The Iraq Thread

[FSPilot 0]

Exactly.

If we were pursuing NK as much as we were Iraq people would be whining about us attacking too many countries. Then they'd pick the one natural resource NK has to offer, if any, and say this war was all about it.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

God, this is such a difficult situation.

Let's get this out of the way immediately: Saddam Hussein is a bad guy. A very bad guy. So bad, in fact, that his idea of father-son bonding is presiding at the execution of a dissident. But he is not a threat to anyone but his own people, and lets face it, if that was grounds for invading a country, we'd be involved in (and I'm doing this math off the top of my head):

1 world war

2 major conflicts

25 regional conflicts

5 brushfire wars

10 police actions

4 micro conflicts

6 Mexican standoffs

3 arms-races

and finally,

1 civil war (we gotta be fair, people)

While browsing through the CIA World Factbook, I've gotten some interesting numbers.

Iraq's GDP is roughly 59 billion dollars with a growth rate of neegative 5.7 percent. Bear in mind that these numbers are from 2001, but lets face it, an imminent pummeling doesnt exactly stimulate economic indicators. Now, that levels out to about 2,500 dollars per capita GDP. Military expenditures as of 2000 were about 1.3 billion dollars (conscript army). Now, just for the hell of it, let's say they increase spending by 300%. We have military hardware sitting at Diego Garcia, a BRITISH base, worth more than that. We have several aircraft carriers, each one worth more money than God, plus more nukes than you can shake a proverbial stick at. Now, what I ask you is, can you honestly say that a country with a smaller military budget than Bill Gate's 401(k) poses a threat to the most powerful country on Earth?

EDIT: I know I'm not an expert on geopolitics or anything, but I can't help but wonder at the No-Fly Zone. I mean, it's a no-fly zone, right? Not a no-military-hardware-that-has-a-gun-that-traverses-skyward zone. Technically, the Iraquis have almost never violated the No-Fly zone, because the only part of the Iraqi Air Force that survived the Gulf War is now residing in Iran, and I don't see Iran giving them back. I value the lives of my fellow countrymen, but when you enforce upon a sovereign nation something as crippling to national security as the No-Fly Zones, you are an idiot to think you won't be shot at. To try and present anti aircraft fire as a violation of terms of surrender is kind of stretching things. The No-Fly Zones were originally instituted to protect seperatist groups in north and south Iraq, but they also serve the convenient purpose of leaving Iraq's border forces deaf, dumb and ripe to slaughtered.

I'm not saying we shouldn't shoot back at things that shoot at us. On the contrary, I fully support exercising the entire arsenal that the US taxpayer supplies, but you can't just preemptively blow up ground targets in a country you aren't at war with on their own soil.

[CosmicCastaway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Dec. 20 2002,07:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1 world war

2 major conflicts

25 regional conflicts

5 brushfire wars

10 police actions

4 micro conflicts

6 Mexican standoffs

3 arms-races

and finally,

1 civil war (we gotta be fair, people)<span id='postcolor'>

...and a Partridge in a pear tree...  

EDIT: Sorry

[Longinius 1]

I don't think the Iraq conflict has anything at all to do with WMD's. If it had, and if Iraq was such a big threat, it would have been dealt with long ago. The US wouldnt take any chances with WMD's.

The simple fact is that Iraq is a useful tool for politicians and presidents. You always need a bad guy and Iraq is perfect. The only problem is that all the efforts of the US is not effecting Saddam one bit, except strengthening his position. It is however making a lot of civilians suffer, and die, needlessly.

Either get rid of Saddam or leave them be. The sanctions imposed by the US has resulting in hundreds of thousands needless deaths. And it has done NOTHING to stop the threat of WMD's.

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The US has arbitrarily decided where Iraq can and cannot fly aircraft over its OWN territory.

