuguese, French...you get the point. And on a certain level I am tolerable of all, and they of me. Knowing all I know of the people around me, I still don't feel as though I know enough to make a simple blanket statement about any.

Being one of the strongest nations on earth comes with responsibilities, whether I, or you, like it or not. It be much easier for the US to sit back and look after its own. Oil be danged. But do you realize that if Saddam had succeeded in taking over Kawait(sp), and than followed through with its plans to invade Sauia Arabia 12 years ago, that they would rule 40% of the worlds oil? That doesn't just effect us. Just look at the impending French contracts for oil with Iraq. Lots of money they have scheduled to hand over to him.

In the future, if you wish not to be judged by what you say (and really we all are), than don't make generalizations about people(s). I am far from politically correct, but I know enough not to judge a people by the actions of a few...or their goverment for that matter.

*pokes everybody*

I wasn't just talking about Iraq by the way...what about North Korea? Any thoughts on them?

Well, scratcher has proved he is a *Grade A* moron in this thread. Scratcher, you say you wouldn't want to see a bomb dropped on anyone, but what do you think they iraq would od with those bombs? Use them as pellows? No. Iraq lies about what they have and has refused to let people inspect them. All the other contries in the world have a tally of what they have, and they are checked up on regularly by the UN.

This topic hit home for alot of people, mostly for us Americans, but the truth is, it should. Everyone is going to have a opinion here, and all valid, but only 2% of the people know over 70% of the facts. Read up alittle on why this has been going on for the last 13 years then speak up.

North Korea has threatened to nuke America, I think that should speak for it's self. The American government, and same with the korean, have been lookign for a reason to get back into a rumble, so now that we are going to strike iraq, they are going ot try and double team us. Pretty good tactic.

I'm pretty sure N Korea is bluffing. Sattalite photos show no activity at the powerplant they claim to have reactivated, and no korean military has fought outside korean borders in more than 2000 years. ( some stat. they are proud of.)

I agree with rey, we have to take out saddam, there is no other way, if there was, I'd be down for it. Some of civi's in Iraq WILL die, just as our soldiers will. I would also like to point out one other thing. We are still in Afgah because their government is still weak, we are building it up while trying to settle the civil unrest. If we pull out, all our work would have been in vain.

The point is, they threatened us though, and bluffing or not, it doesn't matter.. If a peaceful guy threatened to shoot the president, he'd be in deep trouble, wouldn't he? Even if he was bluffing.

Hey Rey, I'm going to kick your...hehe, bad joke. Anyways, on that note, no one nor anybody including a country as a body should be threatened. Isn't the part of terrorism? To make someone feel afraid, or threatened? Yes. It won’t be tolerated and should be. It is obvious if they are threatening action that the must have the ability to back those threats.

Ok. Think of all countries as they were persons.. America would obviously be a big muscular man, who thinks more with his di.. than brains. Iraq would most likely be a slippery thief, who takes what he cans and grabs on every chance. Now imagine that Iraq had a grenade - with it even a baby can win a big man. The situation with Iraq is freezed. -If it attacks in America, it'll do it virtually alone.. Now imagine that Iraq has an atom bomb. It doesn't have any use of attacking America with it unless as a last resort, which even then, would only be it's last strike before dieing. (America -> Iraq -> KABOOM)
So basically, America has an advantage. It can delay the war for years if it wants.. But propably, sooner or later, the war WILL begin. What America is being real stupid in here is -- it just doesn't know whether Iraq has chemicals or atom bombs or anything... America should find out more of Iraq before attacking. I don't like delaying things like this... But I say, know your enemy! Besides - Iraq would need dozens of atom bombs and hundreds of thousands of men to survive if America attacks it.. Even though it could win America, other countries would invade it and finally, destroy it. The only advantage in this Bush's oppression is that Iraq will be destroyed sooner.. But 90% surely with more losses than if it would attack in a better time. Thank you. This is my last statement.

if iraq wanted to nuke america, whats stopping them from doing so? is there any way to defend against a nuclear missile?

In response to the first part: I decline response. Second part:
Yeah... GTA's (Ground To Air) I think the Patriot Air missle defence system is one of them but I could be wrong. I think they only have a 75% success rate... Its hard to hit an arrow with an arrow, ya see?
Although one could send your Air force to knock them down while the missle is over the ocean with ATA's(Air to Air), if they (as in the enemy) decidef to go that way. If they have the ability though, they would use FOB's (Fractle Orbital bombardmenmt I think). The missles would be imposible to hit in a low earth orbit, and they could threatin targets all over the world and they could stay there for weeks. You would just have to destabilize the missle and send it to the target. They you just gotta hope that where ever they are going has any GTA missles. Otherwise? Not really.

