NationStates Jolt Archive

Saddam Hussien was a dictator who threaten peace and stability in the region. He had large stockpiles of and HAD USED wmd against his own people. So he had them, and still pursueing them at the time of the war. Had he been allowed to go unchallenged he would have transfered them to terrorists who would have used them to threaten freedom. The world is better off with Saddam in a prison cell! So please, how can someone be against then and day?

Saddam Hussien was a dictator who threaten peace and stability in the region. He had large stockpiles of and HAD USED wmd against his own people. So he had them, and still pursueing them at the time of the war. Had he been allowed to go unchallenged he would have transfered them to terrorists who would have used them to threaten freedom. The world is better off with Saddam in a prison cell! So please, how can someone be against then and day?



I'm sure that he had those atomic bombs, which he used upon his own people; thence the mushroom clouds, craters, and radioactivitiy.

Oh, wait. :eek:

God knows why I'm responding, but here goes:

Saddam represented no threat to the United States, Great Britain or any of the other Coalition countries. Although Saddam was a tyrant and killed thousands, Iraq was one of the 'better' (And I use that word lightly) dictatorships in the world, compared to North Korea, for example. Why were North Korea or Dafur or Bosnia not invaded instead of Iraq?

The war was conducted under false pretenses, and has done nothing but stir up anti-Western sentiment in the Middle East and give the more radical Islamic terrorists a way to train their fighters, fight the Coalition forces and gather support for their twisted views. It has also cost the death of more than two thousand Coalition forces, not to mention those wounded.

First of all the war was illegal. Did Saddam ever threaten America or the UK? The answer is no. The USA made the first move. Yes he was a dictator but did that give the USA and the UK the right to invade? No. If we're against dictators why not go against North Korea? How do you know he would have transferred them to terrorists? And where are the WMDs? I agree that the people of Iraq are better off with out him but answer these questions then I'll agree this war was justified

Sorry mate, but there have never been any WMDs in Iraq. Even Tony Bliar said so.

AND, war should not have been the first resort. No matter how nasty Saddam was, your averge Iraqi feels they were better off BEFORE the Americans blew up their house.

Thats why I'm against the war.

Simple. The war was not sold on those reasons. If it was, I would have supported it, if all your assumptions were supported by fact.

It was sold on the fact that Saddam was an immediate threat to the Western world. I was not convinced by the evidence on offer that he was.

The right thing was done for the wrong reasons.

But fuck it, I'm an optimistic person. Maybe this shit'll work out in the end. I certainly hope so, for ordinary Iraqi in the streets sake.

I think you guys should know that Bobo's a troll. A few minutes ago he was defending the murder of Iraqi children by US marines on the grounds that 'they would have been terrorists when they grew up anyway'.

Just thought I'd warn you.

[QUOTE]Sorry mate, but there have never been any WMDs in Iraq. Even Tony Bliar said so.
oh, so the ones he used against his own people were what, make believe?And I dont listen to Bliar, I listen to Bush


AND, war should not have been the first resort. No matter how nasty Saddam was, your averge Iraqi feels they were better off BEFORE the Americans blew up their house.
Why should I care what the Iraqis think? we did it for AMercia remember?

I think you guys should know that Bobo's a troll. A few minutes ago he was defending the murder of Iraqi children by US marines on the grounds that 'they would have been terrorists when they grew up anyway'.

Just thought I'd warn you.
no, what I said was it was possible, dont twist my words to make me look like a bad guy.

no, what I said was it was possible, dont twist my words to make me look like a bad guy.

Oh, I don't think people need to twist your words to make you look like a bad guy. They suffice on their own.

Just thought I'd warn you.

Why should I care what the Iraqis think? we did it for AMercia remember?

No warning necessary. It's very transparent now.

because the neo-cons lied. they tried to play on the legitimate fears of the american population and went in after a guy who had been a bulwark AGAINST extreme islam (as shown by the invasion of iran and the cia stopping al queada assainating him in the early 90's when osama was still a cia asset.).

because the neo-cons threatened bodies such as nato, the un and the eu because they wouldnt give in.

because there was no plan for what to do when saddam had been removed.

because saddam wont go to the hague, instead he will be involved in a show trial thats based on flimsly illegality (was what he did illegal in iraq at the time?)

because the us military is behaving applaingly badly in iraq, stories and pictures of torture, family cars getting annihalated, soldiers stealing from civilians, using cluster bombs and phosphorous in civilian areas etc etc

[QUOTE=New Lofeta]
oh, so the ones he used against his own people were what, make believe?And I dont listen to Bliar, I listen to Bush



Why should I care what the Iraqis think? we did it for AMercia remember?
Erm maybe because it was their country that got invaded

[QUOTE]
Did Saddam ever threaten America or the UK? The answer is no.
Actually he did

Yes he was a dictator but did that give the USA and the UK the right to invade? No.
yes it does

If we're against dictators why not go against North Korea?
They arent a threat, for now
How do you know he would have transferred them to terrorists?
because he is arab

And where are the WMDs?
syria, maybe Iran

I agree that the people of Iraq are better off with out him but answer these questions then I'll agree this war was justified
so you agree it was justified, right?

oh, so the ones he used against his own people were what, make believe?And I dont listen to Bliar, I listen to BushYea. There were WMD once upon a time. Amongst others, the US & UK exported them to Iraq & taught Saddam how to deploy them.Why should I care what the Iraqis think? we did it for AMercia remember?Remember your words. If some day in the future, some insane bastard goes to war with you, or conducts terrorist acts against your people, remember your words.

I'm inclined to buy a planeticket, a shotgun & blow your mum's head off, just to tell you "Why should I care what you think? I did it for my sake, remember?".

http://uplink.space.com/attachments/270850-DoNotFeedTroll.jpg

oh, so the ones he used against his own people were what, make believe?And I dont listen to Bliar, I listen to Bush

Why should I care what the Iraqis think? we did it for AMercia remember?

You ARE a Troll!

But, I'll counter anyway.

Ill go along with what your saying... if he used them against his own people, he wouldn't have them anymore. Comprende? Not that I'm going to defend anything Saddam did, but he hadnt done anything like that in years.

Bush just wanted the oil for his Daddy's golf buddies.

And what exactly did it do for America? Make it loose all international credibility and support after 9/11? Stirr up extreme Islam against America?

Shame, the USA used to be cool...

I was against the war not on principle but on execution. We stormed in there, caused excessive collateral damage and seized several oil depots as "key targets", deliberately attacking the economic infrastructure of the country we were supposed to be liberating. We used the very Shock and Awe tactics of the terrorists we claimed to so hate. We were lied to by our governments on the strength of the Iraqi threat to try to win over our support. We had no plans for what were to happen after the removal of the Baathists beyond "give them a vote"; nothing like a foundation for a new government or an exit plan for the local troops. And, throughout, we alienated the Iraqi people through a cultural superiority complex inherent within all of our forces.

In short, regardless of intent, we were cocking it up right from the start.

I asked for proof as well. Saddam never did actually threaten the UK or USa because he wasn't an idiot. Since when where the UK and USA the police of the world. They went against everything the UN advised. N. Korea in my opinion are more of a threat than Iraq. "Because his arab" Yes because all people from the middle east want to go blowing things up and killing people(sarcasm).

[QUOTE=Londim]

Actually he did


when? of all people turn around and side with his sworn enemies

yes it doe


so be consistant, go after the saudi's, the kuwati's the uzbeks who are all totalitarian states too. in fact, just say boo to the us's dictator allies. once

They arent a threat, for now
nor was saddam

because he is arab

thats racist. and ignorant. sadam invaded iran because he was a secularist and osama went to try and kill him once. why would he turn around and help them now?



syria, maybe Iran

iran? sadam hands over wmd to iran? seriously? iran? 1m dead in the war? iran?:rolleyes: christ on a bicycle, do people still believe this ham fisted propaganda?

Were? You surely mean "are"

The President, he's got his war
Folks don't know just what it's for
Nobody gives us rhyme or reason
Have one doubt, they call it treason
We're chicken-feathers, all without one gut
God damn it!
Tryin' to make it real — compared to what?
Sock it to me, now

Everything Bobo Hope has posted and possibly everything Bobo Hope Will post.
You are Wrong Because: (This is from a Published book)
For your Convenience, I have listed the brain malfunctions that most closely resemble the ones you made on all topics.
3. I am The World.
11. Ingorance of Statistics.
14. Irrelevant Comparisons.
15. Circular Reasoning.
18. Following the Advice of known Idiots.
22. Unclear on the concept of sunk costs.
24. Ignoring all Anecdotal evidence.
30. Taking things to their Illogical Conclusions.
31. Failure to understand why rules don't have expections.

Improve on this and then return.

Oh yeah my sig is for people like you. You got suckered in to that same message.

I listen to Bush

And that's your fatal mistake...

Also, I'm really unable to comprehend how so many people could possibly be so indiscriminate as to actually reply to someone as at best retarded but most likely simply a troll as this guy....

You are Wrong Because: (This is from a Published book)
For your Convenience, I have listed the brain malfunctions that most closely resemble the ones you made on all topics.
3. I am The World.
11. Ingorance of Statistics.
14. Irrelevant Comparisons.
15. Circular Reasoning.
18. Following the Advice of known Idiots.
22. Unclear on the concept of sunk costs.
24. Ignoring all Anecdotal evidence.
30. Taking things to their Illogical Conclusions.
31. Failure to understand why rules don't have expections.

Improve on this and then return.

Oh yeah my sig is for people like you. You got suckered in to that same message.
http://victorjr.users.superford.org/pictures/various/owned/owned4.jpg
You forgot contradicting him self though

I think you guys should know that Bobo's a troll. A few minutes ago he was defending the murder of Iraqi children by US marines on the grounds that 'they would have been terrorists when they grew up anyway'.

Just thought I'd warn you.
but RLI, i know the answer to the question! its not SO bad to say it, is it?

ok ive thought about it and its too good to pass up. today i feed the troll!


WHAT DO WE HAVE AGAINST IRAQ.

a cautionary tale

back in the 1990 saddam hussein was our good friend and was described as such by our president george hw bush. we knew what hussein had done to his own people and we didnt CARE. we are the ones who sold him most of the weapons he possessed. he was our bulwark against the ever-so-much-more-evil iran.

then he invaded kuwait. that put iraq into a more dangerous category. they had to be pushed out of kuwait WITHOUT removing saddam from office (since he was still our bulwark against iran)

the US didnt give 2fucks about kuwait. they were never our friends. so it was going to be a hard sell to commit american military and money to getting iraq out of kuwait. the average american was quite content to let those elitist bastards get taken over by our good friend iraq.

ramp up the proganda machine. oohhh noooo those evil iraqis had tossed kuwaiti preemies out of incubators!! ohhhh noooo they were killing defenseless women and children. typical propaganda stuff. the press ate it up.

here's where the big mistake happened. just a few months before the invasion of kuwait, our president had made a speech in which he praised saddam hussein as our bestest friend in the arab world. now he had to come out and say that hussein wasnt such a nice guy after all. he made a speech...

BUSH GODWINNED HUSSEIN by calling him the hitler of the middle east. yes this really happened. just like any internet forum newbie, bush stepped over the line and compared saddam hussein to the modern archetype of evil..

war happened. we won. we did what we needed to do, we corralled iraq AND left them as our defense against iran. saddam was left in office so that iraq wouldnt dissolve into civil war (cant fend off iran if you are in chaos)

unfortunately, in the public mind hussein was still HITLER and you cant leave middle eastern representative of evil in office. you just cant.

so the US persued a policy of sanctions designed to drive hussein out of office while leaving the bathists in power (anything else leaves iraq in chaos and then what to do about iran)

that didnt work.

hussein became the popular whipping boy and convenient tool for proving that whoever was in power in the US was one tough hombre who knew how to bomb the shit out of the bad boys. bush1 had done this, clinton continued it (can't be so weak as to loosen up on hitler), various congressmen/women and senators talked tough about hussein. all in an effort to not look like a wimp when it comes to war and warlike behavior.

the day george bush2 came into office he was already looking for an excuse to invade iraq. 9/11 didnt give him the excuse but it did give him the chance to manipulate the fears of the public to get them to buy his doomsday scenario that would have seemed ludicrous before 9/11.

almost no one in power was willing to stand up and say it was stupid to invade a country that had never done anything to us. instead the various congresspeople used the resolution allowing the invasion of iraq as their way of proving that they were TOUGH TOUGH TOUGH when it comes to terrorism. they knew it was crap but didnt have the balls to say so. i hold out hope that when they authorized it they didnt think that bush would actually invade.


THAT'S what we have against iraq.

Sorry mate, but there have never been any WMDs in Iraq. Even Tony Bliar said so.

AND, war should not have been the first resort. No matter how nasty Saddam was, your averge Iraqi feels they were better off BEFORE the Americans blew up their house.

Thats why I'm against the war.


WMD's are nuclear, biological, chemecal, and radiological weapons. In 1988, Saddam Hussein used mustard gas and nerve gas against the Iraqi Kurdish population killing 5,000 in one day. That year an estimated 182,000 people died at the hands of Hussein and his WMD's. SO he HAS had them and was NOT afraid of using them

WMD's are nuclear, biological, chemecal, and radiological weapons. In 1988, Saddam Hussein used mustard gas and nerve gas against the Iraqi Kurdish population killing 5,000 in one day. That year an estimated 182,000 people died at the hands of Hussein and his WMD's. SO he HAS had them and was NOT afraid of using them
The same can be said of the Good old US of A.

Saddam Hussien was a dictator who threaten peace and stability in the region. He had large stockpiles of and HAD USED wmd against his own people. So he had them, and still pursueing them at the time of the war. Had he been allowed to go unchallenged he would have transfered them to terrorists who would have used them to threaten freedom. The world is better off with Saddam in a prison cell! So please, how can someone be against then and day?
I don't really know. We have a stronghold overthere now, and terrorists NEED TO BE DELT WITH. But Israel's way of dealing with the "Iraq nucular problem" was considerably better then Bush's way. Just send a few missles to take care of the problem.:) http://smilies.vidahost.com/otn/violent/rocketq3.gif

The same can be said of the Good old US of A.
It can? How so? Show me an article that proves we're as bad as Sad Horse.

hiroshima, nagasaki?

when did sadam become a 'terrorist'? despot, yes, tyrant, yes, terrorist? nope

It can? How so? Show me an article that proves we're as bad as Sad Horse.
Mind you We've killed half the Civilians (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3962969.stm) in the years we'e been there as Saddam in his Entire riegme... we use white phosepherous in fallujah (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4440664.stm)

[QUOTE=Londim]

Actually he did


yes it doe
They arent a threat, for now

because he is arab


syria, maybe Iran


so you agree it was justified, right?

No.. Saddam never made any threats to the united states, he did when Bush Sr. was in office.. but no current

North Korea is the biggest threat we have right now, they have atomic systems... i don't doubt that they're using them to power the country.. but i mean come on.. North Korea... you know they're making bombs.. Plus they said if we did try to stop them from using atomic power, they would build bombs they "don't" have:sniper:

indeed that is racist... and being racist is in the top 3 most stupid things you can be... actually, it happens to be #1 of that list

Saddam Hussien was a dictator who threaten peace and stability in the region. He had large stockpiles of and HAD USED wmd against his own people. So he had them, and still pursueing them at the time of the war. Had he been allowed to go unchallenged he would have transfered them to terrorists who would have used them to threaten freedom. The world is better off with Saddam in a prison cell! So please, how can someone be against then and day?
Let me guess. You are too young to remember the 80s. :rolleyes:

I suppose I should have known Bobo Hope was a troll based on the idea that his first post could so easily be refuted by...I don't know...the forking NEWS? Of, like, two years ago? But the idea that he would give WMDs (that he doesn't have, no less) to "terrorists" simply "because he is Arab" was the funniest thing I have seen all day.

On the other hand, I did notice when someone referred to the "Ba'athists" I recall misreading it as "Batshit." I suppose we wouldn't have trouble going to war with a country run by the Batshit party.

Saddam Hussien was a dictator who threaten peace and stability in the region. He had large stockpiles of and HAD USED wmd against his own people. So he had them, and still pursueing them at the time of the war. Had he been allowed to go unchallenged he would have transfered them to terrorists who would have used them to threaten freedom. The world is better off with Saddam in a prison cell! So please, how can someone be against then and day?
You are the reason we have the biggest idiot in history as president right now. You REALLy need to get an education. Until you do, please don't vote.

