Why we invaded Iraq

[George Bush]

dont make me throw the monkey poo of doom on this thread.

[Cale The Dark]

Uuuhhh, wow. That really cracked me up.

Did TheDagdaMor145 say the Iraqi forces using civilians as human shields were right ?
I'm sorry, I must have missed that.

Jolly is a prime example of someone who hears only what he wants to hear and knows only what he heard.

He tried to explain how a hard pressed army will do what it has to do in order to protect its country.
Thats right, I said protect, from an Iraqi point of view they were attacked by a hostile force looking to take over their country, not an army there to 'liberate' the Iraqi people.

For arguments sake, say an enemy army vastly superior to the American forces were to attack the US, do you not think the US army would take similar actions to give themselves a better fighting chance?

Secondly, the Iraqi people is hardly liberated, they live with a lot more fear now than under Saddam.
This war has created an enemy they cannot fight, an enemy within.
With Saddam, at least they had someone to point to and say "There he is, thats the bad guy!", now they live with the possibility that their neighbours would blow them up in protest of the American occupation.

And it is a horrbile misconception that Iraq will be all hunky dory any time soon, even when they finally establish an Iraqi democracy they will still face crippling problems, beside the internal conflicts they also face huge damages to their infrastructure, they have a problem with power shortage in many cities, clean water is hard to come by, prices on food has shot through the roof and their police lacks both the manpower and equipment to enforce any kind of law.
So the US soldiers has to take care of keeping the peace, problem with that is they attract so much trouble and hostility that their precence actually defeats their purpose.

The US has even resorted to re hiring the same corupt police that terrorized the populace before the invasion in many cities.

But I will agree that the US simply cant leave everything to the Iraqis at this point, the US passed the point of no return a long time ago and all it can do now is do its best to help rebuild and restore peace, wich will be a long and painful process for both the Iraqi people and the allied forces.


I dont understand Americas reluctance to let the UN in on the rebuilding of Iraq tho', Bush actually had the nerve to ask for financial aid but still refuse to give up overall control or even share control of Iraq with the UN.

If someone has some insight on this please enlighten me.


simply amazing. they saw us as a conquering force, not as a liberating force....yet they were smart enough to use civilian shields knowing we would be reluctant to fire? ok.....yeah. so their neighbors are turning on them and it's our fault because we took out an evil dictator and this is a well documented phenomenon. whenever you remove an evil tyrant a percentage of the populus emidiately starts killing off their neighbors. i mean, we should have seen this coming and avoided this well known pit-fall. (laying the sarcasm on thick but...there are some REALLY REALLY dumb people on this forum so i'm trying to make sure everyone can understand)

the purpose of the american troops in iraq is to make sure that once we leave a sadam wanna-be doesn't just walk in and take over again (while keeping the peace as best they can). the iraqi people need a chance to see the glories of democracy so that they will fight for it as we and the rest of the west do. otherwise they'll just go back to an ***-backwards country run solely on religion and dictatorship.

[Carnage-DVS]

Haven't I been making this point?

I don't really listen to you anymore, just seems to be a lot of ******** with no proof.
Didn't know about the U.N sanctioning the embargo as well. Thanks for the tip.

[Mastgrr]

Rumsfeld is KNÄCKT (http://www.moveon.org/censure/caughtonvideo/). Look at him stutter!

[Graav Wolfsong]

We hired corrupt police that terrorized the populace before?
First---can you provide your source on this
Second---- you made a point for me there...the force that terrorized
before....oohhhh, but they live in much more fear now

They did a piece on it on 60 Minutes.
Ever watch that show ? See, its one of those shows that tries to get its facts straight. It might be a nice change of pace from all those FOX news shows you probably watch.
I would the story for you but I cant be arsed to spend time searching for it for he likes of you.

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/60minutes/main3415.shtml

Knock yourself out.



simply amazing. they saw us as a conquering force, not as a liberating force....yet they were smart enough to use civilian shields knowing we would be reluctant to fire? ok.....yeah. so their neighbors are turning on them and it's our fault because we took out an evil dictator and this is a well documented phenomenon. whenever you remove an evil tyrant a percentage of the populus emidiately starts killing off their neighbors. i mean, we should have seen this coming and avoided this well known pit-fall. (laying the sarcasm on thick but...there are some REALLY REALLY dumb people on this forum so i'm trying to make sure everyone can understand)

You actually believe the Iraqis were telling themselves "Finally! Someone has come to save us from this hell we live in" while the bombs were raining on their country ? That, is simply amazing. I doubt the Iraqi populace were overjoyed.
As for my post, with my 'Iraqi point of view' comment, I was naturally refering to the iraqi government as that part of my post concerned the Iraqi military. Would they consider an attack by a hated wester society some kind of attempt to liberate its people? Hardly. I suggest you re read what I wrote and take a second or two to think about the response you just posted.

The extreme growth rate of terror in the Iraq is Americas fault !
This war brought terrorists to Iraq in huge numbers, so to even suggest the ones that brought the war bears no responsibility is absurd !

And you do yourself a favour if you stopped calling people with an opinion different (however different it may be) than yours dumb. Thats the behavioural pattern of a grade school kid.


the purpose of the american troops in iraq is to make sure that once we leave a sadam wanna-be doesn't just walk in and take over again (while keeping the peace as best they can). the iraqi people need a chance to see the glories of democracy so that they will fight for it as we and the rest of the west do. otherwise they'll just go back to an ***-backwards country run solely on religion and dictatorship.

"***-backwards country run solely on religion and dictatorship"
That is a comment so deeply rooted in an American point of view that you hardly qualify to make any sort of valid comment on the Iraqi peoples behaviour as you clearly have no understanding of the region.

This has been said time and time again in this thread but I will repeat it again just for you.
Middle eastern people HATE western societies (Israel and Qatar being the only exeptions), if you cant fathom the distaste they have for the western culture being imposed on them right now you need to get some education on the middle east and its society.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

All of the liberal views on this thread are wrong....all of the conservative views are right....my sources are the posts on this thread...take a look!!!!

DUBYA GONNA OPEN SUM WHHOOOP AZZZZ ON THAT LURCH FELLA!!!

I think they should settle the election in celebrity death match....however, Kerry would say he's gonna go...then not show up. So you see, a liberal could not win in a celebrity match. Besides, if Kerry did show up, Bush would just pull out all those WMD's that we've found, blow a hole in his azz, and give him four diseases at the same time.

BIIIIZZZAAATTTT!!!!

[The.Jolly.Roger]

They did a piece on it on 60 Minutes.
Ever watch that show ? See, its one of those shows that tries to get its facts straight. It might be a nice change of pace from all those FOX news shows you probably watch.
I would the story for you but I cant be arsed to spend time searching for it for he likes of you.

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/60minutes/main3415.shtml

Knock yourself out.




You actually believe the Iraqis were telling themselves "Finally! Someone has come to save us from this hell we live in" while the bombs were raining on their country ? That, is simply amazing. I doubt the Iraqi populace were overjoyed.
As for my post, with my 'Iraqi point of view' comment, I was naturally refering to the iraqi government as that part of my post concerned the Iraqi military. Would they consider an attack by a hated wester society some kind of attempt to liberate its people? Hardly. I suggest you re read what I wrote and take a second or two to think about the response you just posted.

The extreme growth rate of terror in the Iraq is Americas fault !
This war brought terrorists to Iraq in huge numbers, so to even suggest the ones that brought the war bears no responsibility is absurd !

And you do yourself a favour if you stopped calling people with an opinion different (however different it may be) than yours dumb. Thats the behavioural pattern of a grade school kid.



"***-backwards country run solely on religion and dictatorship"
That is a comment so deeply rooted in an American point of view that you hardly qualify to make any sort of valid comment on the Iraqi peoples behaviour as you clearly have no understanding of the region.

This has been said time and time again in this thread but I will repeat it again just for you.
Middle eastern people HATE western societies (Israel and Qatar being the only exeptions), if you cant fathom the distaste they have for the western culture being imposed on them right now you need to get some education on the middle east and its society.

Oh yeah?
They may hate it now, but just wait until we throw some Survivor All Stars and those new Hershey's wafer/pringle looking things at 'em....then lets see how much they hate us!!

[Cale The Dark]

They did a piece on it on 60 Minutes.
Ever watch that show ? See, its one of those shows that tries to get its facts straight. It might be a nice change of pace from all those FOX news shows you probably watch.
I would the story for you but I cant be arsed to spend time searching for it for he likes of you.

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/60minutes/main3415.shtml

Knock yourself out.




1.) You actually believe the Iraqis were telling themselves "Finally! Someone has come to save us from this hell we live in" while the bombs were raining on their country ? That, is simply amazing. I doubt the Iraqi populace were overjoyed.
As for my post, with my 'Iraqi point of view' comment, I was naturally refering to the iraqi government as that part of my post concerned the Iraqi military. Would they consider an attack by a hated wester society some kind of attempt to liberate its people? Hardly. I suggest you re read what I wrote and take a second or two to think about the response you just posted.

2.) The extreme growth rate of terror in the Iraq is Americas fault !
This war brought terrorists to Iraq in huge numbers, so to even suggest the ones that brought the war bears no responsibility is absurd !

3.) And you do yourself a favour if you stopped calling people with an opinion different (however different it may be) than yours dumb. Thats the behavioural pattern of a grade school kid.



4.) "***-backwards country run solely on religion and dictatorship"
That is a comment so deeply rooted in an American point of view that you hardly qualify to make any sort of valid comment on the Iraqi peoples behaviour as you clearly have no understanding of the region.

5.) This has been said time and time again in this thread but I will repeat it again just for you.
Middle eastern people HATE western societies (Israel and Qatar being the only exeptions), if you cant fathom the distaste they have for the western culture being imposed on them right now you need to get some education on the middle east and its society.

i had to debate with myself for a while on whether or not i should respond to this shameful post. the person who posted this did not fully read my post or is incapable or understanding the complexities of the written word. however, my need to defend myself from these ignorant accusations was too great so here it is.

1.) I was simply making the point that they knew we cared enough about the civilian population to use them as human shields. If we were simply the uncaring "evil american army" there to take the land and strip it of resources why would we care about civilians? I don't know what those people were thinking. I wasn't there. I can, however, make observations based on the way the Iraqi soldiers and government conducted themselves. I have admitted that I don't know what they were thinking, how bout you do the same? you weren't there either.

2.) I already responded to this before. It is their choice to conduct terrorist activities against america while in Iraq. We are not the ones strapping bombs to people's chests and running them into american vehicles on crowded streets. I can tell you are one of those people who would like to sue the gun manufaturers for ever murder commited with a gun. You like to follow the chain of blame back as far as you can don't you?

3.) I didn't say that the people with opinions other than mine were dumb, just some people in this thread. But when you have people who consistantly misread your posts, it is hard not to make judgments about their mental capacity.

4.) so you are saying that you support islamic(or any religion) states run by a dictator? how nice. may i point to say...Iran. it was, and this is a quote from a resident of Iran, a "free country just like America" before some islamic fundamentalists came in and started a revolution. the iran of today is nearing another revolution because of the ****tyness of the way things are over there. NOBODY can say that this was a change for the better. it's just a fact that religious fundamentalist states don't promote a good life. if you think that this is the way to go you are fooling yourself. democracy is just an idea. if the people in the middle east are too proud to take a really good idea and replace their ****ty idea then maybe they deserve what they get.

5.) I know that the middle east hates the west. i know that they don't like having our culture forced on them. that is why we are trying so hard in iraq to make this THEIR idea. they are coming up with the constitution and a very influential cleric basically has to approve it so it will be OK with islam. we didn't just hand em a copy of the constitution and say "here it is, live with this". maybe i'm not the one who needs the education....

[Eharbad]

jolly.roger you actually make me feel sick. seriously your viewpoint is so warped and shameful, with your idea of fact and accuracy so low that i think your a danger to yourself - there are far too many posts to comment specifically on but

you seem to know virtually nothing about everything

Dark Knight summed it up wonderfully in his post mocking you

the idea that Bush is anything short of a shamefully unintelligent puppet is depressing, and you, jolly.roger, are EXACTLY what is wrong with the world...

people like you are the biggest evil in the world - because its because of people like you that the world hates the western powers, and especially the US, and its because you people like you that BUSH got elected!

the number of anti-Bush and anti-War Americans was and is large, you cannot say otherwise - you are a disgrace

I urge the Moderators to close this thread, its shameful at best

[p.s. many of you had interesting and well written/contemplated opinions, and some were willing to realise they werent 100% correct - kudos to you!]

[The.Jolly.Roger]

Now that's the kind of post that really isn't called for.
You people really need to pipe down on the rhetoric. It's actually shameful that you would actually call me a danger to myself and the biggest evil in the world when you "know nothing about everything" ? as far as who I am.
I don't know one thing that I've said, minus a few joke posts, that aren't opinions expressed by many.

