are you for or against?i know there was a serious anti iraq rally in california a couple days ago.i am for this if we can finish the job this time.bush has already sent a couple hundred thousand soldiers over.there are ships in the water with harrier jets and a floating hospital that is capable of treating people with chemical injuries.we need to be swift and efficient in this effort.

it's nice to know that after we are finished with iraq, we are still going to have to barter with kim jong the 2nd of north korea.he is another crazy, can't be trusted mother ****er that we should mop up real quick.

I am against war.

We should never tell another country what to do. we should never rely on any one counrty for any product that we can produce. we have no business in that sand lot. we have no business in Korea. No business in India. We should be peace keepers and an example for the rest of the world to follow. Not a glorified version of a school yard bully. Also we should never fund another country to do our dirtywork with our training and our weapons

Just like there can't be peace within a city without cops, there cannot be peace in the world without war. I am for the war in Iraq. We have evidence that they are in possetion of nuclear arms, which is banned.. and they know this and are breaking the treaty. So before they get a chance to use them and **** everyone over with radiation, we need to step in there and dis-arm them. Why the **** do people argue with this? Okay, so war is bad and you don't want to do it, Mr. ****ing Passive. Are you just gunna wait around and let them nuke everyone they please, eventually letting the radiation come over to you and messin up you and your family? Or do you want to fight now, so it will never come to that? It's better to sacrifice a few hundred lives right now, than millions in the future for something we could have taken care of right now.

With that said; I am not for war, but I am for global policing and destructive prevention. And because I care about the future and want the ammount of deaths minimal, I believe we should take action through war, to gain peace and prosperity in the future.

no Business in there. Why should we make it are ****ing problem. The US themselves stock pile nuclear weapons and when other countries do it we **** a brick.

Here's an analogy for you:

If the cops never busted meth labs in Los Angeles, and just waited for them to explode and **** up when they're makin their ****, how many innocent people would die that didn't need to? You could argue, "It's not the cops business to go in there and arrest everyone and take the lab over." ..sure, but they're thinkin bout the future when they **** up, mix somethin wrong, and everythin blows the **** up and kills everyone inside. Those deaths could have been avoided if the cops just went in there and took control, so they do.

Now apply that to this war, same thing goes for it. C'mon I know you can grasp the consept of this, you're a smart boy.. u can do it.

the us having a supply of nukes is a whole different concept than some crazy ****er like sadam who has them and threatens to use them.aside from that, a treaty was signed by iraq and the un and iraq has broken said treaty.**** them people.i am only sad that in 91 when the gulf war was happening, we did not eliminate the problem.i am all for this war if we can finish the task.there are to many liabilities threatening the free world today.with bin laden, sadam, and kim jongg the 2nd, we will be overwhelmed if we sit back and do nothing.we need to eliminate the problem.

That's exactly what I been tryin to say. We have the same view on this thing. If you would just bite my lip and pull me close to you, I'll be yours forever.

the us having a supply of nukes is a whole different concept than some crazy ****er like sadam who has them and threatens to use them.aside from that, a treaty was signed by iraq and the un and iraq has broken said treaty.**** them people.

crazy yes but how do you think other countries feel about the US having nukes and we are the only ones to ever use them......twice. I agree that Sadam needs to be overrun but WHY THE **** SHOULD WE DO IT!!! The UN aint backing us and everyone can benefit but why send our troops to die so everyone can be safe and we be called War Mongers?

It aint gonna fix ****. we will get another terrorist attack and then on. We remove Sadam and someone else takes his ****ing place and the whole time the US will be the primary target. Maybe we wouldnt if the tyrants knew the rest of the world backs us but the rest of the world dont so all retribution pointed at us.


If the cops never busted meth labs in Los Angeles, and just waited for them to explode and **** up when they're makin their ****, how many innocent people would die that didn't need to? You could argue, "It's not the cops business to go in there and arrest everyone and take the lab over." ..sure, but they're thinkin bout the future when they **** up, mix somethin wrong, and everythin blows the **** up and kills everyone inside. Those deaths could have been avoided if the cops just went in there and took control, so they do.

not the same. If the Los Angeles cops did that in Mexico they would say mind your own ****ing business. The US dont have authority to invade another country without consequence. They are going into the war expecting repurcussions. The Problem is who made the US the cops? Last I heard no one likes that idea.

suave, you bring up good points but there are answers.frankly, i do not trust another country or nation with such a task.you are correct about another tyrant comming to take his place but there will be differences if the next tyrant sees that the us is not ****ing around anymore.an example needs to be set.i do not support us going in and only getting the job half done.if we can go in there with a swift, efficient strike and wreck sadam and his resources, then things will be different.
i promise you that if us sends the message of "**** around and you die" then things will change.
again, this is my opinion and you are entitled to yours, but we can not let this madness happen any longer.

