Gah! I cannot seem to resist these rants.

Like they are so humanitarian!! Dress up as civilians and then shoot under the flag of truce!!! FUCK THEM!!!!!!!!!

To quote sun tzu: "All war is deception." If you were the iraqis and you were facing down an invading army that is vastly technologically superior you would do the same exact thing. In fact, I'm surprised that anyone didn't expect this sort of thing, it's hardly a new military tactic.

They should have done the job right the 1st time! Any one, who uses Terror tactics on his own people, should be dismantled!

I have a philosophical question to pose. What exactly are "Terror Tactics?" It seems to me that part of the problem is that nobody has been able to really identify what a terror tactic is, exactly. I mean if you take a conservative definition "The use of Terror by itself as a weapon" then the US is equally engaged in terror tactics against its own citizens as are al qaedi or saddam. Does it help our security or do anything to protect us to have rumsfeld and others saying "We will definately be hit by terrorists in the future" As far as doing bad stuff to your own people, the united states has done some pretty horrific things to its people in the past. We interned the japanese during WW2, SLAVERY say no more. To assert that the united states has some sort of moral high ground here is hubris. And as far as doing the job "right" last time, the previous conflict was solely to eject saddam from kuwait. That was was the UN sanctioned and that was the action carried out.

WE are the only ones, with the British, who have the Fucking Balls to clean up the likes of him and the other Terror advocates in the world.

Hrm, I think you are again confused about terrorists. First of saddam is secular. He's not, i repeat NOT, a islamic fundamentalist. He is a fascist, and his state has more in common with stalinist models than with Shari'ah (islamic law). Another thing, it doesn't take balls to attack a weak state. It takes balls to think of ways of achieving your goals without resorting to war. It takes balls to compromise in the face of political pressure.

In my opinion, Korea should be next!

North or south? Do you have any idea what would happen if we attacked north korea?! They have nuclear weapons you fool. They would destroy california in about 45 minutes. Not to mention japan, south korea, etc.

I don't know where u live, but I like to keep my country safe from the likes of manicial trash in 3rd world countries wanting to mame and destroy the American dream.

Hrm, the premise of this statement is that we are currently (or WERE prior to the start of hostilities) subject to some kind of threat to our safety from saddam. If you are talking about current threat, that is clearly not the case. Saddam might, i repeat MIGHT, have terrible weapons, but he has not used them in years, we have worse ones, and he has no way to deliver them to the US. If you are talking about future threats, then you are on very shakey ground. If your argument is that we must take out saddam due to a percieved future threat from him, how do you know that threat really exists? Can you tell the future? Maybe saddam would die of a heart attack in 3 years. Maybe he would sit and pose as a badass until his death. He is, after all, 65 years old. It makes me very nervous that the country which is supposed to lead by example is providing examples of attacking sovereign states based on percieved unproven future threats. And as far as threatening the american dream, what better way to gaurantee that there will be more people who hate us than to attack yet another islamic country for reasons which are murky, and with flimsy and/or classified evidence.

U see what he did and do to their own people, just see what they would like to do to the US citizens if they could.

But that's just the point. He cant. And if he DID, we would squash him and rightly so.

IF the 9-11 attacks did not outrage you, Shame, Shame. It was on our soil.

Hrm, I dont know where you live, but I am uniquely equipped to address this issue personally. I live in new york. I lost 2 coworkers and 2 friends when the world trade center fell. I also lost my job because of it. Twice. And yet, the only thing which made me cry throughout that entire ordeal was the thought that because a few assholes killed 3000 of our citizens, our government sent troops overseas to kill many more than 3000 in another country. Not to say this wasn't justified, but that statement of "On our soil" has a hidden implication. Namely, its ok for us to go somewhere and kill people, but how DARE someone else come over here and kill us? I'm sorry, but the WTC disaster was peanuts. It taught us a lesson about the reach and ability of terrorists, but it obviously DIDNT teach us other lessons we should have learned. For instance, actions taken in what are percieved as US short term interests can backfire. I am not blaming the US for 9/11, but for us to not look back and see how our OWN involvement in the history behind that attack is idiocy. We MUST learn from our mistakes, all of them. And to say that 9/11 has ANYTHING to do with our attacking iraq is fallacy. Our governing administration was desparate to do so prior to 9/11. Attacking iraq while using 9/11 as a reason is like deciding to attack spain because a small group of french militants came to our country and bombed a building and using french and spanish economic ties, or family ties, as our link. This whole thing of "linking" al qaeda to saddam is simply ludicrous. Are you aware of the mathematical concept of 6 degrees of separation? Basically heres how it works: Take 100 people you know (its safe to say you know AT LEAST this number) Take 100 of their friends Take 100 of their friends friends Do this 6 times and you have 100 ^ 6 people. That is a trillion for you non-math buffs. Last time I checked there are way fewer people on the planet than that. Plus you have to remember, iraq and afghanistan are not far apart at all. It would be absurd to conclude that iraq and al qaeda are somehow co-conspiritors simply because colon powel can find a chain of associations 4 links long which show that people from al qaeda know people in iraq's government. The statitistical chances of this NOT being the case are astronomical simply because of geographic and mathematical reality.

I can only imagine what is has been like for people in Paris or London or other countries for the past 20-30 yrs with the bombings and attacks that hey have had to endure from terrorist trash!!

Huh? Please attach URLs showing the history of said attacks in the last 20-30 years in those countries. In fact, from what I understand, france and england have HUGE populations of imigrants from places like pakistan, yemen, morocco, etc who are more or less tax paying well behaved members of their respective societies.

He is trying to make the world a little safer, I don't know about you. If you don't like what he is doing, that is your opinion, but in the end, it will benefit us all.

I have yet to see proof that this attack will make the world any safer. In fact, the CIA and FBI have made statement exactly to the contrary! Namely that us attacking iraq will make us LESS safe, not more.

************************** "Rationalization is giving a socially acceptable reason for socially unacceptable behavior, and socially unacceptable behavior is a form of insanity". BB - Pg 550

Have you read your own signature!? Is not bush rationalizing our attack on iraq using heaps and heaps of spurious unproven suppositions and assumptions!? _________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail