I didn't just make an statement about the anti-war crowd's argument being empty on its own. I argued in detail why I feel their arguments are so empty.

I have given specific, detailed reasons for my side of the argument. What do I get in return? I get called a fascist and nonsense about how an ideal world might be if we could all hold hands and get along.

I find it intellectually lazy to argue that no one should ever do anything. It's like saying that policemen don't have the right to arrest crooks because using force makes them no better than anyone else. It's not like Iraq is some victim that was randomly chosen by "evil(TM)" US powers.

But Frogboy, that's my whole point: the USA are not the cops, nor is any country.

Then there is also no international law. Laws that cannot be enforced are not laws, they're wish lists.

The UN was created as a collective SECURITY organization. Iraq has been jerking around the UN security council resolutions for a decade now.

Americans (and everyone else for that matter) have good reason to fear Saddam getting weapons of mass destruction. If the UN isn't going to take care of them, then someone else does.

The same is true of North Korea. The UN isn't going to do anything about North Korea is it? Hopefully Russia and China can take care of North Korea.

In short, the UN is proving itself to be feeble at enforcing "international laws". As a result, those laws lose any sort of meaning.

There is no moral high ground in absolute pacifism. It is easy to say "can't we all just get along?" I've yet to see anyone in this discussion put forth one good reason why we should allow Saddam to obtain WMD. One reason. The inspectors aren't searchers. They're inspectors. Iraq is the size of California, they will never find anything. And they don't really want to find anything anyway.

The UN has made the USA international cops by over using their military and continuously appointing them as lead in military actions. Should we be passive (UN Not the USA) I don't believe for a sec. that Mr. Iraq will hesitate to launch folly after folly against Isreal, Kuwait, Saudi and other states in the region that don't see eye to eye with them. History is to be a teacher. Peace is more then Ideal but its so unrealistic. Ignorance is bliss huh!

So... how about those Buc's !!!!

I don't know about the Buc's but the Toronto Maple Leafs played a horrible game last night and managed to win 3-2... Don't get me wrong I am happy... but the 1st period alone they were out shot 15 - 1 and came away leading 1 - 0 ... Eddy Eddy Eddy !!!

Whats a Buc??

Its something US Canucks eat.

could also be a BBall team from Beer Town USA.

BBall, how about football.

Is it justified? All forms of sport are justified. including Football.

Depends, WOM - what kind of 'football'? ^_~

Rugby Union, Rugby league, Australian Rules. Gridiron if you must(Too much protection though). This is the war i love. Get stuck into it, get dirty and the obligatory drink afterwards. Yeah

Tampa Bay Buc's

Kind of elongated pointy making it a ball with two ends that you run around, throw and carry from one end of a lined field to the other in the hopes of crossing the line in front of your team to make a point. Ah, you can kick it now and then, well actually it starts with kicking the, umm, ball, hence Football

Is calling it Football justified and on a deeper subject, is it really a ball when it has to point's breaking it's conformed roundness of a ball? Maybe it should be called a double cone attached at the middle throwy kicky thingy.

Then we could have Monday Night : double cone attached at the middle throwy kicky thingy

paxx - re: no action on the slaughter of the Kurds. The no-fly zones we enforce were set up to stop Saddam's planes and helicopters from bombing and gassing the Kurd refugees, which they were doing with great gusto. I call that doing something. Every time our planes patrol the no-fly zone and get shot at with Saddam's surface-to-air missiles they're "stepping up".

@shu: we didn't go to Afghanistan to stop starvation, or warlord infighting. And why should we have to be responsible for either one of those preconditions to our arrival? Some Afghani factions were their own worst enemies before we came, and they'll be their own worst enemies long after we've gone. I'm glad you're "not someone who enjoys America bashing". If you do it but "don't enjoy it", then it doesn't really count, right? Should we apply that logic to other indulgences, like sex?
Or massacreing thousands of civilians with bombs concealed by cowards?
Where is the "sheesh" emoticon?

I just want to put 2cents in or even a cent. My head hurts from reading all of this.. Too much info.