As far as my last few posts, YOU SIR, are the exact reason why I do that.
As far as I'm concerned this IS a free country, and as long as I'm not being vulgar on this thread, then it shouldn't be closed.
I can express any opinion I like----no matter if I'm liberal or conservative or neither.

Before you start trying to defile a person you really know nothing about---know something about something, or something about nothing, or everything about anything....?
Have you no shame, sir? Have you no shame at all?

[Cale The Dark]

jolly.roger you actually make me feel sick. seriously your viewpoint is so warped and shameful, with your idea of fact and accuracy so low that i think your a danger to yourself - there are far too many posts to comment specifically on but

you seem to know virtually nothing about everything

Dark Knight summed it up wonderfully in his post mocking you

the idea that Bush is anything short of a shamefully unintelligent puppet is depressing, and you, jolly.roger, are EXACTLY what is wrong with the world...

people like you are the biggest evil in the world - because its because of people like you that the world hates the western powers, and especially the US, and its because you people like you that BUSH got elected!

the number of anti-Bush and anti-War Americans was and is large, you cannot say otherwise - you are a disgrace

I urge the Moderators to close this thread, its shameful at best

[p.s. many of you had interesting and well written/contemplated opinions, and some were willing to realise they werent 100% correct - kudos to you!]


seeing as how he is still here, i can infer that thejollyroger hasn't strapped a bomb to his chest recently and tried to blow somebody up. therefore, IMO he is NOT the most evil thing in the world. not even close. i would love to live in your world where the most evil person is a bush supporter. i mean, screw Charles Manson, Jeffory Damer (sp), Jack the Ripper, or Hitler. Down with people who stick to their opinon. down with freedom of speech and though. anyone who disagrees with me is hereby EVIL. I can definitely see now where you get that TheJollyRoger is the most evil person. lol.

(i am by no means supporting everything thejollyroger has said. just expressing my opinion about this post and others like it)

[The.Jolly.Roger]

seeing as how he is still here, i can infer that thejollyroger hasn't strapped a bomb to his chest recently and tried to blow somebody up. therefore, IMO he is NOT the most evil thing in the world. not even close. i would love to live in your world where the most evil person is a bush supporter. i mean, screw Charles Manson, Jeffory Damer (sp), Jack the Ripper, or Hitler. Down with people who stick to their opinon. down with freedom of speech and though. anyone who disagrees with me is hereby EVIL. I can definitely see now where you get that TheJollyRoger is the most evil person. lol.

(i am by no means supporting everything thejollyroger has said. just expressing my opinion about this post and others like it)

LOL, thanks,
Nice disclaimer too!!

[Carnage-DVS]

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Who are you to judge who is evil and who is good? To the terrorists, what they are doing is good and necessary and advocated by their twisted teachings.

[Rthus]

That kind of moral relativity can allow the world to go down the tubes real quick. I agree that they think what they are doing is good, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. Evil is very real in the world (from **** to terrorism) and it will run rampant if people don't try to stop. A bunch of people thought slavery was good and actually came up with some logical defenses for it but did that make it ok?

Edit: To clarify the **** = (forcing someone to do 'it' with you)

[Carnage-DVS]

That kind of moral relativity can allow the world to go down the tubes real quick. I agree that they think what they are doing is good, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. Evil is very real in the world (from **** to terrorism) and it will run rampant if people don't try to stop. A bunch of people thought slavery was good and actually came up with some logical defenses for it but did that make it ok?

Edit: To clarify the **** = (forcing someone to do 'it' with you)

You can't impose words such as evil or good as you wish. To you they are evil. To others, they are heroes. Who is right? Who is wrong? You don't have the power nor the authority to judge who is good and who is evil.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Who are you to judge who is evil and who is good? To the terrorists, what they are doing is good and necessary and advocated by their twisted teachings.

Oh yessss, I forgot, if you really believe that going in a crowd with a bomb strapped to your chest blowing alot of people up....if you really believe in it...its okay, not evil....?
But I guess if you don't know any different, then you can just blame society.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

I always thought, that killing innocent people, and knowing that you are going to kill innocent people by your own actions.....isn't that just generally wrong?
Oh, just because terrorists think it's okay, there is a different reference point to work from, so it might be and might not be?
Look, don't try and make this argument...killing in this manner is wrong, especially the way they do it on a day to day basis.

[Andarcel]

Wrong. Only you have the authority to judge what is good and what is evil, and then you are obligated to act on your judgments. That's the nature of judgment; it cannot be alienated.

I support no "freedom fighters" that deliberately kill civilians to advance a religious cause. It doesn't matter if they are right in their own eyes; in my judgment, they have a diseased conscience, and I am therefore obligated to cure them or restrain them if possible (unlikely), or to kill them if necessary.

In point of fact, of course, you yourself have passed judgment with the adjective "twisted."

Terrorism in Iraq after reconstruction was incredibly predictable. Any analyst with rudimentary familiarity with the Middle East could tell as much.

Cale, actually Eherbad didn't say people like jolly.ranger were the most evil people in the world, he said they were the biggest evil. In other words, as a group, people like Jollyranger cause the most harm. Which is possible, if one buys his argument that this segment of the population is single handedly responisble for terrorism. Hard to swallow, but that's an argument of fact rather than morality.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

Wrong. Only you have the authority to judge what is good and what is evil, and then you are obligated to act on your judgments. That's the nature of judgment; it cannot be alienated.

I support no "freedom fighters" that deliberately kill civilians to advance a religious cause. It doesn't matter if they are right in their own eyes; in my judgment, they have a diseased conscience, and I am therefore obligated to cure them or restrain them if possible (unlikely), or to kill them if necessary.

In point of fact, of course, you yourself have passed judgment with the adjective "twisted."

Terrorism in Iraq after reconstruction was incredibly predictable. Any analyst with rudimentary familiarity with the Middle East could tell as much.

Cale, actually Eherbad didn't say people like jolly.ranger were the most evil people in the world, he said they were the biggest evil. In other words, as a group, people like Jollyranger cause the most harm. Which is possible, if one buys his argument that this segment of the population is single handedly responisble for terrorism. Hard to swallow, but that's an argument of fact rather than morality.

Ummm...you got me...I'm the biggest evil in the world, and I'm sitting here posting on WoW forums.
We just need to get off that, it's very stupid, and has no basis.
I just said Bush is a good president for liberating a country from a tyrannical regime. Now whether I really believe that or not doesn't matter, it reflects the views of many. And if these people are the biggest evil in your view, then you're just an idiot.
And its Jolly Roger, not ranger, don't be dumb.

[Carnage-DVS]

Ummm...you got me...I'm the biggest evil in the world, and I'm sitting here posting on WoW forums.
We just need to get off that, it's very stupid, and has no basis.
I just said Bush is a good president for liberating a country from a tyrannical regime. Now whether I really believe that or not doesn't matter, it reflects the views of many. And if these people are the biggest evil in your view, then you're just an idiot.
And its Jolly Roger, not ranger, don't be dumb.

Ignorance is the biggest evil, and you're just a tiny example of it. That's what he meant.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

Ignorance is the biggest evil, and you're just a tiny example of it. That's what he meant.


Ignorant---not knowing

Whether I want to display that I know something, or act like I do, or act like I don't....whether I choose to be ignorant or not doesn't matter.

Ignorance does not equal evil...lol.
If that's what he meant...he must be a very ignorant fellow.

[Cale The Dark]

Ignorance is the biggest evil, and you're just a tiny example of it. That's what he meant.


ignorance can lead to evil (i.e. the terrorists in iraq), but ignorance itself is not evil and only the ignorant (lol) would say so. i don't feel the need to say why ignorance isn't evil. i feel that this is self evident to all those that would be swayed by such evidence anyway.

[GreenPenInc]

The profanity filters on this website are suboptimal. A better solution would be to replace the word with a less-offensive synonym. I mean, it's copulating bullfeces that a poster can't even get his ideas across without losing them in a bunch of asterixes. And for added entertainment value, you could implement them with really poor regular expressions so they don't even make sense half the time. Bumignment, anyone?

[cleanupguy]

We are AMERICA...we are the parents of the world....

I really was not going to post in this thread mainly because I am very much involved in OTF in D2.net. I was reading through, and here it was! And I seriously (and I am dead serious) could not stop laughing for 2 minutes.

Thanks, Jolly, for your awesome comedy!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

:lol:

[The.Jolly.Roger]

Gooooooodddddd Blleeessss Americaaaaaaa!!!!!
My hooommmmeeee sweeeetttt, home!!!

[Carnage-DVS]

Gooooooodddddd Blleeessss Americaaaaaaa!!!!!
My hooommmmeeee sweeeetttt, home!!!

You do realize that people are laughing at you, and not with you?

Yes I meant Ignorance can lead to evil, not that Ignorance itself is evil.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

You do realize that people are laughing at you, and not with you?

Yes I meant Ignorance can lead to evil, not that Ignorance itself is evil.

Oh, I didn't know they were laughing. Do you think I was joking singing that song?
No matter what I say, there is one thing that is true: I am proud and feel lucky to be an American.
You seem like an angry person, why don't you try smiling, that always cures anger.
Furthermore, why can't you guys get your ignorance/evil correlation straight.
Ignorance can lead to evil....what the hell kind of statement is that?
If you want to say that, then you might as well say that my dog can lead me to evil, or television could lead to evil, or five billion other things can lead to evil, or the majority of things can lead to evil.

I'm not trying to amuse anyone here, if that is what you're implying.
And I am really not poking fun at that song----if you have such a problem, quit posting on this thread. Why would you want to keep discussing something that makes you angry and makes you want to somehow try and insult or defile unsuccessully? Maybe people are laughing at you?
Maybe people ARE laughing at me on this thread........when I want them to.

[Rthus]

You can't impose words such as evil or good as you wish. To you they are evil. To others, they are heroes. Who is right? Who is wrong? You don't have the power nor the authority to judge who is good and who is evil.

As I said before you can and must impose words such as good and evil. If your mother was ****'d today by some horny pervert who liked submitting women to his will would you say, "Well, that's ok, he liked that sort of thing and that is ok." If you would say that instead of saying "that was evil and must be prevented" than you are doing a grave injustice to yourself, your family, and society.

Once again, evil is very real. I'd hate to clog these forums and give the same argument twice, but slave holders argued that slaves lived better lives than northern laborers with solid evidence. Did that make slavery ok? No, it was EVIL. If you are not willing to say something is evil than you are not willing to stand up for what is good and I say step aside because society needs help, not people who will tolerate blatent murder.

[cleanupguy]

As I said before you can and must impose words such as good and evil. If your mother was ****'d today by some horny pervert who liked submitting women to his will would you say, "Well, that's ok, he liked that sort of thing and that is ok." If you would say that instead of saying "that was evil and must be prevented" than you are doing a grave injustice to yourself, your family, and society.

Once again, evil is very real. I'd hate to clog these forums and give the same argument twice, but slave holders argued that slaves lived better lives than northern laborers with solid evidence. Did that make slavery ok? No, it was EVIL. If you are not willing to say something is evil than you are not willing to stand up for what is good and I say step aside because society needs help, not people who will tolerate blatent murder.

Let me just make one thing crystal clear. Nobody on this forum, with the right mind anyway, thinks that Sadam Husein was not and is not EVIL. I'm sure we all agree on this. However, should the US always act as the world's police? Many of these so-called evil regimes are the product of the U.S.'s trying to act as the world's police. Need I remind you that Sadam Husein was put in power by the US?

Having said this, was this the right war? I don't know. I haven't seen to the end yet. I do truly hope so. My bestfriend is currently stationed in Iraq and is fighting for the very freedom that the US holds so truly dearly to heart. Do I hope that the Iraqis will eventually learn to appreciate freedom and fight for it on their own? You bet!

I'm sure, however, that you understand that, no matter how evil someone is, it requires reasons to go to war with another country. Again, let's not focus on the pure fact that Sadam was and is evil. In this sense, we would have gone into Cuba and freed Cubans. We would have gone into Iran and freed Iranians. We would have gone into North Korea and freed North Koreans. Again, we need reasons. Without strong reasons, the public would not agree with going to war.

What was the reason that the Bush administration had given to Americans and to the rest of the world that it would be necessary to go to war with Iraq and topple Sadam's regime? WMD. We had justified ourselves going into Iraq with WMD, and the majority of the people including the Americans and the rest of the world believed this administration. Have we found WMD yet? No. Thus, it utterly negates the reasoning of this administration going to war with Iraq.

Again, was this a good war? Maybe. We don't really know since we don't know the outcome yet. Do I trust this administration after such a huge mistake? No. Also, let's not forget the fact that we could have captured and replaced Sadam when we had a chance during the Gulf War, but GWB's daddy decided to leave him in power. Are we now going to talk about the moralistic value of this war? The US had put Sadam in power once and decided to leave him in power again. If we were so truly concerned about doing the right thing, we should have done the right thing when we had the chance.

[Carnage-DVS]

As I said before you can and must impose words such as good and evil. If your mother was ****'d today by some horny pervert who liked submitting women to his will would you say, "Well, that's ok, he liked that sort of thing and that is ok." If you would say that instead of saying "that was evil and must be prevented" than you are doing a grave injustice to yourself, your family, and society.

