Who wants the U.S. to invade Iraq?

About the whole Iraq thing:

This is a little cartoon I made.

gatewatcher said:

"WELCOME TO RED HELL" comes to mind. And I don't think soviets at that time were a very humane bunch of people. I think you all know where this is going.

No, they were not very humane people at that time, do you think they could have been so evil as to MELT, alive 6,000 babies? Perhaps not, even I do not think the Russians would be so evil, perhaps no-one is, Oh wait SOMEONE was, wasn't they?

I do NOT like the Bush-Cheney administration's alterior motives or personal vendettas at all, but if we end up not actually attacking and just succeed in scaring Irag into letting weapon inspectors in without restrictions, that would be good.

Gokuma said:

I do NOT like the Bush-Cheney administration's alterior motives or personal vendettas at all, but if we end up not actually attacking and just succeed in scaring Irag into letting weapon inspectors in without restrictions, that would be good.

The U.N. already cut a deal with Iraq to allow the weapons inspectors unrestricted access. Bush wants Saddam's government removed from existence, and plans to sell Iraq to Jordan once Saddam is out.

Britain has allowed Bush to use our base at Diego Garcia to launch against Iraq, word is, America has shipped some nuclear weapons to there, seems Bush is thinking of using "Any and all means".

fodders said:

No, they were not very humane people at that time, do you think they could have been so evil as to MELT, alive 6,000 babies? Perhaps not, even I do not think the Russians would be so evil, perhaps no-one is, Oh wait SOMEONE was, wasn't they?

It sucks, it really does. But, it's what needed to be done. 6,000 is a small number compared to the number that would have been killed if an invasion was to occur. A stray bullet knows no difference between civillians, babies, and soldiers.

But, what I really want to know is Fods, If you are so anti-war, why did you want to extend it and cause more deaths and casualties than what was saved by using the two bombs?

fodders said:

word is, America has shipped some nuclear weapons to there, seems Bush is thinking of using "Any and all means".

Whose word?

bush is sure fucking up america when i get some wheels i'm moving somewhere else out of america! i don't want to live in loser village anymore!

IMJack said:

Whose word?

Aircraft using Diego Garcia have included RAF Hawker Siddely Nimrod MR2 marine reconnaissance aircraft, Lockheed P-3 Orion transport aircraft, and USAAF Boeing B-52 Stratofortress heavy bombers capable of carrying nuclear devices stored on the island
British MP,and Father Of The House, Dalyell said that he believed that B2 stealth bombers were being moved to Diego Garcia: “One of the weapons they can carry is the new B61-11 earth-penetrating nuclear bomb. It is designed specifically to destroy underground bunkers, including those holding chemical and biological weapons. We are sleepwalking to disaster. The government’s dossier states that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons ready to use. We know Iraq was prepared to use them in 1991 if Baghdad was attacked. We can be sure they will use them if cornered.”

Dalyell added that the UK Defence Secretary, Geoff Hoon, had said that Iraq “can be absolutely confident that in the right conditions we would be willing to use our nuclear weapons.”and warned that the use of nuclear weapons against Iraq was being seriously considered and prepared for by the Unites States and Britain. He informed the rally that last week he had asked for an assurance in parliament whether nuclear weapons were being moved to Diego Garcia by the United States with the authority of the UK government.
The bomb in question is the B61 mod11

gatewatcher said:

It sucks, it really does. But, it's what needed to be done. 6,000 is a small number compared to the number that would have been killed if an invasion was to occur. A stray bullet knows no difference between civillians, babies, and soldiers.

But, what I really want to know is Fods, If you are so anti-war, why did you want to extend it and cause more deaths and casualties than what was saved by using the two bombs?

It is pointless answering you, you obviously have not read my reply about the propoganda you adhere to, being totally blown away by the release of documents of the time, dropping the bomb saved no lives, Japan was trying to surrender could you not digest that one fact from all the info I gave you?

gatewatcher said:

But, what I really want to know is Fods, If you are so anti-war, why did you want to extend it and cause more deaths and casualties than what was saved by using the two bombs?

Fodders dont even bother explaining the situation to this guy again, he refuses to listen. ANyhow, thats NOT THE POINT, wehter or not we used terrorism corectly or not, Saddam housein is not better or worse, the same rules that apply to him should apply to sharon and Truman and *bush*. If anything, your argument about the killing of hundreds of thousands of people saving millions of lives makes war on Iraq seem EVEN LESS WORTHY because your implying that deadly force can be used correctly, so EITHER WAY you lose.