Yes, and? It was part of their terms of surrender wasn't it?<span id='postcolor'>

No it wasn´t in the terms of surrender. It was set up afterwards by US, Brits and France without Iraq ´s agreement. France moved out of it as the US and Brits violated the zones on their own. If you see TV pics of high flying warbirds over Baghdad and you know that Iraq has none high flying warbirds you know that these are US or Brit planes that dont have the legimitation to be up there.

Iraq is still a souvereign state with rights and they have the right to shoot at planes that are not allowed to be over their territory. If you check the map on the "No fly zone" and the bombed targets in Iraq you will see that they dont match. If US and Brits only moved within their No fly Zone they wouldnt be able to bomb the targets they already bombed. See the gap ?

[Longinius 1]

"If US and Brits only moved within their No fly Zone they wouldnt be able to bomb the targets they already bombed. See the gap ?"

I dont think most Americans give a hoot, to be honest. It is not a very popular thing in America to question the government, something you see done constantly in many European states. Being critical of your government does not mean you are a traitor...

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Dec. 20 2002,16:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">it's a no-fly zone, right? Not a no-military-hardware-that-has-a-gun-that-traverses-skyward zone.<span id='postcolor'>

I think it's a NO-fly zone, meaning nobody flies, not civie airliners, not Iraqi paper airplanes. Then again I don't know much about it, this is off the top of my head.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">you are an idiot to think you won't be shot at.<span id='postcolor'>

Who said we thought we wouldn't be shot at?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">To try and present anti aircraft fire as a violation of terms of surrender is kind of stretching things.<span id='postcolor'>

So they can still shoot at us after they surrender?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't think the Iraq conflict has anything at all to do with WMD's. If it had, and if Iraq was such a big threat, it would have been dealt with long ago. The US wouldnt take any chances with WMD's.<span id='postcolor'>

Politics. Our hands are tied. Even if we're the U.S. we cant just up and bomb the crap out of some country on a whim.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No it wasn´t in the terms of surrender. It was set up afterwards by US, Brits and France without Iraq ´s agreement.<span id='postcolor'>

Isn't it there to enforce their terms of surrender? The embargo specifically.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If you check the map on the "No fly zone" and the bombed targets in Iraq you will see that they dont match. If US and Brits only moved within their No fly Zone they wouldnt be able to bomb the targets they already bombed. See the gap ?<span id='postcolor'>

Can you show me this map? I'm just curious.

I don't think there's anything wrong with the Americans or the Brits bombing out of the no-fly zone. They're either attriting Iraqi forces on their way to the no-fly zone, or getting ready for a war.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It is not a very popular thing in America to question the government, something you see done constantly in many European states.<span id='postcolor'>

Well that's a bunch of bull. We constantly have people questioning the government. We've got bunches of watchdog groups keeping an eye on things. Not only that, but everyone who voted democrat in the last 2 years is questioning every single thing Bush does right now.

[Guest]

FSPilot, have you ever considered trying to reverse the tables and look at it from Iraq's point of view. You keep repeating about how America is defending itself and its interests. Don't you think that having your own planes over your own territory is of national interest? They are only protecting what is theirs.

[Longinius 1]

"Well that's a bunch of bull. We constantly have people questioning the government. We've got bunches of watchdog groups keeping an eye on things. Not only that, but everyone who voted democrat in the last 2 years is questioning every single thing Bush does right now."

Yes, but you are not questioning a single thing. Which is very scary, you are swallowing it all with hook, line and sinker. I can't believe people think its actually right and just to let the citizens of Iraq die slowly and miserably. You however are supporting just that.

[Frisbee 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Dec. 20 2002,14:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Politics.  Our hands are tied.  Even if we're the U.S. we cant just up and bomb the crap out of some country on a whim.<span id='postcolor'>

Heh,I'll note this.

[Lazarus_Long 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Dec. 20 2002,16:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I can't believe people think its actually right and just to let the citizens of Iraq die slowly and miserably. You however are supporting just that.<span id='postcolor'>

Well...On the other hand you could argue that leaving Saddam Hussein in place is the same as letting "the citizens of Iraq die slowly and miserably." I sense that both sides on this debate is using the same arguments.

