Our freedom isn't in jeopardy in Iraq, if I hear it said one more time my head is going to explode. No country is going to attack us, our soliders will never in our lifetime 'defend' our freedom.
The reason we went into Iraq was because we thought they had Nucleur Weapons, which it turns out they didn't and proved that Bush is an idiot. Now we're just trying to keep stabilization in Iraq to cover up our stupidity.
they never had nuclear weapons and I don't think anyone seriously could have thought they did. They might have been trying to get/develop a nuclear bomb but thats it. We did think they had other weapons of mass destruction, or chemical weapons.personally I think Hussein should have been removed from power, but this has been badly run from the start. The republicans MUST be voted out in 4 years time, I just pray the American public can see how much they are harming the US' image across the world.lets not forget that Bush should never have even been President in the first place with the vote scandal 6 years ago.
How would Hussein been taken out of power in a better way?And Christ, can we please not argue about Gore not winning the election? I'm not conservative, and I don't think the electoral college is anything worthwhile, but dammit.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GArenas @ Jun 3 2006, 03:20 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The reason we went into Iraq was because we thought they had Nucleur Weapons, which it turns out they didn't and proved that Bush is an idiot. Now we're just trying to keep stabilization in Iraq to cover up our stupidity.</div> Nobody in the national community thought Iraq had nuclear weapons.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BCB @ Jun 3 2006, 09:10 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Nobody in the national community thought Iraq had nuclear weapons.</div> The supporters of bush did.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BCB @ Jun 3 2006, 10:10 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>No. They said if left alone they could rehab their nuclear program.</div> Not what I remember, We attacked under the presumption that they had nuclear weapons and they wouldn't let us search them so.
That's not true at all, nuclear weapons were not part of it...they mentioned the fact that Saddam could rehab his nuclear program but everyone in the world knew that Saddam didn't have and wouldn't have nukes... It was chemical weapons we were most 'worried' over.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BCB @ Jun 3 2006, 01:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It was chemical weapons we were most 'worried' over.</div> Yeah, sorry, mixed them up. I'm dumb :yess:
Why do people say that only President Bush and his supporters thought that Saddam was a threat? The majority of the world thought that Saddam was a threat. Saddam was going to re-start his weapons program as soon as the sanctions were lifted off of him. He already was gathering the materials needed to do that. In fact, even the democracts (Clinton, Gore, Kerry) were saying that Saddam was going to re-start a nuclear program. We knew that he had weapons before but we don't know where they went (he didn't give us proof that he destroyed them) and he is a man who has shown he will use chemical weapons on his own people as well as other people around his region. He was a threat to the region and a threat to the world. HE WAS GOING TO ACQUIRE WEAPONS.Even if that point is moot, it doesn't mean the war was unjustified. Some people get the impression that because other bigger named countries (EX: France and Russia) opposed the war that means we were wrong and they were right. WRONG. France and Russia were illegally trading with Saddam directly and if we remove Saddam from power they would lose money. Who is the jealous nation now? Saddam was in violation of 17 (or so) sanctions and the United Nations AGREED. How can you fault America for withholding the sanctions? What is the point in having sanctions and laws if you won't enforce them? America did the dirty work and they get all the blame? That isn't right.
America didn't have the right to do sh*t. I'm tired of Bush trying to act like the hero and then make a fool out of himself.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Mr Wolf @ Jun 30 2006, 05:08 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Why do people say that only President Bush and his supporters thought that Saddam was a threat? The majority of the world thought that Saddam was a threat. Saddam was going to re-start his weapons program as soon as the sanctions were lifted off of him. He already was gathering the materials needed to do that. In fact, even the democracts (Clinton, Gore, Kerry) were saying that Saddam was going to re-start a nuclear program. We knew that he had weapons before but we don't know where they went (he didn't give us proof that he destroyed them) and he is a man who has shown he will use chemical weapons on his own people as well as other people around his region. He was a threat to the region and a threat to the world. HE WAS GOING TO ACQUIRE WEAPONS.Even if that point is moot, it doesn't mean the war was unjustified. Some people get the impression that because other bigger named countries (EX: France and Russia) opposed the war that means we were wrong and they were right. WRONG. France and Russia were illegally trading with Saddam directly and if we remove Saddam from power they would lose money. Who is the jealous nation now? Saddam was in violation of 17 (or so) sanctions and the United Nations AGREED. How can you fault America for withholding the sanctions? What is the point in having sanctions and laws if you won't enforce them? America did the dirty work and they get all the blame? That isn't right.</div> Oh my! Saddam starting another nuclear program! Israel would just fly in and blow it up like they did in 1985, big deal.
Saddam should have been taken out of power during the first gulf war. We did not start a War with Iraq, we are finishing one. Saddam should not be in power and the region and world is a safer place without him.
Except this war will go on forever and thousands of future terrorists are using it as a terror camp. :no1:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Mr Wolf @ Jun 30 2006, 12:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Saddam should have been taken out of power during the first gulf war. We did not start a War with Iraq, we are finishing one. Saddam should not be in power and the region and world is a safer place without him.</div>America isn't finishing one. They started it for no apparent reason. Saddam was no threat to anyone, except Israel. And that's a good thing because I hate Israel.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AirBlaze @ Jun 30 2006, 01:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>America isn't finishing one. They started it for no apparent reason. Saddam was no threat to anyone, except Israel. And that's a good thing because I hate Israel.</div>You don't know what you are talking about. Saddam was a threat to the region and even the world. The war was justified. Just because we didn't have the support of the whole world doesn't mean we were wrong. What is popular is not always right. You need to stop looking at it in such light. The war was justified.BCB, did you read that document that they found from Zarqwai? How it says that they are losing the War in Iraq and the only way they can win is if they try to get us into a war with Iran. They mention that the American influence is hurting their numbers and recruitment and that the insurgency is losing in Iraq. You probably didn't because that didn't get much attention from the liberal media.
I'm sorry, I didn't hear about Zarqawi's diary....the liberal media was too busy celebrating his meaningless death.
As you guys can probably see, I'm not a major political guy. I don't pay attention to them, and generally I hate politicians. I actually know some, and the common factor is that they are all dick-wads.In this case, I really believe Bush is keeping them there jsut so he doesn't make himself look even dumber. Because of this, we continue to lsoe soldiers, just so Bush doesn't further F*ck his reputation