Now you might say "well, america hasnt done what Saddam's done!" The answers is yes we have, in fact weve done much much worse in Panama Nicaragua East Timor Vietnam and many more. so shut up.

I tend to be more of right wing, just because most of the left wing views IMO are completely nuts. Yes, I do believe the two bombs did more good than bad. Fods can try to shove all this stuff about Japan being ready to surrender down my throat, but I don't believe that at all, I have seen much more information to the contrary. Xian can sit here and say america sucks, we are the enemy and should all rebel against Bush because he Satan. Well fine, there is no point in going in circles anymore. Have fun.

gatewatcher said:

... Fods can try to shove all this stuff about Japan being ready to surrender down my throat, but I don't believe that at all, I have seen much more information to the contrary.

You cannot ignore Pres. Truman's diary, it's fact, his own hand..

7/18/45 Diary Entry:

"P.M. [Prime Minister Winston Churchill] & I ate alone. Discussed Manhattan [atomic bomb] (it is a success). Decided to tell Stalin about it. Stalin had told P.M. of telegram from Jap Emperor asking for peace. Stalin also read his answer to me. It was satisfactory. Believe Japs will fold up before Russia comes in..

That ALONE shows he knew of Japan's wish to surrender...you can show no independant evidence contrary to this. The only semi-reasonable defence shown elsewhere is that America insisted on Japan's unconditional surrender, insisting Japan was to relinquish the Emperor, but after dropping the bombs, America accepted Japan's surrender and never received an unconditional surrender, and allowed Japan to keep it's Emperor.
fact
FACT: Most Americans don't really know how the Pacific war came to an end. They know it ended with the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and then Nagasaki. What most don't know is how the military did not support the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Joint Chiefs of Staff, after the victory in Okinawa, concluded that Japan had lost the war. Japan was completely isolated; its army in China was cut off. The American Navy had a complete blockade of Japan; the Air Force was bombing Japanese cities at will; there was no defence in Japan. Japan was running out of fuel.

Intercepted messages sent from Tokyo to Moscow, said that Japan was ready to surrender. They asked the Russians to negotiate a surrender, especially before Russia declared war on Japan, scheduled for August 8th. There was just one non-negotiable condition: let Japan keep its emperor. The Joint Chiefs of Staff advised Truman when he went to Potsdam to allow Japan to have a conditional surrender.

Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson, went to write into the Potsdam Declaration a provision that would have allowed Japan to keep the emperor. On his way he met with Dwight D. Eisenhower. Eisenhower knew about the Manhattan Project and said that America should never use that bomb against Japan. He called it "that awful weapon." He said that Japan had lost this war, and there would be no military necessity to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. General Douglas MacArthur, meanwhile, was preparing for the occupation of Japan, because he knew that as soon as Russia declared war on Japan, Japan would fold.

The troops thought they were going to have to invade. Then they thought that the atomic bomb saved their lives. This, of course, is what Truman said, but he said it in 1955, ten years after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, and he said it in his diary, where he wrote, "I made that decision, it avoided an invasion and I saved half a million American lives."

Historians look at that now and ask where he got that half a million figure. The government has declassified the top-secret documents of your military. Minutes of your cabinet show there was presented the plan of the joint planning committee for the invasion by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. They estimated 40,000 deaths, not half a million. Truman read that report, and he ordered an invasion to take place. That was in June 1945.

Stimson, who was at that Cabinet meeting, went to Potsdam and wrote into the draft of the Potsdam Declaration a provision that would allow Japan to surrender. Winston Churchill asked Truman to let Japan surrender on a conditional basis, saying that it wasn't worth an invasion and the killing of so many American and British lives. But Truman refused.

Even after Nagisaki was vaporized, Japan still refused to surrender, except on one condition: allow Japan to keep the emperor. At that point, Truman told Secretary of Agriculture Henry Wallace, "I'm going stop the order for the dropping of a third atomic bomb. The thought of killing another hundred thousand more women and children is too terrible to me." So Truman knew that these bombs were targeting civilians. In the end, Truman accepted the conditional surrender in Japan, and that's why Japan today still has an emperor. That's how the war ended.

Stimson wrote the following entry in his diary (which is still unpublished, but you can find it in the Yale University archives) on August 10, the day after Nagasaki: "There has been a good deal of uninformed agitation against the emperor in the country, mostly by people who know no more about Japan than has been given to them by Gilbert and Sullivan's Mikado. I found out today that curiously enough it had gotten deeply embedded in the minds of influential people in the State Department."