"Ok. Think of all countries as they were persons.. America would obviously be a big muscular man, who thinks more with his di.. than brains."

Already you've screwed it up. Thinks more with d*ck than brains? I'd like to know what you think with. Really, we've made some mistakes with foreign policies, but what would YOU do in our position?

"The situation with Iraq is freezed. -If it attacks in America, it'll do it virtually alone.. Now imagine that Iraq has an atom bomb. It doesn't have any use of attacking America with it unless as a last resort, which even then, would only be it's last strike before dieing. (America -> Iraq -> KABOOM)"

That's why they haven't nuked the US. They still want to go on as they are. Or rather Saddam does. But that's just stating the obvious, that anybody could see.

"So basically, America has an advantage"

OH! My god you're brilliant.

"It can delay the war for years if it wants.. But propably, sooner or later, the war WILL begin."

We've figured this out too. That why we DON'T want to delay the war, the UN does.

"What America is being real stupid in here is -- it just doesn't know whether Iraq has chemicals or atom bombs or anything... America should find out more of Iraq before attacking. I don't like delaying things like this... But I say, know your enemy!"

Uh, that's part of the reason why we're going to war. Again, if we knew our enemy well, we'd already be at war or not even having a thought about war right now.

"Besides - Iraq would need dozens of atom bombs and hundreds of thousands of men to survive if America attacks it.. Even though it could win America, other countries would invade it and finally, destroy it. The only advantage in this Bush's oppression is that Iraq will be destroyed sooner.. But 90% surely with more losses than if it would attack in a better time. Thank you. This is my last statement."

You've gotten more logical. I'm glad. But how could Iraq possibly win against America? I can't see any way. And America should attack at a better time? So basically you're saying wait. Wait for them to make more weapons, and have more time to build up an army. Waiting won't answer any questions to a constantly developing problem.

This post is an improvement over your previous ones in this thread. Congrats.

P.S. just yesterday my teacher gave me the coolest toilet paper ever. It's yellow, and has a picture of Saddam's gleaming smile on each square. Below the picture, it advertises: "Put a stain on Hussein." I stained that sh*thead good. Rawk on! \m/

Edit: Eh...sorry if I was a jackass in this post...I apologize. I just had a night and morning. Didn't mean to take it out on you.

nothing would change if you would kill saddam or osama.Some other guy will take his place and continue the
leading.that has happened a lot of times.there were revolutions, they killed the king to make life better,what happened? a heir of the king continued to rule and life didn't change!

NO WAR!WAR SUCKS!

but just remember operacion "desert wind"....angel americans......

There has been a lot of saying in this post that Americans are 'stupid'. Well, I completely disagree. If Americans were really stupid, they wouldn't be the most powerful country in the world today. If someone is stupid, then its the rest of the world(which includes me also) to hold America in such a high position.

While everybody is just posting infinite long messages. I just say:

no.

I'm against war.

"While everybody is just posting infinite long messages"

Because I asked why or why not.

I stopped reading this thread quite a while ago, when I realized that everyone who has posted here had made a grade-A ass out of him/herself (myself included).

Anyway, some senator dude made a speech. Though I heard he is a complete moron in real life (isn't everyone?) what he did speak to the senate did make sense to me. Whether or not it is 'true'... who knows.

"everyone who has posted here had made a grade-A ass out of him/herself (myself included)"

Are you implying that we weren't already?

we just posted masive long posts, to tell that
someone is stupid, but everyone knew that already...

Talk as much as you want too, that wouldn't change much. Here we're already securing rooms and all of that, and the worst of all. The 12th graders will probably continue studying through the war, which includes me .
But everybody says the war will end as quickly as it started and things like that... people here are rather optimistic.

I doubt that. Anybody hear of stalingrad? Methinks the Americans will have to slog it out. But, that is just what methinks methinks.
Methinks.

Greatly said, eattherats. I would say pretty much what you did, but all the democrat-alligned members would get pissed at me

Oh, about everyone saying Bush is dumb... ...WHAT IN THE BLOODY HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU!?! Would you rather have Clinton deal with it?!

I love bush, who doesn't love bush? (take this post as you want to)

Oh, about everyone saying Bush is dumb... ...WHAT IN THE BLOODY HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU!?! Would you rather have Clinton deal with it?!