WMD's are nuclear, biological, chemecal, and radiological weapons. In 1988, Saddam Hussein used mustard gas and nerve gas against the Iraqi Kurdish population killing 5,000 in one day. That year an estimated 182,000 people died at the hands of Hussein and his WMD's. SO he HAS had them and was NOT afraid of using them

The bolded word being the operative one.

You are the reason we have the biggest idiot in history as president right now. You REALLy need to get an education. Until you do, please don't vote.
I can vote and I will vote, it is my right. It is my right as an American, I right given to me by the men and women in the armed services who fought and died to protect my rights and freedoms in places like Iraq. For that I am internally grateful.

George Bush is our president and our commander-in-chief and he is a wise man. He is no idiot and I remind you, he recieved more votes than anyone who ran for president in history. That should tell you something about him.

Mind you We've killed half the Civilians (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3962969.stm) in the years we'e been there as Saddam in his Entire riegme... we use white phosepherous in fallujah (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4440664.stm)
you cant help collateral dammange when you are liberating a nation. White Phosepherous is not a WMD as some would have believe and it was only used to light up areas.

[QUOTE]when? of all people turn around and side with his sworn enemies
in the 80's

so be consistant, go after the saudi's, the kuwati's the uzbeks who are all totalitarian states too. in fact, just say boo to the us's dictator allies. once
they are allies in the war on terror
nor was saddam
yes he was
thats racist. and ignorant. sadam invaded iran because he was a secularist and osama went to try and kill him once. why would he turn around and help them now?
its not racist, your racist. they help each other because the enemy of your enemy is your friend. They both hate the US


iran? sadam hands over wmd to iran? seriously? iran? 1m dead in the war? iran?:rolleyes: christ on a bicycle, do people still believe this ham fisted propaganda?
Its possible and until you disprove it my point stands

Pre War Arguments
http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/~yount/text/warchart1.pdf

Post War Arguments
http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/~yount/text/warchart2.pdf

You will notice there are more arguments against the war in Iraq than there are for. Happy Reading

WMD's are nuclear, biological, chemecal, and radiological weapons. In 1988, Saddam Hussein used mustard gas and nerve gas against the Iraqi Kurdish population killing 5,000 in one day. That year an estimated 182,000 people died at the hands of Hussein and his WMD's. SO he HAS had them and was NOT afraid of using them
actions occuring in 1988 do not justify actions in 2006.

The US also has more WMD's than any other nation, and has used more than any other nation.

in the 80's

what does that even mean? the 80's saw saddam attack, with US assistance, islamicist iran. why would he then turn around and give iraqs hitorical mortal enemy wmd? why would iran accept them?


they are allies in the war on terror

so that gives them a free pass to opress their own people? if saddam had joined the 'coaltion of the willing' would he still be in power today?


yes he was


sadam hussein never threatened the US. nor had he the capability to. if he had, why didnt he attack you during 2 wars?

its not racist, your racist. they help each other because the enemy of your enemy is your friend. They both hate the US


but they didnt. and sadam was an ally of yours until 1990, got on very well with regan and rummy. he only started 'hating the us' after you attacked iraq in 91!! you havent explained to me why sadam would arm osama AFTER OSAMA TRIED TO KILL HIM!

Its possible and until you disprove it my point stands

you arent a lawyer are you? :confused: you brought it up, you are the one who has to back it up. its not up to me to disprove your wild theories. here is one, the moon is made of knobcheese, prove me wrong?:rolleyes:

this pathetic propeganda is from floundering neocons trying the same tactics with iran they used with iraq, lie about wmd. unfourtunatly the phrase 'once bitten...' doesnt seem to apply to you.

I can vote and I will vote, it is my right. It is my right as an American, I right given to me by the men and women in the armed services who fought and died to protect my rights and freedoms in places like Iraq. For that I am internally grateful.

George Bush is our president and our commander-in-chief and he is a wise man. He is no idiot and I remind you, he recieved more votes than anyone who ran for president in history. That should tell you something about him.

With mistakes like that you might want to have a go at running for Bush's old job in 2008.

I remind you, he recieved more votes than anyone who ran for president in history. That should tell you something about him.
Beacuse populations never grow. they always stay the same... He won by 2% by the way... what dose that say about him.

I can vote and I will vote, it is my right. It is my right as an American, I right given to me by the men and women in the armed services who fought and died to protect my rights and freedoms in places like Iraq. For that I am internally grateful.

Would you still be able to vote for your (Gerrymandered) Congress and (Indirectly) for your President without the war in Iraq? Yes.

George Bush is our president and our commander-in-chief and he is a wise man. He is no idiot and I remind you, he recieved more votes than anyone who ran for president in history. That should tell you something about him.

But he still lost to Gore in the popular vote, remember?

I can vote and I will vote, it is my right. It is my right as an American, I right given to me by the men and women in the armed services who fought and died to protect my rights and freedoms in places like Iraq. For that I am internally grateful.

George Bush is our president and our commander-in-chief and he is a wise man. He is no idiot and I remind you, he recieved more votes than anyone who ran for president in history. That should tell you something about him.

Dubya? Is that you?

Saddam Hussien was a dictator who threaten peace and stability in the region. He had large stockpiles of and HAD USED wmd against his own people. So he had them, and still pursueing them at the time of the war. Had he been allowed to go unchallenged he would have transfered them to terrorists who would have used them to threaten freedom. The world is better off with Saddam in a prison cell! So please, how can someone be against then and day?
If we were going to take out the most evil dictator we would have gone to Africa or SE Asia. If we were going to take out WMD's we would have gone to Korea, Pakistan or India. There were plenty of targets that would have made much more sense and would have gotten more "bang for the bucK".

Saddam was totally controled. He had NOTHING to do with 9/11 according to Bush himself. He knew he couldn't take on the west "toe to toe" so he had no reason to harm anyone outside of his own country. He was allowing and cooperating with inspectors. The longer the inspectors were there the more we would have known should war become necessary. Of course there were people who were scared that we would learn war WASN'T necessary. So they wanted the inspectors out.

So we have tens of thousands dieing for no reason. Saddam only killed criminals, treasoners, and their families according to tribal law. The US is responsible for far more deaths PER YEAR. And the deaths are random.

The whole thing is more evil than if there would have been no war.

I can vote and I will vote, it is my right. It is my right as an American, I right given to me by the men and women in the armed services who fought and died to protect my rights and freedoms in places like Iraq. For that I am internally grateful.

George Bush is our president and our commander-in-chief and he is a wise man. He is no idiot and I remind you, he recieved more votes than anyone who ran for president in history. That should tell you something about him.
that's what I'm talking about. You're too stupid to understand that there's a big difference between total votes and percentages. All Gore and John Kerry also got more votes than any other president in history. that shoudl tell you something about how many intelligent people went out and voted for no other reason than to keep a retarded chimpanzee from running our country. Unfortunately there were too many stupid, uneducated imbeciles like yourself out there voting for him. That should tell you something about the public education system.

It is your right to vote, but please allow smarter people to vote for you. We know what's better for you. Trust me. You're too stupid to have a say in what this country does. This president is proof of how stupid you really are.

Beacuse populations never grow. they always stay the same... He won by 2% by the way... what dose that say about him.
that he recieved a mandate by the American people to govern as he sees fit. I remind he was the 1st person to recieve more than 50% of the vote in 5 or 6 elections. Thats saying something.

[QUOTE]what does that even mean? the 80's saw saddam attack, with US assistance, islamicist iran. why would he then turn around and give iraqs hitorical mortal enemy wmd? why would iran accept them?
So they can both attack the US and our greatest ally in history, Israel.


so that gives them a free pass to opress their own people? if saddam had joined the 'coaltion of the willing' would he still be in power today?
yes. Why would he join a group that was going to attack his own country? your just talking silly now


sadam hussein never threatened the US. nor had he the capability to. if he had, why didnt he attack you during 2 wars?
He did threat us and did attack us


but they didnt. and sadam was an ally of yours until 1990, got on very well with regan and rummy. he only started 'hating the us' after you attacked iraq in 91!! you havent explained to me why sadam would arm osama AFTER OSAMA TRIED TO KILL HIM!

I told you, so they could attack the US. Why are you having problems understanding this?

you arent a lawyer are you? :confused: you brought it up, you are the one who has to back it up. its not up to me to disprove your wild theories. here is one, the moon is made of knobcheese, prove me wrong?:rolleyes:
actually its on you to prove me wrong
this pathetic propeganda is from floundering neocons trying the same tactics with iran they used with iraq, lie about wmd. unfourtunatly the phrase 'once bitten...' doesnt seem to apply to you.
I dont see what your getting at.

Would you still be able to vote for your (Gerrymandered) Congress and (Indirectly) for your President without the war in Iraq? Yes.
no, I wouldnt because Saddam was going to steal my freedom


But he still lost to Gore in the popular vote, remember?
What the hell are you talking about? he never ran against Gore, he ran against Kerry and beat him easily in a landslide victory.

Can someone explain why the US has the authority to make descisions about who is running their nation correctly, and who is not?

that he recieved a mandate by the American people to govern as he sees fit. I remind he was the 1st person to recieve more than 50% of the vote in 5 or 6 elections. Thats saying something.
I could tell you what says about "more than 50%" of Americans, but I'm afraid I might offend the other 49%...

Anyway... I didn't even know that Bush was fit to see anything. Since when? Who gave him sight? :mad: I WANT NAMES DAMMIT! Guess I'll have to keep my 12 eyes on him, since he's leaving office soon and I wouldn't want him to hesitate now, just because he's now fit to see. Damned fool...

Don't Feed The Troll!

http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html

Hehe.

Don't Feed The Troll!
Now that is cruel! You want my poor little troll to die of hunger?! :upyours:

If we were going to take out the most evil dictator we would have gone to Africa or SE Asia. If we were going to take out WMD's we would have gone to Korea, Pakistan or India. There were plenty of targets that would have made much more sense and would have gotten more "bang for the bucK".

Saddam was totally controled. He had NOTHING to do with 9/11 according to Bush himself. He knew he couldn't take on the west "toe to toe" so he had no reason to harm anyone outside of his own country. He was allowing and cooperating with inspectors. The longer the inspectors were there the more we would have known should war become necessary. Of course there were people who were scared that we would learn war WASN'T necessary. So they wanted the inspectors out.

So we have tens of thousands dieing for no reason. Saddam only killed criminals, treasoners, and their families according to tribal law. The US is responsible for far more deaths PER YEAR. And the deaths are random.

The whole thing is more evil than if there would have been no war.
look, I understand your upset. I mean wars are hard and I understand that and I will answer your point this way. The world is better without Saddam in power. The Tyrant is gone and freedom is now in the middle east.They can vote, the only other place that can do that is Israel. I understand its difficult but we must not waver and see freedom in the middle east through.

They can vote, the only other place that can do that is Israel.
And Lebanon. And Jordan. And Egypt. And Turkey. And Yemen. And even bloody Iran.

Bobo, you're an idiot. People like you shouldn't have the right to vote or the right to live.

First, to bring up your stupidity. Bush lost the popular vote to Gore in the 2000 election....but you didn't know that...because you're still unable to vote.

Secondly, Saddam never attacked, never threatened to attack us, and never wanted to attack us. Israel is also NOT our GREATEST ALLY IN HISTORY. England is our greatest ally in history, as was France and Germany before your fucking idiot of a president screwed that up. No where in Middle East is a threat to our freedom, so our soldiers are dieing for nothing. In fact, our freedom hasn't be greatly threatned since 1812.

Thirdly, you're fucking horrible at debate. Your grammar is fucking horrible and your spelling is the shits. You are the AFFIRMATIVE in this debate. You hold the burden of proof. I am the NEGATIVE, I do not have the burden of proof. So start proving your point instead of providing farce ideals and completely and utter bullshit statements.

Saddam Hussien was a dictator who threaten peace and stability in the region. He had large stockpiles of and HAD USED wmd against his own people. So he had them, and still pursueing them at the time of the war. Had he been allowed to go unchallenged he would have transfered them to terrorists who would have used them to threaten freedom. The world is better off with Saddam in a prison cell! So please, how can someone be against then and day?
Yes, he had used them against his own people, but not since before the first Gulf War.

Invading Iraq was a waste of resources and distracted from real threats and important missions, such as North Korea and rebuilding Afghanistan, respectively.

[QUOTE]that's what I'm talking about. You're too stupid to understand that there's a big difference between total votes and percentages. All Gore and John Kerry also got more votes than any other president in history.

So what? Bush had more votes than both them

that shoudl tell you something about how many intelligent people went out and voted for no other reason than to keep a retarded chimpanzee from running our country. Unfortunately there were too many stupid, uneducated imbeciles like yourself out there voting for him. That should tell you something about the public education system.
Now I take offense to that. Most Americans that vote for him are honest, hardworking, god fearing folk who want to see us protected from the evil doers. btw. I didnt go to public school

It is your right to vote, but please allow smarter people to vote for you. We know what's better for you. Trust me. You're too stupid to have a say in what this country does. This president is proof of how stupid you really are.
Thats just silly bullhawk. I am smart and so is our president. He went to yale and last I heard his IQ was 95-100. Thats pretty damn high.

And Lebanon. And Jordan. And Egypt. And Turkey. And Yemen. And even bloody Iran.
They cant vote in Lebanon, Jordan has a monarchy(cant vote) neither in Egypt and Turkey aint apart of the Middle east. Yemen and Iran can only vote for a few pre-approved people, its not real voting.

[QUOTE=PsychoticDan]

So what? Bush had more votes than both them


Now I take offense to that. Most Americans that vote for him are honest, hardworking, god fearing folk who want to see us protected from the evil doers. btw. I didnt go to public school


Thats just silly bullhawk. I am smart and so is our president. He went to yale and last I heard his IQ was 95-100. Thats pretty damn high.


It's spelled "Yale" And 95 IQ is almost considered below average.

I can tell you didn't attend public school. Ma must have teached yall down thar.

[QUOTE]First, to bring up your stupidity. Bush lost the popular vote to Gore in the 2000 election....but you didn't know that...because you're still unable to vote.
Who cares if he won the popular vote? It aint a damn popularity contest, Bush won the vote that counts

Secondly, Saddam never attacked, never threatened to attack us, and never wanted to attack us. Israel is also NOT our GREATEST ALLY IN HISTORY. England is our greatest ally in history, as was France and Germany before your fucking idiot of a president screwed that up.
He did attack Israel and he attacked us through 9/11. How is England our greatest ally? We fought them like 4 or 5 times in wars and kicked there ass every time. And we fought Germany 2x. As for France, They gave us too many problems in Iraq to be considered an ally.

No where in Middle East is a threat to our freedom, so our soldiers are dieing for nothing. In fact, our freedom hasn't be greatly threatned since 1812.
Not been threaten? Did you not hear and see about 9/11? Do you not know Arabs and muslims attack us mainly because we are Christian?

Thirdly, you're fucking horrible at debate. Your grammar is fucking horrible and your spelling is the shits. You are the AFFIRMATIVE in this debate. You hold the burden of proof. I am the NEGATIVE, I do not have the burden of proof. So start proving your point instead of providing farce ideals and completely and utter bullshit statements.
You are in the negative which means you having negatively disprove my points. its not that hard to figure out.

They cant vote in Lebanon, Jordan has a monarchy(cant vote) neither in Egypt and Turkey aint apart of the Middle east. Yemen and Iran can only vote for a few pre-approved people, its not real voting.
Lebanon: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4107706.stm
Jordan: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2995718.stm
Egypt is most certainly a part of the Middle East, and Turkey is a neighbour of Iraq.
Yemen: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2979401.stm

Iran...well, it's a point of contention, I'll give you that. Nonetheless, they had the choice between a reformer and a conservative, and they chose the latter.

Thats just silly bullhawk. I am smart and so is our president. He went to yale and last I heard his IQ was 95-100. Thats pretty damn high.
Your ability to run a country does not hinge on your IQ or the university you attended.

Who cares if he won the popular vote? It aint a damn popularity contest, Bush won the vote that counts

That more people wanted Gore than Bush doesn't mean something to you?