Stimson knew that the deletion of that provision was made not only by Truman but also by Secretary of State James Burns. Burns, we now know, wanted the war to continue so that America could test that atomic weapon against Japan. He wanted to send a message to Stalin. This was the first shot of the opening of the Cold War and what would become the nuclear arms race.

Stimson was governor of the Philippines and had made several trips to Japan. He knew about Japanese culture and the Japanese people. He told Truman, "The Japanese people are not a nation of fanatics. They are not going to die for the emperor. Let's let them surrender and we can end this war now."

There are papers about this all over the net, it's facts, don't ignore facts.

gatewatcher said:

Xian can sit here and say america sucks, we are the enemy and should all rebel against Bush because he Satan. Well fine, there is no point in going in circles anymore. Have fun.

IM going in circles? I never said *we* are the enemy, i said the Major property owners and poiliticians were the enemy. america is not a democracy and we have no control over the actions of these tyrants. If i say Isreal is the worst terrorist state in the middle east am i saying something against the Jewish people? Of course not, the jewish people dont get to VOTE on wether or not to bomb kill starve or invade! And neither do the Americans. I will NEVER insult the general American population, and never have

... capable of carrying nuclear devices stored on the island ...

... he believed that B2 stealth bombers were being moved to Diego Garcia ...

... One of the weapons they can carry is the new B61-11 earth-penetrating nuclear bomb ...

I'm capable of carrying a small explosive into my old high school. There are people who believe I might move back home, and that I can carry such a weapon into my high school with intent to use it.

There are terms for this. "Hearsay", "speculation", and "conjecture."

Yes, and those terms become "Congress releases truth" 40 years later :)

fodders said:

Yes, and those terms become "Congress releases truth" 40 years later :)

Hey man, if in 40 years we find out they had nukes, but didn't use them, my respect for Shrub's nannies will be increased a hundredfold.

Major Grit said:

Hey dsm don't go playing that thing on clinton because you can say what you want to say clinton was the best damn president we ever had on the real.

Ugh, another dope who doesn't read my post, read my damned post son. I didn't say ANYTHING about Clinton being bad, because I agree. Politically, Clinton was one of the best US presidents in newer time. Who gives a flying fuck about him doin' it with one of his secretaries? Only his family and a bunch of lamers who blow it up to seem like treachery to the states. Sure, he was a moron for doing it, but what the fuck did that have to do with policy??? He didn't go out and pick a fight with every damn country out there, he didn't waste USA's fucking resources on starting wars everwhere. What is Bush doing? Basically pissing off every country in the EU (By taking protectionist measures that harm a number of industries in EU countries) or starting wars left and right.

So Major Grittyboy, I'm dissing the crap outta Bush, not Clinton, see?

5 lies of Bush:

Lie #1
He says he wants to end the suffering of the Iraqi people.
But it seems he does not care about the people of his allies Turkey, Saudi-Arabia, Egypt and Qatar. Countries where people suffer just as much.
The suffering in Iraq is not only caused by Saddam. Is caused even more by the UN sancions. Medicines and medical equipment can hardly get into the country. According to Unicef half a million children died between 1991 and 1998 because of the sanctions. Since the start of the sanctions no child has survived Leukaemia.
The sanctions themself are weapons of massa destruction.

Lie #2
US is fighting for the democracy in the Middle-East.
Question: Why only fight against Saddam and do bisness with Noriega, Soeharto, Pinochet and Mobutu?
The US goverment has a bloody history when it comes to supporting and financing warcrimes, warcriminals an terrorist groups and creating dictators. US helped Saddam rise to power in 1979.

Lie #3
Iraqi weapons threaten the world
US is #1 in the world when it comes to the production of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons of mass destruction. Also Iraq is not the only country in the Middle-East with weapons of Mass destruction. Isreal has much more of them (biological, chemical and nuclear). Israel also recieves 3.000.000.000.000 dollars each year for militairy support. Israel has 260 F-16's that can be armed with nuclear weapons, and has even threatend to use them if Iraq attacks.

Lie #4
Bush wants to uphold UN-resolutions
Lets see if there is a country is the Middle-East that has ignored UN-resolution far more than Iraq...
...Oh wait here's one: Israel.
This is by far America's most important ally in this oil rich region.
In 1947 UN decided 55 % of Palestina to be Israeli (Israeli colonist formed 30% of the population). But these colonists weren't satisfied; With armed forces they drove 750.000 Palestines out of their homes. Israel claimed 77% of Palestine. UN made resolution 194. Which demanded the return of the refugees. This resolution has been confirmed 28 times at least and every time it is ignored by Israel. When Irael enlarged its lands again between 1967 en 1973 the UN made similair resolutions. All of these are binded and can be enforced with militairy intervention and sanctions. But Bush does not want to bomb Tel Aviv, no instead he supports Sharon!

