CLICK HERE

flip flop

Now Hoods... you know better than that.

That was a good point Hoods. Very good point.

A good point? Not at all. This has already been addressed.

What he said was “I don’t think you can win But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world.”

We are at war, not a conventional war against another nation where you can delcare victory, but a war against terrorists. You will never be able to declare victory 100% in the war on terror because no matter what you do, there's always going to be one crazy SOB who will blow himself up for one reason or another.

Your not going to sit down with "terrorism" at a table for peace talks as you could possibly do in a conventional war against a specific nation.

Iraq is a load of shit and you know it Real, and you just help prove that it is. The war on terror is about terrorists, not a country. Iraq last time I checked was a country, once led by a dictatorship. It has absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. I think the costs of the war have already far outweighed the benefits of taking Saddam out of power. I think the true enemy we are facing now is a whole lot more wily than we could have ever guessed.

For one, we are going to be stuck there a lot longer than Bush or anyone else for that matter is willing to admit.

Second, Bush has successfully become the poster boy for terrorist recruiters, possibly adding to the problem rather than help sovle it.

Third, the real people we should be after, terrorist leaders, rather than Saddam, have nearly all escaped or gone into hiding, or both.

Fourth, 1,000 U.S. soldiers have died in country in Iraq and insurgents, who btw where not as prevelant during the actual "war", still control some cities and are fighting hard in others.

Fifth, Bush has significantly increased the national debt with his deficit spending support of this war.

Sixth, and possibly most damaging, hardly any countries worldwide want anything to do with Iraq or U.S. Definitely not any major countries like Great Britain (Blair might support us but everyone else there hates us), Germany, France, Russia, Spain, etc. Half of our country doesn't even support it, less than two years after it began. Vietnam can't even be compared to that.

Black that bull and you know it. Blair does support us your right even though a lot of his people don't some still do. Yes we will be there longer than anyone can say but guess what THATS LIFE. If we are going to protect people we will have to make sacrafices, thus the 1,000 lives, but in my opinion the soldiers knew what they were up against and what they were there for. If we get to lose 1,000 of our own people to liberate a country, fight off terrorists, and get women and children equal rights, then i am all for it.
I support Bush.
I support the War on Terror.
I support the USA.

FLAME

BJ, your taking what I said out of context. Going into Iraq on the information we had at the time was the right thing to do. Heck, it was still the right thing to do. When we "win" in Iraq, the war on terrorism will not be over. This is what I meant. Saddam needed to go, there was no doubt about it. Years and years of sanctions and resolutions did nothing. On an almost daily basis Iraq would shoot at our planes patrolling the no fly zone. What about the mass graves that were found? What about when he USED weapons of mass destruction on his own people?

As for France, Russia and Germany - since when do we need their approval or agreement to protect this country? BTW, don't you think there was a reason they didn't go along with us?

TAKE A LOOK HERE

They were all in cahoots with Iraq selling arms and the like. Nice huh?


Also, since the recent terror attacks in Russia, it appears that Putin all of a sudden woke up and has now changed his policy to one of preemption, as we did shortly after 9/11.

CLICK HERE TO READ ABOUT IT

A quote from the article reads:

Russian armed forces will launch preemptive strikes against terrorist bases, Yury Baluyevsky, Senior Defense Minister of the Russian Federation and Chief of the General Staff, told reporters.

“Preventive strikes on these bases will be carried out regardless of what region they are located in,” he stressed. “It does not mean that we are planning nuclear strikes. The forms and methods will depend on the circumstances,” Baluyevsky said.


Once France and Germany experience some horrendous terror attacks, their policies will change as well. Our administration has the right idea on preemption. It must be done. We are fighting people that will stop at nothing to launch another attack on us and kill thousands of innocent people.


Yes, it's sad that over 1,000 of our men and women were killed defending our freedoms and everyone of them are hero's. Each death is tragic, but it's hard not to think that it's better for people to die taking the fight to the terrorists than for them to die fearfully in their home cities. We have been in Iraq for what, over a year now? Now, I am in no way making light of the number of soldiers that have died to date in Iraq, but we need to put this number in perspective. On D-day alone, in a 24 hour period, over 4,500 allied soldiers lost their life. At the peak of Vietnam, there were hundreds of soldiers being killed every week.

Can we please not forget about the more than 3,500 people that were killed on September 11, 2001.

Yes, the national debt has increased but what did you think it's going to do after we were attacked on 9/11? War, security, keeping the airline industry alive.. this things cost money.

Wake up Flame, Iraq will never be liberated because of what they teach. That is a Muslim country that hates the US even being over there. As far as I am concern, We need to release Sadam to go back there to finish what he started. Killing the rest of them. If you think that country can be liberated, tell me how.