He did attack Israel and he attacked us through 9/11. How is England our greatest ally? We fought them like 4 or 5 times in wars and kicked there ass every time. And we fought Germany 2x. As for France, They gave us too many problems in Iraq to be considered an ally.

You've fought us twice, I believe, and we are your best ally in the world. We've supported your actions for the last god knows how many years, despite being treated like dog muck much of the time. Look up 'The Special Relationship' and 'The Grand Alliance' sometime.


Not been threaten? Did you not hear and see about 9/11? Do you not know Arabs and muslims attack us mainly because we are Christian?

Actually, Al Quaeda attacks the West because of its freedoms, not just because of Christianity. As for Saddam being involved in 9/11, that is laughable. He and Bin Laden hated each other - they would never have co-operated together.

You are in the negative which means you having negatively disprove my points. its not that hard to figure out.

God knows why I'm responding. It's patently obvious you're a troll. I guess I'm just bored.

[QUOTE=Istenbul]


Who cares if he won the popular vote? It aint a damn popularity contest, Bush won the vote that counts

He did attack Israel and he attacked us through 9/11. How is England our greatest ally? We fought them like 4 or 5 times in wars and kicked there ass every time. And we fought Germany 2x. As for France, They gave us too many problems in Iraq to be considered an ally.


Not been threaten? Did you not hear and see about 9/11? Do you not know Arabs and muslims attack us mainly because we are Christian?

You are in the negative which means you having negatively disprove my points. its not that hard to figure out.

As a Junior in high school I held 1st place district, and 4th place state of Texas debator. I think I have figured debate out. You are the AFFIRMATIVE, you're trying to prove something to be true. I am the NEGATIVE, which the only point is you counter yours. You're wrong again.

Presidency is indeed a popularity contest, hence "Popular Vote". You fail.

Saddam was never connected to 9/11 and Bush has even said so. Israel is not America, so he's never attacked us.

England is out greatest ally, and has been our greatest enemy in the past. You fail again. Allies disagree, which is why Bush doesn't consider them allies anymore. France and Germany didn't want to kiss his ass, so they didn't. You fail yet again.

We have never been attacked due to our Christian values. We've been attacked because of our cockiness, stupidity, and because of people like you and Bush.

You've failed at your entire post. Either log off or try to be better.

Lebanon: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4107706.stm
Jordan: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2995718.stm
Egypt is most certainly a part of the Middle East, and Turkey is a neighbour of Iraq.
Yemen: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2979401.stm

Iran...well, it's a point of contention, I'll give you that. Nonetheless, they had the choice between a reformer and a conservative, and they chose the latter.
Lebonan hates Israel, In Jordan it says the King still makes the decisions, yemen isnt a real democracy and Turkey is in Europe.

Lebonan hates Israel, In Jordan it says the King still makes the decisions, yemen isnt a real democracy and Turkey is in Europe.
I'm beginning to like you :D

You're no UN Abassadorship, but you do show promise.

Lebonan hates Israel, In Jordan it says the King still makes the decisions, yemen isnt a real democracy and Turkey is in Europe.

So you'll just ignore the fact that you were proved wrong?

I'm beginning to like you :D

You're no UN Abassadorship, but you do show promise.

Pfft. This guy is no UNA. Although, to be honest, UNA is slipping these days...

That more people wanted Gore than Bush doesn't mean something to you?
The electoral college is the only thing that matters


You've fought us twice, I believe, and we are your best ally in the world. We've supported your actions for the last god knows how many years, despite being treated like dog muck much of the time. Look up 'The Special Relationship' and 'The Grand Alliance' sometime.
If you fought us twice how are you our "best ally"?



Actually, Al Quaeda attacks the West because of its freedoms, not just because of Christianity. As for Saddam being involved in 9/11, that is laughable. He and Bin Laden hated each other - they would never have co-operated together.
no, they are on a cuarsade against Infidels because they dont want us spreading the true word of god, the bible. And they did work together

Lebonan hates Israel
And that matters because?

By the way, part of the reason could be the invasion of Lebanon by Israel, numerous massacres and just general involvement in a civil war which took many years to end.

In Jordan it says the King still makes the decisions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan#Politics
Jordan is a constitutional monarchy based on the constitution promulgated on January 8, 1952. Executive authority is vested in the king and his council of ministers. The king signs and executes all laws. His veto power may be overridden by a two-thirds vote of both houses of the National Assembly. He appoints and may dismiss all judges by decree, approves amendments to the constitution, declares war, and commands the armed forces. Cabinet decisions, court judgments, and the national currency are issued in his name. The council of ministers, led by a prime minister, is appointed by the king, who may dismiss other cabinet members at the prime minister's request. The cabinet is responsible to the Chamber of Deputies on matters of general policy and can be forced to resign by a two-thirds vote of "no confidence" by that body.

Legislative power rests in the bicameral National Assembly. The 110-member Chamber of Deputies, elected by universal suffrage to a 4-year term, is subject to dissolution by the king. Nine seats are reserved for Christians, 6 for women, and three for Circassians and Chechens. The 40-member Senate is appointed by the king for an 8-year term.

The constitution provides for three categories of courts – civil, religious, and special. Administratively, Jordan is divided into twelve governorates, each headed by a governor appointed by the king. They are the sole authorities for all government departments and development projects in their respective areas.
Say what you will, not only do the people get to vote for a democratic institution, but their king has made it pretty clear that he's not going to interfere with these things.

Yemen isnt a real democracy
*waits for proof*

Turkey is in Europe.
A tiny bit of it is, yes. But as I said, it's a neighbour of Iraq.

I'm beginning to like you :D

You're no UN Abassadorship, but you do show promise.
You like me because I am right, it happens to most people who meet me. And who the hell is UN Abassadorship and why should I care?

The US killed more people with embargoes against Iraq that Saddam did with weapons, and now we continue to be in a position of killing Iraqis. We're even getting the Iraqis democratically involved in the killing machine. Peace and stability? Not exactly on the rise in Iraq. Harbouring terrorists? How about giving them a first-hand training ground? We need to get the hell out of Iraq, and lose the attitude that got us there in the first place.

The electoral college is the only thing that matters

Indeed so. However, that system is oft criticised and is often biased. The fact remains that more voters wnated Gore than Bush. It was merely your odd system that got Bush in.


If you fought us twice how are you our "best ally"?

Because the last time we fought you was in 1812, nearly two centuries ago. Ever since then, we've been a loyal ally through thick and thin, from WW1 through to Iraqi Freedom. Relations between our two countries have only been closer in the time of Roosevelt and Churchill, in fact. You'll notice we are one of the few countries to continuously support you in Iraq, for example.



no, they are on a cuarsade against Infidels because they dont want us spreading the true word of god, the bible. And they did work together

No, they did not; the two in fact hated each other. Hussein hated Bin Laden for being a fanatic, and Bin Laden hated Hussein for creating a secular Iraq. The two would never come to terms to fight even a common foe. In fact, President Bush himself said Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. President Bush himself.

You like me because I am right, it happens to most people who meet me. And who the hell is UN Abassadorship and why should I care?

No, I like you because you're being funny, and you have suckered in an awful lot of people into what should have died a long time ago.

You're a funny troll, but you have work to do to build that rep.:D

You like me because I am right, it happens to most people who meet me. And who the hell is UN Abassadorship and why should I care?

UNA is the top troll on this forum. Basically he's your competition, and let me tell you buddy, you've got a long way to go to even rival his level of awesomeness as a troll.

You're strictly an amateur at this game.

I am for the war and feel it must be fougtht . I feel that establishing Democracy in the middle east is the cure for terrorism ...if you can vote and earn a living and have a say in how your life will improve ...or ..not..then you are less likely to want to blow yourself up . The middle East ..no thanks to the Wesern nations is riddled with dictatorships and is peopled by the disinfranchised and is riddled with a high seperation between the haves and have nots...it needs a middle class and it needs moderates..its hard to be a moderate when you are not allowed to vote and see no hope for your future .
We were already in Iraq providing a cage around Saddam ...he had TEN years to satisfy the UN and the US after he LOST the first war that HE started . Thats NINE years too many . And that is all the justification needed for me to remove him from power .

That being said...My government bungled the fucking shit out of everything from the beginning .
BAD intelligence is one thing...but using it as a corner stone for your reasons to fight a PREEMPTIVE war is quite another..Someone should be shot for that failure . The US will pay for that for years to come .
The war plan...invade a country of over twenty six MILLION with only 160,000 thousand ground troops and have no plan for the occupation of said country after you remove all civil authority from power ....WHAT THE FUCK ???? Hang the idiot that came up with that no plan ...
Did I mention this was a preemptive war...the US doesnt do that type of thing...ummm excuse me ..we didnt before . Not everyone is comfy with the US being an aggressor nation . even though the second war was a continuation of the first..Saddam was in a box...it was costing us billions to keep him there ..and we were getting no where with it . Some feel that the US should have waited longer...I dont but its not hard to understand those that do....ESPECIALLY in hindsite .

so there you have it in a nut shell...The fluffles and the apologist and the looney left wingers will add more..most of it bullshit but even they have a point once in a while .

The bottom line is its a noble cause that suffers from those excecuting it .
Thats my opinion anyway . The world is a better place without Saddam and Iraq will in the years to come be an example for the rest of the Middle East ..or we are truly fucked .
kerry is the only reason Bush still has a job .

As a Junior in high school I held 1st place district, and 4th place state of Texas debator. I think I have figured debate out.
No reason to gloat
You are the AFFIRMATIVE, you're trying to prove something to be true. I am the NEGATIVE, which the only point is you counter yours. You're wrong again.
Thats just fancy academic gribbish. You still have to counter me

Presidency is indeed a popularity contest, hence "Popular Vote". You fail.
Two words. Electoral college. you lose
Saddam was never connected to 9/11 and Bush has even said so. Israel is not America, so he's never attacked us.
An attack on Israel is attack on us
England is out greatest ally, and has been our greatest enemy in the past. You fail again. Allies disagree, which is why Bush doesn't consider them allies anymore. France and Germany didn't want to kiss his ass, so they didn't. You fail yet again.
no you fail
We have never been attacked due to our Christian values. We've been attacked because of our cockiness, stupidity, and because of people like you and Bush.
You dont understand how the people in the middle east think, do you?

You are Wrong Because: (This is from a Published book)*
For your Convenience, I have listed the brain malfunctions that most closely resemble the ones you made on all topics.
3. I am The World.
11. Ingorance of Statistics.
14. Irrelevant Comparisons.
15. Circular Reasoning.
18. Following the Advice of known Idiots.
22. Unclear on the concept of sunk costs.
24. Ignoring all Anecdotal evidence.
30. Taking things to their Illogical Conclusions.
31. Failure to understand why rules don't have expections.

Improve on this and then return.

Oh yeah my sig is for people like you. You got suckered in to that same message.

Pardon if I pulled Godwin but here's the extended version of the Sig:
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.


http://victorjr.users.superford.org/pictures/various/owned/owned4.jpg
You forgot contradicting him self though
I guess that will follow under...
15. Circular Reasoning.

So Bobo, I listed all your problems, got any defense?

No reason to gloat

Thats just fancy academic gribbish. You still have to counter me

Two words. Electoral college. you lose

An attack on Israel is attack on us

no you fail

You dont understand how the people in the middle east think, do you?

My 'gloat' is proof enough that I know more about debate than you.

I've countered you at every turn, yet you provide the same meaningless retardation.

Bush barely even won the Electoral college by many standards. His win divided America.

No, Americans have never been harmed due to an attack on Israel.

You sir, don't understand how Middle Easterners think. You fit them with sterotypes, because only a small minority actually hated America before we stuck our noses in their business.

Please, don't ever say that I've 'failed'. You've been doing it since you came here, and since you've been born. Your only weapons in this argument is ignorant, blind beliefs and ignorance to the world. With that said, I'm finished with your trolling. You've lost.

Pardon if I pulled Godwin but here's the extended version of the Sig:




I guess that will follow under...
15. Circular Reasoning.

So Bobo, I listed all your problems, got any defense?
I dont need any defense. My defense is in Afghanistan and Iraq protecting my freedoms.

My 'gloat' is proof enough that I know more about debate than you.

I've countered you at every turn, yet you provide the same meaningless retardation.

Bush barely even won the Electoral college by many standards. His win divided America.

No, Americans have never been harmed due to an attack on Israel.

You sir, don't understand how Middle Easterners think. You fit them with sterotypes, because only a small minority actually hated America before we stuck our noses in their business.

Please, don't ever say that I've 'failed'. You've been doing it since you came here, and since you've been born. Your only weapons in this argument is ignorant, blind beliefs and ignorance to the world. With that said, I'm finished with your trolling. You've lost.
sounds like someone cant handle losing... That said all this freedom defending has made me tried and Im off to sleep.

I dont need any defense. My defense is in Afghanistan and Iraq protecting my freedoms.

Oh great, a bunch of warlords in Afghanistan and two groups in midst of civil war in Iraq are protecting my freedoms.

Pardon if I pulled Godwin but here's the extended version of the Sig:




I guess that will follow under...
15. Circular Reasoning.

So Bobo, I listed all your problems, got any defense?


What ever happened to the tried and true.....

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed oponent " ?

sounds like someone cant handle losing... That said all this freedom defending has made me tried and Im off to sleep.

That makes no sense. Iterate.

Two words. Electoral college. you lose

The electoral college isn't even close to a popular vote system. But he is still right. The most popular one - the one covered in the least mud - usually wins.

An attack on Israel is attack on us

No it isn't. An attack on Guam is an attack on us, not Israel.

You dont understand how the people in the middle east think, do you?
You don't understand basic psychology do you?

I dont need any defense. My defense is in Afghanistan and Iraq protecting my freedoms.
Response to your response:
7. Argument by Bizarre Definition
8. Total Logical Disconnect.
14. Irrelevant Comparisons

I thought so... You have no defense.

How is England our greatest ally? We fought them like 4 or 5 times in wars and kicked there ass every time.Heh, I find this funny. Britain was beaten in the war of independence, whlst under the command of a mad king.

There was a stalemate in 1812, with Britain suffering less casualties and annilating American maritime trade during the course of the war. It managed to do all that whilst its main attention was focused on Napoleon. And wasn't it in this war in which the all the government buildings in Washington were burned to the ground? Sounds like a real win for the Americans.

Finally in the American Civil war the Union attempted blockage Confederate ports. Britain threatened to join the war on the side of the Confederacy if the Union did this (because of the how much cotton it imported from the southern states). There was no Confederate blockade. The Union (America) obviously didn't have the stomach to take on the British Empire that wasn't ruled by a mad king or engaged in a major war elsewhere.

Please do correct any mistakes. I've never had the oppurtunity to learn about these wars, especially not at school as they aren't on the curiculum. This is just the little I know from reading around.

Saddam Hussien was a dictator who threaten peace and stability in the region. He had large stockpiles of and HAD USED wmd against his own people. So he had them, and still pursueing them at the time of the war. Had he been allowed to go unchallenged he would have transfered them to terrorists who would have used them to threaten freedom. The world is better off with Saddam in a prison cell! So please, how can someone be against then and day?


Wow, update your talking points, even the Busheviks have given up on this arguement.

The world is better without Saddam in power. The Tyrant is gone and freedom is now in the middle east.
How? How? How?

I haven't seen one thing on this thread that says the world is better without Saddam.

The US has far less respect. The lines at the fundamentalist Islam recruiting office are getting longer, the lines at the US military recruiting offices are getting shorter. Economically the US has had to go into debt to China to pay the bills. More people in Bushnam have been killed PER YEAR under US control then under Saddam, and Saddam killed criminals and treasoners and their families under tribal law. The US control has killed people at random. The record of the US in placing puppet governments in power gave us such people as the taliban in Afganistan and Saddam in Iraq, not to mention the Shah in Iran.

How is the world better?

WMD's are nuclear, biological, chemecal, and radiological weapons. In 1988, Saddam Hussein used mustard gas and nerve gas against the Iraqi Kurdish population killing 5,000 in one day. That year an estimated 182,000 people died at the hands of Hussein and his WMD's. SO he HAS had them and was NOT afraid of using them

The US has killed more than that many in one DAY

The estimates of the combined death toll range from 100,000 to 220,000, with some estimates considerably higher when delayed deaths from radiation exposure are counted. More than 90% of the casualties were civilians.
http://www.answers.com/topic/atomic-bombings-of-hiroshima-and-nagasaki

How? How? How?

