http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0330draft30-ON.html

Have fun.

Draft may Be Needed In A Year Military Analysists Say:

News Flash: they sad that last year. We cant go more then a month without Dop bringing up the draft. I guess it was over due.

Dop didn't bring this up trav ... military analyists are the ones that suggest a draft is coming. But what the heck, they don't know anything.

Dop

your right, most of the time they are just blowing smoke. Probably the same "analysts that said we were going to lose 10 to 15,000 men in the assault on Baghdad

We wouldn't need a draft if more people would get off their butts and volunteer.

Originally posted by Jester
We wouldn't need a draft if more people would get off their butts and volunteer.

There's really no good reason for anyone to enlist, Jester.

What's in it for them? Coming home in a box? Getting 10 years in prison for following orders to torture, beat, rape and murder civilians? A lifetime in the service due to the 'stop-loss' order? Getting blown-up while protecting Halliburton and BIG OIL?

Dop

Originally posted by Jester
We wouldn't need a draft if more people would get off their butts and volunteer.

Fat friggin chance. Let's face it, this "war" isn't and never was properly justified and practically no young people are willing to stake their lives on the importance of this war.

Not to mention Bush has spent sooo much of his time catering to elderly voters that he forgot the importance of appealling to young people in a time when your military is overextended.

Dop,

You know I'm going to differ with you on there no good reason to join the military. There are many. I'll try to sound like a recruiter;

1. Pay - It's not the highest when you first join the military. But then again there are no jobs where you start with high by without having a college degree. The DOD is instituted a linear pay increase thats rewarding those with more time in the service with a greater percentage annual wage.

2. 100% medical and dental coverage while on active duty.

3. Education - If you opt you can elect to enroll in the GI Bill upon enlistment. This is more than enough to pay for most colleges once you separate. And while on active duty you get 100% tuition assistance to take college courses. Many service member earn there degrees while on active duty.

4. Job secutity - Unless you are a screw-up you will not be discharged or be denied retention.

5. Vocational Skills - If you do a job that relates to the outside world military service looks great on a resume.

6. Investment Opportunity - I'm not sure if the Thrist Saving Plan (TSP) was in effect while you were in the service. But its a great supplemental retirement plan for government employees.

7. Retirement - You get half of your highest base pay a month for the rest of you life at you twenty year point. You could join the military at 18 and retire at 38. And you get an addition 2.5% for every year after twenty.

8. Veteran Benefits - Of course some people on this board believe there is not such thing. But I know numerous retired people who have had no problems.

9. Pride - Some people join the military on the principle of serving the country.

Those are just some of the benefits. But there are many sacrifices you have to make also. Anybody that joins the military not expecting to have to possibly put your life on line should not think about enlisting. There's a good chance, no a certainty, you will spend long stretches of time away from you family. The military is a tough and sometime dangerous job with its upside and downside.

So to say that there is no reason to enlist is wrong.

Which branch did you serve in? I'm sure you had some positive experiences.

Originally posted by Leper
Fat friggin chance. Let's face it, this "war" isn't and never was properly justified and practically no young people are willing to stake their lives on the importance of this war.

Not to mention Bush has spent sooo much of his time catering to elderly voters that he forgot the importance of appealling to young people in a time when your military is overextended.


practically no young people are willing to serve their coutnry? LOL, thats like Dop saying if you go to Iraq you will "probably" die. with such broad, sweeping generalizations is there any wonder your side continues to lose ground in every phase of American life except when it comes to killing babies and invalids?

Originally posted by Travh20
practically no young people are willing to serve their coutnry?

I'm not making it up. Check it out for yourself. Go talk to some recruiters, do a little research. Honestly, I'm shocked that you are so out of touch that you're disputing this.

GWR - that was a great post. And, it's nice to have a difference of opinion here once in a while, instead of all of this arguing and bickering!

BUT - Dop, didn't Bush specifically say in one of the debates that "there will be no military draft on my watch"? (or something like that?) That being said, Bush has never admitted to any mistakes on his watch either. :rolleyes:

Leper,

You are correct about the Army and Marines not meeting their monthly recruiting goals. But it's not at a crisis level (yet). The reason why is because the re-enlistment rates have drastically increased. In an effort to intice new recruits the Army has installed an enlistment bonus. I'm not sure, but I think it's $6,000 upon graduation from boot camp. That's may not seem like a lot of money to some people, but to an 18 year old it's a windfall.

I find it ironic that those who have served during the war are re-enlisting in record numbers, but potential new recruits shy away. I blame that on the negative representation of the war by the liberal media.

The Airforce and Navy are meeting their recruiting goals.

First off..... i think the liberals are going a little to the extreme on who is enlisting and who isn't. It's true, this isn't like world war II when EVILLL germany was trying to go take over the world.. and you were a HERO for going to stop them...... But GW rules was right on target... alot of kids get crappy grades in high school, or drop out of high school, or college, and dont want a job flipping burgers. I would say More kids are interested in the military than you think... but it IS helping your agenda to say there aren't any...

And "military analysts" can say all they want to.. i heard from the Horse's mouth, George W, that here will be no draft. If a draft just pops up, you guys won't be the only ones who are a little confused.

Leper, Maybe your "practically no" and my "practically no" differ, but I dont think the drill sergeants down in Benning are sitting on their thumbs looking at empty barracks

GW

There is one HUGE!!!! flaw in all the ruh-ruh-rah, go america rhetoric that usually plays so well to the enlistable crowd ...

Bush has changed all the rules ... like, fer instance, the stop loss rule.

If you enlist today, it is a lifetime comittment. No getting out. You're there for as long as the war on terror lasts and we all know that Cheney, Rummy, McCain et al say that is 15-35 years.

