Just too good. They need a mascot is what i say

The fear we spread....at this point and time is a Marther Farker....we shall reap what we now sow!

Cause they are asswarpers.

..or so they want you to believe.

as expected...

This war is going to happen, like it or not. Saddam's neighbors know it, and the last thing they want to do is join up with the losing side. They're not stupid. I'm sure this is not an expression of any solidarity with the U.N. or the U.S.

Who wants to toy with the US military?

Its just that simple

Of course they won't side with Iraq... they know that if they do the US will slay them and their civilians with as little regard for human life as they have in Iraq over the last 11 years. It has nothing to do with agreeing with America, it had everything to do with being afraid of what America will do to them.

(dons asbestos suit)

We're willing to help Iraq surrender.

So I guess when the UN (save Israel of course) condemns a US attack on Iraq, that's just Iraq talking, right? Not the rest of the world?

US attacking Iraq right now without any real evidence is morally wrong. It doesn't matter that Saddam Hussein is the bad guy, we don't sink to that level.

This may seem like an asshat and stupid question, but why will there be a war? what is the reason to attack iraq now? besides that the bush's have a grudge against hussein...

It's real easy too. Once you get the hang of it, you'll be doing it all the time. Like this:

We Surrender!

See, it's simple. C'mon Saddam, say it with me...

Where's that Axis of Evil when you really need them. I suppose one shouldn't expect better of evil friends.

Verdant: Dubya has given the real reason... "This is the guy that tried to kill my dad"

France - You should make an instructional video.

I hope for a quick war resulting in the death of Saddam. I dont want war, but I think its gonna happen. Hopefully this war will end the embargo that is sufficating the Iraqi people. That was supposed to be the way we were going to remove Saddam. Starve the people into doing it for us. But I think that backfired.

Hot dogs, popcorn, marshmallows, I've got 'em all. Cheap! Supplies are limited, so buy yours while the getting's good!

No graham crackers or chocolate this time, sorry.

I'm SO not going over there to clean up the mess this is going to make. Bush better be willing to pick up his toys after he's done playing - cos nobody else is going to clean it up.

The point is....IMHO...why are we so war hungry with Iraq????...post me one legit piece of evidence why we as a country should break numerous UN resolutions? I'm not talking about the shiat spewed from the White House and the THUTH FAIRY ...Ari Fleischer either.

Iraq should ask canada for support

He already said that we'd rebuild Iraq after we tear it down. Perhaps we should just tear it down and sell it to Cuba: Castro is a really good sport. What with us trying to assassinate him all those times.

Side with the winners in the world. Good logic.
Except...this isn't going to be a moral war for America, and will, in fact, be our first offensive war. And since most of the aggressors in history have been villianized, what does that mean for us?

iraq should ask farktards like senator dasshole, streisand, baldwin, sarandon, robbins, and the rest of the loony left for support. oh wait, iraq already has those farktards support.

We should leave Saddam and the whole region to their own devices, he will go wipe out Kuwait, and whip out his ol ethnic cleansing machine on the Kurds. Then he'll go after UAE, and Saudi Arabia. We'll be heroes in the Muslim world for not 'opressing' Iraq. I don't see how Iraq is directly threatening us, so let him be as despotic as he wants to be.

According to the press in Iraq, we lost the last war terribly, why would we dare try again?

We have enough conservative trolls already, thanks. Why does everyone go for the easy way out when leftwinger trolls are much more entertaining to play?

If you ask me, this vendetta that Dubya has against Iraq will mean an early exit from the White House for him. Yes, Saddam is an asshat. Yes, I think the UN should take greater care to insure that Iraq isn't developing weapons of mass destruction. But, Dubya is essentially ignoring mounting domestic issues while leading us into a war that will likely cost many innocent lives and damage our standing in the international community to boot. I just hope that the long term repercussions are not too severe.

I can only assume the people that say the United States requires some kind of proof of wrong-doing before attacking Iraq, are the kind of people who sit around and wait for bad shiat to happen.