I haven't seen one thing on this thread that says the world is better without Saddam.

The US has far less respect. The lines at the fundamentalist Islam recruiting office are getting longer, the lines at the US military recruiting offices are getting shorter. Economically the US has had to go into debt to China to pay the bills. More people in Bushnam have been killed PER YEAR under US control then under Saddam, and Saddam killed criminals and treasoners and their families under tribal law. The US control has killed people at random. The record of the US in placing puppet governments in power gave us such people as the taliban in Afganistan and Saddam in Iraq, not to mention the Shah in Iran.

How is the world better?How is the world better!?! We've given them the freedom! to kill each other... FREEEEEDOM!

Don't bother, the Troll got his pleasure from the ranting and fell asleep.
*Disturbing Image*
...
Scratch that message. Anyway, he's gone now.

Don't bother, the Troll got his pleasure from the ranting and fell asleep.
*Disturbing Image*
...
Scratch that message. Anyway, he's gone now.

And if he does get back on.

Why didn't we attack North Korea? We know they have Nukes. Heck they launch missiles every other year! What if one day they decide to 'test' a live one? Your defenders are too busy protecting the Oil Fields and the Poppy Fields to stop them. Well at least the Afghanistan Heroin supply is safe so the terrorists can make a profit shipping it here.

What the NS needs is the ability to have warning notes stuck on people like this. So that it would say stuff like "Warning, I am a troll. Do not feed me".

Lebonan hates Israel, In Jordan it says the King still makes the decisions, yemen isnt a real democracy and Turkey is in Europe.

This shall be enjoyable...

point 1). Turkey is indeed part of the Middle East; however, many people say it is Europe because of its secular government, and its close relationship with many European governments.
point 2). If you are going to attack Yemen as not having a real democracy, here's news for you:
a). A democracy is a system of government where the people rule that means (since you are obviously so thoroughly brainwashed that you cannot figure this out for yourself) everything is decided by a popular vote
b). By looking at that one may notice that there are currently no democratic governments in existence (i.e. that includes the US).
c) Ergo we can determine that the US is not truely democratic. It is called a Democratic-Republic for a reason.
point 3). You might say that the Queen of England technically rules the country, however she, and the House of Lords serve little or no purpose in the government at this point other then as figure-heads.
a). Going off that same arguement as the one you used regarding Jordan, then isn't the UK "evil," and "un-democratic?"

While i'm sure you will come up with some Bushism which describes how "democratic," and "good" our country is. Please, just try to look at the facts first to make it even a little difficult to make a fool of you.

Finally in the American Civil war the Union attempted blockage Confederate ports. Britain threatened to join the war on the side of the Confederacy if the Union did this (because of the how much cotton it imported from the southern states). There was no Confederate blockade. The Union (America) obviously didn't have the stomach to take on the British Empire that wasn't ruled by a mad king or engaged in a major war elsewhere.

Please do correct any mistakes. I've never had the oppurtunity to learn about these wars, especially not at school as they aren't on the curiculum. This is just the little I know from reading around.

OK, I'll correct this one then, since it's a biggie.

This is just the stuff from Wiki...double parentheses ((stuff)) indicates stuff I've added.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_blockade



Naval War and Blockade

In May 1861 ((less than one full month after Ft. Sumter)) Lincoln proclaimed the Union blockade of all southern ports, which shut down nearly all international traffic and most local port-to-port traffic.

Although few naval battles were fought and few men were killed, the blockade shut down King Cotton and ruined the southern economy.

British investors built small, very fast "blockade runners" that brought in military supplies (and civilian luxuries) from Cuba and the Bahamas and took out some cotton and tobacco. When the blockade captured one, the ship and cargo were sold and the proceeds given to the Union sailors. The crews were British, so when they were captured they were released and not held as prisoners of war.

Threat of International Intervention

The best chance for Confederate victory was entry into the war by Britain and France. The Union, under Lincoln and Secretary of State William Henry Seward worked to block this, and threatened war if any country officially recognized the existence of the Confederate States of America. (None ever did.) In 1861 southerners voluntarily embargoed cotton shipments, hoping to start an economic depression in Europe that would force Britain to enter the war in order to get cotton. Cotton diplomacy proved a failure. The British had ample stocks of cotton but they depended on American ((NOT Confederate)) grain shipments for their daily food supply.

President Lincoln's announcement of a blockade of the Confederacy, a clear act of war, enabled Britain, followed by other European powers, to announce their neutrality in the dispute. This enabled the Confederacy to begin to attempt to gain support and funds in Europe. President Jefferson Davis replaced his first two secretaries of state (Robert Toombs and Robert M. T. Hunter) with Judah P. Benjamin in early 1862. Although Benjamin had more international knowledge and legal experience he failed to create a dynamic foreign policy for the Confederacy.

The first attempts to achieve European recognition of the Confederacy were dispatched on February 25, 1861 and led by William Lowndes Yancey, Pierre A. Rost, and Ambrose Dudley Mann. The British foreign minister Lord John Russell met with them, and the French foreign minister Edouard Thouvenel received the group unofficially. Neither Britain nor France ever promised formal recognition, for that meant war with the United States.

Charles Francis Adams proved particularly adept as minister to Britain for the Union, and Britain was reluctant to boldly challenge the Union's blockade. British maritime interests spent hundreds of millions of pounds to build and operate highly profitable blockade runners--commercial ships flying the British flag and carrying supplies to the Confederacy by slipping through the blockade. The officers and crews were British and when captured they were released. The Confederacy purchased several warships in Britain, the most famous, the Alabama did considerable damage and led to serious postwar disputes. The Confederacy sent journalists Henry Hotze and Edwin De Leon to open propaganda stations to feed news media in Paris and London. However, public opinion against slavery created a political liability for European politicians, especially in Britain. War loomed in late 1861 between the U.S. and Britain over the Trent Affair, involving the Union boarding of a British mail steamer to seize two Confederate diplomats. However, London and Washington were able to smooth over the problem after Lincoln released the two diplomats.

In 1862 the British considered mediation--though even such an offer would have risked war with the U.S. The Union victory in the Battle of Antietam caused them to delay this decision. The Emancipation Proclamation further reinforced the political liability of supporting the Confederacy. As the war continued, the Confederacy's chances with Britain grew more hopeless, and they focused increasingly on France. Napoléon III proposed to offer mediation in January 1863, but this was dismissed by Seward. Despite some sympathy for the Confederacy, France's own seizure of Mexico ultimately deterred them from war with the Union. Confederate offers late in the war to end slavery in return for recognition were not seriously considered by London or Paris.

So as you can see, there most certainly WAS a Union blockade of the Confederacy, that lasted through the entire war, and might well be considered one of the most effective blockades in military history.

It was also Britain and France that were unwilling to go to war with the U.S...for political reasons both foreign and domestic, for economic reasons, and for the fact that the U.S. was gearing up for total war (which Britain and France could not automatically do without antagonizing their other neighbors).

Interesting stuff.

Anyway back to troll baiting.

You say the USA was at threat from Iraq? Since when?

Answer only when the USA invaded.

Bin Laden and Saddam working together?
Laughable. They hate each other.


Now let me ask you a question. Where does your 'fear' of Arabs stem from? has it been there all your life? Or has it just really come into affect with the media in the USA creating an environment of fear? Please answer with a valid reason.

Advice if you really want a true opinion on the war in Iraq and not a biased one check out a decent media organisation outside the USA like the BBC or something.

Saddam Hussien was a dictator who threaten peace and stability in the region. He had large stockpiles of and HAD USED wmd against his own people. So he had them, and still pursueing them at the time of the war. Had he been allowed to go unchallenged he would have transfered them to terrorists who would have used them to threaten freedom. The world is better off with Saddam in a prison cell! So please, how can someone be against then and day?
1) He didn't deal in global terrorism, nor was he greatly involved in terrorism in the region. He was a SECULAR leader. We need more of them in that region. The religious scumbags are the ones who want to destroy us.

2) He was a thug. You can do business with a thug because he makes rational decisions about who he can bully and who is strong enough to bully him. Also he doesn't make decisions based on what the invisible man in the sky says.

3) The world would be better off if most of the middle east, especially Saudi Arabia was ruled by a man like Saddam Hussein. The Saudis are the real enemy. They are THE source of sunni terrorism.

Response to your response:
7. Argument by Bizarre Definition
8. Total Logical Disconnect.
14. Irrelevant Comparisons

I thought so... You have no defense.

Is that from The Joy of Work?

Sorry mate, but there have never been any WMDs in Iraq. Even Tony Bliar said so.

AND, war should not have been the first resort. No matter how nasty Saddam was, your averge Iraqi feels they were better off BEFORE the Americans blew up their house.

Thats why I'm against the war.

Really, I wonder why UN inspections in the past found Saddam to have used Mustard gas [a biological/chemical weapon defined as a weapon of mass destruction] on his own people [the kurds] in the north >.>.

Also, if i recall, war was not the first resort... Saddam was given ample time to open himself up to UN inspectors for inspections [of which even Hans Blix himself said Saddam was not being open and forthcomming but at times even impeding inspections]. Given his history of use of wmd, and support for terrorism [no not 911 but other terrorist organizations other then alqueda (yes they exist too)] and the fact that he was not FULLY cooperating with inspectors, and that there were unaccounted for stockpiles of biological/chemical grade substances.. it seems to me, that any logical person could accept this as a threat to global security.

P.S... Kim Jong Ill never used WMD, on his own ppl or anyone elses.. that is what differentiates him from Saddam

Saddam Hussien was a dictator who threaten peace and stability in the region.

Uh, it looks like invading Iraq RUINED peace and stability in the region. Saddam was the only thing keeping stability in the region.

He had large stockpiles of

Find me those WMDs and we will talk.


and HAD USED wmd against his own people.

Ugh. He used the against the people that were trying to overthrow him. If you were a dictator, youd do the same.

So he had them, and still pursueing them at the time of the war.

No, and no.


Had he been allowed to go unchallenged he would have transfered them to terrorists who would have used them to threaten freedom.

Yeah I'd love to give aid and weapons to a man who calls me an infidel (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0211-11.htm) and wants me dead.

The world is better off with Saddam in a prison cell! So please, how can someone be against then and day?

First of all, if you think this war is worth fighting, why arent you there? Enlist please and stop spewing bullshit.

Second, the world is better off with Bush in a cell. Cant wait for someone to invade and do that.

Really, I wonder why UN inspections in the past found Saddam to have used Mustard gas [a biological/chemical weapon defined as a weapon of mass destruction] on his own people [the kurds] in the north >.>.

Also, if i recall, war was not the first resort... Saddam was given ample time to open himself up to UN inspectors for inspections [of which even Hans Blix himself said Saddam was not being open and forthcomming but at times even impeding inspections]. Given his history of use of wmd, and support for terrorism [no not 911 but other terrorist organizations other then alqueda (yes they exist too)] and the fact that he was not FULLY cooperating with inspectors, and that there were unaccounted for stockpiles of biological/chemical grade substances.. it seems to me, that any logical person could accept this as a threat to global security.

P.S... Kim Jong Ill never used WMD, on his own ppl or anyone elses.. that is what differentiates him from Saddam

But as Bush had said to Blair that he intended to go to war whatever the result of the inspections, and British documents show that the insepctions were in fact to provided an excuse for war, its fairly clear that War was the first last and only resort the Chimp in Chief had in mind.

Is that from The Joy of Work?
Yeah, Nice to see another person who read it. It's worked in past Arguments with Irrational People so I'm trying it here.

I was not against it. I am just against how terrible they handle the aftermath with the new government forming and stuf.

How? How? How?

I haven't seen one thing on this thread that says the world is better without Saddam.

The US has far less respect. The lines at the fundamentalist Islam recruiting office are getting longer, the lines at the US military recruiting offices are getting shorter. Economically the US has had to go into debt to China to pay the bills. More people in Bushnam have been killed PER YEAR under US control then under Saddam, and Saddam killed criminals and treasoners and their families under tribal law. The US control has killed people at random. The record of the US in placing puppet governments in power gave us such people as the taliban in Afganistan and Saddam in Iraq, not to mention the Shah in Iran.

How is the world better?
Because Iraq is now a beacon of freedom for the rest of the world. They are shining light for world to see and follow. Freedom is on the move and the US stands on the side of freedom. Freedom is the almighty's gift to everyone in the world.

The electoral college isn't even close to a popular vote system. But he is still right. The most popular one - the one covered in the least mud - usually wins.
No, the electoral college decides it.

No it isn't. An attack on Guam is an attack on us, not Israel.
How the hell is it an attack on us? They are their own country gheez. We have nothing to do with guam. Israel is a far better ally to the US.

You don't understand basic psychology do you?
Yes I do, I wonder about you though

Why didn't we attack North Korea? We know they have Nukes. Heck they launch missiles every other year! What if one day they decide to 'test' a live one? Your defenders are too busy protecting the Oil Fields and the Poppy Fields to stop them. Well at least the Afghanistan Heroin supply is safe so the terrorists can make a profit shipping it here.
I dont care for this "troll" talk, its hurtful. We dont have to worry about N.Korea we have them in check. China, Russia, and Japan all have nukes pointed at them if they try anything and plus they didnt attack us on 9/11.

I dont care for this "troll" talk, its hurtful. We dont have to worry about N.Korea we have them in check. China, Russia, and Japan all have nukes pointed at them if they try anything and plus they didnt attack us on 9/11.

And besides have you ever known anything to come out of North Korea that actually worked. Think about it what is the last product you seen that had a tag that read Made in North Korea

point 1). Turkey is indeed part of the Middle East; however, many people say it is Europe

including me, so they dont count

point 2). If you are going to attack Yemen as not having a real democracy, here's news for you:

b). By looking at that one may notice that there are currently no democratic governments in existence
I told you they arent a democracy. And I dont know why you brought the US into this, I was talking about the middle east.

You say the USA was at threat from Iraq? Since when?

Answer only when the USA invaded.
Yes,actually. Otherwise we wouldnt have gone in
Bin Laden and Saddam working together?
Laughable. They hate each other.

They hated us more
Now let me ask you a question. Where does your 'fear' of Arabs stem from? has it been there all your life? Or has it just really come into affect with the media in the USA creating an environment of fear? Please answer with a valid reason.
Because they attacked us on 9/11 and they want to kill me because I believe in the right god and that makes them angry.
Advice if you really want a true opinion on the war in Iraq and not a biased one check out a decent media organisation outside the USA like the BBC or something.
Um, Why would I trust any news outside the US? They would just be baised against the US.

Because Iraq is now a beacon of freedom for the rest of the world.

uhhhh.....

Look, America isnt even that shining beacon of freedom anymore, you think we can help another country be "free"?

They are shining light for world to see and follow. Freedom is on the move and the US stands on the side of freedom. Freedom is the almighty's gift to everyone in the world.

Well then let the almighty take care of it, not our soldiers.

plus they didnt attack us on 9/11.

Newsflash: neither did Iraq.

Uh, it looks like invading Iraq RUINED peace and stability in the region. Saddam was the only thing keeping stability in the region.

Um, Iraq invaded its nieghbors remember? Thats not really stable. Israel is the only thing keeping the middle east stable at the moment


Ugh. He used the against the people that were trying to overthrow him. If you were a dictator, youd do the same.
But Im not, I love freedom. he used them, its proof he had them


No, and no.

yes and yes


Yeah I'd love to give aid and weapons to a man who calls me an infidel (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0211-11.htm) and wants me dead.
I dont know what your getting at since I dont click on links(I dont want a virus). But I would just wonder, why would you want that?



Second, the world is better off with Bush in a cell. Cant wait for someone to invade and do that.
What!? Are you crazy? If President Bush is in Prison who the hell will defend freedom? I think you need to do some research.

What!? Are you crazy? If President Bush is in Prison who the hell will defend freedom? I think you need to do some research.
LOL good lord you're funny.

Um, Iraq invaded its nieghbors remember? Thats not really stable. Israel is the only thing keeping the middle east stable at the moment

OK This thread is not real. You can stop right there. This sentence confirms its a joke. You can all go home now.