Hardly think anyone is gonna sign up for that shit.

And I rarely mention my service much here anymore. There's simply too much negativity from the ones that didn't serve (for whatever reason).

There's an old military thread you can dig up and get just about everyone's military bio.

Dop

that's wierd becasue I know a guy who ETS'd not to long ago.

And I rarely mention my service much here anymore. There's simply too much negativity from the ones that didn't serve (for whatever reason). Much of the negativity he received was when he bashed our current troops. All in all, Dop is a good guy.

He likes to ROTF a lot, as you probably have witnessed. :)

Originally posted by Travh20
that's wierd becasue I know a guy who ETS'd not to long ago.

I guess ETS'D is army lingo for seperation from active duty -- dunno but for everyone that does ... there are many that will not.

Geeze cricket ... thanks for the compliment :D I don't get many of those. I'll try not to ROTF .. ooops, just did.

Dop

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
There's really no good reason for anyone to enlist, Jester.

What's in it for them?

Why, they'll get to travel to foreign lands, and protect the monetary interests of those Corporations who paid to have our smirking, mentally challenged rancher from Texas (oops, err, I mean -- smirking, mentally challenged dilettante playboy from Conneticut) installed as leader.

Was is NOTHING but a racket.

General Smedley Butler tried to warn the willfuly blind Public about it decades ago.

But, as usual, the vast herd of sheep that makes up America was not listening, having been trained since birth to go stone cold deaf should anyone ever try to speak to them rationally and logically.

hey dude, what if they gave a war and nobody came?

Originally posted by Freethinker
Why, they'll get to travel to foreign lands, and protect the monetary interests of those Corporations who paid to have our smirking, mentally challenged rancher from Texas (oops, err, I mean -- smirking, mentally challenged dilettante playboy from Conneticut) installed as leader.

Was is NOTHING but a racket.

General Smedley Butler tried to warn the willfuly blind Public about it decades ago.

But, as usual, the vast herd of sheep that makes up America was not listening, having been trained since birth to go stone cold deaf should anyone ever try to speak to them rationally and logically.


I like to think I'm fairly intelligent, but sometimes I don't understand your posts.

I prefer the words of General George S Patton to the words of Gneral Smedley Butler

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
GW

There is one HUGE!!!! flaw in all the ruh-ruh-rah, go america rhetoric that usually plays so well to the enlistable crowd ...

Bush has changed all the rules ... like, fer instance, the stop loss rule.

If you enlist today, it is a lifetime comittment. No getting out. You're there for as long as the war on terror lasts and we all know that Cheney, Rummy, McCain et al say that is 15-35 years.

Hardly think anyone is gonna sign up for that shit.

And I rarely mention my service much here anymore. There's simply too much negativity from the ones that didn't serve (for whatever reason).

There's an old military thread you can dig up and get just about everyone's military bio.

Dop

I too am not in favor of the "Stop Loss" policy. However, I do understand the reason for implemenenting it. It keeps the deployed units as an experience cohesive team. But it would piss me off if I had planned on separating and was involuntarily extened.

But it's not an lifetime extension. The most you can be extended in 12 months. But 12 months can seem like a lifetime for a deployed member.

The Army is now offering a $5,000 to $10,000 three year re-enlistment bonus to deployed troops in an effort to have the member voluntarily extend his/her service.

Stop Loss is not a new policy that the current administration dreamed up. Congress first gave stop-loss authority to the military after the Vietnam War, when the Pentagon faced difficulty in replacing departing combat soldiers.

GW, you will learn that history has no bearing on any argument these anti war types make on this board. anything that happens is happenign for the first time. its the first time soldiers have ever complained, its the first time troops have had to make do without the right equipment, its the first time soldiers have had to stay longer then they were told and yada yada yada.

Trav,

I enjoy this. I'm not trying nor do I expect anybody to change their opinions. I like reading the posts, doing a little research, and debating my side of the issue with facts. This board is entertaining in that there are many different views.

Originally posted by GW_Rules
Trav,

I enjoy this. I'm not trying nor do I expect anybody to change their opinions. I like reading the posts, doing a little research, and debating my side of the issue with facts. This board is entertaining in that there are many different views.

Good for you GW, and I for one am glad to have you here. It's nice to have a conservative who enjoys a rational discussion without all the pissing about "liberals" all the time. We have far too many posters on both sides of the political spectrum who just bash the other side rather than make a cohesive argument. I hope you decide to stick around for awhile. :-)

BTW, Thank you for your service, and I thought your post about the benefits of joining the military was very good as well. :)

Originally posted by saycricket
Dop, didn't Bush specifically say in one of the debates that "there will be no military draft on my watch"? (or something like that?)

Given his past record on statements made during the campaign, that would seem to be all the more reason to worry about a draft......

The truth is anathema to Bush and his ilk.

The thing that depresses me about these war in Iraq detractors is that they really don't care about our troops, or civilians casualties or any of that. The heart and soul of what drives those who oppose our war in Iraq is intense hatred of Bush and tireless efforts to find something, ANYTHING, that will bring Bush down.

So the 'net is scoured, and searched, and delved into to find SOMETHING that is going wrong in Iraq, and then it winds up here.

Because of Bush's decision to try to root out terrorists in the Mid East, both Afghanistan and Iraq are free, they've held elections and are now trying to establish their own governments, Lybia has decided that supporting terrorism isn't a good idea after all, the citizens of Lebanon have tired of Syria using their country as a springboard to launch terrorist attacks on Israel and want the Syrians out of their country, Egypt and Saudi Arabia have made some moves toward a more democratic society, the taliban and Al Queda have been smashed flat, most of Bin Laden's top leadership are dead or in jail, Bin Laden himself is in hiding and is ineffective as a leader of terrorists.