Last reply. Everyone is saying that they are defending our freedoms. They did that in WW2. We have no businness being in Iraq. We all know why Bush is there. Its called OIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Iraq has done nothing to me. Sept 11 2001 was not done by Sadam. It was done by Osama. Do you people not understand that. But yet we take out a country and feel good about it. I'm sorry, thats not the American way! We should take out Osama and his party.

Hard, you've mentioned that we went there for oil, numerous times in your posts here. I have asked you before, but I will ask again.

I can never understand when people say we went there for oil. Can you please explain this to me? Because I am not clear on this one at all.

Ok so I misunderstood you Real, let me make myself clear. What relationship does Iraq have to either Vietnam or WWII? I think it's a shame you compared it to WWII actually. Vietnam is a bit more complicated with the whole Communism thing, but Druid was right a while back when he said it was really an economic thing. So does that mean Iraq is an economic thing...?

As for seeking the approval of those other nations to protect ours, the key thing for me is I still fail to see how Saddam was a threat to us. I read recently that Colin Powell actually stated in Cairo that sanctions were working against Saddam only 6 months before 9/11. Furthermore, those countries that have remained out of the Iraq situation have not had an serious terrorist activities, nor any before it. The tragedies in Russia, although they do have some Al-Queda ties, are directly linked to the Chechan crisis (how do spell that?).

Flame sorry I should have been more specific, the people of Great Britain do not support the war in Iraq, plain and simple. Nominally yes, but in reality the cast majority are against it. I see you guys have no comment on the fact that Bush has potentially become the poster boy for terrorist recruiters, nor an explanantion for my the msot advanced and arguably best military in the world has failed to capture the vast majority of top Al-Queda suspects.

The war in Iraq is not a war on terrorism. Beyond that I can't really tell you what we are doing there. A war on atrocities and mass murder, I guess so. But why didn't other presidents deal with him, republican or democrat, if we as a country are so concerned with human rights all of a sudden. He certainly has been in power quite a while, and violently abusing that power I might add. A war for oil, who knows but it wouldnt surprise me what with all the crazy things going on in today's world. A war based on a feud between father and son...now you're getting into conspiracy theory but all thats for the psychoanalysis bunch.

I just feel a tremendous sorrow that hurts me to the core every time I see the honor roll of dead from Iraq on the nightly news. Those are people practically my age, some of them could have been my friends from just a few years ago. I don't think I've ever mentioned this but I do have family that have served in Iraq. My cousin's husband is a Marine. We count our lucky stars everyday that he is safe now.

Real, What other reason was there? If we went in there because he was killing his own people, then we should of let him finish the job. He was only doing us a favor.

No. But that does mean that he bullied his way in. Thats not the American way. And thats where I dislike the whole concept of our troops being over there. I just dont see a reason for us to be over there. No weapons of mass. No nothing. You have to say now that the oil is very important to us. But why couldn't he finish the big problem with Osama. He killed the people in the towers and on the planes. I just think Bush went after the wrong guy at the wrong time. Osama is still wanted.

Osama will be caught. Very soon. Just my prediction.

I cant vote for Bush off of your predictions. I just hope you are right tho.

We are in Iraq for a wide variety of reasons, one of which involves oil.
When I say it involves oil doesn't mean we are there because we want the oil or are going to steal it but because part of the money from their vast oil reserves could and probably would be used to support terrorism either directly or indirectly against the U.S.
Here is a list of reasons why I think we are in Iraq.
1) A very important point people have seem to forgot is Iraq had the opportunity to avoid the war. They could of allowed full access to U.N. weapon inspectors but didn't.
2) U.N.'s inability to handle the situation. Several groups claim it should of been handled by the U.N. including 3 of the permanent members of the security council ( France , Russia and China ). We now know all 3 where illegally selling weapons and equipment to Iraq in direct conflict with the U.N. resolutions the 3 countries supported. Syria violating U.N. resolutions by allowing Iraq oil through their pipelines, this allowed Iraq access to Oil money which was unaccountable to resolutions put in place to limit Iraq's ability to make war.
Let's not forget the 5 billion dollars and still rising missing from the oil for food program. So far some of the people who we now are sure received money in a scam involving Iraq oil vouchers.
I will just list totals and counties to save room in what will be a long post. If anyone whats to question who and who much, I'll be happy to supply details.
This is just a short list but an interesting one
Russia $340 million
France $60 million
Jordan $20 million
There is even a 4 million dollar payout to The Palestinian Liberation Organization. A known terrorist organization.
Also included in the list is the U.N. undersecretary who ran the Oil for food program.
Even more interesting to me is how the whole oil for food program was setup.
Saddam got to make up his own list of who the buyers of oil and suppliers of goods would be and most importantly this list of buyers and suppliers would remain confidential.
Or we could just stick to potential terrorist connections.
Two companies on the U.N.-approved buyer list of Saddam's oil, ASAT Trust and Bank Al Taqwa were both on the U.N.'s own terror-watch list, as entities "belonging to or affiliated with Al Qaeda."
Here are two companies who received millions of dollars via under priced Iraq Oil vouchers on the U.N.'s terrorists watch list and no red flags went up?
If you want some interesting reading check the section on the press release involving the freezing of assets here under section #2 Nada/Nasreddin Network
http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/po3380.htm
Even after their assets where frozen here, tens of millions of dollars was funneled to them via the U.N. oil for food program.
If anyone wants to argue that the U.N should of dealt with the Iraq problem and not the U.S., I'm willing to listen but you need to back up your views with how and why.
3) The Atomic Energy Agency who regulates the supply of uranium has documented several attempts by Iraq to buy large quantities of uranium. This was during the same time Iraq tried to import 60,000 specialized aluminium tubes which are subject to international export controls because they have possible application in building gas centrifuges for uranium enrichment.
An interesting side note, one of the companies they contacted is the same company we got our uranium from used to build the 2 bombs dropped on Japan in WW2.
4) The liberation of Iraq from Saddam would create an opportunity for democracy to gain a foothold in the Middle East, which hopefully will improve freedom and security not just in the region but hopefully in the world.