If it wasnt for the oil US would never been around in the first place, thats a fact. Oil is what most wars US is involved with thesee days are all about.

I think they are more concerned with weapons that will be aimed at Israel but im sure Oil is an added bonus.

Our president being an oil tycoon couldnt possibly have anything to do with this war or desert storm could it? I mean it was his dad that was the tycoon then. Not too mention what Jeb did down in florida with the savings and loan scandals.

Originally posted by Aaron Suave
I think they are more concerned with weapons that will be aimed at Israel but im sure Oil is an added bonus.
You are correct sir. Israel, Israel, Israel.

WWW III is eminant

I hope Israel goes in alone into every other country and kicks the **** out of them with half of their available IDF, and then takes all of the land and lets America build 2000 McDonalds.

Originally posted by Christopher Chaos
WWW III is eminant


It would seem that way.

Any war we enter into on a modern scale now has the magnitude to reshape and alter civilization beyond anything we can possibly perceive from in front of our CNN-tuned TV sets.

Perhaps it was different when it was just a couple countries out in the middle east throwing rocks at each other... maybe it was a little different when the States declared independence... but we're not dealing with something as simple as the liberation of a religion or a people here... we are dealing with destruction on massive scales, a war the likes of which no one has ever seen to date. Chemical weapons which can lay down an entire army of men within seconds... nuclear weapons which can make areas inhabitable for hundreds upon hundres of years.... pestilence and death are all a war at this point in our humanity can bring. The aftermath, a peaceful resolution at the millions of bloodied hands who died for it's birth, might not be worth waiting around for.

The fact here is that the United States has gone out of it's way to solidify and maintain it's status amongsat the worldly pantheon as the dominate world power, the standard setter... and in doing so, they've also become domineering. Nations despise us because of our wealth, which we use to fund their enemies to our own ends and establish unwelcome presences in their countries. We can justify our actions all we want, but the fact here is that George W. Bush is a ****ing idiot, and the sooner some wayward democrat offs the old son of a *****, the better. He is going to lead us marching to our deaths with nothing but a vendetta and an explanation to offer for the thousands and thousands of our brothers, who will die as a result of this. Those brothers will leave behind mothers & children. It's okay to use the "break a few eggs to make an omelette" analogy when it's not human lives on the line. Enough people died on September 11th, 2001... Iraq had nothing to do with it. Where do they come in? This thing about them having "weapons of mass destruction" is bull****... it's a media blitz to garnish support for a president whose only touchpoint in his four years as our leader will be churning the ****ing war machine, and speaking such proverbial gems as "I strongly believe the education problem ought to be discussed about".

We're going to die.

I am with Dave on this one...well typed.

Technology has made it so that any major conflict will have such wide sweeping ramifications that life on this planet, which we are already screwing up, but that is a different matter, will be vastly different to the way of life we all currently enjoy.

Terrorism and the battle against it is one thing...going after a country because it could quite possibly have weapons of mass destruction is another...Oil or no oil.

I think ALL avenues need to be explored before any action is taken...

I'm afraid the end time is near. The cataclysmic apocalypse
refered to in the scriptures of every hole book know to mankind. It will be an era fraught with boundless greed & corruption where global monitary systems disintegrate leaving brother to kill brother for a grain of over cook rice. The nations of the civilized world will collapse under the impressive weight of parasitic political conspiracies which remove all hope & optimism from their once faithfull citizens. Around the globe, generations of polluters will be punished for their sins. Unsheilded by the O-zone they have successfully depleted, left to bake in the cering naked rays of light. Wholesale assassinations served to destabilize every remaining government, leaving the starving & wicked to fend
for themselves. Bloodthirsty renegade cyborgs created by tax dodging corporations reek havok. Pissed off androids tired of being slaves to a godless & gutless system, where the rich get richer & the poor get ****ed over and out, unleash total world wide destruction by means of nuclear holocaust, annihilating the terrified masses, leaving in its torturous wake nothing but vicious, cannibalistic, mutating, radiating, and horribly dis-figured hordes of satanic killers, there are so few left alive. Starvation reins
supreme, forcing unlucky survivers to eat anything & anyone in their path. Massive earthquakes crack the planets crust like a hollow egg shell, causing unending volcanic eruptions. Creatures of the seven seas, unable to escape the certain death upon land, boil in their liquid prison. Disease then circles the earth, plagues & viruses with no known cause or cure laying waste to whatever draws breath, and human-kind having proven itself to be nothing more than a race of ruthless scavengers, fall victim to merciless attacks at the hands of interplanetary alien tribes who seek to conquer our charred remains. This is Extinction Level Event, The Final World Front.