Once again, evil is very real. I'd hate to clog these forums and give the same argument twice, but slave holders argued that slaves lived better lives than northern laborers with solid evidence. Did that make slavery ok? No, it was EVIL. If you are not willing to say something is evil than you are not willing to stand up for what is good and I say step aside because society needs help, not people who will tolerate blatent murder.

A rapist commits **** to please himself. A suicide bomber does the act so that "in his mind" the Palestine cause would be furthered. It's all in the intentions.

[Graav Wolfsong]

Dammit, I hate discussing politics over the net as it is an absolute dead end, yet I still manage to get suckered into these things every time.

So I will just sum up my stance on Bush and be done with this thread:

If I had my way, Bush would 'disappear' only to be discovered in a Columbian shanty town some 12 years from now with a peg leg and pec implants wearing make-up, wasted on cocaine while wailing incoherently about how the world is out to screw him, sporting a tattoo on his forehead that says: 'Miguels b!tch'.

If you catch my drift ...

[The.Jolly.Roger]

I thought Saddam came to power by having his predecessors murdered....Isn't that how the Baathe party took over? Did we help him murder his predecessors?

[Carnage-DVS]

I thought Saddam came to power by having his predecessors murdered....Isn't that how the Baathe party took over? Did we help him murder his predecessors?

http://stpeteforpeace.org/saddam.html

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/globalissue/usforeignpolicy/iraq1980scontent.html

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EL23Ak02.html

"Who are these people? If George W Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin had made the appropriate inquiries among their own people, they would have found that American as well as Russian intelligence still have extensive dossiers on the leaders of the Iraqi resistance. They know Saddam embarrassingly well. As Codevilla explains, the Central Intelligence Agency backed the Ba'athist clique that in 1959 sought to overthrow then-premier Abdul Karim Kassem. Among this group was the 22-year-old Saddam. After a failed coup attempt "the CIA then set up Saddam in luxurious exile in Cairo, where he continued to be handled both through Egyptian intelligence and directly from the US embassy", reports Codevilla. Another attempt to kill Kassem succeeded in 1963, and Saddam headed the secret police in the new regime.

Under the Jimmy Carter administration, Codevilla adds, the CIA collaborated in effect with its Soviet counterparts to bring down the Shah of Iran. "By 1978," he writes, "Saddam's secret services were contributing logistics, cash and Shi'ite agents to the coalition that destroyed the Shah. Although the Ayatollah Khomeini was indispensable to it, so were Soviet line organizations. Notably, Yasser Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization provided the bulk of the street fighters. The radio of the Islamic revolution was run by the KGB out of Soviet Baku."

Codevilla's article, entitled "The Sorcerer's Apprentices", provides critical points of background to the story of American support for Saddam during the Iran-Iraq War. Asia Times Online's Pepe Escobar recounted this well-known story in his December 19 report (How Saddam may still nail Bush) - to the fury of numerous readers. Yet Escobar's story is less sensational than the one told by Codevilla, a former Ronald Reagan administration intelligence official and senior staffer for the Senate Intelligence Committee. Saddam's dossier has the potential to embarrass the US and its intelligence services."

[The.Jolly.Roger]

http://stpeteforpeace.org/saddam.html

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/globalissue/usforeignpolicy/iraq1980scontent.html

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EL23Ak02.html

"Who are these people? If George W Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin had made the appropriate inquiries among their own people, they would have found that American as well as Russian intelligence still have extensive dossiers on the leaders of the Iraqi resistance. They know Saddam embarrassingly well. As Codevilla explains, the Central Intelligence Agency backed the Ba'athist clique that in 1959 sought to overthrow then-premier Abdul Karim Kassem. Among this group was the 22-year-old Saddam. After a failed coup attempt "the CIA then set up Saddam in luxurious exile in Cairo, where he continued to be handled both through Egyptian intelligence and directly from the US embassy", reports Codevilla. Another attempt to kill Kassem succeeded in 1963, and Saddam headed the secret police in the new regime.

Under the Jimmy Carter administration, Codevilla adds, the CIA collaborated in effect with its Soviet counterparts to bring down the Shah of Iran. "By 1978," he writes, "Saddam's secret services were contributing logistics, cash and Shi'ite agents to the coalition that destroyed the Shah. Although the Ayatollah Khomeini was indispensable to it, so were Soviet line organizations. Notably, Yasser Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization provided the bulk of the street fighters. The radio of the Islamic revolution was run by the KGB out of Soviet Baku."

Codevilla's article, entitled "The Sorcerer's Apprentices", provides critical points of background to the story of American support for Saddam during the Iran-Iraq War. Asia Times Online's Pepe Escobar recounted this well-known story in his December 19 report (How Saddam may still nail Bush) - to the fury of numerous readers. Yet Escobar's story is less sensational than the one told by Codevilla, a former Ronald Reagan administration intelligence official and senior staffer for the Senate Intelligence Committee. Saddam's dossier has the potential to embarrass the US and its intelligence services."

That may well be true. But, was there anticipation that Saddam would commit genocide, or invade Kuwait?

[Valamyr]

The USA is an dangerous (those are labelled "evil" nowadays) Empire, and the largest threat to world peace since the second world war. With the death kneel of the Soviet Union, it's usefulness to the world is compromised and it's hegemony is now purposeless. The Empire, now in decline, feels the need to show it has a purpose, so that it's subjects continue to tolerate it. To that end it must create threats - so-called rogue states - military weaklings that can be squashed easily to show the "power" of the Empire. Of course, hardline Islam is a perfect opponent in this context. Therefore, you can be sure provocations of all sorts against it will continue. It's a large reason why Israel is such a perfect proxy state for the Empire.

Bush himself is merely the reflect of this situation. There will be others like him, that'll pave the road to historical normalization. All superpowers fall sooner or later and face increasing pressure from the rest of the world. Those with a large territorial and population base remain, and the others disapear. So fear not, America is in the first category, and will get to enjoy it's status of a great power amongst others, once it's imperial ambitions will have been broken from inside and outside.

I suggest, say, Emanuel Todd's "After the Empire" for more information.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

The USA is an dangerous (those are labelled "evil" nowadays) Empire, and the largest threat to world peace since the second world war. With the death kneel of the Soviet Union, it's usefulness to the world is compromised and it's hegemony is now purposeless. The Empire, now in decline, feels the need to show it has a purpose, so that it's subjects continue to tolerate it. To that end it must create threats - so-called rogue states - military weaklings that can be squashed easily to show the "power" of the Empire. Of course, hardline Islam is a perfect opponent in this context. Therefore, you can be sure provocations of all sorts against it will continue. It's a large reason why Israel is such a perfect proxy state for the Empire.

Bush himself is merely the reflect of this situation. There will be others like him, that'll pave the road to historical normalization. All superpowers fall sooner or later and face increasing pressure from the rest of the world. Those with a large territorial and population base remain, and the others disapear. So fear not, America is in the first category, and will get to enjoy it's status of a great power amongst others, once it's imperial ambitions will have been broken from inside and outside.

I suggest, say, Emanuel Todd's "After the Empire" for more information.

We are not an empire. Second, we are not in decline. Third, pick weak military states to squash......we can squash anyone.

[Carnage-DVS]

That may well be true. But, was there anticipation that Saddam would commit genocide, or invade Kuwait?

America has a history of installing bad leaders. Don't ya think they should actually do some research on the people they install as leaders before doing so?

[Valamyr]

And yet, jingoism and arrogance are some excellent characteristics of the average populace of a complacent empire in decline. As it slips always further from the notions that brought her to proeminence, the population of any dominating nation will generally take solace in a feeling of invincibility that will serve them just as well as it served the Romans of the 5th century, the Ottomans, the Germans of 1914 or all the others.

In some cases, such as this one, this attitude may reach new levels in the absurd, as a nation feel economically superior while their old vassals - such as Japan or Europe - stands to surpass them economically. They claim the same on the military level, even as an ever increasing amount of powers have the power to destroy the foundations of civilization in minutes with nuclear weaponary and ballistic missiles, making themselves effectively unattackable. Worry not, Star-warsish plans of missile defenses will save the day, they howl.

Meanwhile, any realist will realize that the tide has already started to turn, and the last four years has probably sped up the process by two decades. For now, in it's ivory tower, America remains lulled by mass medias thinking herself morally superior and internationally invincible. But her own citizens are starting to understand her imperialist foreign policy, and it's inevitable pitfalls. Namely, the fact that the world is too vast, and too reluctant, for the world conquest to succeed. Culturally rotting and unable to assert her true priorities, the nation exports the core of her strength - a strong middle job with good jobs - overseas to increase corporate profits. Meanwhile, trade balance deficits continue to soar, a problem that - in the current context of a lack of political will - can only be limited through the creation protectionist laws and of large deficits that sabotage the future. Having been left unchecked, this situation has already turned the loan shark into the debitor. Today, America needs the world much more than the world needs America.

Drastic reforms will not come, or they will come too late. America's Gorbatchev or Young Turks will probably be shot down before they can truly change anything, anyhow. The only alternative to a switch in preeminance from Washington to Brussels in modern days is the end of the power of nation-states as we know them, in favor for an increasingly powerful corporative trend that could come to overshadow our states while americans watch the slow transition happen with glee on CNN.

[theseus]

Third, pick weak military states to squash......we can squash anyone.
isnt that what empires do (except you guys dont actually colonise the country you take)

[Andarcel]

Valamyr, if I were you I wouldn't be using the term "complacent." People in glass houses... Seriously, give up the arrogance. Your crystal ball is scarcely convincing even about the present, which inclines me to doubt its accuracy with regards to the future. Its myopic generalizations of present policy economic and trends into a wider historical force make me question whether you have even a vague grasp of history.

America has for most of history been isolationist. During the Cold War, it was oriented towards alliances, which is nothing like imperialism. During the 90s, it was interventionalist. And now, it is still not imperial. Imperial powers require a military designed for occupation and a citizenry willing to occupy. We have neither, and have no intention of developing them. Why do you think our chief goal in Iraq is to leave as early as possible? Why do you think "quagmire" is the word we dread most in international relations? We have never engaged in overt empire, and after Iraq it will be a good long while before we ever consider it again.

In five years, American military spending will be greater than the combined total of the rest of the world. This is precisely the opposite trend of every other empire prior to collapse. The significance of this expenditure is not to attack those (few) countries with ICBMs; the importance is that the US is now the first-world's muscle for dealing with the third. Today, when you speak of UN forces you might as well say American forces. They are, in short, the teeth of the world. And in an era when America's GOP continues to grow by leaps and bounds, even with occasional setbacks, we will be easily able to afford that military supremacy. When the oil starts running out in forty years, guess who will be able to negotiate for the remainder with guns. Guess who will become the default arbitrator of that resource.

America has acted subtlely in the world since WWII. Most of our influence on events never makes the mass media. And yet, we are constantly exercising economic and diplomatic influence to maintain stability, until recently. No other force in the world was as potent a bringer of peace than America during the nineties. The notion that Bush represents a continuation of American policy is hopelessly bankrupt and patently untrue, and yet disgruntled European intellectuals often use a single war in an attempt to demonstrate that America is a destablizing force.


Your comment about outsourcing refelcts a common myth. For some reality, check this massive link (http://web13.epnet.com/citation.asp?tb=1&_ug=dbs+buh+sid+D4A616C7%2D2F89%2D4AB9%2D81E7%2D50311E5B3F4C%40sessionmgr4+8696&_us=cst+0%3B1%3B2%3B4+dstb+ES+fh+0+hd+0+hs+%2D1+or+Date+ri+KAAACBVB00041911+sl+0+sm+ES+ss+SO+FC18&_uso=db%5B0+%2Dbuh+hd+0+op%5B2+%2DAnd+op%5B1+%2DAnd+op%5B0+%2D+st%5B2+%2Dsoftware+st%5B1+%2Doutsourc ing+st%5B0+%2Dindia+tg%5B2+%2DAB+tg%5B1+%2DAB+tg%5B0+%2DAB+4A30&fn=1&rn=7) from EBSCO.

Finally, it's entirely possible that America will decline. If it does, by your own analysis, it will be China and India that fill the void. Europe had its centuries of power. Nothing will restore them anytime in the forseeable future. They would do better to revitalize their connections with America, or watch as the East establishes the new world order. And that's a future I doubt they want to see.

[Valamyr]

My "grasp of history" is quite good, thank you. This being said, I'm pleased to have obtained better reply this time than "We can squash anyone".

I never found online forums were much of a place to talk about politics, but I was asked for my opinion. I think it's clear enough.

You may now return to your complacent life ;)

[The.Jolly.Roger]

Complacent? We all just witnessed all complacency in this country go out the window on 9/11.
If you know the definition of empire....then you really just cannot say that we are one. Like Andarcel said, we usually stay out of things, and regulate in others.
I know what your problem is. This is no different than a couple guys seeing a really good looking guy walking down the street and saying, "oh, he must be ***.".....don't be a playa hata.
You know right well we could take any country in this world with relative ease--hence---we can squash anyone. Do you have a problem with the truth?
See I don't need to write five paragraphs to say this, and I think it's great that there are people who like to explain their points in length...I just don't....most of the time.