I mean seriously, you have 1 crazy mf who kills his own people, refuses to comply with UN sanctions (the UN being the ONLY thing keeping the US from turning the whole area into a self illuminating glass parking lot), and has a history of attacking his neighboring countries.

Im wondering how the same people would feel if it was their family killed by weapons Iraq is not supposed to have. If it was someone they knew who became infected with a biological agent that killed them slowly over the course of 5 days. I wonder.

Before the start of the gulf war, Iraq had the 4th largest army in the world. General Norman Swartzcaugh (spelling) went on record as saying "They may have the 4th largest army in the world, but right now its only the 2nd largest army in Iraq".

I Hate Bush. But I support the removal of this crackhead from any sort of political office in Iraq. Right now the country needs a stabalizing force, and the removal of the Weapons of mass destruction. (Yes he farking has them, why do you think he got rid of the inspectors, he was having a hard time hiding them all. asshats)

Farkvaark, I'll take two Flaming Ass Red Hots. Ah, one with lib flavoring, one with con, please.

Sure Harry Bean Bag...and maybe we should sell Iraq chem and Bio weapons again like Reagan and Bush I did?...this problem is systematic...IMO!

for the record, it's not even about siding with the "winners" ... it's mainly that iraq's stepped on a lot of toes in the mideast as well. war with iran, invasion of kuwait, assorted other sabre rattling ... it has no friends; the main argument against attacking it is THAT IT DOESN'T SPONSOR TERRORISM ... certainly not any bullshiat notions of pan-arab solidarity.

The "Governments" of these countries may not support Iraq, but they are not democracies, rather corrupt dictatorships / monarchies. The poor in these countries will support the Iraqis against the Capitalist pigs. Little cells will develop everywhere. We will not know who we are fighting. Vietnam will come to the US.

Why is it that you liberals are still asking "why now"? The president addressed that question Monday night. Were you too involved in your hand-wringing liberal circle-jerk to pay attention?
Briefly, we go now, because we should've gone much earlier, but it took 9/11 to open our fvcking eyes.

Firebat:
"Most of the Aggressors in history have been villianized."

Only the aggressors that lose get villanized. Name one country that was the aggressor in a conflict which they wound up winning that was villanized. History is written by the winners... Number one rule of conflicts: Win (history can be taken care of later).

Who cares what Iraq needs, until they're a real threat to the United States, fark them all. Just because they hate us is no reason for war.

The Timothy McVeighs of the country are more of a threat to our security than Saddam is. Almost every school in the nation isn't ready for a terrorist attack, yet all the gun toting republicans ignore that and just talk about war with Saddam. Real bright.

This just in: American officals having a hard time rallying nations to unite with them against Iraq

hardly news tho is it!

Well, in fact, Commie, er, Cormee...the arab nations are slowly falling in line, bar Iran. Russia and France can probably be counted on to go along as long as their financial interests are served. The biggest cost of this war is going to be buying the coalition, but that's the way it was with Gulf War I, too. C'est la guerre.

QuesoDelicioso
Bush's speed on Monday night was Rhetoric. Rhetoric is not the same as proof. If Bush want's to invade Iraq, fine, but justifying it based on Iraqs direct threat to anyone (except maybe Israel) is ridiculous.

1. Saddam does not have nuclear weapons.
2. Saddam does not have ICBMs.
3. If he does have WMDs, he'll be saving them to fire at Israel, not giving them to terrorists.
4. If someone wants to build and set off a nuclear/chemical/biological weapon in the US, wouldn't they just steal material from US research facilities?

Lets see Queso, he doesn't have nuclear weapons, no one disagrees with that. The gun toters *THINK* that he'll develop them in the future, why PROVE anything that everyone already knows?

Irrelevant, correct. Because even if he did, he couldn't touch us with him.

And betting lives, you agree that it's better to wage war, risk lives and spend money on someone who's not a credible threat to us, and just leave OUR OWN SOIL vunerable to terrorist attack.