Saddam Hussien was a dictator who threaten peace and stability in the region. He had large stockpiles of and HAD USED wmd against his own people. So he had them, and still pursueing them at the time of the war. Had he been allowed to go unchallenged he would have transfered them to terrorists who would have used them to threaten freedom. The world is better off with Saddam in a prison cell! So please, how can someone be against then and day?
The reason I was against the War in Iraq was because it was unnecessary. Sadam Hussien had all those things, and had had them for years, and yes, is probably a criminal. But that didn't matter to anyone. And suddenly, it mattered to someone. And he expected it to have to matter to everyone, because it mattered to him. With no apparent provocation, the U.S. President decided to declare an occupation of a foreign country. It seemed unAmerican.

(Whose is "then and day"?)

I dont care for this "troll" talk, its hurtful. We dont have to worry about N.Korea we have them in check. China, Russia, and Japan all have nukes pointed at them if they try anything and plus they didnt attack us on 9/11.


North Korea in check? Hahaha. Noone outside N.Korea knows whats going on there. All outside interference is banned and no media coverage from outside N.Korea is allowed. The USa is in the dark about N.Korea just like the rest of the world

OK This thread is not real. You can stop right there. This sentence confirms its a joke. You can all go home now.
Im serious. Israel keeps the Arabs in check from doing something crazy. I dont see whats so joky about that.

Im serious. Israel keeps the Arabs in check from doing something crazy. I dont see whats so joky about that.
Don't even go there buddy! I've seen three! yes that's right count 'em three! pro-palestinien propagnada sites and trust me the Israeli army is capable of doing some pretty crazy shit

Im serious. Israel keeps the Arabs in check from doing something crazy. I dont see whats so joky about that.

Sure. Taking land that isnt theirs, by force, and without consent is an addition to stability.

Starving the people whose land it rightfully is is adding to stability.

Bulldozing the homes and villages of the people whose land it rightfully is is an addition to stability.

Throwing rocks at the schoolchildren of the people whose land it rightfully is is an addition to stability.

Being the only nation in the region to have nuclear technology is an addition to stability.

Israel creates the reasons that these "arabs" you speak of blow up their buses and markets. But hey, lets not focus on the reasons why. You should read up on whats really going on. Maybe then I wont regard your comments as either ignorant or a joke. Read up on Rachel Corrie.

Don't even go there buddy! I've seen three! yes that's right count 'em three! pro-palestinien propagnada sites and trust me the Israeli army is capable of doing some pretty crazy shit


Based on " three PRO palestinian propaganda sites " ? You say " trust me "..:D

Are you preparing for a career in politics ?:D :D

us nukes pointed at japan?

israel a stabalising influence in the middle east?

iraq involved in 9-11?

the rest of the world is anti-american?

the us is safer after this war?

bobo, i truely hope you are on a wind up, otherwise i would be profoundly worried about your grasp of reality.

Based on " three PRO palestinian propaganda sites " ? You say " trust me "..:D

Are you preparing for a career in politics ?:D :D
Ha! :D Well I'm assuming the pictures on theese said sites are real, but the caption there are propaganda.

So they can both attack the US and our greatest ally in history, Israel.

What has Isreal ever done for us?

What has Isreal ever done for us?
they have been our ally and protected us from the evildoers.

they have been our ally and protected us from the evildoers.

Where were they on 9/11?

Hint: probably doing the evil themselves.

us nukes pointed at japan?

israel a stabalising influence in the middle east?

iraq involved in 9-11?

the rest of the world is anti-american?

the us is safer after this war?

bobo, i truely hope you are on a wind up, otherwise i would be profoundly worried about your grasp of reality.
If you think those things arent true Im afraid you dont watch the news.

Sure. Taking land that isnt theirs, by force, and without consent is an addition to stability.

Starving the people whose land it rightfully is is adding to stability.

Bulldozing the homes and villages of the people whose land it rightfully is is an addition to stability.

Throwing rocks at the schoolchildren of the people whose land it rightfully is is an addition to stability.

Being the only nation in the region to have nuclear technology is an addition to stability.

Israel creates the reasons that these "arabs" you speak of blow up their buses and markets. But hey, lets not focus on the reasons why. You should read up on whats really going on. Maybe then I wont regard your comments as either ignorant or a joke. Read up on Rachel Corrie.
This post is so baised and crazy that Im not even going to respond to it.

If you think those things arent true Im afraid you dont watch the news.
What kind of news do you watch?

If you think those things arent true Im afraid you dont watch the news.

YOURE RIGHT. Because the mainstream media is a beacon of truth...:rolleyes:

they have been our ally and protected us from the evildoers.

Because, of course, everyone in the middle east besides Isreal is 'Evil.'

What has Isreal ever done for us?

blown up the us navy ship uss liberty and tried to pin it on egypt hoping you would nuke them?

If you think those things arent true Im afraid you dont watch the news.
Now listen to my advice and listen to a media who is individual of the government. *Hint*BBC*HINT

He literally had TONS of NERVE AGENT and other chemical weapons.

I'm sure that he had those atomic bombs, which he used upon his own people; thence the mushroom clouds, craters, and radioactivitiy.

Oh, wait. :eek:

He literally had TONS of NERVE AGENT and other chemical weapons.

Where?

Now listen to my advice and listen to a media who is individual of the government. *Hint*BBC*HINT
I told you. Im not listening to that biased unAmerican junk, but thank you for the advice.

Well at least you considered my advice. Thats the first step. Now the second step is to consider other peoples arguments and admit when your wrong.


PS: You can't exactly call the BBC junk being the oldest and biggest broadcasting company in the world.

Damn good question!(Syria?) but we know he had it as we helped him aquire it during the Iran/Iraq war. We know he used it and how much he used as we also supplied him the know how. The war in Iraq was fought for thr right reasons but not the reason sold to the world.

Reason 1) To destroy a Frankenstein the US helped create.

Reason 2) To leech away men and assets from Muslim extremeist groups to fight in Iraq rather than on US soil. To bleed them white in a war of attrition. We don't need to "win" we need to just "keep the trash out of our yard".



Where?

bont biological agents by definition die? so the stuff the us gave him was probably 20 years past its shelf life.

blown up the us navy ship uss liberty and tried to pin it on egypt hoping you would nuke them?

Those darn Egyptians!

That's what they get for building pyramids.

Damn good question!(Syria?)

Of course, blame it on those other Middle Eastern countries.

Those darn Egyptians!

That's what they get for building pyramids.
We call'em terrorism triangles over here.

It can? How so? Show me an article that proves we're as bad as Sad Horse.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The combined death toll for both is currently around 500,000.

Look its math... If Ronnis sold Saddam 1,000,000.00 kg of nerve agent, and Saddam used 1/3 on the Kurds and 1/3 on Iran how much was smuggled to neighboring countries ????



Of course, blame it on those other Middle Eastern countries.

The originality of this topic has been dead for the past 7 pages. I grow tired of it being on the first page of General...let it die.

The originality of this topic has been dead for the past 7 pages. I grow tired of it being on the first page of General...let it die.
Ah, irony.

Look its math... If Ronnis sold Saddam 1,000,000.00 kg of nerve agent, and Saddam used 1/3 on the Kurds and 1/3 on Iran how much was smuggled to neighboring countries ????

Well when and if we find them we will know.

You're either foolish or niave the death toll had the US persued the war to the home islands would have been catastrophic. 1 million US DEAD +wounded and at least 20 million Japanese KILLED + wounded and sick/starving. If the very worse case scenarios were to be believed you could have possible seen the extiction of Japan as a nation.


Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The combined death toll for both is currently around 500,000.

Some bioagents can last damn near forever if stored correctly. Chem agents too.

bont biological agents by definition die? so the stuff the us gave him was probably 20 years past its shelf life.

Some bioagents can last damn near forever if stored correctly. Chem agents too.

Because "under the sand" is correct storage.

You're either foolish or niave the death toll had the US persued the war to the home islands would have been catastrophic. 1 million US DEAD +wounded and at least 20 million Japanese KILLED + wounded and sick/starving. If the very worse case scenarios were to be believed you could have possible seen the extiction of Japan as a nation.
Which is why Japan had offered surrender before the bomb was dropped. The surrender was rejected. After Hiroshima and Nagasaki, surrender was again offered, with the exact same terms as before (All but unconditional surrender. The Emperor keeps his power, but that's it.). This time, it was accepted.

Seems like you're the naive one, especially since you gave values that far exceeded even the most pessimistic ones made. Ah well. It seems that every year the amount of people that would have died goes up. I remember when it was estimated to be one million total Japanese casualties.

...I listen to Bush


That makes you retarded.

[QUOTE=Bobo Hope]
iran? sadam hands over wmd to iran? seriously? iran? 1m dead in the war? iran?:rolleyes: christ on a bicycle, do people still believe this ham fisted propaganda?
Christ on a bicycle? Why is that so frigging funny?:D

Some bioagents can last damn near forever if stored correctly. Chem agents too.
Biological agents stored under liquid nitrogen like the smallpox samples at CDC can, but large ammounts of the stuff are expensive to store and hard to secure.

Chemicals are difficult to store long term. Look at the shape the US chemical warfare stockpile is in. It's in such bad shape that it's become hazardous to move the stuff so it can be disposed of.

The OP might not be a troll... he might just be incredibly stupid. That's a possibility.

Who the @#$% are you I grow tired of you :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: The originality of this topic has been dead for the past 7 pages. I grow tired of it being on the first page of General...let it die.

Spores for mycotoxics just need cool dry warehouses and phosgene can be whipped up in no time. Stuff like the US binary nerve agents and really advanced stuff is different. Hell botulism is EASY to grow


Biological agents stored under liquid nitrogen like the smallpox samples at CDC can, but large ammounts of the stuff are expensive to store and hard to secure.

Chemicals are difficult to store long term. Look at the shape the US chemical warfare stockpile is in. It's in such bad shape that it's become hazardous to move the stuff so it can be disposed of.

You are sorta right the Japanese actually did surrender to the Russians after the 1st bomb and were making overtures to them before that but the Russians wanted the Kurile Islands so .... As for my figures the 1million US are from the Army staff who were planning Corenett
don't take my word for it (http://home.kc.rr.com/casualties/)

Japanese casaulties are an extrapolation of those on Okinawa.


Which is why Japan had offered surrender before the bomb was dropped. The surrender was rejected. After Hiroshima and Nagasaki, surrender was again offered, with the exact same terms as before (All but unconditional surrender. The Emperor keeps his power, but that's it.). This time, it was accepted.

Seems like you're the naive one, especially since you gave values that far exceeded even the most pessimistic ones made. Ah well. It seems that every year the amount of people that would have died goes up. I remember when it was estimated to be one million total Japanese casualties.

Shipping them to Venezuala wasn't feasable ...if it were we'd get that damn Hugo Chavez too:rolleyes:

Of course, blame it on those other Middle Eastern countries.

You are sorta right the Japanese actually did surrender to the Russians after the 1st bomb and were making overtures to them before that but the Russians wanted the Kurile Islands so .... As for my figures the 1million US are from the Army staff who were planning Corenett
don't take my word for it (http://home.kc.rr.com/casualties/)

Japanese casaulties are an extrapolation of those on Okinawa.
You don't understand. Japan offered surrender long before either of the bombs were dropped. They offered it to the U.S. There was never a need for invasion.

You don't understand. Japan offered surrender long before either of the bombs were dropped. They offered it to the U.S. There was never a need for invasion.

However, according to the principles of Unconditional Surrender, as created by the Big Three at Yalta and Potsdam and before, the surrender was rejected.

However, according to the principles of Unconditional Surrender, as created by the Big Three at Yalta and Potsdam and before, the surrender was rejected.
The only thing that wasn't unconditional about it was that Japan got to keep its emperor. When Japan's surrender was accepted after Nagisaki, guess who Japan got to keep.

To the US ??? ...I call bullshit and want proof! There was an intercepted May 5 1945 cable that the Japanese hoped to inflict great losses and sue for peace...hardly any surrender.


You don't understand. Japan offered surrender long before either of the bombs were dropped. They offered it to the U.S. There was never a need for invasion.

this hair splitting os facisnating but irrelevant.

you were actually attacked by japan and entitled to defend yourselves. this does not hold for the current mess that is 100% of your govts choosing.

actually the US created saddam and we need to clean him up

this hair splitting os facisnating but irrelevant.

you were actually attacked by japan and entitled to defend yourselves. this does not hold for the current mess that is 100% of your govts choosing.

To the US ??? ...I call bullshit and want proof! There was an intercepted May 5 1945 cable that the Japanese hoped to inflict great losses and sue for peace...hardly any surrender.
I call bullshit on your claim.

Wikipedia is your friend. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombing_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Opposition_to_use_of_atomic_bombs) Incidentally, both of us are right and wrong. The Japanese military advisors wanted to make a decisive strike, so as to get more favorable terms of surrender, while the rest of the Japanese Council was in favor of unconditional surrender. However, the article makes it clear that Japan would have surrendered with the use of the atomic bombs, most likely from the possibility of a Soviet invasion.

Also note than the top ranking military leaders for the U.S. were all opposed to the use of the bomb. (Truman is an obvious exception, but he was unaware that the bombings were targeting civilian instead of military institutions.)

I'm sure that he had those atomic bombs, which he used upon his own people; thence the mushroom clouds, craters, and radioactivitiy.

Oh, wait. :eek:

Yes, gassing thousands of one's own people to death, torturing many thousands of one's own people... that's not bad enough.

SADDAM IS A SAINT

I would like to clairify a few things about Operation: Iraqi Freedom.

[Civilian Deaths]
Over 150,000 iraqi civilians have been killed since the US invasion in 2003. Relativly few, around 2000-4000 have been killed by US/UK weapons. Almost all of the Iraqi deaths have come from insurgent SBs [Suicide Bombings] etc. When my unit, the 1-187 deployed to Iraq in '04, my entire company was witness to a SB that inflicted 187 iraqi casulties. And you have to consider that there are at least 10 of these SBs a day. Countless more are stopped by our men. It's not the Coalition forces killing Iraqi civs, but the insurgents.

[US has dropped more WMDs]
Also, the former Soviet Union has dropped more nuclear and thermonuclear weapons than the US. The US stopped dropping WMDs after cases of thyroid cancer in 1980 (maybe 81) from Idaho and Nevada were linked to nuclear detonations in the Nevada desert.

[Iraqis better off w/o US]
Even more, the Iraqi population is actually very glad that the US is there. As always, there is a disenting group in Iraqi that prefered the pre-US regime to the post-war government. The percentages of these people are around 15-20%. But the media likes to exploit the public, and when I was there, and as it still is right now according to my uncle who is over there with the Rangers, the media tends to only publish the interviews of those who are dissenting because of the low approval ratings for Bush currently.

As a serving member of the US military, I can't comment on what I think of the Iraqi war and of the US involvement, but I can say that you all need to serve a tour and see first hand how we're affecting them before you can make a good assesment of the situation.

- Dan Kragle
1LT Echo Co. 1-187, 101st ABN DIV

Yes, gassing thousands of one's own people to death, torturing many thousands of one's own people... that's not bad enough.

SADDAM IS A SAINT
Straw man. The point made in the post you quoted is that WMD is inaccurately applied to chemical weaponry. It only applies to nuclear weaponry.

actually the US created saddam and we need to clean him up

and here is the rest of us under the illusion it was because he and had WMD

I would like to clairify a few things about Operation: Iraqi Freedom.

[Civilian Deaths]
Over 150,000 iraqi civilians have been killed since the US invasion in 2003. Relativly few, around 2000-4000 have been killed by US/UK weapons. Almost all of the Iraqi deaths have come from insurgent SBs [Suicide Bombings] etc. When my unit, the 1-187 deployed to Iraq in '04, my entire company was witness to a SB that inflicted 187 iraqi casulties. And you have to consider that there are at least 10 of these SBs a day. Countless more are stopped by our men. It's not the Coalition forces killing Iraqi civs, but the insurgents.

[US has dropped more WMDs]
Also, the former Soviet Union has dropped more nuclear and thermonuclear weapons than the US. The US stopped dropping WMDs after cases of thyroid cancer in 1980 (maybe 81) from Idaho and Nevada were linked to nuclear detonations in the Nevada desert.