[Carnage-DVS]

Complacent? We all just witnessed all complacency in this country go out the window on 9/11.
If you know the definition of empire....then you really just cannot say that we are one. Like Andarcel said, we usually stay out of things, and regulate in others.
I know what your problem is. This is no different than a couple guys seeing a really good looking guy walking down the street and saying, "oh, he must be ***.".....don't be a playa hata.
You know right well we could take any country in this world with relative ease--hence---we can squash anyone. Do you have a problem with the truth?
See I don't need to write five paragraphs to say this, and I think it's great that there are people who like to explain their points in length...I just don't....most of the time.

What exactly is your point? You just seem to be beating your chest and saying "AMERICA IS TEH PWNZOR". We know it's the strongest superpower at the moment. But might does not make right. Just because it's the strongest doesn't mean it's always right.

[Eiger]

Your comment about outsourcing refelcts a common myth. For some reality, check this massive link (http://web13.epnet.com/citation.asp?tb=1&_ug=dbs+buh+sid+D4A616C7%2D2F89%2D4AB9%2D81E7%2D50311E5B3F4C%40sessionmgr4+8696&_us=cst+0%3B1%3B2%3B4+dstb+ES+fh+0+hd+0+hs+%2D1+or+Date+ri+KAAACBVB00041911+sl+0+sm+ES+ss+SO+FC18&_uso=db%5B0+%2Dbuh+hd+0+op%5B2+%2DAnd+op%5B1+%2DAnd+op%5B0+%2D+st%5B2+%2Dsoftware+st%5B1+%2Doutsourc ing+st%5B0+%2Dindia+tg%5B2+%2DAB+tg%5B1+%2DAB+tg%5B0+%2DAB+4A30&fn=1&rn=7)from EBSCO.
There are some good points in that link, however, it's too little too late. Outsourcing is already a bad word and nothing is ever going to convince people that sending American jobs overseas is good. It just doesn't compute (pun intended, hehe). Even if the jobs are just "mind numbing functions of code writing".

Regardless of how few the outsourced jobs are relative to the total economy, regardless of whether they are the higher or lower paying white collar jobs - they are still jobs lost in an economy that has suffered over 3 million job losses in the past few years. There isn't anything positive except that investors get the benefits of higher corporate profits - but that's trickle down economics - don't even get me started on that topic. Joe blow doesn't care that Mary Astor is getting richer if he or his buddies just lost their programming jobs.

The article is smug and uncaring - typical economists, arrgh. Check this out:
"Will the trend lead to jobs going overseas? You bet, but that is not a disaster. For a start, America runs a large and growing surplus in services with the rest of the world. The jobs lost will be low-paying ones, such as bank tellers and switchboard operators. Trade protection will not save such jobs: if they do not go overseas, they are still at risk from automation." Ok, they're at risk, so we might as well behave as if they are already lost. We've got a surplus, so it's ok to waste these other jobs. We'll just keep the skilled jobs and let the lower paying ones go. Doesn't anyone realize that you need to provide low skilled jobs for low skilled people? The economy needs to provide a balanced menu of job opportunities. It doesn't do any good if the jobs created are high skilled if the demand is for low skilled and we end up importing high skilled workers. There's also an educational issue involved, but let's not go there...

In the end, the article even summarizes by saying that "Yes, individuals will be hurt in the process, and the focus of public policy should be directed towards providing a safety net for them, as well as ensuring that Americans have education to match the new jobs being created."

[xXxDraGoNxXx1123]

People in glass houses...

...should sit down to pee. :lol:

[The.Jolly.Roger]

What exactly is your point? You just seem to be beating your chest and saying "AMERICA IS TEH PWNZOR". We know it's the strongest superpower at the moment. But might does not make right. Just because it's the strongest doesn't mean it's always right.

No, I wasn't saying it like that, I was responding to a previous comment that this country is an empire, and one in decline at that. Also, that this "empire" is a complacent one.
Also, he noted that we go pick on weak military states to somehow make us seem powerful and please our complacent citizens.
My point was, he's just jealous our country can beat up his. It doesn't matter if it's a weak military state or not, we could take it with relative ease. I was just, again, stating a fact.

[cleanupguy]

I thinkt he horse has been beaten to death, and so should this thread.

[Andarcel]

Nothing is going to save low-paying jobs in their current form. Only by innovating can we keep a strong job market. Creative, highly skilled jobs are secure; but we must keep creating new types of lower-income jobs in order to stay ahead of outsourcing.

And that, fortunately, is what America has been and continues to be known for.

[Carnage-DVS]

No, I wasn't saying it like that, I was responding to a previous comment that this country is an empire, and one in decline at that. Also, that this "empire" is a complacent one.
Also, he noted that we go pick on weak military states to somehow make us seem powerful and please our complacent citizens.
My point was, he's just jealous our country can beat up his. It doesn't matter if it's a weak military state or not, we could take it with relative ease. I was just, again, stating a fact.

You seem to be the only one who actually cares which country can kick whose ***. This isn't a school playground for kiddies.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

You seem to be the only one who actually cares which country can kick whose ***. This isn't a school playground for kiddies.

Look, need I keep repeating myself? I was responding to an earlier response. I don't really care about that, but I will respond to comments such as those....and I will state facts to refute it.

[theseus]

You know right well we could take any country in this world with relative ease--hence---we can squash anyone. Do you have a problem with the truth?


yeah but look what has happened in Iraq, its chaos.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

yeah but look what has happened in Iraq, its chaos.


I wouldn't exactly call it chaos. There are some zealots, but overall, the country is secured...we control it.....and we took it with ease.

[Valamyr]

My point was, he's just jealous our country can beat up his. It doesn't matter if it's a weak military state or not, we could take it with relative ease. I was just, again, stating a fact.

Though I'm done commenting on this topic otherwise, having said what I had to say, and then some, I thought I'd set something straight for the record.

I have American citizenship. Actually, double Americano-Canadian citizenship. I'm one of the proud few who's country stretches over ALL north America. ;)

If you must know, I keep the American citizenship to get to vote democrat every four years (At least until a viable third party emerges. :)) My little gift to what's left of American democracy. It's true that I feel alot more Canadian than American since 9/11's aftermath, however.

So, jealousy has nothing to do with it. If for some reason "your country beats up mine", I can move to yours and run for office. :P

[George Bush]

ya know, as much of a umm useless board troll as i am , i feel it's my duty to inform you ( The.Jolly.Roger) that you sir are in one big need of my special SHUT THE **** UP brew.

as much as i disagree with most of the republican base of this forum they at least try and back up their beliefs with fact.


you , however, stick to pure feelings and usless crap that you've picked and choosen out of all the information out there.

NOBODY is saying that sadam wasnt a sick **** in need of a bullet to the face.
people are saying that the timing wasnt right ANNNNNNNNNNNNND that the choices of this administration were done at inapropriate times and were blatantly wrong at times.

you've given no PROOF (other than pure feelings) that the people saying these things were wrong.

COUNTRIES CANT RUN ON GUT FEELINGS ALONE.

there is wwwwwwwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyy to many things to consider when it comes to the WORLD and MILLIONS OF PEOPLE to rely on FEELINGS ALONE.

yes , when it comes down to feelings alone sadam needed to be tortured till his eyeballs exploded from the pain. it still doesnt mean that the decision to invade wasnt wrong .

we were already busy with the afghanistan and FIXING THINGS THERE.

now we have two ENTIRE COUNTRIES IN CHAOS THAT WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH AND PAY THE COSTS INVOLVED.

dont defend someone that took the biggest surplus in our economy to date and turned it into CRAP.

and one last note.

SHUT YOUR MOUTH AND LEARN SOMETHING BEFORE YOU TRY AND SOUND LIKE YOU ARE INTELLIGENT AND HAVE A VALID OPINION.

[Carnage-DVS]

I wouldn't exactly call it chaos. There are some zealots, but overall, the country is secured...we control it.....and we took it with ease.

600 dead soldiers and increasing daily. Thousands of dead Iraqi citizens. And the current civil outbreak. And you call that secured?

[Rthus]

Everyone is going to be eating their words when the transition occurs and their is a stable democratic government in Iraq, run by Iraqis. There's always going to be bumps along the road, but things are gonna turn out for the best. You guys can only speculate otherwise and its too bad more people don't have some faith in mankind.

[Eiger]

It's going to be real interesting to see what the result of the coming attack on Fallujah is going to be. And the eventual arrest of Muqtada al-Sadr, the cleric responsible for most of the unrest across the country over the last few days. Will an American show of power clean things up for a while or make it worse. Remains to be seen... Should be interesting though.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

First of all, 300 posts and 1000 views.....thanks everyone for participating in this thread.

Second, I'm not going off of gut feelings. The last couple of posts, I have just been stating facts. Don't you think that calling America and empire is kind of much. What about all of the comments he made? Are those just all hunky dory just because YOU believe in it? Give me a break, and drink some of your own brew.......and chill out, no need to get angry.
People who write angry threads like that do not prove anything except that they feel threatened in some way. Take one of my special CHILL THE F##K OUT PILLS!!! lolz.
Why don't you try reading the THREAD instead of just reading the post.
Unless it makes you feel better writing that post which state YOUR personal feelings.

[Andarcel]

OK, Rthus, not only I, but every analyst will be eating our words.

From the Nelson Observer:

"Money, training, jobs...all lagging, all reinforce downward spiral highlighted by sickening violence. There seems to be no real "if", just when, and how badly it will hurt U.S. interests. Define "disaster"? Consensus prediction: if Bush insists on June 30/July 1 turnover, a rapid descent into civil war. May happen anyway, if the young al-Sadr faction really breaks off from its parents. CSIS Anthony Cordesman's latest blast at Administration ineptitude says in public what Senior Observers say in private...the situation may still be salvaged, but then you have to factor in Sharon's increasing desperation, and the regional impact...

"1. Comes word from Very Senior Foreign Policy Observers that the situation now unfolding in Iraq is "a qualitative change of very profound significance. The chances of something like a general breakdown after the July 1 transfer is accelerating." The Observation continues: "Even if [dissident cleric Muqtada] al-Sadr is arrested, the whole question is whether the Shi'ia majority is comfortable with continued U.S. occupation." The suggested answer seems to be "no"."

Or there's the CIA report from last November. Or the growing religious conflict, which looks ripe for the eruption as soon as we stop stomping on it. Or the total absence of a generally respected Iraqi leader. My bet is, the country goes off like a bomb within three months after we leave. I hope I'm wrong. But practically everyone (except perhaps diehard American neoconservatives) who's studied the situation seems to concur.

[Cale The Dark]

of course there will be a civil war. you have the smart iraqis that see the value in having a government that the people control who can't torture and **** them and then you have the other iraqis who want to be the ones torturing and raping. the only problem is that one group seems more inclined towards violence than the other. even if the "good" iraqis were the majority i foresee iraq falling back into the crazies control without U.S. support simply because they are willing to do anything. like blow up their neighbors.

[Eiger]

I'm inclined to agree on the civil war thing. To avoid it we'd have to take out the vast majority of the leadership of a variety of groups. Not sure if that would have a lasting effect much less a temporary one, though.

What does everyone think about the possibility of Iranian intervention as soon as we leave? Iraq will be at it's weakest and the temptation to grab at least the southern Shiite areas might be too much to resist. Anyone have a clue on this possibility?

[Andarcel]

This isn't a war of good Iraqis vs. bad. This is Sunni vs. Shiite extremists. And today, the Shiites appear to be winning in the opening manuevering. They now actually control an entire city. By military force.

Eiger, I don't know. Fragmented civil wars on top of oil reserves sound a lot like a vacuum to me, just begging nearby nations to set up shop. And, of course, many nations in history have found "stepping in to restore order" a convenient excuse for annexation.

If Iran invades, the Kurds in Iraq and Turkey will probably break off and form Kurdistan. I have no idea what would happen to the Sunnis.

[Carnage-DVS]

Everyone is going to be eating their words when the transition occurs and their is a stable democratic government in Iraq, run by Iraqis. There's always going to be bumps along the road, but things are gonna turn out for the best. You guys can only speculate otherwise and its too bad more people don't have some faith in mankind.

Like Afghanistan eh?

[theseus]

Like Afghanistan eh? so true so true
I wouldn't exactly call it chaos. There are some zealots, but overall, the country is secured...we control it.....and we took it with ease.

are you for real? Read the paper man. the FAR majority of Iraqs want america out. the fact that you took it with ease doesn't change anything.

[DirtyGymSock2]

Heh. Just because a treaty is backed by a bunch of countries doesn't always make it good. Anyway as far as land mines go we are hardly the greatest abusers of them. Right now we're actually spending some money (not enough) to help clear the mines out of Afganistan. Our main problem is we bomb things and our bombs don't always completly explode and leave lots of explosive stuff around. Of course that's another issue and our bombing still isn't as bad as it was during World War Two or even Vietnam.