I believe, strongly, that other people should be given a chance to enjoy the customs and institutions that have given us here in America the oppurtunity to live in a way that would have been undreamt of before America was established.

I honestly hope that most of America will not want to view the world the way the U.N. does, which is using aid and charity as a way of making money, or the Europeans who don't care what is happening to others in the world, so long as its far away and it won't effect them. Aznar said it best when he accsued Eurpean leaders of buying comfort at the cost of others.

The heart and soul of those who oppose this war in Iraq is simple politics. Get Bush out of Office and who cares what happens to others. That kind of view I will always be a bulwark against.

Dammit.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
The thing that depresses me about these war in Iraq detractors is that they really don't care about our troops, or civilians casualties or any of that.

And your proof that they do not care about our own military personell or the innocent civilians in Iraq would be.......what??

Nothing incontrovertible. Nothing carved in stone.

Just some small bit of evidence backing your claim.

(not holding my breath)

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
So the 'net is scoured, and searched, and delved into to find SOMETHING that is going wrong in Iraq

But gosh...it's just SO difficult to find anything that hasn't gone well over there.

(/sarcasm)

Well gee freethinker,

With websites like moveon.org, counterpunch.something, democratunderground and tvnewslies as well as the mainstream press (left leaning or out and out liberal institutions) all doing their best to oust Bush out of Office as well as pumping out the bad news on Iraq on a daily basis (which you, freethinker, are all to willing to post here) it really isn't very hard for me to figure out what's motivating the Left. Or to look very hard for bad news on the War on Terror. Hell, freethinker, I've never seen you post anything on Iraq that didn't put Bush in a bad light. In your own mental checklist, FIRST a post must make Bush and America's effort look bad, THEN it can be posted. And as I recall, I've never seen you post anything that would even imply that you hope Iraqis or Afghanis will have a brighter future, or any happiness over events in Lebanon, why is that? I can tell you, it would make Bush look good, and you'll jump out of a fifth story window before you ever even DREAM of posting such a thing. It's the exact same thing with the Democrats in general and the hard core "progressives" in particular.

David Horowitz did claim the various muslim, communist and anti-globalization zealots were behind the "peace rallies" we saw in the U.S. and around the world. But its somewhat hard to find out who is funding what. I've tried.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Well gee freethinker,

With websites like moveon.org, counterpunch.something, democratunderground and tvnewslies as well as the mainstream press (left leaning or out and out liberal institutions) all doing their best to oust Bush out of Office as well as pumping out the bad news on Iraq on a daily basis (which you, freethinker, are all to willing to post here) it really isn't very hard for me to figure out what's motivating the Left.

But the reports they deliver are FACTUAL. The one fundamental concept that the Rightwing personality sannot seem to grasp is that telling the TRUTH about people, or politicians or their actions is not "bashing" that person.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Or to look very hard for bad news on the War on Terror.

True...the bad news from that region and that conflict is so prevalent that it is NO trouble finding it. The whole campaign is a gigantic fuck up....an EXPENSIVE, deadly fuck up.

An EXPENSIVE, deadly, UNNECESSARY fuck up.



Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Hell, freethinker, I've never seen you post anything on Iraq that didn't put Bush in a bad light.

I'll make you a deal. IF I ever run across anything in an objective, unbiased Media report that demonstrates that Bush did something good in Iraq, i will post it here.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
And as I recall, I've never seen you post anything that would even imply that you hope Iraqis or Afghanis will have a brighter future, or any happiness over events in Lebanon, why is that?

I do not see them having that **brighter future** UNLESS this country continues to spend hundreds of billions of taxdollars being the security police over there. An impossible situation to attempt to keep in place----UNLESS of course the political leadership in the US were intent [which it IS!] on guaranteeing that war profiteers like Halliburton and Bechtel continue to reap mega-billions in profits.


Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
I can tell you, it would make Bush look good, and you'll jump out of a fifth story window before you ever even DREAM of posting such a thing.

Heck, if YOU know of something [rotfl] that ""makes Bush look good"", feel free to post it. I am anxious to examine it.


Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
David Horowitz did claim the various muslim, communist and anti-globalization zealots were behind the "peace rallies" we saw in the U.S.

Yes, that IS what he alledged.

And, as usual, subsequent events have revealed Horowitz to have been wrong.

Whcih is a nice way of saying --"Horowitz is a despicable, self-serving, LYING piece of shit".

Originally posted by saycricket

BUT - Dop, didn't Bush specifically say in one of the debates that "there will be no military draft on my watch"? (or something like that?) That being said, Bush has never admitted to any mistakes on his watch either. :rolleyes:

This is all the more reason to know a draft is coming. Bush has lied about every platform issue so far ... bar none... this one will be no different.

Dop

1. Pay - even if you dont agree with murdering unarmed civilians money is a great motivator.

2. 100% medical and dental coverage while on active duty. Medical coverage is great. You also get free funerals.

3. Education - If you opt you can elect to enroll in the GI Bill upon enlistment. however you have to pay $100 dollars per month to be eligable. Two-thirds of recruits don't get any college money, according to the Central Committee for Conscientious Objectors.Most soilders do not end up graduating while serving and even fewer go to college after serving.

4. Job secutity - Assuming you dont get shot or severly tramatized.

5. Vocational Skills - The unemployment rate for veterans is three times higher than the national average.

6. Investment Opportunity - War is good for business. Invest your child today.

7. Retirement - Again assuming you dont get shot. This comes with almost every single job you will ever hold if you have it long enough.

