War for Oil or WMDs?

During the confusion, Canada will probably invade... XD

I'd have to ally myself with Mexico if that were to happen...

Great, French or Spanish. Both languages suck.

thanks but im not going to ill put my opinion in but i wont make a rant or at least try not to anyway lol don't get me wrong i like a good conversation about politics and such and i shall partake in any that are posted *if i like the looks of them* but i think ive said whot i wanted to for this subject i may drop in once in a while to see wot the general opinion is but other than that im out lol thanks for the thought thou

Most American's think that the U.N. is a corrupt body. Since they have countries like Cuba, Yemen,etc on the "human rights" committee they believe that they can't be trust since everyone is bought off or at least has a price. Then there is the oil for food scandal and various other things the U.N. has done such as the Child sex trade

http://www.infowars.net/articles/january2007/030107UN_Sex.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/7420798.stm
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2006/301106abuse.htm

So many Americans just don't trust the U.N. and are very skeptical whenever the U.N. says anything. While the rest are busy sucking up to the U.N. because well, frankly they are a bunch of idiots that believe a "self investigating" organization will be entirely truthful.

To reply this topic, I think we have to go back to the very first question that;

"Since when that USA has the RIGHT to blame other countries about WMD while USA, herself, is the BIGGEST CONTAINER OF WMD in this world?"

Even Iraq really have WMD as USA has referred. So what???

Is that mean USA have the RIGHT to commit the war???

If USA really have that RIGHT, the I think Hitler also have the RIGHT to say that "'Kim Jong Il' (North Korea's President) is an evil."

With Respect

It was more the fact that the government believed that they not only had the weapons, but the intent to use them.
And it's not like there is actually a "button" that the president can push and, like magic, make the bad men go away.
There are a lot of problems in using the weapons themselves; while we have a general idea of their effects, modern bombs are several times more powerful than the bombs we've actually used, and there is also the small chance that they could set of a nuclear chain reaction in the surrounding hydrogen, and hydrogen being the most abundant element in...well, the galaxy, as far as we can tell, this would be bad. But that is a very small chance. Still would be quite a show.


Edit: Hitler had no idea who Kim Jong Il is.

Well, it just a comparative sentence. I just wanna say that 'Hitler do not have any right to say that Kim Jong Il is evil' (if they are in the same era).

And the same goes for USA.

With Respect

I don't think we are so much evil as we are infants on the world stage. The United states is a very young nation with a lot of power. It's like a toddler with a shotgun.
Maybe not the best metaphor, but I think you get the point.
We are also a nation with a lot of people with a lot of different opinions and beliefs, so one man may be building the next big bomb for his country in his garage, while the guy down the street is doing some hippy shit to get the government to destroy bombs.
And they probably both go to the same barbeques.

ok I agree with you there but at the same time usa armed and trained iraq plus handed over wmd's to them I belive that iraq had had enough of being americas bitch and tried to becom free of them and of course america did not like that one bit plus the fact that america was lashing out as a result of the twin towers incident that would probably be a more accurate reason for the war

I find your lack of punctuation disturbing.

Anyway, there are a lot of factors that go into declaring war, and I'm almost entirely sure anger isn't a major one; you have to think of the citizens, and you can't just make rash decisions.

oh lol my punctuation is quite good when i want it to be i just didn't feel like it when writing that post and I think if you look back through history anger is the main driving point of war and rash decisions are what makes this world go round but I'm going to stop before i get into this too much again I respect your point of view and i was only stating my own sorry

No, I get that. Most wars of the past have been for religious reasons, or in the name of ideals, and very emotional things.
I just feel that in the modern age, with a nation of billions of people, our leaders take a lot more into account than just how they personally feel about it.

Oi Oi

If you want to 'accept' USA's deed, firstly you have to stress that the US's role on the world stage is GLOBAL ABSOLUTIST and the countries in this world are NOT equal.

If you can stand on THIS STANDARD, then you could say that USA has the legitimacy to invade Iraq.

With Respect.

ps. The argument just like USA also try to help Iraq develop their country blah blah blah...

The QUESTION is: "Who beg USA to do that???" Does the Iraqi beg for it???...Nope.

USA decide 'other people's future by her own will'. So the only way to legitimize USA is to accept the truth that USA is the GLOBAL ABSOLUTIST...AND WE ARE NOT EQUAL.

(Let's sing 'We are the World')