[Iraqis better off w/o US]
Even more, the Iraqi population is actually very glad that the US is there. As always, there is a disenting group in Iraqi that prefered the pre-US regime to the post-war government. The percentages of these people are around 15-20%. But the media likes to exploit the public, and when I was there, and as it still is right now according to my uncle who is over there with the Rangers, the media tends to only publish the interviews of those who are dissenting because of the low approval ratings for Bush currently.

As a serving member of the US military, I can't comment on what I think of the Iraqi war and of the US involvement, but I can say that you all need to serve a tour and see first hand how we're affecting them before you can make a good assesment of the situation.

- Dan Kragle
1LT Echo Co. 1-187, 101st ABN DIV

funny that we don't hear any of this from the COUGHliberal and/or anti-americanCOUGH american media.

if we're not hearing the Good News from American media, imagine the negative spin the rest of the world's media put on our efforts to better post-Saddam Iraq

funny that we don't hear any of this from the COUGHliberal and/or anti-americanCOUGH american media.

if we're not hearing the Good News from American media, imagine the negative spin the rest of the world's media put on our efforts to better post-Saddam Iraq

Correct me if I'm wrong, but were there Suicide Bombings during Saddams regime? Were they at the same frequency that they have been since the Coalition forces invaded Iraq?

Again, the same with insurgents. The only reason they're fighting is because Coalition troops are there. Saddam was a tyrant and a mass murderer, but at the moment Iraq doesn't seem to be much better off now that Saddam is gone. At least with Saddam there was stability.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but were there Suicide Bombings during Saddams regime? Were they at the same frequency that they have been since the Coalition forces invaded Iraq?

Again, the same with insurgents. The only reason they're fighting is because Coalition troops are there. Saddam was a tyrant and a mass murderer, but at the moment Iraq doesn't seem to be much better off now that Saddam is gone. At least with Saddam there was stability.

you're right, we should just put the bad guys back in charge and take away Iraqis' right to vote... such a noble stance.

Bowing down to the whining nut-job fanatics who can't stand that they no longer have a single despot-benefactor singling them out for good treatment/power would be wrong, imo... it's disgusting that they continue trying to shake our will to do the right thing by perpetrating terrible wrongs on their countrymen.

funny that we don't hear any of this from the COUGHliberal and/or anti-americanCOUGH american media.

if we're not hearing the Good News from American media, imagine the negative spin the rest of the world's media put on our efforts to better post-Saddam Iraq


the opinion of a soldier is newsworthy?

the opinion of a soldier is newsworthy?

i'd listen to someone who's been there before i'd listen to an anchor in a studio who may have a political agenda to get across.

i'd listen to someone who's been there before i'd listen to an anchor in a studio who may have a political agenda to get across.
Because a soldier wouldn't have an interest in making his work look good and worthwhile?

I'm not criticising you, dude, but you need to check your premises. Soldiers are people too, and no one wants to believe that what they do is a bad thing.

Because a soldier wouldn't have an interest in making his work look good and worthwhile?

I'm not criticising you, dude, but you need to check your premises. Soldiers are people too, and no one wants to believe that what they do is a bad thing.
Why is hard to understand? Our boys are doin a heck of a job over there and media aint givin em the credit they deserve. To me, thats just wrong.

Why is hard to understand? Our boys are doin a heck of a job over there and media aint givin em the credit they deserve. To me, thats just wrong.

By and large, our boys are doing a heck of a job (not in the "you're doing a heck of a job Brownie," sense,) out there, but cases like Haditha do exist.

The problem is that the Administration painted a rosy picture of how the War would turn out, and now their line is "difficulties always arise in war. Things never go as planned."

Exactly, which is why we should have thought twice about starting a war that wasn't a necessity.

Why is hard to understand? Our boys are doin a heck of a job over there and media aint givin em the credit they deserve. To me, thats just wrong.
That's a conspiracy theory, and you know it is. You might want to look up "Dolchstoßlegende (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolchsto%C3%9Flegende)" on wikipedia.

Fact is that everything's been going to crap in Iraq. Occasionally good things happen on a small scale, a school is built, a child saved etc (I know, because Fox jumps at any such opportunity). But does that really matter? No, it doesn't.

What matters, and what the media therefore must concentrate on, is the greater picture, and the greater picture is one of chaos, ethnic violence and a continuing insurgency that the US cannot defeat. Whatever heck of a job the soldiers are doing, it's not really working - is the media supposed to just ignore that in order to sound more patriotic?

Iraq was not an immiment threat to the US, and not a terrorist state. We had already committed signifigant numbers of troops to Afghanistan. Anyone with any foresight whatsoever could see that invading Iraq would require an even greater commitment.

Meanwhile, Iran and North Korea are trying to join the nuke club. India and Pakistan still hate each other. Syria always needs to be watched, and noboby really knows what the hell the Chinese are thinking.

So, we've got no sabers left to rattle. Bin Laden is still free, and we're spending money faster than the liberals ever dreamed possible.

-----------------------------------------

I think Bush has done a pathetic job as CnC, and Rumsfeld is a fool.

This doesn't make me a liberal, or a pacifist, or unpatriotic and it doesn't change my regard for our volunteer military.

I dont care for this "troll" talk, its hurtful. We dont have to worry about N.Korea we have them in check. China, Russia, and Japan all have nukes pointed at them if they try anything and plus they didnt attack us on 9/11.

Says the pot to the kettle.

And Japan has nukes? Since when?

Iraq didn't attack us on 9-11.
A countryless Terrorist Organization attacked us on 9-11.
Pulled off by mostly Saudi Arabian and Egyptian immigrants and planned by a person orginally from Saudi Arabia, who was located in Afghanistan.

This guy Bobo has to be joking.No conservative is that hyper conservative to say things like that.It has to be a liberal joking with us.I hope..:(
Please tell me your joking Bobo.

Another possible location of Saddam's WMD:

Buried in the desert in Western Iraq.

As someone said earlier, it was for the wrong reason, but the war was the right thing to do.

And as for North Korea or Iran or Syria? One dictator at a time, please. We only have so many troops.

As for the insurgents, I divide them into two camps:

Camp 1: Iraqi nationalists (including ex-Baathists) who want the US out. Camp 2: Opportunistic Al-Qaeda operatives who want the US to die a horrible death (along with 60+% of the Iraqi population).

And regarding Saddam and bin Laden, as far as I know, they both hate each other as well.

I told you they arent a democracy. And I dont know why you brought the US into this, I was talking about the middle east.

My point was that if you are going to criticize one government for not being democratic than you should critisize all governments for not being democratic, and it is borderline biggotry to single out one government for not being democratic based on what its dominant religious group is.

I told you. Im not listening to that biased unAmerican junk, but thank you for the advice.

Ha Haha HA:D right ok, I almost thought you were serious there. Wait, were you... o s**t now I know why the country is going back to ape-hood.

This guy Bobo has to be joking.No conservative is that hyper conservative to say things like that.It has to be a liberal joking with us.I hope..:(
Please tell me your joking Bobo.

Unfortunately he isn't the only Neo-Con. I have heard spout this o-so-elegant garbage (though in Bobo's case it is just ignorant garbage, he cant even put an eloquent spin on anything).

Omg. some admin needs to lock this and shut Bobo up, as well as any other clone threads he is probably going to make of this if it is locked.

Look, it isn't right for me to say this since I'm serving and all, but many of the men that served under me were against the war. I've heard some of my E-7s, or Platoon Sergeants to you, talking about how they we're against going into Iraq in the first place. But they are true heros because never once did they complain to me about it, nor did they ever ever not go out and do the best damned job they could.

You might imagine how my men felt when we went out on Operation: Matador next to men from the 5th Marines and watched bunches of our guys get hit and go down. I know that a few of my men, after thirty minutes in a brief engagement, decided to not reenlist just because of the bloodshed. And when you've seen your boys take 7.62mm rounds in the body, with blood everywhere, you know where you stand. But every day you get up and do it again because you need to. Because you are making a difference.

My opinion isn't an opinion. It's a statement gathered from the 160 men that served under me in Iraq - men from all walks of life, from all races, all parts of the country and all political affiliations. To express what we feel over here, I'd like to quote Black Hawk Down: "When I get home people 'll ask me, "Hey Hoot, why do you do it man? Why? You some war junkie?" You know what I'll say? I won't say a goddamn word. Why? They won't understand. They won't understand why we do it. They won't understand that it's about the men next to you, and that's it. That's all it is."

You can slander me all you want. But remember, we are here because we have to be.

That's a conspiracy theory, and you know it is. You might want to look up "Dolchstoßlegende (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolchsto%C3%9Flegende)" on wikipedia.

Fact is that everything's been going to crap in Iraq. Occasionally good things happen on a small scale, a school is built, a child saved etc (I know, because Fox jumps at any such opportunity). But does that really matter? No, it doesn't.

What matters, and what the media therefore must concentrate on, is the greater picture, and the greater picture is one of chaos, ethnic violence and a continuing insurgency that the US cannot defeat. Whatever heck of a job the soldiers are doing, it's not really working - is the media supposed to just ignore that in order to sound more patriotic?
The media should be more patriotic than they are, its their job. They need to keep the moral for the war up on the home front.

But you want to talk about the big picture so lets talk big picture. The US has destroyed the insurgency and now it whimpers in the face of American superior firepower, as every nation does. Yes theres violence, Muslim v Kurd, Kurd v Shi'ia etc, but thats because they are free and free people are free to disagree with each other. Thats how democracy works.

Iraq just got a democratically elected Prime Minister and Parliment(its like our President and congress).The Army has 125,000 men trained it and the police force is well maintianed and keeps order. There is only bright things ahead for Iraq and they will be a vital ally to the US in the heart of the middle and a beacon of freedom for the whole world. But must not think in the defeatest terms of 'a car bomb off lets get out of here' no, we must stay and see this through and the US and the world will be better off for it. Do you still want to disagree with the war?

Says the pot to the kettle.

And Japan has nukes? Since when?

Iraq didn't attack us on 9-11.
A countryless Terrorist Organization attacked us on 9-11.
Pulled off by mostly Saudi Arabian and Egyptian immigrants and planned by a person orginally from Saudi Arabia, who was located in Afghanistan.
Actually most the planning for 9/11 was done in Iraq

Look, it isn't right for me to say this since I'm serving and all, but many of the men that served under me were against the war. I've heard some of my E-7s, or Platoon Sergeants to you, talking about how they we're against going into Iraq in the first place. But they are true heros because never once did they complain to me about it, nor did they ever ever not go out and do the best damned job they could.

You might imagine how my men felt when we went out on Operation: Matador next to men from the 5th Marines and watched bunches of our guys get hit and go down. I know that a few of my men, after thirty minutes in a brief engagement, decided to not reenlist just because of the bloodshed. And when you've seen your boys take 7.62mm rounds in the body, with blood everywhere, you know where you stand. But every day you get up and do it again because you need to. Because you are making a difference.

My opinion isn't an opinion. It's a statement gathered from the 160 men that served under me in Iraq - men from all walks of life, from all races, all parts of the country and all political affiliations. To express what we feel over here, I'd like to quote Black Hawk Down: "When I get home people 'll ask me, "Hey Hoot, why do you do it man? Why? You some war junkie?" You know what I'll say? I won't say a goddamn word. Why? They won't understand. They won't understand why we do it. They won't understand that it's about the men next to you, and that's it. That's all it is."

You can slander me all you want. But remember, we are here because we have to be.

First off I want to thank you (and please carry this onto any of the men you were with over there) for supporting your country, even if they did not/ do not support the war.

Secondly, I have never and will never slander a war veteren; you know why, because your right (though you obviously don't need me to tell you this), I don't know what it is like and never will. Therefore, I dont believe any civilian can insult those who regardless of whether or not they supported the war fought for what their political leaders decided they would fight. I do, however, think that those who made the policy decisions should be criticized. Why you may ask? Because if the public doesn't question those who make policy then the US, or any other nation can easily turn into a totalitarianism. I do not want to live in an Orwellian Dystopia, and therfore will question policy decisions. This does not, however mean I will always be against them; it just means that I will always question them.

So please never think that I will criticize a soldier in the military. I will always support our troops, because they are defending us whether we believe they should be or not.

So please never think that I will criticize a soldier in the military. I will always support our troops, because they are defending us whether we believe they should be or not.

What? Who does not think that soldiers should defend us? Should it be every man for himself? I believe that the best way to support the troops is to support the mission for which they are suffering, dying, and putting their lives on the line for. Many people wish that we had left Saddam in power. They wish the Iraqi people would have never had the chance to hold free elections and form a new government. Many people wish that the terrorists would prevail in Iraq. These people are mainly found in the middle East and support our enemies. The scary thing is that many Americans inadvertantly agree with them.

The media should be more patriotic than they are, its their job. They need to keep the moral for the war up on the home front.

But you want to talk about the big picture so lets talk big picture. The US has destroyed the insurgency and now it whimpers in the face of American superior firepower, as every nation does. Yes theres violence, Muslim v Kurd, Kurd v Shi'ia etc, but thats because they are free and free people are free to disagree with each other. Thats how democracy works.

Iraq just got a democratically elected Prime Minister and Parliment(its like our President and congress).The Army has 125,000 men trained it and the police force is well maintianed and keeps order. There is only bright things ahead for Iraq and they will be a vital ally to the US in the heart of the middle and a beacon of freedom for the whole world. But must not think in the defeatest terms of 'a car bomb off lets get out of here' no, we must stay and see this through and the US and the world will be better off for it. Do you still want to disagree with the war?

Interesting, I didn't realize that elections were determined by how many of the people oppossing you can be blown up. Now I know why Bush is in office, it is all so much clearer to me now thank you Bobo:rolleyes: .

Oh well, no matter I can still disagree with the war, even if it is "evil," and "unpatriotic."
Oh wait, does the PATRIOT act forbid that also?:(

Actually most the planning for 9/11 was done in Iraq

Negative on that. Our intelligence has actually failed to connect Saddam Hussein and the Baath party to al-Qaeda. There is a terrorist group in norther Iraq, the Ansar al-Islam, that is an affiliate of al-Qaeda, but only receives limited supplies. Ansar al-Islam is more connected to the Syrian terrorist camps, than it is to al-Qaeda.

Most of the planning for Sept. 11 was done in Afghanistan in a Gardez al-Qaeda/Taliban headquarters compound, at least as of our current assessments.

First off I want to thank you (and please carry this onto any of the men you were with over there) for supporting your country, even if they did not/ do not support the war.


I will pass this on. Many people don't realize it or think it's really cheesy but it really means a lot to us.

Secondly, I have never and will never slander a war veteren; you know why, because your right (though you obviously don't need me to tell you this), I don't know what it is like and never will.

That seems a little harsh that I phrased it that way, so I want to clarify. That's not an accusation. I fully agree with you that we need to question our leaders. I, in fact, questioned some of the actions of our leaders while we were deployed to Afghanistan. It is almost a duty of any citizen to double check the actions of their leaders to make sure that the actions are not way over their boundries.

Actually most the planning for 9/11 was done in Iraq
What the hell are you talking about? The links between Al Qaeda and Iraq were widely, and completely, disproven over two years ago. Bin Laden and his deputies were already in Afghanistan, and had been for multiple years. 9/11 could only have been planned in two places: Afghanistan and North Africa, those are the only places Bin Laden has resided and trained for the past 10 or so years.

The amount of ignorance being shown in this thread, both from those who still manage to think that there are/were WMDs in Iraq, and that ethnic strife equates to democracy, is simply stunning.

And Bobo, I don't mean to offend you, but I take an objective look at things, so I can be both on and... well, off your side at the same time.

What the hell are you talking about? The links between Al Qaeda and Iraq were widely, and completely, disproven over two years ago. Bin Laden and his deputies were already in Afghanistan, and had been for multiple years. 9/11 could only have been planned in two places: Afghanistan and North Africa, those are the only places Bin Laden has resided and trained for the past 10 or so years.

The amount of ignorance being shown in this thread, both from those who still manage to think that there are/were WMDs in Iraq, and that ethnic strife equates to democracy, is simply stunning.


[Iraq - al-Qaeda link]
Quite true, see my above post. The US Army has hard evidence collected from many former Taliban sources and Norther Alliance sources (who we deem as ADF or Aghani Defense Forces).