Just a comment, this is not an accident it's a design element purposefully inserted into the bomb. Post Detonation Cluster Munitions is the technical term for them. I did like the comment about supporting out leader and assume that the right thing is being done, great philosophy. I mean it worked for the Germans in 1940, right?

[DirtyGymSock2]

Just for discussion's sake here... what is the general concensus about Israel's assasination of the Hamas leader? Firing a rocket at a quadrapalegic man in a wheelchair from a military chopper as he leaves his place of worship sounds like a recipe for backlash.

[JJefferz]

We invaded them b/c we OWN! Don't doubt it, b/c we have PWNED every war! We will always OWN!

[DirtyGymSock2]

We invaded them b/c we OWN! Don't doubt it, b/c we have PWNED every war! We will always OWN!

bwahahahhahahhahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

:lol: :lol:

Nice reasoning.....

[The.Jolly.Roger]

Just a comment, this is not an accident it's a design element purposefully inserted into the bomb. Post Detonation Cluster Munitions is the technical term for them. I did like the comment about supporting out leader and assume that the right thing is being done, great philosophy. I mean it worked for the Germans in 1940, right?

This isn't the 3rd reich...please don't compare our president to Hitler. Furthermore, the majority of Iraqis want us out? Do you have a source to back this up....did they take a poll over there or something? If there is one, I'd like to see it. You might be right...they do want us out so they can get to fighting with each other for control over the country. However, this does not mean that they didn't want us to take out Saddam's regime. This was our decision, not theirs. We did this for a number of reasons, not just for the POST-oppressed people who say they want us out now. This is just how the middle-east is...very violent.

There is going to be fighting over there...it's just going to happen. For some reason there has to be bloodshed before anything good gets going. Look at how the United States developed......much much bloodshed happened before this country became what it is today. This is going to happen with any country. Hopefully the side with good intentions wins over there. As far as we are concerned....we should start thinking about getting the hell out quick....bye bye. And, how many people are in that country...millions? So, just because a minimal amount of people die(compared to millions), you say the country is in chaos...what about the other 2 million or so people? It may not be Candyland over there, but I'll stand by my last statement, and say it has not reached the point of chaos. However, I'm not saying that it isn't well on it's way.

[DirtyGymSock2]

I know all the debating happened like 8 pages ago, but I have to say...

Originally Posted by The.Jolly.Roger
My point was, he's just jealous our country can beat up his. It doesn't matter if it's a weak military state or not, we could take it with relative ease. I was just, again, stating a fact.

That sir is just sad. You sound like a 2 year old telling another kid that your dad could beat up his. You don't get that the U.S. is not all powerful. We depend on friendly relations with the otehr superpowers to maintain our position in the world community. If the European Union decided to place an embargo on all U.S. goods , would we just pick up our M16s and dish out some good 'ol American style politics? Hell no we wouldn't because we can't do it. So many people have overinflated perceptions of our military might, it's getting kinda disturbing.

[DirtyGymSock2]

This isn't the 3rd reich...please don't compare our president to Hitler.


I never compared Bush to Hitler, I compared your theory of blind patriotism in the face of conflict to germans under Hitler's control. You can't just say, "well, we're in a war let's abandon free thinking. Questioning the president is unpatriotic and anyone who disagrees hates America!"

[The.Jolly.Roger]

I never compared Bush to Hitler, I compared your theory of blind patriotism in the face of conflict to germans under Hitler's control. You can't just say, "well, we're in a war let's abandon free thinking. Questioning the president is unpatriotic and anyone who disagrees hates America!"

No, I didn't quite say that. I said we should support our president. I didn't say to do anything else. Is there anything wrong with that? People are free to oppose it, but since it's going to go on and happen, support your president.
kinda like this, "I object to this very strongly, but I will support my president. I'd rather support him than I would Saddam Hussein."
And yes you did compare the situation to Hitler....what else would you call it?
By saying what you said, you're saying that this could somehow end up like the Germany situation did.....that's exactly what you did, don't deny it.
If that's not what you meant, find another example.
And no, I don't believe it's unpatriotic to oppose a president's decision on something.....Hillary.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

I know all the debating happened like 8 pages ago, but I have to say...

Originally Posted by The.Jolly.Roger
My point was, he's just jealous our country can beat up his. It doesn't matter if it's a weak military state or not, we could take it with relative ease. I was just, again, stating a fact.

That sir is just sad. You sound like a 2 year old telling another kid that your dad could beat up his. You don't get that the U.S. is not all powerful. We depend on friendly relations with the otehr superpowers to maintain our position in the world community. If the European Union decided to place an embargo on all U.S. goods , would we just pick up our M16s and dish out some good 'ol American style politics? Hell no we wouldn't because we can't do it. So many people have overinflated perceptions of our military might, it's getting kinda disturbing.

Ohh man, you people don't listen. I just said that we could take any country in the world with relative ease...that's all. It's just a fact. I wasn't strutting anything. Any sarcastic remark I made was due to his sarcasm. I know people love to attack me on this thread, but why must I keep saying the same thing over and over again?
We can, it's a fact. I'm not saying this to brag...it's just a fact.
And there isn't any other superpowers in the world at the moment, who?
You cannot deny that we can take any SINGLE country with relative ease in a war. Why is it wrong to just state a fact. If you are thinking that it's some sort of bravado display, it's not....get over it.

[xXxDraGoNxXx1123]

Just for discussion's sake here... what is the general concensus about Israel's assasination of the Hamas leader? Firing a rocket at a quadrapalegic man in a wheelchair from a military chopper as he leaves his place of worship sounds like a recipe for backlash.

Please don't downplay the mans vileness by bringing up the fact he was in a wheelchair. He ordered, and openly admitted to, the deaths of hundreds of civilians.

Unfortunately though, he was "mild" compared to who has taken over. It's only going to get more rough in Hamas from here on out.

[DirtyGymSock2]

Roger, I am prefectly fine with my example, and yes I did compare it to the german situation. I did NOT however compare Bush to Hitler. I was finding fault with his people's reaction not in Adolf Hitler because he had various mental diseases and can't really be compared to anyone today, since he committed the most horrible genocide in thousands of years. You can't put blind faith in our leaders, because it destroys any point to having a democracy. What I'd like you to tell me is how supporting something you strongly oppose helps anyone. If I vote for Bush even though I am strongly opposed because it's the patriotic thing to do, nothing is going to change at all. What would be the point of arguing here if I was resigned to supporting Bush anyway?

Byt he way Jolly I think you vastly overestimate our military strength... without the support of NATO we could easily be taken apart.

[DirtyGymSock2]

"Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtyGymSock2
Just for discussion's sake here... what is the general concensus about Israel's assasination of the Hamas leader? Firing a rocket at a quadrapalegic man in a wheelchair from a military chopper as he leaves his place of worship sounds like a recipe for backlash.


Please don't downplay the mans vileness by bringing up the fact he was in a wheelchair. He ordered, and openly admitted to, the deaths of hundreds of civilians.

Unfortunately though, he was "mild" compared to who has taken over. It's only going to get more rough in Hamas from here on out."




I wasn't saying that the fact that he is in a wheelchair pardons all of his crimes, I was saying I think it was a politically horrible decision for the Israelis to kill him in this manner.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

Roger, I am prefectly fine with my example, and yes I did compare it to the german situation. I did NOT however compare Bush to Hitler. I was finding fault with his people's reaction not in Adolf Hitler because he had various mental diseases and can't really be compared to anyone today, since he committed the most horrible genocide in thousands of years. You can't put blind faith in our leaders, because it destroys any point to having a democracy. What I'd like you to tell me is how supporting something you strongly oppose helps anyone. If I vote for Bush even though I am strongly opposed because it's the patriotic thing to do, nothing is going to change at all. What would be the point of arguing here if I was resigned to supporting Bush anyway?

Byt he way Jolly I think you vastly overestimate our military strength... without the support of NATO we could easily be taken apart.

Ok, I want you to tell me how this situation could end up like Germany's if everyone supported Bush on this. I just said support your president, thats all.
I didn't say vote, or agree with all of his decsions, just support him. I think you don't understand what I'm saying...so we'll just get off that subject. But answer the first question please. Tell me how this could possibly end up like that.
I'm gonna say this ONE more time. We could take any SINGLE country HEAD TO HEAD in war with relative ease. Any ONE country...ONE vs. ONE...and it wouldn't matter if NATO was there or not.....and it's debatable whether we would be taken apart without NATO....expand on that point please.

[DirtyGymSock2]

Ok, I want you to tell me how this situation could end up like Germany's if everyone supported Bush on this. I just said support your president, thats all.
I didn't say vote, or agree with all of his decsions, just support him. I think you don't understand what I'm saying...so we'll just get off that subject. But answer the first question please. Tell me how this could possibly end up like that.
I'm gonna say this ONE more time. We could take any SINGLE country HEAD TO HEAD in war with relative ease. Any ONE country...ONE vs. ONE...and it wouldn't matter if NATO was there or not.....and it's debatable whether we would be taken apart without NATO....expand on that point please.


I know exactly what you are saying, and I don't agree. I'm not just gonna sigh and stay behind the president because he's there, he's going to be gone in november if the American people have any sense and until then I am going to continue to oppose the majority of what he's done. You are taking what I said WAY too literally. I am not saying that in a month the S.S. is going to be walking around and Stukas are going to be doing overheads on Cubas. What I was saying was that I don't believe you should support a president just because he's the incumbent. He's trashed our economy, gotten 500 soldiers killed in a war that never had any vailidity to it and used the deaths of 3,000 people as a segway to finish what daddy couldn't. I don't hate America, I don't burn flags, I don't practice darts on Colin Powell's face. But I DO NOT support George Bush OR pacifism. If you like rock music, listen to teh RaTM song "Sleep Now in the Fire", it talks about the dangers of political pacifism. Germans in the 1940's followed blindly behind their leader and it led to disaster. I did not say that we're going to start World War 3 and start prancing around in jackboots because Bush is not HItler, so it's going to have different consequences. Yes I'm going to attend protests, yes I'm going to support Kerry, no I'm not going to vote for Bush and no and I am not going to support Bush so that hardcore American patriots woon'tfeel lik eour country is falling apart at the seams due to lack of faith in our leadership, losing allies, destorying it's reputation, and stirring up massive conflicts.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

I know exactly what you are saying, and I don't agree. I'm not just gonna sigh and stay behind the president because he's there, he's going to be gone in november if the American people have any sense and until then I am going to continue to oppose the majority of what he's done. You are taking what I said WAY too literally. I am not saying that in a month the S.S. is going to be walking around and Stukas are going to be doing overheads on Cubas. What I was saying was that I don't believe you should support a president just because he's the incumbent. He's trashed our economy, gotten 500 soldiers killed in a war that never had any vailidity to it and used the deaths of 3,000 people as a segway to finish what daddy couldn't. I don't hate America, I don't burn flags, I don't practice darts on Colin Powell's face. But I DO NOT support George Bush OR pacifism. If you like rock music, listen to teh RaTM song "Sleep Now in the Fire", it talks about the dangers of political pacifism. Germans in the 1940's followed blindly behind their leader and it led to disaster. I did not say that we're going to start World War 3 and start prancing around in jackboots because Bush is not HItler, so it's going to have different consequences. Yes I'm going to attend protests, yes I'm going to support Kerry, no I'm not going to vote for Bush and no and I am not going to support Bush so that hardcore American patriots woon'tfeel lik eour country is falling apart at the seams due to lack of faith in our leadership, losing allies, destorying it's reputation, and stirring up massive conflicts.

Thanks for the opinions, but that's all those were...opinions. The economy is not trashed...I believe it was Clinton/Gore that left this country in a recession. There have been 800,000 new jobs created in the last seven months, we've had the greatest growth of economy last quarter in four decades, and consumer confidence is great right now. You have the disaster of 9/11 on your hands and see how your economy goes. Now I do believe Bush is spending way too much, and I don't agree with his immigration policy, but he hasn't "trashed" the economy. Kerry is no better than Bush...that's picking between the lesser of two evils. If you liberals were smart, you would have nominated Dean or Kusinich. I would have voted for either of those candidates.
Let's get something straight. I don't fall into the whole republican/democrat I'm gonna disagree with you just to disagree because you're in a different party thing. I vote for who I think is going to run the country better. I voted for Gore in the last election, just because he was the better candidate ...no question. But I do believe John Kerry is NOT a better candidate than Bush. I will support my president and government because they are who this country chose to run it. I may not disagree at times, but I will NOT constantly slander my own president. He has my support even though I did not vote for him. I'm not going to expand on why I think Kerry is no better than Bush...that is for the other thread, but there are MANY reasons...one being he's full of SH#T. He does one thing, and does another. This is because he's practicing typical partisan politics and he's a fairweather politician.
There is no use in calling your own president vile names and defiling him left and right. That's dumb. I don't like alot of what Bush decides, but I will support my president.