Originally posted by Matt Jensen
Just like there can't be peace within a city without cops, there cannot be peace in the world without war. I am for the war in Iraq. We have evidence that they are in possetion of nuclear arms, which is banned.. and they know this and are breaking the treaty.

Where do you obtain your facts from? Dr. Hans Blix, the UN weapons inspector has said that there is no evidence whatsoever of nuclear weaponry.

Please quote your source on this.



So before they get a chance to use them and **** everyone over with radiation, we need to step in there and dis-arm them. Why the **** do people argue with this?

I think you're a bit misinformed Matt. Anyone that's been following this knows that Iraq, whilst behaving questionably and whilst war in some cases is justified, this is hardly the case here.

You're legal system is all about 'innocent until proven guilty' and so far not a single shred of substantial evidence has been found to support


Okay, so war is bad and you don't want to do it, Mr. ****ing Passive. Are you just gunna wait around and let them nuke everyone they please, eventually letting the radiation come over to you and messin up you and your family? Or do you want to fight now, so it will never come to that? It's better to sacrifice a few hundred lives right now, than millions in the future for something we could have taken care of right now.

Are you saying that you'd rather kill people to seek a resolution than to reach a resolution that may not require the loss of any life?


With that said; I am not for war, but I am for global policing and destructive prevention. And because I care about the future and want the ammount of deaths minimal, I believe we should take action through war, to gain peace and prosperity in the future.

That said then, please read this:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/13/sproject.irq.inspections/index.html

I don't like quoting CNN that often but it touches an interesting point. Weapons inspectors and the (IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency) state it could take up to a YEAR to complete their checks.

Check this:

"It is a far better option to wait a little bit longer than to resort to war," he said from Vienna.

"We've only been there for seven weeks now," Gwozdecky said. "We're making progress. We're getting access to the sites that we need.

"Frankly, the longer that we're there the more likely we are to detect something that might be illegally proceeding or to deter the Iraqis from reconstituting any capability that they might have."

Sounds pretty reasonable don't you think?

What's the president's response?

Direct from his spokesperson:

"The president has not put any type of artificial timetable on how long he believes it is necessary for Saddam Hussein to prove to the world that he's going to comply," Fleischer said.

So basically the US have been told how long roughly it could take to complete the weapons inspections. And he refuses to commit to a timeline, thereby basically allowing him to keep his options open and hit the button anytime he's decided he's had enough of the UN and is sick and tired of waiting.

Another gem quote from CNN:

The United States has said it has information that proves Iraq possesses prohibited weapons. But U.N. inspectors said they have found no "smoking gun" as they scour Iraq for weapons of mass destruction.

So basically the US "claims" they have proof, but all the evidence is to the contrary thus far.

If a war is required then so be it, but it should be avoided at all costs and only as an act of last resort. War here has been an act of first resort and only with MASSIVE efforts on behalf of the world have they even coerced the Bush administration into going this far with diplomatic talks.

- The Jake

Busta Rhymes.....

You mother ****er...... I miss you for being able to carryy a conversation like this!!!!!!

Get your ass back to the states pronto, Jarrod.

Oh, and tell your sister I love her.

Ok, I will pass that onto my sister heh heh. :)

Hey Dave, she's finally been given a management contract for singing by a very big record label. She's still deciding whether she's gonna sign it or not and just how much of the thing she's gonna change (you wouldn't BELIEVE how ****ed some of the conditions are).

- The Jake

Its amazing america is following good old dubba stright into this. I mean come on, how can a man be the leader of the nation when he got LESS than 50% of the votes? More people wanted Al Gore to be the leader of the nation and somehow this cowboy gets into office. I don't care HOW bad Al Gore is, he is better than someone that nearly kills himself when eating a salted snack treat. I am surprised he hasn't added "Rolled Gold" to the list of illegal terrorest groups

I'd like to say I'm PRO WAR with Iraq and North Korea. I do not support the appeasement of dictators.

War solves problems. If your enemy is destroyed/killed then you do not have to worry about them. War is needed in Iraq and North Korea. I know the US government helped Saddam in the past and now looking back it wasn't the best thing to do but hind sight is 20/20. The right thing to do NOW is remove Saddam and his government and set up a fair government to the people of Iraq. I'd really like to see North Korea to be broken and submit to the US and our allies. Kim Jong Il is ruthless to his own people and should be removed (along with his government) because he's a threat to the world.