8. Veteran Benefits - Veterans benefits have been facing increasing cuts as of late. VA hospitals have been having to hold bake sales to raise money (honestly, I saw it)

9. Pride - Some people join the military on the principle of serving the country. However when the military isnt serving the interest of the country but that of a small radical minority in power it makes it mush harder to justify enlisting.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

When this draft comes along will the Bushites admit that they were wrong about virtually every single aspect of this war?

500,

The unemployment rate among veterens is 4.5% compared to 5.9% of nonveterens. So it's not three time higher, it's lower.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/vet_07272004.pdf#search='veteran%20jobless%20rate'

These are the official statistics per The Department of Labor as of August 2003. The numbers are posted every July, with these being released July of 2004. So these are the latest factual statistics.

dont confuse him with actual facts GW, it will shatter his carefully crafted fantasy world

Freethinker,

My quote:

Because of Bush's decision to try to root out terrorists in the Mid East, both Afghanistan and Iraq are free, they've held elections and are now trying to establish their own governments, Lybia has decided that supporting terrorism isn't a good idea after all, the citizens of Lebanon have tired of Syria using their country as a springboard to launch terrorist attacks on Israel and want the Syrians out of their country, Egypt and Saudi Arabia have made some moves toward a more democratic society, the taliban and Al Queda have been smashed flat, most of Bin Laden's top leadership are dead or in jail, Bin Laden himself is in hiding and is ineffective as a leader of terrorists.

You see, I posted the GOOD that is happening in Iraq and you ignored it. It has been the way of the Left since Bush got into office, ignore the good news, push the bad new. As for organizations like counterpunch.org and others, which you claim post truth :rolleyes: ,even if they did, at best such organizations post only half the stories coming out of Iraq, the bad half,

As for the idea that Iraq not having a brighter future unless the U.S. stays there to provide security, do you not forget that the U.S. has been doing just that in Germany and South Korea for better than fifty years now. Your argument is a thin one, there was also the claim that America encountered a quagmire in the War in Iraq, a whole five days into the war, PLUS there was the claim the Muslims really don't want Democracy and the opposite has been proved true. Men and women in Iraq have risked their lives to try and vote themselves a better future, and as usual, you just won't see it.

The primary goal of the Left, is to oust Bush, and therefore good news isn't welcome, dammit.

GO IRAQ! WHOOOO!

i could go to some extreme right-leaning conservative web-site and yea, they post the "truth" too... funny how BOTH SIDES of an issue tell the "truth"....

lol

That's the art of making an argument. Use the truth to your full advantage. Two people could have exactly opposite arguments using the same truth, just with the correct manipulation.

Originally posted by GW_Rules
500,

The unemployment rate among veterens is 4.5% compared to 5.9% of nonveterens. So it's not three time higher, it's lower.



What's the unemployment rate for the 1500 dead troops?

Dop

Darth

The thing that depresses me about these war in Iraq detractors is that they really don't care about our troops, or civilians casualties or any of that. The heart and soul of what drives those who oppose our war in Iraq is intense hatred of Bush and tireless efforts to find something, ANYTHING, that will bring Bush down.
You seem to always say that we only want to get Bush out of office. When in reality the reason we want him out, is because of issues like the Iraq war. We oppose the war, and thus want him out of office.

Because of Bush's decision to try to root out terrorists in the Mid East, both Afghanistan and Iraq are free
Free? Personally, how can you be free when you live in a country that has terrorism everywhere, chaos all around, and killing occuring daily?

they've held elections and are now trying to establish their own governments
Didn't we choose some of the people that ran for office? Aren't we establishing their government? We are making them have a Democracy. Also, they didn't know who they were voting for. They were told the choices of people to elect a few days before the election. No one was given any infomation regarding who they were voting for. Making both elections laughable, and pointless.

Egypt and Saudi Arabia have made some moves toward a more democratic society
Saudi Arabia has? That's laughable. Didn't they help and support 11 terrorists that attacked us on 9/11? Why didn't we attack that country first?

the taliban and Al Queda have been smashed flat
Lie. LIE. Al Queda has not been "smashed flat" If you actually look at the Pentagon report, it shows that we are actually increasing the people who join Al Queda because of how we've run this war. The 2004 Terrorist Report shows that attacks have increased all around the world (they did no count Iraq) Proving that they are growing. Stop lying to yourself.

most of Bin Laden's top leadership are dead or in jail
And people have taken their places.

I believe, strongly, that other people should be given a chance to enjoy the customs and institutions that have given us here in America the oppurtunity to live in a way that would have been undreamt of before America was established.
We have no right to tell others how to live their lives. We cannot go around the world telling people "how they should live" just because we find our way of life better then theirs. The Europeans went to Africa and forced them to live their lifestyle because they found theirs better then the people living in Africa. That was called imperalism. I'm glad you support that kind of idea.

But if you truly thought this, why didn't we go to other countries who needed it far more then Iraq? Maybe because this isn't the real reason Bush and the Republicans wanted to go to war. The reason they gave was because of WMD's. That is false. Please, get that in your head.

Originally posted by Overdose
Didn't we choose some of the people that ran for office? Aren't we establishing their government? We are making them have a Democracy. Also, they didn't know who they were voting for. They were told the choices of people to elect a few days before the election. No one was given any infomation regarding who they were voting for. Making both elections laughable, and pointless.

Laughable and pointless? I think not. They weren't the truest expression of democracy, but they weren't laughable and pointless. Otherwise no one would have bothered showing up.

Originally posted by Overdose
Saudi Arabia has? That's laughable. Didn't they help and support 11 terrorists that attacked us on 9/11?

He didn't say they were major moves, he said they were moves. Progess of any sort would have to be considered good, wouldn't it?