[Qishi]

[QUOTE=DirtyGymSock2] yes I'm going to support Kerry, no I'm not going to vote for Bush [QUOTE]


Screw Kerry, Nader all the way. *cries that he knows he will be throwing his vote away*

I agree with a lot of what you said about political pasificism, but I don't think theJollyRoger is supporting that. I think he is just saying that he doesn't agree with Bush, but isn't about to start crying that the sky is falling. It is a bit of an overreaction to think that **** Germany came about because a few people said, "Yeah, I support Hitler." Germany was extremely screwed up when that all went down, and right now we are in a place of extreme comfort. I think theJollyRoger means he will support Bush only because he is our leader and to have a leader that has no respect from his people would be a trememndous sign of weakness. Man I hope nobody comes along and says that by not re-electing Bush "the terrorists win".

Oh yeah, why did we attack Iraq? Because money rules everything around us. Cash. Cream. Get the money. Dollar dollar bill, yall. Sorry, couldn't resist.

[Carnage-DVS]

No, if I disagree with someone, I don't support him anyway. That's utterly idiotic. I totally disagree with Bush's actions and will not support him in any way possible. That's idiocy and hypocrisy.

By the way. The least Bush could do before invading another country was to fix the one he had invaded before. Afghanistan is still in chaos, the Taliban is slowly coming back into power and here we are invading a country that has nothing to do with Al-Quaeda at all.

[BigGuyO5]

Ok as a supporter of Bush I'm going to have to ask Jolly Roger :cheesy: to crawl back into whatever hill jack whole :howdy: he came out :rant: of because all you're doin Jolly is making Bush look worse... I don't know how old, ignorant, or just poorly educated you are but please stop talking. As far as the WOMD they were probably there as the satellite photos showed the trucks leaving bunkers in a follow the leader fashion... will we ever find them? Probably not, they're probably so deeply buried that they'll never show. Should a mad man be allowed to leed a country. In my opinion no, in my opinion he was as bad as hitler. For our troops, I'll support them no matter who sends them or where they are sent, but for Jolly... please don't speak on matters that u have not the smallest clue about. You have honestly provoked either more competition for Bush to all the people who read this post or have just completely helped push away people and made them question why they support Bush when arrogant people such as urself support the same person. :yawn:

Quick Note
quote from Jolly
"Thanks for the opinions, but that's all those were...opinions."

POLITICS IS OPINIONS!

For all those who get this

Jolly - Here's ur sign

[The.Jolly.Roger]

No, if I disagree with someone, I don't support him anyway. That's utterly idiotic. I totally disagree with Bush's actions and will not support him in any way possible. That's idiocy and hypocrisy.

By the way. The least Bush could do before invading another country was to fix the one he had invaded before. Afghanistan is still in chaos, the Taliban is slowly coming back into power and here we are invading a country that has nothing to do with Al-Quaeda at all.

No, it's not idiotic to support your president. You don't understand what I'm saying. You can call names all you want. It doesn't bother me, but if it make you feel better---go for it. I will not defile my president, it just won't happen.
We are still searching for Osama, I don't see why you don't understand this. I don't think it's the number of people you use to find someone....it's the method and intelligence that matters. We didn't go to Iraq b/c of Al-Queda?

Let's just get off this subject, it's going nowhere.

All of the debating on this subject has been beaten and beaten over and over again to the point that we're are repeating debates....exact debates...and we are starting to debate things that are totally off of the subject of this thread.

Thanks for viewing and posting everyone, great thread!!
Sorry to say that this will be my last post on this thread.

And all of the people that feel like they have to call names, etc...Why? Why don't you just chill out. No reason to get angry in this forum. It is what it is.

[cleanupguy]

Every time I try to stay away, they keep pulling me back in. :lol:

To me, Bush is like a teenager who was given an inheritance way too early. 400 billion dollars of surplus spent into half a trillion dollar deficit. Too much power given too early to a temper tantrum teenager who wants to have nobody else's way but his way.

Doesn't this description totally fit Bush? :thumbsup:

[Carnage-DVS]

No, it's not idiotic to support your president. You don't understand what I'm saying. You can call names all you want. It doesn't bother me, but if it make you feel better---go for it. I will not defile my president, it just won't happen.
We are still searching for Osama, I don't see why you don't understand this. I don't think it's the number of people you use to find someone....it's the method and intelligence that matters. We didn't go to Iraq b/c of Al-Queda?

Let's just get off this subject, it's going nowhere.

All of the debating on this subject has been beaten and beaten over and over again to the point that we're are repeating debates....exact debates...and we are starting to debate things that are totally off of the subject of this thread.

Thanks for viewing and posting everyone, great thread!!
Sorry to say that this will be my last post on this thread.

And all of the people that feel like they have to call names, etc...Why? Why don't you just chill out. No reason to get angry in this forum. It is what it is.

Ok. Let me say this one final time. THERE IS NO CONNECTION BETWEEN IRAQ AND AL-QUADA. THE CIA ADMITTED THIS. IT HAS FOUND NO CONNECTIONS AT ALL. Saddam came to power by killing fundamentalists like Al-Quada. They hold no love for him. If you actually think Bush went into Iraq to look for AQ, you are sadly deluded.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

Ok. Let me say this one final time. THERE IS NO CONNECTION BETWEEN IRAQ AND AL-QUADA. THE CIA ADMITTED THIS. IT HAS FOUND NO CONNECTIONS AT ALL. Saddam came to power by killing fundamentalists like Al-Quada. They hold no love for him. If you actually think Bush went into Iraq to look for AQ, you are sadly deluded.

Yes, your anger gives me MUCH strength....However, I put the ? behind that statement to be sarcastic. I was merely stating, that we DID NOT go into Iraq because of AL-Queada....then I put the question mark after it to note sarcasm....because you keep making this point that we went into Iraq when there is no Al-Queada in Iraq.....thats because we didn't go to Iraq for Al-Queada
I know you're saying that we should be looking for Al-Queada instead of messing with Iraq(and we are still looking), but that's your two cents, not everyone else's.
Just chill.

[Carnage-DVS]

Yes, your anger gives me MUCH strength....However, I put the ? behind that statement to be sarcastic. I was merely stating, that we DID NOT go into Iraq because of AL-Queada....then I put the question mark after it to note sarcasm....because you keep making this point that we went into Iraq when there is no Al-Queada in Iraq.....thats because we didn't go to Iraq for Al-Queada
I know you're saying that we should be looking for Al-Queada instead of messing with Iraq(and we are still looking), but that's your two cents, not everyone else's.
Just chill.

I'm sorry, your extreme obtuseness annoys the hell out of me. Why did we go into Iraq then? For the fabled WMD? To liberate the Iraqi people (yeah right)? We are supposed to be hunting down AQ, not wasting our time invading countries which pose no threat at all to the U.S.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

Ok as a supporter of Bush I'm going to have to ask Jolly Roger :cheesy: to crawl back into whatever hill jack whole :howdy: he came out :rant: of because all you're doin Jolly is making Bush look worse... I don't know how old, ignorant, or just poorly educated you are but please stop talking. As far as the WOMD they were probably there as the satellite photos showed the trucks leaving bunkers in a follow the leader fashion... will we ever find them? Probably not, they're probably so deeply buried that they'll never show. Should a mad man be allowed to leed a country. In my opinion no, in my opinion he was as bad as hitler. For our troops, I'll support them no matter who sends them or where they are sent, but for Jolly... please don't speak on matters that u have not the smallest clue about. You have honestly provoked either more competition for Bush to all the people who read this post or have just completely helped push away people and made them question why they support Bush when arrogant people such as urself support the same person. :yawn:

Quick Note
quote from Jolly
"Thanks for the opinions, but that's all those were...opinions."

POLITICS IS OPINIONS!

For all those who get this

Jolly - Here's ur sign

Lolz......now you're just the foremost opinion on opinions huh? That was about the most idiotic rant I've seen on this whole thread. And I am old, and poorly educated...but does that mean you have to judge me for it?
Bush is as bad as Hitler? Can you back that up in some way...give some example of your nonsense...and not just an OPINION...I want an actual example...that makes sense. The only way you can say he's worse in some way is if he's doing something deplorable that would require impeachment and execution soon afterwards.
Politics is opinions? WTF are you talking about? I believe I was responding to someone who made a bunch of his own assumptions...opinions on what has transpired and didn't back them up with anything.
Oh, and president Bush, I'm sorry...but this guy said I've turned this whole......thread.....against you. I hope it doesn't lose you the election. sniffle sniffle
Ok, Big..guy? I'm sorry, but your post which was all to join in the Jolly Roger bashing party....sucked. Can't you bash me any better than that, because I just look at that and laugh. And learn how to spell.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

And guys, let the bashing party continue, but I'm not going to post or view on this thread anymore. It was an accident that I clicked on this thread as I am conditioned to do so after posting here 70 times. So, I just had to respond.
Now I know you fools will bash me even though I'm not looking, lolz...but in any case, happy bashing, and take some happy pills!!!

Farewell

[thkleinp]

No, it's not idiotic to support your president. You don't understand what I'm saying. You can call names all you want. It doesn't bother me, but if it make you feel better---go for it. I will not defile my president, it just won't happen.
We are still searching for Osama, I don't see why you don't understand this. I don't think it's the number of people you use to find someone....it's the method and intelligence that matters. We didn't go to Iraq b/c of Al-Queda?

Let's just get off this subject, it's going nowhere.

All of the debating on this subject has been beaten and beaten over and over again to the point that we're are repeating debates....exact debates...and we are starting to debate things that are totally off of the subject of this thread.

Thanks for viewing and posting everyone, great thread!!
Sorry to say that this will be my last post on this thread.

And all of the people that feel like they have to call names, etc...Why? Why don't you just chill out. No reason to get angry in this forum. It is what it is.
Thanks for viewing and posting everyone, great thread!!
Sorry to say that this will be my last post on this thread.

>>>Still waiting for your final post.

I'll make mine short and sweet. Hitler had a bunch of intelligent people, running a robust, industrial country that could pump out a huge military. He then convinced everyone that they needed more Liebensraum "room to live" and he conquered at will! He invaded Poland and started rounding up the Jews...you know the rest. And HIS FOLLOWERS SUPPORTED HIM!!!!

SCREW THAT...Bush is a corporate ***** and I will not support his *** while he openly invaded two countries (without Congressional support), he who missed the opportunity to stop 9/11, he who has rounded up citizens and POWs in places like Camp X-Ray and enacted the Patriot Act to destroy our civil rights... I don't think so fellas. I will not sit idly by with my thumb up my butt and let this crazy ******* run our great country into the ground. If you care about our country you will exercise your vote and get rid of Bush!

[Dementor]

SCREW THAT...Bush is a corporate ***** and I will not support his *** while he openly invaded two countries (without Congressional support),Congress voted to give him warpowers, so they need to take some blame here. You'll do well to note that John Kerry voted to give him those powers. If Bush was wrong to go to war, Kerry was just as wrong to vote to allow it....enacted the Patriot Act to destroy our civil rights... Which Kerry also voted for.I don't think so fellas. I will not sit idly by with my thumb up my butt and let this crazy ******* run our great country into the ground. If you care about our country you will exercise your vote and get rid of Bush!And put in John Kerry? No thanks, I'll take the devil whose stances I know... Who knows what Kerry really thinks.

[Eiger]

No thanks, I'll take the devil whose stances I know... Who knows what Kerry really thinks.
Ya, I can see what you're saying, but from where I'm sitting the devil we know is rock bottom. Any other devil could only be an improvement...

[The.Jolly.Roger]

You guys just can't leave it alone can you? lolz...
Look,
I'm sick and tired of the Kennedy's and The Bird's with all their rhetoric along with all of the other liberals. All it's doing is showing people in Iraq that this is a divided country. It incites those people to raise up against our soldiers. Congress voted on this, and last time I checked, Congress is made up of conservatives AND liberals. Liberals should learn when to keep their mouths shut....they shouldn't endanger American soldiers just because they are trying to get more votes...THEY VOTED ON THIS TOO. That goes for ALL liberals.
But, of course, the liberals are desperate because they have no power, so they are now speaking against this to put the ball in court....it's election time! This is the worst kind of devil in my opinion.
How can you vote on this......and then speak against it? That is so OBVIOUS....and since there are just about nothing but liberals in this thread, they are not going to acknowledge that fact....they are just going to rant on.
w/e...I guess we're just gonna keep on getting it on.
John McCain, a respected conservative by both conservatives and liberals, spoke today about suggestions that this war somehow "echoes" Vietnam. If you don't know, he was a prisoner of war in Vietnam, and disagrees with Bush on many things. "I know a thing or two about Vietnam, and this is NOT Vietnam." McCain said. At the same time, he also called for more soldiers to gain more security in Iraq.
That basically throws that stupid liberal Vietnam ploy out the window.

[Eiger]

Hehe - we all knew you couldn't stay away....