I mean come on, how can a man be the leader of the nation when he got LESS than 50% of the votes? More people wanted Al Gore to be the leader of the nation and somehow this cowboy gets into office.

Creed, the electorial votes are what matter, not the popular votes, in the election for President. Electorial votes are what allow smaller states to have a voice in voting for a President. That the way it's always been.

Originally posted by Matt Jensen
... I am for the war in Iraq. We have evidence that they are in possetion of nuclear arms, ...

Who said this? Even our government hasn't gone this far. All the hard evidence about Iraq's banned weapons/weapon programs that they claim they have is "secret". We are ready to attack a country and overthrow a government, spending billions in taxpayers money during a serious recession, without even questioning the motives of those in power? They keep promising they'll show us the evidence, but a lot of us don't even care if they do or not at this point.

Originally posted by Silver Wolf

Creed, the electorial votes are what matter, not the popular votes, in the election for President. Electorial votes are what allow smaller states to have a voice in voting for a President. That the way it's always been.

"Thats the way it's always been."
This has to be one of the most stupid arguments ever.

Enough people died on September 11th, 2001... Iraq had nothing to do with it. Where do they come in?

this is the question folks. You can always use the hatred directed at Middle East for what a terrorist group did to go after the man that put out a contract on your father's life. I think this si what that ******* Bush is up too.

I think its very easy to be pro-war when its not your life that is being put on the line. War is not and never will be the answer, like most you who have issues with authority and become more and more hostile the more someone tries to submit you, these countries will behave in the same manner.

The reality is that these issues should and could have been avoided earlier and in a different manner, under different conditions. We are dealing with the fruits of our labor, how can we expect anything less?

This has to be one of the most stupid arguments ever.

WTH are you talking about sloppyenglish? My arguement is FACT. The electorial votes are the ONLY thing that matters when voting for a President. Learn more about the way America votes for Presidents before you throw your worthless $0.02 into this debate.

Enough people died on September 11th, 2001... Iraq had nothing to do with it. Where do they come in?

This is a war on terrorists. Saddam is a terrorist to his own people and has financed suicide bombings in Israel. He is a clear threat to the Middle-East. Do you want Saddam to get nuclear weapons? Better to be safe than sorry.

War is not and never will be the answer...The reality is that these issues should and could have been avoided earlier and in a different manner, under different conditions.

False. It's always the answer. And no kidding that these issues could have been avoided before. Take you a long time to figure that one out Sherlock? That FACT is that we are dealing with these issues NOW and war is the answer to the problem.

computer fogie, even Hans Blix is telling Iraq to show more records or give up the weapons or face war. Check it out... http://www.yahoo.com/s/15341

When spineless Hans Blix tell them that you KNOW something is going on there.

it makes zero sense to look behind us at what could have been done.every single person that has posted so far is right and wrong.nobody truly knows what the correct answer to the problem.we could go to war and then 10 years from now say, we should not have done that.i think the only thing that everyone agrees on is people like kim jong II and sadaam need to be dealt with.how, when, and to what degree is the subject of debate.

my personal opinion is war is NOT the answer.us going into that nation and totally devastating it and ending the reign of the mad man IS the answer.that is not war.that is hostile takeover by a one sided strike by the most powerful nation in the world.
**** sadaam, **** kim jong II..we need to turn those nations into a parking lot and set an example.after that, i would bet the house that mother ****ers will think again before they decide to **** around.

Originally posted by Kato
I think its very easy to be pro-war when its not your life that is being put on the line. War is not and never will be the answer, like most you who have issues with authority and become more and more hostile the more someone tries to submit you, these countries will behave in the same manner.

The reality is that these issues should and could have been avoided earlier and in a different manner, under different conditions. We are dealing with the fruits of our labor, how can we expect anything less?

I couldn't have express my thoughts better. I completely agree.

Silver wolf:

I wasn't realy bashing the way you decide who is going to be your president. I'm just saying that the argument "Thats the way it's always been" is stupid.

Just because somthing have "always been", it doesn't make it good.

-We should continue to use unenviromentalfreindly products and turn our planet to a big dump because "Thats the way it's always been"

-The western countries should keep exploting third world countries and making their situation even worse because: "Thats the way it's always been"

-Only men should be able to get top jobs beacause: "Thats the way it's always been"

I hope u see the stupidity in the argument now