[WMDs still in Iraq]
The results on that are more unconclusive. The media has caused much of this mis-understanding, so I will try to clarrify. In many of the weapons caches we siezed in Iraq, there were SCUD warheads that were built to contain chemical and nuclear components. This seems to indicate that the components were there. Yet we cannot find these components. Our intelligence idicates that many of the components were smuggled out of country and into Syria where they are being safeguarded for the time being. But that is speculation. So where are the WMDs? They are probably in being, but not in Iraq. Still, this is speculation. Conclusions cannot be drawn either way.

What? Who does not think that soldiers should defend us? Should it be every man for himself? I believe that the best way to support the troops is to support the mission for which they are suffering, dying, and putting their lives on the line for. Many people wish that we had left Saddam in power. They wish the Iraqi people would have never had the chance to hold free elections and form a new government. Many people wish that the terrorists would prevail in Iraq. These people are mainly found in the middle East and support our enemies. The scary thing is that many Americans inadvertantly agree with them.

Ah, right now it has become clear to me; obviously we should just blindly support our government without ever thinking maybe they're policies are wrong. Thank you o so much for clarifying that issue for me!

Oh, by the way the people who think "Big Brother" is evil are wrong. We should all want to blindly give up our liberties to live under "Big Brother."

Now remember, "Big Brother is Watching" (oh and listening to our phone connversations too).

That seems a little harsh that I phrased it that way, so I want to clarify. That's not an accusation. I fully agree with you that we need to question our leaders. I, in fact, questioned some of the actions of our leaders while we were deployed to Afghanistan. It is almost a duty of any citizen to double check the actions of their leaders to make sure that the actions are not way over their boundries.

Just to carify, I didn't hold the phrasing against you.

Ah, right now it has become clear to me; obviously we should just blindly support our government without ever thinking maybe they're policies are wrong. Thank you o so much for clarifying that issue for me!

Oh, by the way the people who think "Big Brother" is evil are wrong. We should all want to blindly give up our liberties to live under "Big Brother."

Now remember, "Big Brother is Watching" (oh and listening to our phone connversations too).

You are free to hold any opinion that you want about policy. I never said that you had to agree with the Iraq war. It just vexes me when people say that they support the troops when they oppose the war. A friend of mine fought in Iraq and lost friends to terrorist bombs. Those men died to further the mission in Iraq. They died so that Saddam might fall, so that the Iraqi people would be free. And now some people claim that Iraq was not worth it, was a mistake, was evil, based on lies, and is not winnable. How can one square those statements with a support for those who die on the mission? Do you support the soldiers who died fighting for a mistake, an evil misguided war that was based on lies? Soldiers that pulled the trigger that killed the civilians?

I happen to believe that the war is worth it, and I support the troops, their mission, and their country.

The media should be more patriotic than they are, its their job. They need to keep the moral for the war up on the home front.
Do you have any idea how dangerous what you just said is? You have effectively just argued that the 1st Amendment should be null and void. The job of the media is to keep us informed, good or bad. If a President has an affair, the media needs to tell us, even if that will badly hurt American moral (I bet you aren't against them doing something like that huh? Especially if the President is a Democrat).


But you want to talk about the big picture so lets talk big picture. The US has destroyed the insurgency and now it whimpers in the face of American superior firepower, as every nation does. Yes theres violence, Muslim v Kurd, Kurd v Shi'ia etc, but thats because they are free and free people are free to disagree with each other. Thats how democracy works.

Over 50 people died today in Iraq. Today. I'm not talking natural deaths, I'm talking violent killings. The insurgency today is slowly turning into retro-Vietnam insurgency (you're probably too young to know what that means, so I'll explain it). No longer are insurgents independant groups (and they never really were). They are communities, they are families, they are entire clans (you'd have to understand Iraqi culture to understand this, and I doubt your capable of understanding anything beyond the most basic ideas of what a real blood feud is). The insurgency is alive and well.

As for Kurds versus Shi'a (along with the Sunnis in the triangle, but that is not because of any religious struggle, they are both Sunni groups), and Shi'a versus Sunnis...the ethno-political struggle there is far more complicated than you begin to consider. The Kurds present problems at home (they want independance) abroad (they also want indepedance in Turkey and Iran, and in Turkey they live in the most oil rich region thereby making that desire...unlikely to be fulfilled), as do the Shi'a (who want a pure Shi'a Shariah government along with problematic ties to Iran), and even the Sunnis (who always ruled the country, but are now a minority with ties to Western Arab, i.e. Sunni, states). The conflicts between these groups are incredibly complicated, and you don't even begin to address them.


Iraq just got a democratically elected Prime Minister and Parliment(its like our President and congress).The Army has 125,000 men trained it and the police force is well maintianed and keeps order. There is only bright things ahead for Iraq and they will be a vital ally to the US in the heart of the middle and a beacon of freedom for the whole world. But must not think in the defeatest terms of 'a car bomb off lets get out of here' no, we must stay and see this through and the US and the world will be better off for it. Do you still want to disagree with the war?
The South Vietnamese Army had over 1 million soldiers. They were one of the largest and most advanced armies in the history of the world in the early 70s. The North Vietnamese thought it would take ten years to defeat them. Then after a small scale border conflict the entire South Vietnamese Army broke, fled, and was destroyed. The Iraqi army is currently, moral-wise, just like the South Vietnamese, and are viewed the same by the Americans. They aren't trusted by troops, they are seen as incompetent and unhappy, and they aren't particularly well trained. The police force is constantly being bombed, losing recruits, has terrible moral, and rarely controls the streets it patrols.

You are so ignorant about the entire war and the way it's going that it's stunning. I'm not a liberal. I'm a long time conservative, probably longer than you've been alive. You've probably done what...10 minutes of actual study on the war, besides what you've seen on Fox News? I've read the inspectors reports, I've read the related scientific reports by the Army on every weapons agent Iraq supposedly had. I've done research into every ethnicity in Iraq (hell, I've even looked into the Turkomens' likely aims in a new Iraq), and their ties, both in Iraq and abroad. You've shown ignorance in every one of those areas.

You are free to hold any opinion that you want about policy. I never said that you had to agree with the Iraq war. It just vexes me when people say that they support the troops when they oppose the war. A friend of mine fought in Iraq and lost friends to terrorist bombs. Those men died to further the mission in Iraq. They died so that Saddam might fall, so that the Iraqi people would be free. And now some people claim that Iraq was not worth it, was a mistake, was evil, based on lies, and is not winnable. How can one square those statements with a support for those who die on the mission? Do you support the soldiers who died fighting for a mistake, an evil misguided war that was based on lies? Soldiers that pulled the trigger that killed the civilians?

I happen to believe that the war is worth it, and I support the troops, their mission, and their country.

Fine, I happen to think it is possible to support one without supporting the other but i'm not going to get into that as it is a whole other topic.

However, the war was based on lies; but, that doesn't, in my opinion, mean that those people lost their lives for nothing. At the very least it has allowed the Iraqi people to have a democratic form of government. Hopefully, one which will sustain itself in the long run.

The media should be more patriotic than they are, its their job. They need to keep the moral for the war up on the home front.

WHAT???

The most patriotic thing the media can do is report the truth. Their job is NEVER propoganda to "keep the moral for the war up". If that's what you want listen to Sean of Rush. They can lie to you and tell you "all is well". Propoganda is their forte.

The most patriotic thing a citizen can do is protest when they see the government do something wrong. Unfortunately we have seen few patriots during this war.

In response to several posts---NEVER have the people complained or condemned the foot soldier (or for that matter the officers) for what they are doing in this war. (We did learn something from Nam) All of what protest there has been is directed toward an administration that was blood thirsty enough to order a lot of good men and women to take a job that was totally unjustified.

The problem at this point is to make lemonade out of the sourest lemon of 30 years. I would propose we commit to pull out one allied soldier for every Bushnam soldier or police trained. Say to them, "You want us out, volunteer and get trained and we will promise there will be one less Yankee or Limey in your land."

Fine, I happen to think it is possible to support one without supporting the other but i'm not going to get into that as it is a whole other topic.

However, the war was based on lies; but, that doesn't, in my opinion, mean that those people lost their lives for nothing. At the very least it has allowed the Iraqi people to have a democratic form of government. Hopefully, one which will sustain itself in the long run.

A lie is the deliberate telling of a statement that one knows to be false. I am curious as to who you believe did the lying and what proof you have of this. Did members of opposing political parties (such as Bill Clinton, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton) say the same things? Were they lying too?

Were I Truman and I was made aware of what happen with the civilian population of Okinawa I would have used the bomb. I would have used the bomb BEFORE I napalmed Tokyo. I think sometimes a knockout is the kindest punch.



I call bullshit on your claim.

Wikipedia is your friend. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombing_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Opposition_to_use_of_atomic_bombs) Incidentally, both of us are right and wrong. The Japanese military advisors wanted to make a decisive strike, so as to get more favorable terms of surrender, while the rest of the Japanese Council was in favor of unconditional surrender. However, the article makes it clear that Japan would have surrendered with the use of the atomic bombs, most likely from the possibility of a Soviet invasion.

Also note than the top ranking military leaders for the U.S. were all opposed to the use of the bomb. (Truman is an obvious exception, but he was unaware that the bombings were targeting civilian instead of military institutions.)

The results on that are more unconclusive. The media has caused much of this mis-understanding, so I will try to clarrify. In many of the weapons caches we siezed in Iraq, there were SCUD warheads that were built to contain chemical and nuclear components. This seems to indicate that the components were there. Yet we cannot find these components. Our intelligence idicates that many of the components were smuggled out of country and into Syria where they are being safeguarded for the time being. But that is speculation. So where are the WMDs? They are probably in being, but not in Iraq. Still, this is speculation. Conclusions cannot be drawn either way.
Trust me, I know the weapons. I've read every inspectors report, going back to the first ones in the early 90s. I've read the Army's files on those weapons, most importantly how long they take to degrade, how long to produce, how one can store a viable strand of biological agents, etc. The weapons we claim the Iraqis had...well, anybody with a background in chemical or biological agents could tell you they were bullshit. They simply couldn't have them. Almost all of their agents were low class (either low virulency, or most often however, instable). After the war, the vast majority of their factories and storehouses were destroyed. These weapons take a lot of care to stay viable. Furthermore, to remain viable, a lot of these weapons also need to have constant chemical processes treating them, processes that leave chemical trails that cannot be hidden. Inspectors looked for these, they did not find them (and they would have, they're obvious).

The "components" you speak of have degraded. Most chemical and biological weapons are not long term weapons. In fact, few remain viable without incredibly sophisticated care, for more than a few months, a year at most. The idea behind both types of weapons is that you make as much as you need to use because you can't really store it (unless you're the US and you can have vast and highly sophisticated storage facilities, not exactly something you can hide). Trust me, you can find most of this information online, you don't even need to bother to get the documents from the Army (and I'm not sure they are publically released, even the low level ones). You can find how long a strain of poor quality anthrax will last without proper storage (not very long at all). You'll find out how quickly advanced chemicals degrade.

The weapons simply could not have been there, and most intelligence experts will tell you, weren't there. The White House did something that should never be done: They installed a direct office in the FBI to take intelligence from the CIA and directly funnel it into the White House without the normal screen the CIA usually takes to get rid of potentially incorrect information.

A lie is the deliberate telling of a statement that one knows to be false. I am curious as to who you believe did the lying and what proof you have of this. Did members of opposing political parties (such as Bill Clinton, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton) say the same things? Were they lying too?

You're right I cannot prove that they deliberately lied to us (the peoples in Coalition countries) however, it has already been stated that UN inspecters had not found any WMD's in Iraq. Obviously they can be fooled; however, the chances of Iraq having these alleged "WMD's" without our knowing (at least generally speaking) where they are shows at the very least incredible failure at the intelligence level. Especially seeing as we're the people who gave them the alleged "WMD's" during Iraq's war with Iran. So maybe they did not lie, but they brought us into a war on bad intelligence (whether deliberately or not so) when the possesion of correct intelligence was assured to us. Recently, Prime Minister Blair (as has been earlier stated) revealed that Iraq had NO Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Please also do not automatically assume that I am a liberal, or a Democrat either. I happen to be a Republican, though atmittedly out of necessity, when I am really a Libertarian. Oh and the Clintons are two people among my least favorite politicians alive today (also on that list is the Bush family, and the rodent who is Ted Kennedy).

Actually most the planning for 9/11 was done in Iraq
Where are you getting this? Even Bush said Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11.

Anyone who would bother to look at it from Saddam's point of view would realize that no dictator would allow another power to base itself in his country. By definition, a dictator wants to be the ONLY power in his nation. A dictator would NEVER allow someone in that could gain power and overthrow him.

As for the WMD's, a dictator would assume the west would never attack without evidence. At the same time, he would need to keep Iran and Syria guessing in order to keep them at bay. The logical thing to do would be to destroy the WMD's but pretend to hve them. That way neither Iran or the west (betting they would have sane leaders) would attack.

What? Who does not think that soldiers should defend us? Should it be every man for himself? I believe that the best way to support the troops is to support the mission for which they are suffering, dying, and putting their lives on the line for. Many people wish that we had left Saddam in power. They wish the Iraqi people would have never had the chance to hold free elections and form a new government. Many people wish that the terrorists would prevail in Iraq. These people are mainly found in the middle East and support our enemies. The scary thing is that many Americans inadvertantly agree with them.
I remember Barry Goldwater. I campaigned for Barry Goldwater. If Barry Goldwater would have been elected we would have been out of Nam in '65. Son, You Are NO Barry Goldwater.

You're right I cannot prove that they deliberately lied to us (the peoples in Coalition countries) however, it has already been stated that UN inspecters had not found any WMD's in Iraq. Obviously they can be fooled; however, the chances of Iraq having these alleged "WMD's" without our knowing (at least generally speaking) where they are shows at the very least incredible failure at the intelligence level. Especially seeing as we're the people who gave them the alleged "WMD's" during Iraq's war with Iran. So maybe they did not lie, but they brought us into a war on bad intelligence (whether deliberately or not so) when the possesion of correct intelligence was assured to us. Recently, Prime Minister Blair (as has been earlier stated) revealed that Iraq had NO Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Please also do not automatically assume that I am a liberal, or a Democrat either. I happen to be a Republican, though atmittedly out of necessity, when I am really a Libertarian. Oh and the Clintons are two people among my least favorite politicians alive today (also on that list is the Bush family, and the rodent who is Ted Kennedy).

Is it not a bad thing to call the President a liar when you cannot prove it? I can , however, agree on your points that the intelligence was deeply flawed. Our mission, now, is to secure Iraq and give it's people Democracy. I think that is a valient mission of mercy that should recieve much praise.

The naysayers have always been wrong,
They said that we were only invading to steal oil. The oil ministry was the first one to be handed back. We stole nothing.
They said we would never catch Saddam. We did.
They said that the Sunni's would never participate. They did.
They said the constitution would never be passed. it was
They said the Iraqis would never vote. They beat our turnout.
They said that a government could never be formed without a civil war. it just was.
Now they say that there is no escape from iraq. Could they be wrong again? Time will tell.

I remember Barry Goldwater. I campaigned for Barry Goldwater. If Barry Goldwater would have been elected we would have been out of Nam in '65. Son, You Are NO Barry Goldwater.

Wow, that was a long time ago. Yeah, I believe that we should have dropped the bomb on Vietnam. I believe that we should have just destroyed Saddam's regime and left the rubble to the Iraqi's. But now I see that our misssion to form a new goverment and a Democracy their is a wonderous and noble thing. We are fighting terrorists to preserve liberty. "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice."

Wow, that was a long time ago. Yeah, I believe that we should have dropped the bomb on Vietnam. I believe that we should have just destroyed Saddam's regime and left the rubble to the Iraqi's. But now I see that our misssion to form a new goverment and a Democracy their is a wonderous and noble thing. We are fighting terrorists to preserve liberty. "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice."
Goldwater had no intention in using the bomb. That was dirty politics. An ad that was paid for once, but was so far off that it was played over and over by the news. He was going to do what we did in the end---declare victory and leave. The arguement was that would bring the fall of the "dominoes". Laos, Thialand, Cambodia, etc. would also fall. Thialand has done ok, but the rest suffered bitterly because of US involvement. Remember the killing fields?