I have been reading this subject and briefly skimmed through a few of the comments about the war in Iraq. I for one don't want the US in Iraq. This may come as a shock to some of you (mainly the moderators of the website) but I'm in the military. I've been in the Marines for 7 years. From an inside prospective I can tell you that going to Iraq is necessary, and will happen. It may not happen this year or even the next but if anyone here thinks that Saddam Hussein is not a tyrant then all they need to do is read his biography and understand this man only wants power. I feel the most for the Iraqi people because they are the one's who will be caught in the cross fire. If anyone here thinks Saddam cares, you are wrong! Why would any nation allow a man that has no disregard for human life to stay in power. I love the US and have gotten a distaste for many nations who quickly judges America for things they may not understand. The French can hate America because we are the most powerful nation in the world..........is that our fault? And let's not forget the German presidency race (I think that right), how quickly Schroeder was to turn his back after supporting Bush early on, it was because his people was against the war and he needed to get elected that he pulled out that knife and stabbed Bush in the back.

1. Iraq is anti-American. It harbours fantasies of destroying the US. So does China, doesn't it? All its activities are US centric, aren't they? Doesn't even the CIA acknowledge that the Chinese are a threat? And so does N. Korea. The North is talking to all other nations except to the US and its allies. What does it speak about their intentions?

2. Iraq is TRYING to possess WMDs. China and N. Korea already possess them. Alongwith them, also the means to deliver them to the American mainland, ICBMs and stuff.

3. People living under the Iraqi regime suffer unspeakable hardships. Any moves against the regime doesn't go unpunished. But this suffering is shared by Chinese and the N. Koreans too. Their moves are censored, they have no or miniscule freedom. And who can forget the 1989 Tianmen Square massacre. About the same time as Iraqi atrocities.

4. Iraq warred on Kuwait and tried to conquer it. Whereas, Chinese still occupy Tibetian soil, have installed a puppet Lama, while the real Lama is in exile. It also threatens to forcefully merge many, now sovereign nations, with the mainland.

5. There is a fear that the Iraqi arsenal is at the disposal of the terrosrists. And the Iraqi have broken the UN laws, ceasefire pact. On other hand, it is a fact that Pakistani Ghauris and Ghazanis are nothing but a Pakistani paint job on Red M11's and N. Korean missiles. The Pakistani atomic bomb program also has its roots in the Republic of China. That is breaking all NPT treaties.

Now let us look at the differences.

1. China and N. Korea are militarily powerful nations. A skirmish with either would result in millions of casualties on either side.
Iraq on the other hand, has been brought to its knees by the 1991 Gulf War and 12 years of sanctions. It has lost the will to fight, all its propoganda is empty talk. It wouldn't last a week against the American might and it knows that.

2. Iraq provides little or no contribution to the American GDP. China, on the other hand, is major market for American goods. Also, it is a major source of cheap labour that many (err) Global companies would like to exploit.

If I were a military strategist, heck, why do I need to be one, I'd not even think twice about the choice I make. Hell, its plain and clear, the easisest choice, maximum results with minimum input.

Well said Adam Solley .

That will slow the down load.

Ashu, I think it's about time you dropped this.You'll change no minds. Your starting to rant, repeat and it's becoming boring.

You are right Sir Wom. No more inputs from my side. I just request that my name not be mentioned in this thread again. I have already paid for my views with the rejection of my WPs. Maybe they weren't 'uploadable'.

Join my rejecked wall club.@shu -

The moderators are not that petty, so don't blame it on them. OK? You were not the only one to get rejected today.

@shu....I'd just like to add that in no way is any form of discrimination or prejudice taken when determining what will or will not be accepted in the wall [or any other] section.

The sole criteria for determining eligibility is 'quality' control, however much people may balk at the thought, or our capacity to determine such.

Rest assured that the Moderators on this site are from diverse countries with differing political and social ideals and are far more cosmopolitan than they are often accused of 'not being'.

The 'problem' with political, or religious 'discussion' is that invariably it can lead to argument rather than debate, which is specifically why FrogBoy suggested that Wincustomize.com was not the best location to partake in this form of discussion.....we have more than enough grief and argument about things specific to skinning as it is without taking on the global woes of the rest of the world.

So I guess I have to agree with Brad [FrogBoy] that it would be better to not inflame animus et al here with all of this, and just stick to issues more 'skinning' in nature...

Ok I drunk my jug of shine, and I that thar ma polar-bar now whar's thet Eskimo Woman you want me to rasel?