Saudi Arabian municiple elections (http://www.jsonline.com/news/editorials/apr05/314646.asp)

Originally posted by Overdose
Why didn't we attack that country first?

Surely you're not suggesting that each of the countries known for sponsoring terrorism are exactly the same and should be treated exactly the same?

Laughable and pointless? I think not. They weren't the truest expression of democracy, but they weren't laughable and pointless. Otherwise no one would have bothered showing up.
They are pointless in the eyes of making a true democracy. In a democracy the people choose who they want to run for office, and then the people choose who they want to vote for. Did they choose who they wanted to run? No, the people didn't. Did they know anything about who they were voting for? No, they didn't. How is that democracy at all? And we are forcing them to have a democracy. That seems bitterly wrong. We are not allowed to force other countries and people to live a lifestlye we find better then everyone elses. A democracy is a government for the people, by the people. Did the Iraqis start the democracy in their country? No. Did they choose who they wanted to run their democracy? No. I don't see how we are really making democracy known in the middle east. And what has happened since they voted? Nothing. That's laughable.

He didn't say they were major moves, he said they were moves. Progess of any sort would have to be considered good, wouldn't it?
Progess? Terrorism has increased, and we are running the war incorrectly. Just because the Saudis decided to change a little, means nothing in the big picture of things. They are only doing this because they are scared of us, for we are in the middle east right next door. Once we leave, things will only go back to the way they were.

Surely you're not suggesting that each of the countries known for sponsoring terrorism are exactly the same and should be treated exactly the same?
Dosen't it seem more reasonable to attack the countries that are a much larger risk? I would say many, many nations were a much larger risk to our security, then say Iraq. The 9/11 Panel agrees with me.

It just HAD to be Arizona that posted the news. GAH...

Hey, could it be possible that maybe (as in if I sound stupid or if this is wrong don't go all "you idot." "That can't Happen" yadayadayada on me ok?) if Bushie DID reinstate the draft, the american liberals could overthrow him or something?

Sure, the White House or wherever he goes is secured, but hey, it's possible.

Originally posted by Overdose
And we are forcing them to have a democracy. That seems bitterly wrong. We are not allowed to force other countries and people to live a lifestlye we find better then everyone elses. A democracy is a government for the people, by the people. Did the Iraqis start the democracy in their country? No. Did they choose who they wanted to run their democracy? No.

Just like Saddam was forcing his will upon all the citizens. And you make it sound like the greater part of iraq doesnt want us there... which is not the case.
Originally posted by Overdose

I don't see how we are really making democracy known in the middle east. And what has happened since they voted? Nothing. That's laughable.


id rather have nothing happen than bad stuff happen. I would compare our involvement with Iraq right now as training wheels on a bike. We are walking them through the process the first time... and then they can do it on their own. Im sure they will start to elect people in and such, and not have people selected... speaking of which... who did select the iraqi nominees?

Just like Saddam was forcing his will upon all the citizens.
Yes, and? So we can go over to Iraq and act just like Saddam? Yes, perfect plan...

And you make it sound like the greater part of iraq doesnt want us there... which is not the case.
Err, I'm sure all the people with their families half gone, children dead, and parents killed, truly want us there.

We are walking them through the process the first time...
We are forcing them to have a system of Government we find better then all other Governments. That is imperalism. We have no right to be an imperalist nation.

speaking of which... who did select the iraqi nominees?
The leaders of each party did, not the people of Iraq.

What's the unemployment rate for the 1500 dead troops? Dont forget the 20,000 crippled and braindead troops.

The unemployment rate among veterens is 4.5% compared to 5.9% of nonveterens. I said recruits, not veterans. Please read more carefully.

Besides that you left off the rest of the stats:
"
Veterans who had been recently discharged from the Armed Forces had a jobless rate of 6.9 percent. Nine percent of all veterans had a service-connected disability."
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/vet.nr0.htm

Gee I wonder what that 9% disability would jump to if tehy included 'Gulf War Syndrome' which the government claims doesn't exist. Lets hope you don't catch something that doesn't exist GW....

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Overdose
[b]Darth

You seem to always say that we only want to get Bush out of office. When in reality the reason we want him out, is because of issues like the Iraq war. We oppose the war, and thus want him out of office.

Who is the "we" that want Bush out of office. The "we" must by the minority since Bush won both the popular and electoral. Which means, the majority of Americans which cared enough to vote say Bush is the man for the job. I suggest the Democrats (or any other party) but a stronger candidate than Kerry up in 2008.

Saudi Arabia has? That's laughable. Didn't they help and support 11 terrorists that attacked us on 9/11? Why didn't we attack that country first?

So it's OK to attack some countries and not others? And Saudi Arabia is taking steps towards a better democracy. See the link; http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/050224/2005022410.html

Lie. LIE. Al Queda has not been "smashed flat" If you actually look at the Pentagon report, it shows that we are actually increasing the people who join Al Queda because of how we've run this war. The 2004 Terrorist Report shows that attacks have increased all around the world (they did no count Iraq) Proving that they are growing. Stop lying to yourself.

I agree with you. Al Queda has not been smashed flat. They are still a real threat. But the fight that Clinton ignored is still young and much progress has been made.

Free? Personally, how can you be free when you live in a country that has terrorism everywhere, chaos all around, and killing occuring daily?

Very true statement, there is chaos in both countries, more so in Iraq. But the Iraq defense and police force are becoming better, and better at stopping the attacks. The violence will subside in time.