Grab yourself an AK and a passport and go fight.

QuesoDelicioso
Well, in fact, Commie, er, Cormee...the arab nations are slowly falling in line, bar Iran.

First off, calling someone names in the beginning of your post doesn't help your arguement any.

Of course the Arab states are "falling in line", with an ultimatum of "You're either with us or with the terrorists", they don't care to be next on the bombing list. Iraq may not be with the terrorists, but they're not with us, so they get a nice little war like the prize in a box of Cracker Jacks.

And can you blame Iran for jumping at the chance to help us? Remember that the chemical and biological weapons that Iraq as used as well as the weapons that they used in the war against Iran were provided by the US with a smile on our face. It's tantamount to us saying "Hey, uhhh...listen...We're sorry about that war in the 80's, but the little guy kinda got out of hand, would you mind helping us clean up our mess?"

Blair has signed on because the UK has been and will continue to be "America's biatch". Any time they actually consider not going along with us, the US pipes up with "We saved you in World War II". The rest of the world has moved beyond that mentality, the only ones who consider debts not paid in the last 60 years is the US.

I find the most disturbing comment of your post to be this one:
The biggest cost of this war is going to be buying the coalition, but that's the way it was with Gulf War I, too.

We did not buy the coalition in Desert Shield/Storm, if anything, it was the other way around. Japan was constitutionally forbidden from sending troops for use in anything but a defensive action, so they sent money and supplies. A coalition requires that there be more than two nations -the US & UK- involved. Germany has flat out said that they want no part in this war, even though they were one of our boggest supporters in 1990.

3Horn

QuesoDelicioso: Yes of course i'm a commie, how witty of you to mix it up with my name because I pointed out the lack of interest in ur presidents crusade - you are indeed a witty individual.

Anyway '. Russia and France can probably be counted on to go along as long as their financial interests are served are you on drugs?!?! Russia and France like the rest of the world have absolutely NO INTENTION of joining your presidents crusade - this is not a war against terrorism its a war for votes, every other nation on earth can see this but somehow the truth manages to evade blinkered muppets such as yourself.

Your president should wake up and realise your countrys failing/failed economy is a lot more urgent that fighting his daddys battles.

1. Saddam DOES have chmical weapons and has used them before
2. Saddam DOES have biological weapons.
3. Saddam has given aid and comfort to al-quida terrorists
4. Saddam is trying to obtain nuclear weapons.
5. Saddam never complied w/ UN resolutions.
6. Saddam still is not allowing UNLIMITED inspections.

Are you going to wait for him to destroy a city before we stop him? Who are you willing to let die for your "proof"

popecorn?! I suck....

3Horn: Your arguments about why the arab states are falling in line make perfect sense, and I agree with them. The only thing is, you think this is a bad thing, and I don't. "Do what we say or we'll fvcking smite you" is a foreign policy I can get behind.

Yes, please do forgive me for making fun of his name, but it was quite the easy target.

QuesoDelicioso
Point 1: The recent 'dossier' released by th UK and US said that Saddam could have nuclear weapons in a few years if he could get some fissile material. Seeing as this dossier was produced to support the war, wouldn't it have mentioned a nuclear weapons capability if there was one?

Point 2: It does prove that he cannot launch a direct attack on the US though.

Point 3: I agree it is speculation, but if I was about to be invaded by the US, I wouldn't be giving away my weapons.

Point 4: Agreed. If you wanted such material, it'd make much more sense to get it from Russia, which has a thriving black market and huge stockpiles of WMD. Rather than either the US or Iraq.

All I really want is for Bush to give a good reason for attacking Iraq. Many countries ignore the UN, and loads of countries oppress their populations.
Saddam is not a terrorist or an islamic fundamentalist, he's an evil despot. And if the US and UK want to invade every country that is run by a nasty man, it's got a very long list and a very hard job ahead of it.