Yes. Actually, yes. We were all b*tching about how bad Clinton was, well, Bush is our punishment for not appreciating how good we had it. Honestly. Just take a look at his tax cut proposal once and you'll see that he doesn't really care about people. But don't get me started on that.

Ya, you're a freaking idiot, clinton was a really good president. He helped our economy boost, he helped make medicare much more universal, and even attempted to make it entirely government run and universal. He didn't have much to deal with in foreign affairs, and what he did do he didn't do amazingly well, but he was still a pretty decent president. I can't believe the number of morons like you that think he was in some way bad. Oh wait, he had an intern give him a blow job. Sweet jesus, no president has ever done that before. I hate the fact that the US took that as something meaningful and made a big deal of it, comepletely ignoring actual problems...

So please, tell me what made clinton a bad president, especially one worse than bush, as you seem to know so much about his time in office.

To answer the main question: Not with Iraq for the official reasons given.
To answer the hate seen in other replies: I'm sure there's a nice person under all that hate somewhere if you'll look hard enough, and when you find him/her, let him/her forgive you for all that hate. You'll feel much better afterward.

I like you Deadman. What you said is true. There is no vengeance so complete as forgiveness.

There's no love in me, not anymore.

I have never read so many ignorant, misinformed, and downright cruel and trashy remarks. It is amazing the amount of false so-called knowledge is out there in other countries being spoon fed to people gullible enough to swallow it as the unadulterated truth.
To those of you who do not live in America, please try to visit this country and meet our diverse and wonderfully creative God-loving people before you wish atom bombs on us. This kind of thinking only shows your violent and jealous nature. You have very little knowledge of this country and what you do have is horribly flawed. The hatred shown toward America is from misinformed and ignorant people that are usually
in countries that have a low quality of life and are so unhappy with their conditions that they need someone to blame. They are not allowed freedom to critise their own polcies or goverments: ergo, let's blame America. Since many of you are from enlightened and forward -progressive countries, I'm appalled that you also are infected with the "let's hate America" poison.
To those of you who have reasonable and coherent thoughts and feelings about going to war, I commend you
on your knowledge and heartfelt wish to avoid war. War is never the answer but it is the reality now. A line has been crossed that can no longer be ignored. From as long ago as the 60's and even earlier, American and it's citizens have been victimized. Our people are abducted, our embassies are bombed, our citizens have been brutally murdered, our ships have been attacked, innocent people lost and never heard from, others that are raped, beaten, had their bodies cut up, and every concievable kind of atrocity done to americans. And all of this from people who say it is :
in the name of their god, because of their politics, because they want to use a form of blackmail to get money, weapons, territory, training, power, etc etc. And wonder of wonders, they want this from the very country and people who they are trying to terrorise and bully. They have no conscience because the means (no matter how brutal and vicious) justifies the ends. Well , there is a point that should not be crossed and unfortunately that is now the case. Iraq is funding muslim terrorists who they hope will bring such chaos to this country that they will be able to step up and take any and all that they want. Lives lost nor God nor Morals nor Ethics count. Greed and Power are the key words. Saddam hopes that civilized countries will have their hands so full fighting terrorism that he may even take the chance to use WMD on America. When he took power in his country, he told the old man that was then in control to move aside or die. He has committed atrocities in his own country and on his own people that boggle the mind. He had an old Iraqi woman whose only son was killed in the Iraq-Iran war strangled because she was destitute and wanted the promised funds for veterans survivors. His own son is a brutal and vicious thug who takes any woman that catches his fancy right off the street to rape and if her family protests, they are tortured. Saddam had his own daughters husbands killed. He is a sadistic monster. When his cabinet counsel displeased him, he held a meeting which all must attend. Saddam's private guards surrounded the building and one by one each cabinet member was denounced and escorted fron the building and executed. There were over 300 men in that building. He will kill anyone or thing he takes a dislike to. With enough weapons, chemicals, nukes, etc, he hopes to become powerful enough to lead a "righteous" muslim war against all "infidels". That means you too, not just America. If not curtailed now , this meglomaniac will assume the right to nuke ANY country. I could go on and on and rebut every single mis-guided or false statements that i have read in reply to the above question. Enough.
YES, we should take Saddam out. BEFORE it's too late and every country is involved in WWIII.

There is so much wrong with that post, I will not try to reply and make a fool of myself. I say this: Try to put yourself in the other persons shoes, and try to reasoniy thier actions.

I think not but if ur little monkey bush does go to war ill leave to russia my homeland