Who is the "we" that want Bush out of office. The "we" must by the minority since Bush won both the popular and electoral. Which means, the majority of Americans which cared enough to vote say Bush is the man for the job. I suggest the Democrats (or any other party) but a stronger candidate than Kerry up in 2008.
The approval rating of the war is under 50%. Yes, the majority thought Bush was an overall better person to pick for President, when they took all the issues and put them together. But if you are just talking about the Iraq War, most Americans oppose it or don't support how Bush is running it. And even if you did go by "how people voted" John Kerry still got 49% of the vote, which is close to 50%. That means, that America is basically split. Half and half. So, what's your point? Yes, the "we" is about half of America and most of the world.

So it's OK to attack some countries and not others? And Saudi Arabia is taking steps towards a better democracy.
First, we should have attacked the countries that were a larger threat to our security. Saudi Arabia supported 11 terrorists that attacked us on 9/11, Iraq had no connection to 9/11. Who is a larger threat? Well, common sense would say Saudi Arabia. Also, the fact is, why couldn't we have given Iraq the chance to take steps away from terrorism? Why did we give one country the chance, but not the other? Seems pretty unfair to me.

I agree with you. Al Queda has not been smashed flat. They are still a real threat. But the fight that Clinton ignored is still young and much progress has been made.
Wait, Clinton did do a lot against terrorism...I have posted a thread about it, but since you haven't been around here long enough you missed it. Oh well. The fact is, the 2004 World Terrorist Report showed a 20 year increase in terrorism. I dont think Clinton was around for 20 years...and it proves Bush has made it WORSE then what it was.

Who is the "we" that want Bush out of office. The "we" must by the minority since Bush won both the popular and electoral. We as in the rest of the world. "you" are a minority. Funny you wouldnt have bragged about the popular and elcetoral in 2000. Besides that this election was wrought with all of the exact same vote rigging that happened in 2000. Over 30% of the vote is completely unverfiable becuase the pro-bush coporation who made them didn't want anything to be verifiable (unlike their cash registers and ATMS whihc always give a recipt) Kerry was a joke.

So... Which rich, white, male, zionist, pro-war, pro-NAFTA, Vietnam dodging, yale graduate, skull and bones member did you vote for? Funny how both parties created a 32 page debate agreement about which issues they would collude to obfuscate at the expense of the average American.


So it's OK to attack some countries and not others? No he's not saying to attack them. Hes saying that if this was because of 9-11 Arbia was far more culpable. Besides that they are just as dictorially brutal if not worse than Iraq. Lucky for them they have friends in Washington...the same friends that attacked Iraq.

I agree with you. Al Queda has not been smashed flat. They are still a real threat. But the fight that Clinton ignored is still young and much progress has been made. Way to ignore the fact that the Iraq war has increased the number of terrorists in the world. Not to defnd clinton but the truth...Clinton had terrorism as a priority and was paying attention. Bush ignored a memo saying Osama was going to fly planes into buildings because he was going on vacation (40% of the presidency).

Very true statement, there is chaos in both countries, more so in Iraq. But the Iraq defense and police force are becoming better, and better at stopping the attacks. The violence will subside in time.
Oh you mean the violence that you perpetuate on a daily basis. Way to try and dodge the blame murderer.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by 500lbguerilla

I said recruits, not veterans. Please read more carefully.

No, you said veterans. Here's the quote from you previous Post
5. Vocational Skills - The unemployment rate for veterans is three times higher than the national average.

And I simply rebuffed your statement. No I did not post all the stats, but I did post the source with all the information for people to read. I hate it when people make claims with no documentation, so I always try to.

Whoops sorry.

However...

Besides that you left off the rest of the stats: " Veterans who had been recently discharged from the Armed Forces had a jobless rate of 6.9 percent. Nine percent of all veterans had a service-connected disability." http://www.bls.gov/news.release/vet.nr0.htm

Originally posted by Overdose

They are pointless in the eyes of making a true democracy. In a democracy the people choose who they want to run for office, and then the people choose who they want to vote for. Did they choose who they wanted to run? No, the people didn't. Did they know anything about who they were voting for? No, they didn't. How is that democracy at all?

As I said, it's not the truest expression of democracy, but being able to choose is a major, not minor, step in the right direction. I would suggest that it's pretty hard to pull off absolute democracy on the first try based on what existed previously.

Originally posted by Overdose
And we are forcing them to have a democracy. That seems bitterly wrong. We are not allowed to force other countries and people to live a lifestlye we find better then everyone elses.

There is absolutely no indication from any source that would show that they want anything other than a democracy.

Originally posted by Overdose
Progess? Terrorism has increased, and we are running the war incorrectly. Just because the Saudis decided to change a little, means nothing in the big picture of things. They are only doing this because they are scared of us, for we are in the middle east right next door. Once we leave, things will only go back to the way they were.

So them allowing minor municipal elections is bad? Anything short of a complete elimination of their current government is unacceptable? You have to start somewhere. I'm not sure what terrorism increasing in Iraq has to do with Saudi and Egyptian elections.

Originally posted by Overdose
Dosen't it seem more reasonable to attack the countries that are a much larger risk? I would say many, many nations were a much larger risk to our security, then say Iraq. The 9/11 Panel agrees with me.

It makes sense to deal with countries that are a much larger risk. I don't see how it follows that an invasion is necessarily the answer. There were lots of terrorists hanging out in Germany, but no one would suggest (besides maybe Wolfowitz ;) ) that an invasion of Germany would be justified. I think, for instance, one would take a different approach with Saudi Arabia, which is a country friendly to the U.S. and not aggressive towards other countries, but whose system unintentionally breeds terrorists like crazy, than the approach you would take with Iran, which has state-sponsored terrorism and is unfriendly to the U.S.