In fact, many Americans who would support a war with Iraq use this humanitarian argument for their justification. They don't really want to get involved in a war, but they feel its Americas duty to liberate these oppressed Iraqis. It's the old "knight on a white horse" syndrome that people still believe in. The fact that they are being hypocritical about it is irrelevant, since these people have little knowledge of foreign affairs other than what CNN spoon feeds them.

However, don't assume that all Americans are brainwashed hardcore supporters that never question their government. This is anything but true. There are huge debates going on right now questioning pretty much anything you could think of. It pisses me off when I hear snooty Europeans pulling shit out of their asses thinking they are somekind of intellectual elite or something.

Anyway back to current events:

Inspector Blix is asking the US & UK to help them out with this so called "evidence" that they have. Now the CIA nor MI5 don't have any obligations to share such information if it endagers their sources, I can understand this, but... Are they bluffing? Is Blix calling their bluff? I saw ex-secretary Albright on Newsline last night, and she also urged the intelligence community to reveal what they know. This will be interesting in the next few days. It's like a big poker game.

[Akira 0]

Saw on the news today the spokesperson for the IAEA saying pretty much the same thing. He also said the report was less then they expected and had gaps...that when he basically said any "intelligence" countries had would be of help.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You keep repeating about how America is defending itself and its interests. Don't you think that having your own planes over your own territory is of national interest? They are only protecting what is theirs.<span id='postcolor'>

I'm not saying they cant protect what is theirs. But we're enforcing a no-fly zone, set up by a coalition. And they're shooting at us, so we're returning fire.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, but you are not questioning a single thing. Which is very scary, you are swallowing it all with hook, line and sinker. I can't believe people think its actually right and just to let the citizens of Iraq die slowly and miserably. You however are supporting just that.<span id='postcolor'>

Well no, I'm not. I spent 8 years under Clinton and disagreed with lots of things that he did and said. Now that someone I like is in office, I'm supporting him. Just because I don't disagree with everything possible doesn't make me gullible.

And how are we letting them die slowly and miserably? Saddams the one sitting in giant palaces while his country is starving.

Now, as for the reasons behind this war. I really just don't think that the entire U.S. government would lie about something. Maybe one person, maybe one party, but not the entire government.

IMO, this is just something cooked up by people who hate Bush for whatever reason that spread to europe, or vice-versa.

[Die Alive 0]

9--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Lazarus_Long @ Dec. 20 2002,119)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It pisses me off when I hear snooty Europeans pulling shit out of their asses thinking they are somekind of intellectual elite or something.<span id='postcolor'>

"snooty" or "snotty"

Snooty sounds wrong, I like snotty more.

-=Die Alive=-

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Can you show me this map? I'm just curious.

I don't think there's anything wrong with the Americans or the Brits bombing out of the no-fly zone. They're either attriting Iraqi forces on their way to the no-fly zone, or getting ready for a war.<span id='postcolor'>

I posted a link in this threat that leads you to an up to date bombing list. Take the places of the reports , print out an Iraq map highlight the places and you ´ll see that the bombing locations are far off the no - fly zone mostly.

Shouldnt be to hard to do, you only need a little initiative.

We have a map of Irak at work and we are updating the map with the bombings as soon as we get a report on bombings.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And they're shooting at us, so we're returning fire.<span id='postcolor'>

I waited for that moment quite long. Show me proof .

If you check the bombed targets you will see that even civillian installations like the civil airport is bombed. Do you think they shot at the US and Brit planes ? How ? With catering food ?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, but you are not questioning a single thing. Which is very scary, you are swallowing it all with hook, line and sinker. I can't believe people think its actually right and just to let the citizens of Iraq die slowly and miserably. You however are supporting just that.