The same arguements are being made today in Bushnam. Our "beacon of freedom". Well, "democracy" (not really, but that's another thing) isn't for everyone. By all indications the best thing that happened to Nam was for the South to fall.

Today we are trying to set up a "democracy" with the wrong group. A basic difference between Shia and Sunni is Shia culture and religion is based on Authoritarian leadership. Note the Ayatolla (sp) in Iran. It is the Sunni that have religious traditions toward group decision making. At the same time, we need to respect the tribes, clans and families. Without that respect, we can never bring peace. The type of government we are setting up has no cultural consideration.

Goldwater had no intention in using the bomb. That was dirty politics. An ad that was paid for once, but was so far off that it was played over and over by the news. He was going to do what we did in the end---declare victory and leave. The arguement was that would bring the fall of the "dominoes". Laos, Thialand, Cambodia, etc. would also fall. Thialand has done ok, but the rest suffered bitterly because of US involvement. Remember the killing fields?

The same arguements are being made today in Bushnam. Our "beacon of freedom". Well, "democracy" (not really, but that's another thing) isn't for everyone. By all indications the best thing that happened to Nam was for the South to fall.

Today we are trying to set up a "democracy" with the wrong group. A basic difference between Shia and Sunni is Shia culture and religion is based on Authoritarian leadership. Note the Ayatolla (sp) in Iran. It is the Sunni that have religious traditions toward group decision making. At the same time, we need to respect the tribes, clans and families. Without that respect, we can never bring peace. The type of government we are setting up has no cultural consideration.

First of all the part about a Democracy in the wrong group is just dead wrong. They beat our turnout in their elections and have established a government for themselves faster than we did in America and will less bloodshed. Second, don't you dare compare Iraq to Vietnam. Surely you remember the casualty lists being a little longer back then? Surely you remember that we failed in our primary objective? By the way...

"I could have ended the war in a month. I could have made North Vietnam look like a mud puddle."- Barry Goldwater

“If I had inherited the mess that Johnson got into, I would have said to North Vietnam, by dropping leaflets out of B-52s, 'You quit the war in three days or the next time these babies come over there going to drop some big bombs on you.' And I'd make a swamp out of North Vietnam ... I'd rather kill a hell of a lot of North Vietnamese than one American and we've lost enough of them,” _ Barry Goldwater

That does not sound like a call for running away while yelling "victory" over our shoulders.

First of all the part about a Democracy in the wrong group is just dead wrong. They beat our turnout in their elections and have established a government for themselves faster than we did in America and will less bloodshed. Second, don't you dare compare Iraq to Vietnam. Surely you remember the casualty lists being a little longer back then? Surely you remember that we failed in our primary objective? By the way...

"I could have ended the war in a month. I could have made North Vietnam look like a mud puddle."- Barry Goldwater

“If I had inherited the mess that Johnson got into, I would have said to North Vietnam, by dropping leaflets out of B-52s, 'You quit the war in three days or the next time these babies come over there going to drop some big bombs on you.' And I'd make a swamp out of North Vietnam ... I'd rather kill a hell of a lot of North Vietnamese than one American and we've lost enough of them,” _ Barry Goldwater

Let's see:

We failed our primary objective i.e. Find those WMDs.
and
Give Iraq the same amount of time as in Vietnam, and our casualty list will become comparable.

Your less bloodshed part is debatable. We don't even know the total Iraqi casualty count. Our casualty count is way over 80,000, it's even higher I'm sure. Before spouting off, please look up the word casualty.

Our primary objective in the mission was to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein. That is why it was called " Operation Iraqi Freedom"
It was not " operation find weapons of mass destruction"

Do you really believe that the United States will reach 59,000 dead American soldiers in Iraq? At the rate of American fatalities thus far that would take until the year 2079.....

Our primary objective in the mission was to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein. That is why it was called " Operation Iraqi Freedom"
It was not " operation find weapons of mass destruction"

Do you really believe that the United States will reach 59,000 dead American soldiers in Iraq? At the rate of American fatalities thus far that would take until the year 2079.....

Wrong. Primary objective was to secure WMDs, the main reason why we drug into the war in the first place.

I said given enough time, our dead will become comparable. You actually think we need to have 59,000 dead before we can even compare Iraq to Vietnam? As far as I'm concerned a couple thousand dead is horrible enough and is comparable.

Well lets compare the two. Vietnam: 59,000
Iraq : 2500

Not really the same thing huh. Even if you multiply Iraq by 10......

By the way: If the goal was to find weapons of mass destruction why did we take out the Hussein regime? Why are we still there? Because that was not the main reason. OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM had the goal that can be found in its name. To destroy the Hussein regime and give freedom to the Iraqi people. The first part of the mission has been accomplished and now we are working on the second part. It really is not very complicated.

First of all the part about a Democracy in the wrong group is just dead wrong. They beat our turnout in their elections and have established a government for themselves faster than we did in America and will less bloodshed. Second, don't you dare compare Iraq to Vietnam. Surely you remember the casualty lists being a little longer back then? Surely you remember that we failed in our primary objective? By the way...

I remember the casualties in the first few years were very light. Remember it started under Ike in the late '50's It just lasted much longer. We haven't started yet. Who wants to be the President that loses the second war?

Start of war--Send in "advisors" to aid the South in a civil war that the French couldn't support because of their weakness following WW2. The government was of course set up by France and was just so they could get out. It was nothing more than a dictatorship. Bushnam---linking Bushnam to 9/11. Believing in a easy victory "Mission Accomplished" before the congressional elections. Heros get voted back in.

Gulf of Tonkin--A US ship was shot upon (now known to be a blatant LIE)
Troops sent in to protect American Freedom. (Actually more justified than Bushnam because we belonged to SEATO which said "an attack on one is an attack on all") Flags waved. Troops were cheered. An attack on the war was declared to be an attack on the troops. How unpatriotic to lower the moral of the troops in a time of war! And how unpatriotic to attack the president in a time of war! (Actually that was good, that's how civil rights got passed) Bushnam---Saddam had WMD's Flags waved. Troops were cheered. An attack on the war was declared to be an attack on the troops. How unpatriotic to lower the moral of the troops in a time of war! And how unpatriotic to attack the president in a time of war!

Our objectives---Fight the North so the war wouldn't spread to neighboring countries Objective Bushnam--WMD's

Nixon's "secret plan"

Build a "democratic" government
Build an army
Arm them to the teeth
Declare Victory
Leave

Bushnam "plan"

Build a "democratic" government
Build an army
Arm them to the teeth
Declare Victory
Leave

What happened? In order to declare victory we argued for months about the shape of the table we were going to negotiate on. Finally bypassed the "peace talks" settled on the side with the North. Pulled out.

The North decided to fight the "conventional" war that we could have easily won. The South jumped on the helicopters and instead of going into battle went out to sea and landed on American carriers. So many, brand new helicopters were shoved over the side to make room for more.

The end of Bushnam-------Bush says that will wait for another president----another Nixon?

You are too laughable to continue commenting on.

We had light casualties in Vietnam under Eisenhower? We only had a couple of hundred guys there! The first fatality was not until after he left office! Once again your comparison is awful. Vietnam never had a voting and working government after 3 years. Vietnam had more than 23 times as many America fatalities. Vietnam was similar to Iraq in one way. Liberals made us pull our best punches and gave comfort to the enemy.

We have never had a candidate run for President during a war who opposed the war and got a credible amount of votes.That is because all of the credible candidates agreed that the war was necessary. This is true , whether it be Johnson, Goldwater, Humprey, Wallace, Nixon, Bush, or Kerry.

Our primary objective in the mission was to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein. That is why it was called " Operation Iraqi Freedom"
It was not " operation find weapons of mass destruction"

Do you really believe that the United States will reach 59,000 dead American soldiers in Iraq? At the rate of American fatalities thus far that would take until the year 2079.....
One of the reasons the numbers are warped is because we don't count "independent contractors" who die doing jobs that were done be soldiers in Nam. The husband of my boss' daughter died doing one of those jobs. His name will never be on a wall. But he's just as dead. The govenment says it doesn't know how many "civilian workers" have died.----And if you believe that............

Remember, not many were killed in Nam until after about '64 then for another ten years.

That is a terrible comparison. How many troops were in Nam before 1964? Illogical.

2500 dead American soldiers to give 29,000,000 people free? Would you die to give 11,600 people freedom?

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse." "The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."- John Stuart Mill

We have never had a candidate run for President during a war who opposed the war and got a credible amount of votes.That is because all of the credible candidates agreed that the war was necessary. This is true , whether it be Johnson, Goldwater, Humprey, Wallace, Nixon, Bush, or Kerry.
Johnson pulled out because he knew he couldn't win. Then the Reps tagged Humphrey with "A Vote for Humphrey is a Vote for Johnson". By the way, you left out Mcarthy and Bobby Kennedy. Nixon won on "I have a 'secret plan' to end the war." Of course it took him another 5 or six years to follow the plan. The same plan that we are following today.

Mccarthy and Kennedy were nominated for President? That's news to me.

2500 dead American soldiers to give 29,000,000 people free? Would you die to give 11,600 people freedom?

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse." "The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."- John Stuart Mill
There are things to fight for---Notice the arguement isn't about Afganistan or the Taliban that attacked us. There are also things NOT to fight for. We have to assume that this is what this war is about because we have been given no reason for it that holds water.

Certainly NOT 9/11, Bush says it's not about that. Worst dictator in the world--NO those are in Africa, SE Asia or maybe Korea. They make Saddam look like a Saint. Nuclear, Pakistan or India or N Korea. WMD's Well if we wanted to find them we would have left the inspectors as long as possible to get as much info as possible. When Saddam threw them out the world would have supported us. Oil? Everyone denies it. Proving something to Daddy? I would rather hope not, but still on the table.

Can't think of a valid arguement that's been given.

Mccarthy and Kennedy were nominated for President? That's news to me.
Bobby had the votes to be nominated. The polls showed him a shoe in. Had Bobby not run McCarthy would have won.

once again you ignore the obvious. What is the name of the mission and what are we trying to accomplish

OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM.

Saddam "broke the ceasefire agreement" that he had with us
Saddam "violated countless UN resolutions"
Saddam " is and has given aid to terrorists"

these quotes are just some given by John Kerry!

Maybe in your extensive search for why we went to war you should look at the title of the mission

OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM

......

Bobby had the votes to be nominated. The polls showed him a shoe in. Had Bobby not run McCarthy would have won.

Niether of them ran for President.

OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM.

If there's one thing I've learned from the military it's that the up-beat named operations are never a good thing

"Never in the history of the world has any soldier sacrificed more of the freedom and liberty of total strangers than the American soldier. And our soldiers don't just see freedom abroad, they preserve it for us here at home. It has been said truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet who has given us the freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest. It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who gives that protester the freedom he abuses to burn that flag. No one should dare to even think about being the commander in chief of this country if he doesn't believe with all his heart that our soldiers are liberators abroad and defenders of freedom at home. But don't waste your breath telling that to the leaders of my party today. In their warped way of thinking, America is the problem, not the solution. They don't believe there's any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself through our clumsy and misguided foreign policy. It is not their patriotism, it is their judgment that has been so sorely lacking. They claimed Carter’s pacifism would lead to peace; they were wrong. They claimed Reagan’s defense buildup would lead to war; they were wrong." Zell Miller

That's the one thing that I have learned from the military.

once again you ignore the obvious. What is the name of the mission and what are we trying to accomplish

OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM.

Saddam "broke the ceasefire agreement" that he had with us
Saddam "violated countless UN resolutions"
Saddam " is and has given aid to terrorists"

these quotes are just some given by John Kerry!

Maybe in your extensive search for why we went to war you should look at the title of the mission

OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM

......
Why not

Sudan Freedom

Iran Freedom (closer to WMD)

Korea Freedom closer to WMD)

Samolia Freedom

Uganda Freedom

Cambodia Freedom

Laos Freedom

Congo Freedom

Liberia Freedom (actually ex-US slaves)

Myanmar (Burma) Freedom

What is it that makes these and other people less important? There has to be a reason. We have not been given one.

"Never in the history of the world has any soldier sacrificed more of the freedom and liberty of total strangers than the American soldier. And our soldiers don't just see freedom abroad, they preserve it for us here at home. It has been said truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet who has given us the freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest. It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who gives that protester the freedom he abuses to burn that flag. No one should dare to even think about being the commander in chief of this country if he doesn't believe with all his heart that our soldiers are liberators abroad and defenders of freedom at home. But don't waste your breath telling that to the leaders of my party today. In their warped way of thinking, America is the problem, not the solution. They don't believe there's any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself through our clumsy and misguided foreign policy. It is not their patriotism, it is their judgment that has been so sorely lacking. They claimed Carter’s pacifism would lead to peace; they were wrong. They claimed Reagan’s defense buildup would lead to war; they were wrong." Zell Miller


Dude your quoting someone who tried to challenge some one to a duel!

http://watch.windsofchange.net/pics/zell_miller_040901.jpg
you trust That!?!

They claimed Reagan’s defense buildup would lead to war; they were wrong." Zell Miller

What is it we're talking about?

I would love to see most of those happen. Iraq is a great starting point because we already had a cease fire being broken. It seems as if the foes of Iraq are so full of negative nay saying that they will not admit to any form of progress that is being made.

Iraq has:
lost its dictator
gained a constitution
gained the ability to vote
gained a democratic government


all of this in 3 years with the least fatalities per day of combat of any American war since that of 1812. 11,500 people have been set free for every American soldier that has been lost. Now the anti-war crowd wants to tell the family's of the heroic fallen that their effort was in vain and ill-concieved from the start. Shame on them.

OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM.

Saddam "broke the ceasefire agreement" that he had with us
Saddam "violated countless UN resolutions"
Saddam " is and has given aid to terrorists"

......

The same for US, it is widly known that the United states has supported terrorists in the past, for example, Pinochet and saddam, both of them the US helped to gain power. And how about the WMDs, US has more of them than any other contry in the world, why is that?
US attack on Iraq was against all FN resulutions that exists, and yet Bush was not sent to Haag, I think that the only right thing to do is to put Bush in front of The war tribunal in haag so he can be put behinde bars!

Free Palestine, Stop Bushs violation against the human rights!!

What is it we're talking about?

the anti-military left not seeing progress. IN 1984 Walter Mondale was running ads saying Reagan would lead us into Nuclear annihilation. IN 1989 the Berlin Wall came down. I see how I could easily compare this to the hopeless attitudes of today.

I would love to see most of those happen. Iraq is a great starting point because we already had a cease fire being broken. It seems as if the foes of Iraq are so full of negative nay saying that they will not admit to any form of progress that is being made.

Iraq has:
lost its dictator
gained a constitution
gained the ability to vote
gained a democratic government


all of this in 3 years with the least fatalities per day of combat of any American war since that of 1812. 11,500 people have been set free for every American soldier that has been lost. Now the anti-war crowd wants to tell the family's of the heroic fallen that their effort was in vain and ill-concieved from the start. Shame on them.
Let us hope that we can make lemonade out of this lemon.

Free Palestine, Stop Bushs violation against the human rights!!

haha.

I gotta pull out almost 2:30 here

Have a good night.

Iraq has:
lost its dictator
gained a constitution
gained the ability to vote
gained a democratic government


Ha! by Iraq you mean the green zone of Baghdad.

And a lot of the people in Iraq really hate their constitution(that's what we get for rushing it):(

Hmm, one would think if Saddam had WMD's a war with the US would be the perfect opportunity to use them...

Iraq beat our turnout voting. That's a lot of people to fit into the green zone my friend.

If it was up to the left Hussein would still be in power, nobody would have voted in Iraq, and the cease fire agreement would still be being broken. I find it ironic how many people view Bush as more of a threat than Hussein. The left just keeps pumping out the pro-insurgent talking points as they mock the mission of the very heros who volunteered to serve.

Iraq beat our turnout voting. That's a lot of people to fit into the green zone my friend.
True, true(even with out the 'police' fraud) I'm sure it's a size able, but I was referring to the government's area of control.

I just get the feeling that when the left undermines the war they undermine the sacrifice of our brave soldiers too. How can you support a soldier by telling him that he is risking his life for a hopeless mistake? I believe that the mission of freedom for the iraqi people is noble, good, brave, and worth it in the long run.