As I said, it's not the truest expression of democracy, but being able to choose is a major, not minor, step in the right direction. I would suggest that it's pretty hard to pull off absolute democracy on the first try based on what existed previously.
Democracy is for the people, by the people. I saw almost none of that in the last election. Again, we are not allowed to tell others how to live their lives. Do you honestly support us becoming just like the European Imperalists were when they invaded Africa? We have no right to force a group of people to live a lifestyle we find better then all else.

There is absolutely no indication from any source that would show that they want anything other than a democracy.
Actually, do you know about Arabic religion? Islamic Fundies are all over Iraq. They don't want it, and most Arabs don't support any form of Democracy. Why do you think so many Iraiqs are fighting us?

So them allowing minor municipal elections is bad? Anything short of a complete elimination of their current government is unacceptable?
It's not our right to go around the world telling people what Governments should and shouldn't exist. The United States is not the King of the world, we don't get the right to tell others how to live.

It makes sense to deal with countries that are a much larger risk.
Then why didn't we do this?

I think, for instance, one would take a different approach with Saudi Arabia, which is a country friendly to the U.S. and not aggressive towards other countries
Well, the only time Iraq was really aggressive towards other countries was when we supported them attacking Iran. Also, the fact is, when they attacked Isreal it was because they broke UN resolutions and invaded the West Bank. Just because he is aggressive, that does not mean we get the right to attack his country. Many other nations had larger ties to terrorism, and actually had weapons. Iraq didn't. I don't see why we picked Iraq over all else.

Here's what you're in for if you join the military or get drafted.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002232453_stoploss06.html

They want to extend this guys enlistment to 2032?? WTF?? that's another 26 years.

Well, the only time Iraq was really aggressive towards other countries was when we supported them attacking Iran. Also, the fact is, when they attacked Isreal it was because they broke UN resolutions and invaded the West Bank. Just because he is aggressive, that does not mean we get the right to attack his country. Many other nations had larger ties to terrorism, and actually had weapons. Iraq didn't. I don't see why we picked Iraq over all else.

Okay, I just couldn't this propaganda-driven nonsense slide.

I know you were like 3 years old when the Gulf War happened, but I think most people with any developed cognitive ability at that time considered Iraq's invasion of Kuwait "really aggressive."

As for attacking Isreal, you have to specify which time Iraq non-aggressively attacked Isreal. Was it when Iraq was lobbing scud missiles into Isreali metropolitan areas even though Isreal had not attacked Iraq and Iraq was being attacked by 50+ other countries? Was it when Iraq offered multi-thousand dollar (American dollars) rewards to the Palestinian families of suicide bombers? Or was it when Iraq invaded Isreal as soon as the state of Isreal formed?

Either way, UN resolutions against Isreal are largely ignored since half of the UN is run by anti-semites. Besides, if the any territory, such as the West Bank, were sending daily terrorist attacks into the U.S., we would be invading them too, regardless of UN resolutions.

And finally, the reason Iraq is top priority is due to the large amount of oil within its territory. That makes Iraq in a stategically critical position, particularly in regard to our oil-dependant nation.

Originally posted by Overdose
Yes, and? So we can go over to Iraq and act just like Saddam? Yes, perfect plan...


No... i dont buy the story that you tell, that Saddam and the United States are doing the same thing. We are trying to give the power BACK to the people, we are giving them more freedoms. Its like somebody giving me 1000 dollars a week, and my saying they are FORCING it on me..... tell me ONE thing that is worse for the iraqi people under a democracy rather than under Saddam's tyranny?
Originally posted by Overdose

Err, I'm sure all the people with their families half gone, children dead, and parents killed, truly want us there.


I dont think people are that shallow, i think most see America as trying to help, which is what we are doing. If anything, they wouldn't want their loved ones to die in vein... and would want a democracy set up. I dont think that if loved ones were killed by terrorists or wars with terrorists, it would cause these families to hate the united states..... lets hope they see the bigger picture. Its pretty much fact that they didnt want to stay with Saddam's lead.... so like i say billions of times..... you have to break an egg to make an omelet.
Originally posted by Overdose

We are forcing them to have a system of Government we find better then all other Governments. That is imperalism. We have no right to be an imperalist nation.


Its not forcing them if they want us there.... i want to hear what is so bad about democracy compared to what they had before?
Originally posted by Overdose

The leaders of each party did, not the people of Iraq.

well, thats better than a hand-picked selection by Saddam.... wouldnt you agree? Just think, next election they can probably start electing people in, instead of leaders from the parties. Why do you think that its a one step process to go into a democracy? You cant lose 50 pounds in a week, just like you cant go into a full-blown democracy overnight.

My opinion is you see things in black and white.... you dont appreciate progress...just the end result. Is there a FULL BLOWN democracy in Iraq right now? no.... but that doesnt make it a failure like you see it..... i see it as taking steps. It's not like it was, Saddam isnt ruling everyone. Why cant you see it that way... in a positive light? Dont be so negative all the time sheeeesh

I know you were like 3 years old when the Gulf War happened, but I think most people with any developed cognitive ability at that time considered Iraq's invasion of Kuwait "really aggressive."
Well considering we basically gave them a green light to invade I'd say the US shares some of the blame. Especially given the fact that Saddam was "our guy." The guy the US government helped put into power and who they had protected was now saying he was thinking about invading Kuwait and the US response?

On July 25 1990, Ambassador Glaspie stated: "the U.S. has no position concerning Iraq's border dispute with Kuwait and James Baker has directed me to emphasise the instruction that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America."

