Lessee...
1. Saddam Hussein is a dictator.
SO LIBERAL DEMOCRACIES
2. Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction. (WoMD...and if I hear that phrase one more time..., I will scream...)
SO ISRAEL, SYRIA, NORTH KOREA, EX USSR, US, CANADA, UK, FRANCE, GERMANY AND A FEW OTHERS
3. Saddam Hussein has used WoMD.
TOO BAD
4. Saddam Hussein has nuclear weapons.
COOL, CAN WE GO PLAY NOW
5. Saddam Hussein is developing nuclear weapons.
CAN HE HAS TOYS
6. Saddam Hussein supports terrorists.
NOT TRUE!!!!!!! NOT TRUE AT ALL
7. Saddam Hussein has given money and weapons to terrorists.
NOT TRUE, THE US HAS GIVEN MORE
8. Saddam Hussein is in league with al-Qaeda and ol' Osama. (You remember Osama, right? Last name, Bin Laden? The guy who is supposed to have directed those Saudi brethren of his to attack on 9-11-01?)
WEIRD TRAINING FROM THE US
9. Saddam Hussein conspired with al-Qaeda to attack on 9-11-01.
BS,
10. Saddam Hussein is a Muslim.
A GOOD MAN
11. Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction.
OK, SO A NRA MEMBER
12. Saddam Hussein loves Islamic fundamentalist terrorists. Even though Saddam Hussein is a secular nut case, and he would not want to give the religious fundamentalist nut cases too much power because he would be the first one they would want to remove, he still loves them. And they love him.
UNTRUE
13. Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States.
HOW BY DEFENDING THEIR INTERESTS IN THE 80
14. Saddam Hussein is a potential threat to the United States. After all, anyone and everyone can be viewed as a "potential" threat if we define that word vaguely enough or don't bother to define it, at all. Our constant assertions that Iraq is a potential threat makes it so. Didn't we successfully use this same approach to pass anti-self-defense laws, occupational licensing, anti-recreational drug laws, zoning laws, building codes, business regulations, and environmental rules?
OH OK
15. Saddam Hussein is evil.
GEORGE BUSH IS EVIL AND WORST DUMB, AT LEAST SADDAM IS SMART
16. Saddam Hussein is an aggressor.
SO THE US
17. Saddam Hussein has invaded his neighbors.
SO THE US
18. Saddam Hussein agreed to U.N. terms — inspections etc. — after the first Iraq-U.S. war and is violating that agreement. It is, too, valid to use the results of a previous unconstitutional, undeclared war that we should not have been involved with in the first place to justify a new unconstitutional and unnecessary war. We say so.
THAT REAL POLITIK 101
19. The first Iraq-U.S. war justifies the next Iraq-U.S. war.
BY WHAT A SKINNY WHINING BITCH CRYING LIES AT THE UN
20. The President does not need a declaration of war from Congress to fight a war. He does not even need authorization from Congress, because the Constitution makes the Prez the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. Also, past presidents waged war dozens of times without any ol' declaration of war, so it's okay for the current CinC to do so, as well. While it would be nice if Congress agreed, the Prez does not really require any kind of authorization from them. Besides, since the Prez is not expressly forbidden by the Constitution from using troops on his own say-so whenever he wants to, he has the right to do whatever is not expressly forbidden, even if that power is not listed in the Constitution. Like holding American citizens in prison without the opportunity to consult a lawyer or appear before a court or plead their innocence. After all, we already know such scum are guilty. No need to worry, though; we'll never use such tactics against good, patriotic American citizens such as you. Police state? Never!
BORING YANKS POLITICS
21. Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction.
YOU SURE
22. The President does not need the approval of the U.N. or the allies of the United States to attack Iraq.
ALIENATE THE US AGAIN
23. We have evidence for all these claims. We'll provide that evidence any day now. Sure. It's coming. Be patient. Hang on. Almost there. We really can prove what we're saying. We say so, so it must be true.
3 SLINGSHOTS
24. The United States government and the Prez have no reason to lie. Even if we lied in the past about some things — like the Gulf of Tonkin incident, Iraqi atrocities in the first Gulf conflict, our knowledge of what Japan was up to prior to Pearl Harbor, shipping war materiel to Britain prior to WW II, using our citizens for secret medical studies and experiments, the dangers of marijuana and drugs, what all our programs would accomplish and how much they would cost, not using Social Security numbers for identification purposes — this time we are not lying or distorting the truth. Honest. After all, sometimes in the past, we did tell the truth about something. If we say it is so, that should be good enough for everybody else.
TOO LONG
25. Only unpatriotic SOB's don't agree that we should go to war, now, immediately. Antiwar protesters are rotten, dirty commie-pinko fags. Worse, they're liberals. Worse, they are enemies of the United States. They probably don't even believe in taxes and all the wonderful things we do for them with their own money.
IM CANADIAN EH
26. A war with Iraq won't cost all that much money. What's a few billions...or tens of billions...or hundreds of billions among friends?
LMAO
27. The economy will actually improve once we kick Saddam Hussein out since investors won't be worrying about whether we will go to war or not. We'll be there!
AGREE
28. We have to protect Israel. They may be a nation that never heard of the separation of church and state, but, hey, we don't believe in that, either, and besides, they're better than the really evil people in the Mideast.