Well no, I'm not. I spent 8 years under Clinton and disagreed with lots of things that he did and said. Now that someone I like is in office, I'm supporting him. Just because I don't disagree with everything possible doesn't make me gullible.<span id='postcolor'>

How old are you ?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">IMO, this is just something cooked up by people who hate Bush for whatever reason that spread to europe, or vice-versa.<span id='postcolor'>

What ? You tell an objective attitude towards an upcoming war WITHOUT any proof is "something cooked up" ?

Sorry man but this time you are out of tune.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No it wasn´t in the terms of surrender. It was set up afterwards by US, Brits and France without Iraq ´s agreement.

Isn't it there to enforce their terms of surrender? The embargo specifically.<span id='postcolor'>

Maybe it ´s intention is so, but it has not been in terms of surrender, that makes is not justified at all.

The embargo fits on ground movements and shippings but certainly not on air deliveries. And therefore US and Brits dont need a corridor to control that as they dont care to use the corridor on their own. They fly around like they like to do. And believe me a spy planre that controls ground movements does not have to fly that low to attract fire. It is provoking to get a justification for bomb runs, nothing else. Maybe you have also forgot about the density of spy sats over Iraq, but anyway...

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Dec. 20 2002,22:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Shouldnt be to hard to do, you only need a little initiative.

We have a map of Irak at work and we are updating the map with the bombings as soon as we get a report on bombings. <span id='postcolor'>

Oh ok, it's just that this thread is 50-some pages long.

And where exactly do you work?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I waited for that moment quite long. Show me proof .

If you check the bombed targets you will see that even civillian installations like the civil airport is bombed. Do you think they shot at the US and Brit planes ? How ? With catering food ?<span id='postcolor'>

Exactly.

Like I quoted before (show some initiative, check the thread )...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">from http://www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2002/joct/9_sites.html

Iraq considers the patrols a violation of its sovereignty and frequently shoots at the planes. In response, coalition pilots try to bomb Iraqi air defenses.<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How old are you?<span id='postcolor'>

What difference does it make? My opinion is as valid as the next mans! *attempts to take bone out of hair*

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What ? You tell an objective attitude towards an upcoming war WITHOUT any proof is "something cooked up" ?

Sorry man but this time you are out of tune.<span id='postcolor'>

An objective attitude towards war is perfectly fine, but we have proof, and we have a good excuse to not tell the general public our proof. And how am I out of tune when they're cooking up downright stupid schemes about Bush.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The embargo fits on ground movements and shippings but certainly not on air deliveries.<span id='postcolor'>

What makes you think the patrols aren't being used to stop ground movements and shippings?

[Akira 0]

US Urges UN to declare war

ACK!

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Coalition planes targeted precision-guided weapons at an "imminently hostile surface-to-air missiles system" Iraqis had set up northwest of Mosul in the northern zone, said a statement from the U.S. European Command.

The system included two missile launchers, an official at the Pentagon said on condition of anonymity. He said Iraqis did not fire on coalition planes but their presence in the zone was a threat to the pilots who patrol.

<span id='postcolor'>

I dont see any proof FS. Or are US statements on Iraq known as being objective and neutral ?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">My opinion is as valid as the next mans!<span id='postcolor'>

If you are allowed to elect yes. If you are not old enough to do so I would understand some things coming of your direction better  

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">cooking up downright stupid schemes about Bush<span id='postcolor'>

the busiest cook is Mr Bush himself.  

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What makes you think the patrols aren't being used to stop ground movements and shippings?<span id='postcolor'>

Hm how ? I dont know of any case of US or Brit planes pinpointing a convoi or shipment for embargo reasons. Do you ?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And where exactly do you work? <span id='postcolor'>

Not at the Iraq defence HQ

I am working at a military camp. That should be enough info.

[Lazarus_Long 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Die Alive @ Dec. 20 2002,17:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Lazarus_Long @ Dec. 20 2002,11<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It pisses me off when I hear snooty Europeans pulling shit out of their asses thinking they are somekind of intellectual elite or something.<span id='postcolor'>

"snooty" or "snotty"

Snooty sounds wrong, I like snotty more.

-=Die Alive=-<span id='postcolor'>

lol..