As for liberals voting to authorize the war, they were kinda mislead on the WoMD thing, remember?

[The.Jolly.Roger]

Hehe - we all knew you couldn't stay away....

As for liberals voting to authorize the war, they were kinda mislead on the WoMD thing, remember?

So, the conservatives just fooled the liberals into voting on it, huh?
Please, don't even use that......they just knew they would have been crucified if they didn't vote on it.
Weak argument....mislead...lolz
Don't they have anyone on the Senate Intellgence Committee? I would venture to guess....yes.
See, you can't get out of it..lolz...desperate..that was a desperate attempt.
Thanks for playing though!!

[Eiger]

So, the conservatives just fooled the liberals into voting on it, huh?

In this case it's more appropriate to say republicans and democrats rather than liberals and conservatives. But yes, I'd say the Bush administration fooled a lot of people on that one, including their fellow republicans - many of whom are rightly pissed.

[Dementor]

Ya, I can see what you're saying, but from where I'm sitting the devil we know is rock bottom. Any other devil could only be an improvement...

Surely you understand how dangerous that mindset can be.

Economically (and that's the real issue in any election), sure, our heads are just barely above water, but how do I know whether Bush's policys are what's pushing up the tide, or what's keeping us afloat? Economists disagree on that point... based, largely, on their politics. To me, if I'm still taking in air, now isn't the time to try something new.

Tax cuts for the wealthy exist for a reason; the wealthy are the buisness owners. Their taxes get cut, they have more money to invest, there are more jobs for the working class. Basic trickle-down economics, and they make sense to me.

I'm afraid we'll elect Kerry, he'll raise taxes on our buisness owners, investment will slow down, we'll lose jobs even faster, and suddenly we'll be sinking.

The national debt? This is a recession, so somebody's going to be going into debt... and I'd much rather the government take on the debt than the people. It keeps people spending, and hopefully it'll keep them spending long enough to keep the economy alive until we hit another climb.

The war also seems... if not justified, then at least justifiable if you know what I mean.

However, the combonation of the war and the recession make me nervious. Seems like a bad time to go to war, when we don't have that kind of money. A poor decision, absolutly...

But a decision the opponent made as well. He wasn't anymore misled than Bush was, they all had access to the exact same intel that Bush did, and either Kerry looked it over and came to the same conclusion (in which case he's not qualified to criticize the decision) or he didn't look into it hard enough (in which case, he's even less qualified.)

I'm conflicted; but my vote will go to what may be keeping us above water... or at the very least isn't pushing us all the way under. I don't know which it is, but it's not a gamble I want to take.

[Booms]

But you have to remember that it was Bush who obliterated the surplus in the first place. And he says things like "fuzzy math."

[Andarcel]

On the economy, I trust Alan Greenspan. He says these massive taxcuts aren't helping. And you know what? Even if the economy were "just barely afloat" - which it's not - I wouldn't support deferring that problem to my retirement with the most insane fiscal irresponsibility ever in the White House.

Why does trickle-down economics, the most discredited theory since Aristotle, continue to be used as an argument? It does not work. The marginal propensity to spend of the middle class is vastly greater than the upper class. Most of the money the wealthiest members of our population is not being invested in hiring employees; it goes into lining their pockets.

The government debt is the people's debt. The IOU is made out to us. It's your money their spending on billionaires who simply add it their bank accounts and foreign investments. And the bill is going to be massive.

Kerry does not plan to "raise" taxes. This is a myth. He plans to repeal the handouts to the over $200,000 crowd to focus on the real engines of the American economy: the middle class.

Finally, Bush's administration is responsible for the myths that forced the Dems to sign the warpowers resolution. (actually, there's some question of whether Iraq was in fact legal under that resolution, but I'll give the benefit of the doubt.) Whether they themselves believed in WoMD, America as a whole bought the ********. Bush left Congress with no choice, and now you want to claim they're equally responsible?

[DirtyGymSock2]

Roger, I am gonna say something here. Every REpublican ever to take office has blamed all of his economic problems on his predecessor. 3 years from now, if Kerry takes office and repairs our economy Bush will take credit. Look at the man's budget, it leaves quite a lot to be desired, that being in a monetary way. He has the debt as a factor in his budget statement! One portion of it is "repaying the national debt" and another, red section is the amount of money the debt will increase by, in his god damn plans! Look at teh nubmers Jolly! Numbers aren't opinions, th eman spent his way through the surplus and sure as hell didn't stop there. And the Republican reasoning that everything takes 4 years to happen warps every time something good happens during their term, it's the most self-serving and stupid theory I have ever heard.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

In this case it's more appropriate to say republicans and democrats rather than liberals and conservatives. But yes, I'd say the Bush administration fooled a lot of people on that one, including their fellow republicans - many of whom are rightly pissed.


The Bush admin. isn't the only one who knows about these things...you and I both know that.
However you want to avoid the truth is fine. But that just isn't true, you can't fool the people who deal with this stuff on a day to day basis.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

Roger, I am gonna say something here. Every REpublican ever to take office has blamed all of his economic problems on his predecessor. 3 years from now, if Kerry takes office and repairs our economy Bush will take credit. Look at the man's budget, it leaves quite a lot to be desired, that being in a monetary way. He has the debt as a factor in his budget statement! One portion of it is "repaying the national debt" and another, red section is the amount of money the debt will increase by, in his god damn plans! Look at teh nubmers Jolly! Numbers aren't opinions, th eman spent his way through the surplus and sure as hell didn't stop there. And the Republican reasoning that everything takes 4 years to happen warps every time something good happens during their term, it's the most self-serving and stupid theory I have ever heard.

First of all, I'm not debating the economy....we all know it's not great. Second, republicans blame their predecessor? Why don't you rephrase that please....EVERY administration blames the last if something goes wrong in theirs' and vice versa.

And would you PLEASE stop saying the republicans duped the democrats into voting for this war. This is SOOOO bsh#t and it just shows that democrats/liberals can't just lose an argument....they have to come up with some desperation bsh#t. How many democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee? Furthermore, don't you think that if THEY didn't think this war wasn't justified they would have said something? You can't win this argument....Liberals have NO power, and they'll say just about anything whether they agree with it or not out of desperation to put the ball in play.
Even on *** marriage.....they may not believe in it, but they are going to support it to pick up those votes that conservatives aren't gonna get.
If you're in Congress, or the Presidency...you are an intelligent person and you know just as much about things as just about anyone else.....you don't get TRICKED into voting on something, and you don't get forced to. If you get forced to, then that just makes my point. What would be forcing you to do it? Maybe the fact that your party can't stand by it's "so called beliefs" because they are afraid of losing votes? Otherwise, they are big boys there, they can make the decision that they want. You can't get out of it, quit trying. Kerry just sucks...if he's elected you better get ready for some BIG tax increases. But this won't happen, Kerry will not win.
Who controls government right now? Liberals are the MINORITY. You guys give yourselves a false sense of security sitting in this liberal forum all day.

[Carnage-DVS]

First of all, I'm not debating the economy....we all know it's not great. Second, republicans blame their predecessor? Why don't you rephrase that please....EVERY administration blames the last if something goes wrong in theirs' and vice versa.

And would you PLEASE stop saying the republicans duped the democrats into voting for this war. This is SOOOO bsh#t and it just shows that democrats/liberals can't just lose an argument....they have to come up with some desperation bsh#t. How many democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee? Furthermore, don't you think that if THEY didn't think this war wasn't justified they would have said something? You can't win this argument....Liberals have NO power, and they'll say just about anything whether they agree with it or not out of desperation to put the ball in play.
Even on *** marriage.....they may not believe in it, but they are going to support it to pick up those votes that conservatives aren't gonna get.
If you're in Congress, or the Presidency...you are an intelligent person and you know just as much about things as just about anyone else.....you don't get TRICKED into voting on something, and you don't get forced to. If you get forced to, then that just makes my point. What would be forcing you to do it? Maybe the fact that your party can't stand by it's "so called beliefs" because they are afraid of losing votes? Otherwise, they are big boys there, they can make the decision that they want. You can't get out of it, quit trying. Kerry just sucks...if he's elected you better get ready for some BIG tax increases. But this won't happen, Kerry will not win.
Who controls government right now? Liberals are the MINORITY. You guys give yourselves a false sense of security sitting in this liberal forum all day.

Its like...each and every day..you manage to amaze me even more with your utter stupidity.
Based on faulty intelligence given by the CIA, and his own hardon for Iraq, Bush proceeded to invade it. That's the simple truth. He told people that Iraq had WMD, and that he had the evidence for it. Of course now, the evidence is proven to be faulty but it's a bit too late for that no?

[Cale The Dark]

Its like...each and every day..you manage to amaze me even more with your utter stupidity.
Based on faulty intelligence given by the CIA, and his own hardon for Iraq, Bush proceeded to invade it. That's the simple truth. He told people that Iraq had WMD, and that he had the evidence for it. Of course now, the evidence is proven to be faulty but it's a bit too late for that no?


and what do you propose we do about it eh? pull out of iraq now? turn it over to that sadr **** head and his militia? so far thejollyroger is the only one defending the decision to go to iraq, but we can't fix that now so how about moving forward. some people on these forums are trying to walk forward while looking backwards and they are lible to end up on their ***.

[cleanupguy]

and what do you propose we do about it eh? pull out of iraq now? turn it over to that sadr **** head and his militia? so far thejollyroger is the only one defending the decision to go to iraq, but we can't fix that now so how about moving forward. some people on these forums are trying to walk forward while looking backwards and they are lible to end up on their ***.

I would tell you what we need to do. First, we need to get rid of George W. Bush. He's a uniter all right, a uniter of ALL IRAQIS AGAINST AMERICA. How was this president able to turn all of Iraqis against America? Remember that Shiites were against Saddam Husein. Now, the Shiites have done a complete 180 and are against America. For the first time, GWB brought the Shiites and Sunnis together....... against America. I guess they really were not joking when GWB along with these mindless drones and ditto heads chanted, "I'm a uniter, not a divider."

At this point, the only solution is getting the world rallying behind us, and I assure you that GWB is not going to be the one doing that. We need a new leadership who can go to the U.N. and the world and bring them on OUR SIDE again. Bush has singlehandedly brought the Iraqis together.......... against America and alienated allies.

Also, now that we are in Iraq, we certainly cannot pull out of it now. This again was a situation that was created by GWB. Before we went into Iraq, he assured the members of Congress and Americans that we had an exit plan. Exit plan my behind! It's a quagmire and total chaos in Iraq.

You know what's even more disgusting? Donald Rumsfeld now says that, if they (the generals) need more troops in Iraq, all they have to do is ask. Oh yeah? Here is a general Eric Shinseki who asked for several hundred thousand US troops when the looting in Iraq started happening. You know what the likes of Rumsfeld did? Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Cheney humiliated him, doubting his leadership as a general. These people are truly heinous and power-mongers who need to be replaced ASAP for the future of not only America but the world. Tell me, if this administration is truly concerned about the welfares of the Iraqis, then why would they have not sent in more troops when the looting started?

By sending more troops to Iraq and bringing order to their society, it would have shown a clear message to the Iraqis that the US of A truly cares about them. But no, this administration was only obsessed about getting rid of Saddam Husein. It was a job that was started by his father that was finished by the son.

When the generals of the US army tell you that we need more troops in Iraq, you don't make fun of him or just simply wave your hand and dismiss him. You LISTEN! When the weapons inspectors tell you that there are no WMD's in Iraq, you don't dismiss them. You LISTEN!

What a brilliant bunch of nuts in this administration!

What's that? You want me to back up my claims? Here you go.

Source: http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/consequences/2003/0228pentagoncontra.htm

Pentagon Contradicts General on Iraq Occupation Force's Size
By Eric Schmitt
New York Times
February 28, 2003

In a contentious exchange over the costs of war with Iraq, the Pentagon's second-ranking official today disparaged a top Army general's assessment of the number of troops needed to secure postwar Iraq. House Democrats then accused the Pentagon official, Paul D. Wolfowitz, of concealing internal administration estimates on the cost of fighting and rebuilding the country.

Mr. Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, opened a two-front war of words on Capitol Hill, calling the recent estimate by Gen. Eric K. Shinseki of the Army that several hundred thousand troops would be needed in postwar Iraq, "wildly off the mark." Pentagon officials have put the figure closer to 100,000 troops. Mr. Wolfowitz then dismissed articles in several newspapers this week asserting that Pentagon budget specialists put the cost of war and reconstruction at $60 billion to $95 billion in this fiscal year. He said it was impossible to predict accurately a war's duration, its destruction and the extent of rebuilding afterward.

"We have no idea what we will need until we get there on the ground," Mr. Wolfowitz said at a hearing of the House Budget Committee. "Every time we get a briefing on the war plan, it immediately goes down six different branches to see what the scenarios look like. If we costed each and every one, the costs would range from $10 billion to $100 billion." Mr. Wolfowitz's refusal to be pinned down on the costs of war and peace in Iraq infuriated some committee Democrats, who noted that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Mitchell E. Daniels Jr., the budget director, had briefed President Bush on just such estimates on Tuesday.