NEVER ARGUE WITH AN ISRAEL ESPECIALLY IN THE ARMY
29. We have the right to establish democracy in Iraq. Even though the British tried that ninety or so years ago and failed miserably, we'll get it right. Now, the Iraqis won't be free, exactly, since we'll have to have tens of thousands of troops to rule their nation as we rebuild the country that we destroyed in our invasion. Someday they'll leave.
HMMM, NO
30. The Iraqi people will sing hosannas and kiss our feet when we defeat Saddam Hussein and occupy their country. They love us. They really do. They hate Saddam Hussein. They'll rise up to oust their evil rulers and thank us for the opportunity. At least, those who are still alive will.
OR FIGHT YOU
31. Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction.
I DO BELIEVE YOU NOW
32. We'll stop Saddam Hussein from torching his oil fields. Don't worry about that. Just because we didn't stop him from doing that in Kuwait, this time we'll get it right.
AH
33. Saddam Hussein is a threat to our oil supply. Just because it's in his country, it's really ours. And if we really really need something, then, bigod, it's our right to secure it for ourselves.
AGREE
34. There won't be all that much collateral damage, either. Still, don't forget, you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. A few civilian men, women, and children may accidentally be killed. Just a few, though. And that's Saddam Hussein's fault, too.
TRUE VALUE
35. We won't lose all that many soldiers. We'll kick Iraq's ass in a week. Two or three tops. Even if we do get our hair mussed a bit, it won't be any big deal. Don't pay any attention to those body bags behind the curtain.
36. We'll crush terrorism when we defeat Saddam Hussein. We'll win the War on Terrorism just as we've won the War on Drugs and the War on Poverty and the War on Ignorance and... Well...
WHAT
37. We won't see any significant increase in terrorist activity in the U.S. and elsewhere after we invade. Muslims in the Mideast and around the world will be glad we eliminated the threat that Saddam Hussein posed. Even if the Islamic Jihad boys can't quite work up a love jones for us, who cares about a bunch of foreign rag heads, anyway? We'll have a steel-clad border between us and Canada and Mexico that will make the Berlin Wall and the Iron Curtain look like sieves. 'Course, the latter were meant to keep people in from getting out, not those outside from getting in, but... And we have had a might bit of difficulty keeping drug smugglers from waltzing into our country... Did we mention that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction?
38. We have not and will not lose any of our freedoms or rights in our fight against Iraq and terrorism. The PATRIOT Act and Total Information Awareness and TIPS and TTIC and airport searches and national ID cards and cameras and face-recognition and random bodily searches and all the rest enhance our freedom and our rights while making us much, much safer. Trust us.
39. Preemptive strikes based on what someone might do are totally justified. Better "safe than sorry." We should punish people based on what they say and what they might do, not just on what they have done or are in the process of doing. While the "precautionary principle" is bad, very bad, when the environmental nuts use it, it is wonderfully appropriate when we appeal to it.
40. Absence of evidence that Saddam Hussein has nasty weapons is not evidence that such weapons are absent. Therefore, whether we find evidence of WoMD or not, we are completely justified in attacking Iraq whenever we damned well feel like it. If the Iraqis can't prove a negative, it's their own damned fault.
41. Saddam Hussein is the worst threat we face today, worse than North Korea or Libya or Jordan or Red China or Saudi Arabia or any other country run by dictator-types. Besides, Saddam Hussein has all that oil. He'll destroy that oil if we don't invade, and then where will the U.S. be? So we have to invade.
42. Saddam Hussein might use his weapons of mass destruction if we invade, so we have to invade so he can't use them.
42. The purpose of our government is to make the world safe for democracy, to free all unfree countries, and to force those nations that refuse to do what we tell them to do to obey us. We have to protect those primitive peoples from their own ignorant selves.
And, finally:
43. Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction.
You believe us now, right? We've said it enough times. Right?
Right?
Oh, yeah... Right...
Much of what the war-onauts are claiming is true. Nearly all of it is irrelevant to whether the United States should invade Iraq.
Most of the points the war-anatics make apply to all manner of unfree countries in the world, but somehow, some way, Iraq is extra-super-special and unique, so it's imperative that we attack them now, but we can negotiate with those other countries such as North Korea or deal with them later. Or after we defeat Iraq, those other mean and nasties will cease to be problems.
I am fully in favor of destroying enemies who are legitimate and real threats, i.e., "clear and present dangers," to our country. I am not in favor of expeditions and jihads against any and all dictators, nut cases, and unfree countries in the world. We should not be the world's police force. We should not be social engineers and export our statist policies to other countries.
Most importantly:
Our government is supposed to defend our rights, not the rights of other countries' citizens.
If our government does have proof that Saddam Hussein presents a real and direct peril, then it has acted in a grossly negligent manner by dancing the political two-step with the UN and not immediately eliminating that hazard. The President should openly offer his case that Iraq is a clear danger to our country (not a hypothetical, long-term, "possible" threat, but an immediate, concrete one), get Congress to declare war in accordance with the Constitution, and then eliminate the threat to American freedom and safety.
Instead of this proper course, however, we are having our freedom destroyed, our wealth wasted, and our dignity assaulted by a government more interested in its own power and hegemony than in the freedom and rights of its own citizens.
Hell. Why go to war? The terrorists have already "won." [/B][/QUOTE]
SHIT I LOVE U MAN, COULD YOU REPEAT PLEASE
Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