Lie #5
With UN-premission the war is justified.
US, China, GB, France and Russia would have to give premission.
Do these countries really care about justice?
-Blair is Bush most loyal follower, so Bush can rely on his support.
-France has supported the most bloody regimes in Africa.
-Poetin is allready responsible for tenthousants of bodies in Chechnya. and has offered his approval if he can continue his fight against these "terrorists" in Georgia (deals like this are made in de UN; that's how it works).
-And finally China. This country might make a similair deal if it is can go on persecuting the Oeigoer and other moslim groups.

All US wants is more control over the oil. That's the the root of all problems in the Middle-East if you ask me.

Scientist said:

5 lies of Bush:

Lie #5
With UN-premission the war is justified.
US, China, GB, France and Russia would have to give premission.
Do these countries really care about justice?

The sad fact, and a fact that should worry most decent people is his words (paraphrasing here) "If the UN votes against or does not vote for bombing Iraq, America will take unilateral action"...which leads me to ponder what is the point of having a UN or any other country using the UN to protect it, if Bush is going to say anything the UN says that he disagrees with, he is going to ignore and act alone?
probably the best solution to all this

An armed escort of the weapons inspectors would surely be a better policy? Iraq are hardly likely to fire on superior troops and/or risk a situation, and then the weapons inspectors can do their thing, which they did well. Kind of a Trojan horse, except not. Hmm.

Heh, politicians never do any work, they send slaves to die for them. Plus both saddam and bush have probably never fought a real fight in their lives. Bastards. Both countries need a regime change immediatley

Xian said:

Heh, politicians never do any work, they send slaves to die for them. Plus both saddam and bush have probably never fought a real fight in their lives. Bastards. Both countries need a regime change immediatley

Damn straight, I'm tired of war fanatics who think that war is the solution to everything.

http://theonion.com/onion3836/bush_seeks_un_support.html

This has got to be one of the best satirical articles ever. It's so true in every way.

Bush is a fucking idiot. He seems to be very close to being the first to attack, meanwhile I still haven't heard any support from the people. He's just wasting the available resources towards 'fighting' the 'war' on terrorism and the like. Is this even necessary? It just seems like America is scared that Iraq will grow a bigger dick.

That's what this is. Military penis-envy.

It seems strange that prior to 9/11 Americans were quite happy to donate cash to the IRA terrorists to buy weapons to blow up and kill British people in Manchester and Birmingham etc, seems terrorism was ok then.

fodders said:

It seems strange that prior to 9/11 Americans were quite happy to donate cash to the IRA terrorists to buy weapons to blow up and kill British people in Manchester and Birmingham etc, seems terrorism was ok then.

Don't change the topic from Middle East/Iraq to the IRA just so you can insult americans more you limey bastard.

sysyphus said:

Don't change the topic from Middle East/Iraq to the IRA just so you can insult americans more you limey bastard.

You hypocritical American bastard. The IRA is very relevant - if you don't like it shut up.

GS-1719 said:

You hypocritical American bastard. The IRA is very relevant - if you don't like it shut up.

The IRA is pissing me off. Because of them, the streets of London are filled with trash because as a result of them placing bombs in the dustbins, all dustbins have been removed from the streets - so people just drop their trash on the street.
How come these bastards don't get dustbins shoved down their throat?
/drumroll
Because the Americans are only interested in attacking countries with oil and such.

How come I fucking knew that it was a bad thing when I heard the result of the election, that Bush had been "Elected"?

sysyphus said:

Don't change the topic from Middle East/Iraq to the IRA just so you can insult americans more you limey bastard.

You'd better watch your fucking mouth.

FACT : In the past, the IRA and other terrorist groups have bought weapons from the USA. Those weapons have claimed hundreds of lives.

The fact that Dubya is now so concerned about terrorism is so laughably hypocritical that i can't help but wonder how anyone takes him seriously.

sysyphus said:

Don't change the topic from Middle East/Iraq to the IRA just so you can insult americans more you limey bastard.

Well it is relevant as Bush's "War against terrorism" Only seems to extend as far as America's interests, and other terrorism is ok by him.