Snooty = Snobby and Arrogant.

Snotty = Annoying and Arrogant

I guess either one would work, but I'm sticking with snooty!

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">US Urges UN to declare war

ACK! <span id='postcolor'>

Nothing seriouse. Most UN participating countries deny the US push to war. Russia and France put it down and used hard words on US government last night. I guess Bush wants to push the situation again to gain more supporters within his country as the level of war supporters dropped to 50 percent.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Dec. 20 2002,18:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">US Urges UN to declare war

ACK! <span id='postcolor'>

Nothing seriouse. Most UN participating countries deny the US push to war. Russia and France put it down and used hard words on US government last night. I guess Bush wants to push the situation again to gain more supporters within his country as the level of war supporters dropped to 50 percent.<span id='postcolor'>

Read January 27th is the "decision day" for whether to go to war or not.

Thats my birthday.

Happy birthday to me

Anyway I want that kojack guy to come back...he was entertaining if anything...

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Dec. 20 2002,23:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I dont see any proof FS. Or are US statements on Iraq known as being objective and neutral?<span id='postcolor'>

I'm not sure what you mean. They moved weapons in place to shoot down American airplanes. They've shot at American airplanes before, so we destroyed them first.

If a man keeps coming at you with a knife, and each time you knock the knife out of his hand he goes back and gets a new one. Wouldn't you eventually just knock the knife out before he attacks you?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If you are allowed to elect yes. If you are not old enough to do so I would understand some things coming of your direction better <span id='postcolor'>

I am old enough to, but wasn't during the clinton era. 18 to be exact.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hm how ? I dont know of any case of US or Brit planes pinpointing a convoi or shipment for embargo reasons. Do you ?<span id='postcolor'>

Maybe they haven't had the opportunity to do so yet, doesn't mean they can't patrol.

What difference does it make though why we have a no-fly zone over Iraq.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Dec. 20 2002,19:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If a man keeps coming at you with a knife, and each time you knock the knife out of his hand he goes back and gets a new one.  Wouldn't you eventually just knock the knife out before he attacks you?<span id='postcolor'>

Very poor analogy, Mr FSPilot.

See, in this case, the guy with the gun is in his own house, and you are the guy who is forcing his way in. If I were to follow the average americans logic, then the guy with the knife should, at this point, get the shotgun out to deal with the home intruder.

What you might forget is that all of us who argue against US military action in Iraq dont for a moment think Saddam Hussein is a 'good guy' He's a petty tyrant who keeps his people down in brutal fashion. Thing is, it is not the place of the US to go in and kick him out. And no amount of blustering about him being a threat will justify current US foreign policy.

[Badgerboy 0]

Funnily enough, women have more rights in Iraq, than they do in Saudi Arabia.

They can drive cars, work, and leave their faces uncovered. Some ofthese are banned or frowned upon in Saudi.

Saddam oppresses anyone who he see's as a threat, or undesirable. The Saudi's oppress everyone who doesn't have the cash....

[Longinius 1]

"And how are we letting them die slowly and miserably? Saddams the one sitting in giant palaces while his country is starving."

Yes, and the US sanctions make sure none can challenge him. They also make sure the people get NOTHING, while Saddam can take everything. The only ones suffering and negatively effected by the sanctions are the civilians. Can't you see that?

"However, don't assume that all Americans are brainwashed hardcore supporters that never question their government."

Far from all, but a clear majority seems to be.

"The fact that they are being hypocritical about it is irrelevant, since these people have little knowledge of foreign affairs other than what CNN spoon feeds them."

And this was my point. The hypocracy comes from ignorance. The ignorance comes from placing to much trust and belief in the government and the current "system".

"Now, as for the reasons behind this war. I really just don't think that the entire U.S. government would lie about something. Maybe one person, maybe one party, but not the entire government."

And do you actually think the entire government knows what is going on? Ever heard of plausible denial? Of course an entire government can lie, its nothing new and it happens quite often.