I'm off to bed but I'll continue with a few more reasons tomorrow.

Money and the Federal reserve was the reasoning in going in the early 90's, Bush pretty much wanted to finish what his old man started and 9/11 gave him the reason.

As far as Bush goes He did the only thing he could do, and now hes getting fucked for it. If he wouldnt have done shit and not gone to afgan and Iraq he'd be called a pussy, he did go to war and now hes a tyrant
war is war people die. Kerry like most democrats is flopping this election trying to be quiet.

At any rate. we should just do what we need to
Turn the bitch to glass
cut through the glass and take their fucking oil

Why did Bush not act on this information earlier Druid, was he merely waiting for an event like 9/11 to mask the real purpose of the war? I don't understand why he has to use the guise of a war on terror if the points you just made are the real reason we are there.

Gee it could have been that saddam was supporting terrorism. humm before someone says "he had nothing to do with osama and friends", then why was he paying out $25,000 to the maryters families? if he was supporting them then what else was he doing? Oh do you think that the gov. tells the public everything? i feel safer he is gone. if 1000 soldiers die to save 10 civilians then they are doing their job.

Cold_Beer was there and he made this post and it tells all about Mr Kerry. Click here!

LOL

[FONT=Impact][FONT=Geneva]FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP![/FONT]

i just wanted to this place sorry!

Hard drive check your pm

Gee it could have been that saddam was supporting terrorism. humm before someone says "he had nothing to do with osama and friends", then why was he paying out $25,000 to the maryters families? if he was supporting them then what else was he doing? Oh do you think that the gov. tells the public everything? i feel safer he is gone. if 1000 soldiers die to save 10 civilians then they are doing their job.


Sorry, I dont think anyone should have to die for this cause. It was brought to our attention that he had weapons of mass destruction when we went over there. I dont remember hearing a damn thing about him supporting terror when the good ol boydecided to rade Iraq. Face It, GW is a lying sack of shit. And so is Kerry.
U cant trust no one anymore.

News Flash! Still no WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.

check your pm hard drive lol

So what is it guys? Is it arms dealing, or terrorism, or human rights, why are we in Iraq? I keep getting conflicting answers from Bush supporters. Not that I'm a Kerry supporter but come on, honestly, has Bush really been all that candid about this situation. I can't seem to get a straight answer about Iraq no matter where I turn. And screw national security because if I was paying the taxes to fund this escapade then I'd want to know why.

I forgt this- Druid I read recently that there we some major diagreements over the interpretation of information concerning the whole uranium bit between U.S. and British Intelligence. Apparently the Brits had some concerns about the reliability of the information. I don't know how that factored into the situation but just thought I'd put it out there.

On the WMD issue there are several possiblities.
1) It was a 100% intel cluster fuck. This is possible due to the fact we have always had problems getting relible intel from arab countires. If it was an intelligince screw up, it wasn't just with the U.S. but 6 other countires.
2) We only mis-guessed the amounts and it's still hidden. This is a possibility because he had plenty of time to hide stuff, not just in the lead up to the war but during the 12 years of routinely stopping the weapon inspectors or simply kicking them out.
3) During the lead up to the war he transffered stuff to Syria

In my opinion the questions of WMD's should be looked at as the most basic of questions.
If Saddam didn't have WMD's, why would he constantly block weapon inspectors.
They quicker he allowed them to verify he was in accordance with the U.N. resolutions, the quicker economic sanctions would of been lifted.
The most logical answer to why is because he was hiding something.