"I think you're deliberately keeping us in the dark," said Representative James P. Moran, Democrat of Virginia. "We're not so naïve as to think that you don't know more than you're revealing." Representative Darlene Hooley, an Oregon Democrat, also voiced exasperation with Mr. Wolfowitz: "I think you can do better than that."

Mr. Wolfowitz, with Dov S. Zakheim, the Pentagon comptroller, at his side, tried to mollify the Democratic lawmakers, promising to fill them in eventually on the administration's internal cost estimates. "There will be an appropriate moment," he said, when the Pentagon would provide Congress with cost ranges. "We're not in a position to do that right now."

At a Pentagon news conference with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, Mr. Rumsfeld echoed his deputy's comments. Neither Mr. Rumsfeld nor Mr. Wolfowitz mentioned General Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, by name. But both men were clearly irritated at the general's suggestion that a postwar Iraq might require many more forces than the 100,000 American troops and the tens of thousands of allied forces that are also expected to join a reconstruction effort.

"The idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces I think is far off the mark," Mr. Rumsfeld said. General Shinseki gave his estimate in response to a question at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Tuesday: "I would say that what's been mobilized to this point — something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers — are probably, you know, a figure that would be required." He also said that the regional commander, Gen. Tommy R. Franks, would determine the precise figure.

A spokesman for General Shinseki, Col. Joe Curtin, said today that the general stood by his estimate. "He was asked a question and he responded with his best military judgment," Colonel Curtin said. General Shinseki is a former commander of the peacekeeping operation in Bosnia.

In his testimony, Mr. Wolfowitz ticked off several reasons why he believed a much smaller coalition peacekeeping force than General Shinseki envisioned would be sufficient to police and rebuild postwar Iraq. He said there was no history of ethnic strife in Iraq, as there was in Bosnia or Kosovo. He said Iraqi civilians would welcome an American-led liberation force that "stayed as long as necessary but left as soon as possible," but would oppose a long-term occupation force. And he said that nations that oppose war with Iraq would likely sign up to help rebuild it. "I would expect that even countries like France will have a strong interest in assisting Iraq in reconstruction," Mr. Wolfowitz said. He added that many Iraqi expatriates would likely return home to help.

In the 1991 Persian Gulf War, many nations agreed in advance of hostilities to help pay for a conflict that eventually cost about $61 billion. Mr. Wolfowitz said that this time around the administration was dealing with "countries that are quite frightened of their own shadows" in assembling a coalition to force President Saddam Hussein to disarm.

Enlisting countries to help to pay for this war and its aftermath would take more time, he said. "I expect we will get a lot of mitigation, but it will be easier after the fact than before the fact," Mr. Wolfowitz said. Mr. Wolfowitz spent much of the hearing knocking down published estimates of the costs of war and rebuilding, saying the upper range of $95 billion was too high, and that the estimates were almost meaningless because of the variables. Moreover, he said such estimates, and speculation that postwar reconstruction costs could climb even higher, ignored the fact that Iraq is a wealthy country, with annual oil exports worth $15 billion to $20 billion. "To assume we're going to pay for it all is just wrong," he said.

At the Pentagon, Mr. Rumsfeld said the factors influencing cost estimates made even ranges imperfect. Asked whether he would release such ranges to permit a useful public debate on the subject, Mr. Rumsfeld said, "I've already decided that. It's not useful."

[cleanupguy]

Also, here is an idea. Instead of throwing money at Halliburton and the likes and letting them rebuild Iraq, why not use that money to hire Iraqis to rebuild Iraq? When people have jobs and means to survive, they will not turn TERRORISTS. They will in fact be grateful to you. Hire Iraqi engineers and workers to rebuild Iraq. I know this is not too hard for conservatives (especially neo-conservatives) to grasp.

[Eiger]

The Bush admin. isn't the only one who knows about these things...you and I both know that.
However you want to avoid the truth is fine. But that just isn't true, you can't fool the people who deal with this stuff on a day to day basis.
That's my point - not everyone deals with this every day. For example, the Senate has 100 members - but only 17 serve on the Intelligence Committee (http://intelligence.senate.gov/members.htm). The administration controls the CIA, NSA, FBI and determines what information these 17 members see. Additionally, members of the Intelligence Committee also serve on other committees as well and rely on staffers to brief (emphasis on "brief" meaning to boil down into a concise summary) them. Even the members don't do this everyday.... Frankly, it's easy to fool those in power - they rely on trust - trusting that their underlings and suppliers of info won't screw them over...

[Eiger]

If you're in Congress, or the Presidency...you are an intelligent person and you know just as much about things as just about anyone else.....you don't get TRICKED into voting on something, and you don't get forced to. If you get forced to, then that just makes my point. What would be forcing you to do it? Maybe the fact that your party can't stand by it's "so called beliefs" because they are afraid of losing votes? Otherwise, they are big boys there, they can make the decision that they want.

Who controls government right now? Liberals are the MINORITY.
This post really shows how little you know about power politics. People get "forced" into making votes they don't want to all the time. Especially if you are in the minority as democrats are now. The President leans on legislators, the majority leader leans on them, committe chairs lean on them, their party leans on them, and their constituents lean on them. Backroom deals are made - if you want this, you have to vote on my bill. Unpopular riders are put on popular bills, etc. etc. There was an insane amount of pressure to pass the Patriot Act and only 48 hours allowed for Congress to review it for one example. You need to take a class in government or political science because you are not hanging out in reality.

As for liberals being in the minority - the democrats are in the minority, but it's safe to say that liberals are still the majority. Many people don't even realize they are liberals - and I use the term loosely because most people are some combination of conservative and liberal. Most consider themselves fiscal conservatives, but it's the social area where you find the funny combinations.

For example - if you like social security, medicare, before and after school programs, clean air and water - then you have some liberal leanings as these are liberal causes which were opposed by conservatives or at least conservatives attempted to water these programs down.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

This post really shows how little you know about power politics. People get "forced" into making votes they don't want to all the time. Especially if you are in the minority as democrats are now. The President leans on legislators, the majority leader leans on them, committe chairs lean on them, their party leans on them, and their constituents lean on them. Backroom deals are made - if you want this, you have to vote on my bill. Unpopular riders are put on popular bills, etc. etc. There was an insane amount of pressure to pass the Patriot Act and only 48 hours allowed for Congress to review it for one example. You need to take a class in government or political science because you are not hanging out in reality.

As for liberals being in the minority - the democrats are in the minority, but it's safe to say that liberals are still the majority. Many people don't even realize they are liberals - and I use the term loosely because most people are some combination of conservative and liberal. Most consider themselves fiscal conservatives, but it's the social area where you find the funny combinations.

For example - if you like social security, medicare, before and after school programs, clean air and water - then you have some liberal leanings as these are liberal causes which were opposed by conservatives or at least conservatives attempted to water these programs down.

Liberals have no power, and you know it. And, I know how it all works. I was mainly making the point that they were fooled into anything. That's not true at all. You're right, you are forced to vote on some things, but you certainly aren't fooled into it.
You know, it seems to me that so many more lives could have been saved in recent wars such as WW1 and WW2 if the Democrats/Liberals wouldn't have waited for so long. I mean, democrats just like to appease....more votes I guess.

And Eiger, we all know what a TRUE liberal is, and what a TRUE conservative is. Lets not use those terms loosely.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

That's my point - not everyone deals with this every day. For example, the Senate has 100 members - but only 17 serve on the Intelligence Committee (http://intelligence.senate.gov/members.htm). The administration controls the CIA, NSA, FBI and determines what information these 17 members see. Additionally, members of the Intelligence Committee also serve on other committees as well and rely on staffers to brief (emphasis on "brief" meaning to boil down into a concise summary) them. Even the members don't do this everyday.... Frankly, it's easy to fool those in power - they rely on trust - trusting that their underlings and suppliers of info won't screw them over...

BS#t....they know more than you think they do obviously....ESPECIALLY about issues such as this...before and after.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

You guys really need to know that Senators and Reps are on K street every single day talking about this.....they do NOT get fooled, they know what's happening.
And if the CIA says something, that does not mean BUSH says it. So is the CIA fooling liberals, or Bush.
Everyone is out to fool the liberals I guess.....easily fooled no doubt....cmon.

And Carnage, your utter stupidity pawns my utter stupidity.....the only thing worse than a liberal is an angry one, because then they become incoherent.
Me no speak a liberale?
If you want to get into an insult contest, I can make you cry to you mommy on another thread, but please, be a little more mature on this one.

[Eiger]

Liberals have no power, and you know it. And, I know how it all works. I was mainly making the point that they were fooled into anything. That's not true at all. You're right, you are forced to vote on some things, but you certainly aren't fooled into it.
You know, it seems to me that so many more lives could have been saved in recent wars such as WW1 and WW2 if the Democrats/Liberals wouldn't have waited for so long. I mean, democrats just like to appease....more votes I guess.

And Eiger, we all know what a TRUE liberal is, and what a TRUE conservative is. Lets not use those terms loosely.
I'd say that if you are given information which has not been properly vetted and confirmed and is not correct, then you've been given misleading information. If the misleading information is purposely misleading and the receiving party buys into it then he's been fooled. Whether it was purposeful or not is not known, but knowing Bush and his desire to take out Saddam, I certainly wouldn't put it past him.

Thanks for bringing up WWII where the democrats and FDR especially wanted to get more involved in the war earlier, but the isolationist conservatives held the country back. Good example, thanks.

And no I don't think there is a TRUE conservative or liberal or if there is, they are few and far between. This is one of those continuum things. Why don't you try to define what a TRUE conservative and a TRUE liberal is? Bet you can't...

[Eiger]

BS#t....they know more than you think they do obviously....ESPECIALLY about issues such as this...before and after.
Is that the best you can do to make an argument and support it? Come on, tell me something that will give your statement some credibility. Hardly a convincing comment.

[Eiger]

I can make you cry to you mommy on another thread, but please, be a little more mature on this one.You should follow your own advice.

[softpain]

You guys really need to know that Senators and Reps are on K street every single day talking about this.....they do NOT get fooled, they know what's happening.
And if the CIA says something, that does not mean BUSH says it. So is the CIA fooling liberals, or Bush.
Everyone is out to fool the liberals I guess.....easily fooled no doubt....cmon.

And Carnage, your utter stupidity pawns my utter stupidity.....the only thing worse than a liberal is an angry one, because then they become incoherent.
Me no speak a liberale?
If you want to get into an insult contest, I can make you cry to you mommy on another thread, but please, be a little more mature on this one.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CIA and the NSA or any of the others agencies NEVER told the GWB administation that they were ANY WOMD in Iraq...it's Donald Rumsfeld AND the GWB's advisors that made this up to JUSTIFY the war in Iraq.

Stop watching CNN and the FOX network ;-P

There is no country that will be stupid enough to go there now and help militarily...if they didn't go before it's because they new it was very costly in many ways..... they dont want the US to fail now but they can't do much cause their majority of their population was against that war from the start...like the one in the UK and spain and poland and italy were.

They all felt from the beginning that this war was all GWB and his advisors whim!!!!

And you know why millions of people felt that way Jolly?
Because they listen to left wing media...;-P

[Cale The Dark]

won't this thread die? there is ZERO intelligent conversation going on here. this topic has been beaten to death and so too should the people keeping it alive.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

I'd say that if you are given information which has not been properly vetted and confirmed and is not correct, then you've been given misleading information. If the misleading information is purposely misleading and the receiving party buys into it then he's been fooled. Whether it was purposeful or not is not known, but knowing Bush and his desire to take out Saddam, I certainly wouldn't put it past him.

Thanks for bringing up WWII where the democrats and FDR especially wanted to get more involved in the war earlier, but the isolationist conservatives held the country back. Good example, thanks.

And no I don't think there is a TRUE conservative or liberal or if there is, they are few and far between. This is one of those continuum things. Why don't you try to define what a TRUE conservative and a TRUE liberal is? Bet you can't...

It was just the conservatives that kept us out of early WW2? Okay, now we're gonna have to pull out sources now.

We all know what a liberal and a conservative is, why even argue that point?

And ok, if you want to believe the liberals were fooled into this. go ahead. I don't buy it, and neither do you. Just like a liberal, supporting something he doesn't believe in just to win.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

You should follow your own advice.

I'm just stating points, not calling names or trying to discredit anyone. This is a liberal forum and I'm not conservative, but I'm the only one arguing the conservative side on this. I actually enjoy the fact that everyone is bashing me. I'm not stating anything different than what conservatives are stating every day, and I'm not being immature. It wouldn't be any fun being a part of a "get on the bandwagon" mob.
Some people on this thread have been bashing me when it's clear they know nothing. They just feel wanted and needed when they do. This thread, for me, is hardly about debating the war in Iraq, or proving that the Bush administration was right, and if noone has figured that out yet.......I would be disappointed.
Very typical behavior from a mob.