Before that meeting, U.S. State Department Spokesperson Margaret Tutweiler said "We do not have any defence treaties with Kuwait". On July 30, John Kelly told the House of Foreign Affairs committee: "The U.S. has no intention to come to the aid of Kuwait if it is attacked by Iraq." Two days later Iraq took them at their word and invaded. The issue is not whether Iraq was right or wrong but rather America's duplicity.
Okay, I just couldn't this propaganda-driven nonsense slide.

Either way, UN resolutions against Isreal are largely ignored since half of the UN is run by anti-semites.
So lemmie get his straight. You are saying its OK to engage in terrorism and occupation and to have racist laws so long as 'anti-semites' exist in the world?

Besides, if the any territory, such as the West Bank, were sending daily terrorist attacks into the U.S., we would be invading them too, regardless of UN resolutions. Did it ever occur to you that the systematic terrorism and occupation (not to mention the racist laws again) by Israel over the palistinians peoples in their own land might be was prompting the terrorism by individuals? The thing about this is that the terrorist attacks against Israel are perpetrated by radical individuals and groups. The terrorist attacks against Palistinians are the modis opperandi for an entire country driven by US taxpayers dollars. The terrorism against the palistinians is also driven by extremeist individuals however those individuals are in power where as the moderates are the ones in power on the palistinian side.

the reason Iraq is top priority is due to the large amount of oil within its territory. That makes Iraq in a stategically critical position, particularly in regard to our oil-dependant nation. At least you admit the US is nothing more than a bunch of petty theives with shiney equipment and propaganda.

Dop- that article is good. It proves that the government will fuck our troops silly if it fulfills their ambitous and illegal desires. I especially like this quote:

"If the government can break its promises to young men and women like Santiago, then the bedrock of our all-volunteer army — trust in the government's promises — will crumble." And by definition is slavery. But then again the 14 amendment regulated government control of slavery, it didnt abolish it.

hold up

Decka--

No... i dont buy the story that you tell
That's too bad.

that Saddam and the United States are doing the same thing.
Well, Saddam was forcing them to live in a world he wanted. The United States is forcing the Iraqis to live in a world we want for them.

We are trying to give the power BACK to the people
Err, you personally think every Government should be run by the people. Many Islamic Fundies don't agree, and many Arabs don't. Why do we have to right to say our way of Government is better? Why do we have the right to force people how to live? Who gave us this right? And, don't you think that since this is a war on terrorism, we shouldn't be forcing others how to live? The terrorists hate us, and our way of life. And forcing others to live our lifestyle will only make more people hate us. If they can start to show the Arab World that we are going to try and convert them, then they will gain support like they have been doing already. This isn't about freeing people, this is about making our country more secure. We are not doing that. The terrorists now can show the world that we are the "evil" Americans because we are forcing them into OUR way of Government and lifestyle.

we are giving them more freedoms.
Why should WE give them freedoms? If they truly wanted freedom they would have gotten it on their own, without our help. And how have these freedoms helped them? They live in a terrorist infested nation, chaos is high and not going down...how are things better?

which is what we are doing.
Making their country more terrorist infested, and creating tons of death is helping them?

I dont think that if loved ones were killed by terrorists or wars with terrorists, it would cause these families to hate the united states
Because of us the terrorists are in Iraq. Because of our planes, and bombs, we are killing their people. Because of us taking our war to their nation, they now have to suffer tons of death.

Its pretty much fact that they didnt want to stay with Saddam's lead....
Why didn't they revolt? And why are there so many Iraqis fighting us?

Its not forcing them if they want us there.... i want to hear what is so bad about democracy compared to what they had before?
We don't have the right to tell others how to live. It's just not morally okay to tell other people, who have different morals, that our way of Government is the best way to live.

well, thats better than a hand-picked selection by Saddam.... wouldnt you agree?
Maybe, but even if it is...isn't this a war on terrorism? Aren't we supposed to be putting our country first, not Iraq?

Just think, next election they can probably start electing people in, instead of leaders from the parties.
Oh, I can't wait. haha

You cant lose 50 pounds in a week, just like you cant go into a full-blown democracy overnight.
Oh, but you take steps in those months to lose the 50 pounds. You lose a few every week. Then you lose 50. But you see, in Iraq there are more terrorists, terrorism has risen, and they are growing in huge numbers. So, we are actually "putting on more weight" then "taking it off".

Why cant you see it that way... in a positive light? Dont be so negative all the time sheeeesh
Their country is in ruins. It's a battleground. It's a war zone. There is no Democracy "blooming"

And as a result of our great effort to "free Iraq from itself" we now are paying billions of tax dollars to rebuild their infrastructure. Our schools are crumbling and we are building them schools. Our elderly are having to choose between medicine and rent while we are building them hospitals and clinics. Our highways and bridges are falling apart while we are building them new roads. Children in our country are going to bed hungary while we pass out food to the Iraqi's. Whatever happened to putting America first? Making this country better? Oh yes, I forgot. The large corporations that are getting the government bids to rebuild Iraq can't make as much money helping Americans. And come on, we just don't have the access to oil here in the states that Iraqi does. And then there is those damned WMD. Where the hell are they anyway?

Originally posted by Overdose
That's too bad.

Too bad for whom?
Originally posted by Overdose

Well, Saddam was forcing them to live in a world he wanted. The United States is forcing the Iraqis to live in a world we want for them.

LOL.... dont you see the lack of logic here? If you want to say we are "forcing"... yea we are "forcing" them to not be able to be "forced" to do things anymore. If they want to go back to the way it used to be, and they vote to have Saddam be in power.... more power to them! But at least the people decided... which is the safest way to do it IMO. Somehow, i doubt they would vote ANYTHING close to what iraq used to be....
Originally posted by Overdose

Err, you personally think every Government should be run by the people. Many Islamic Fundies don't agree, and many Arabs don't.

oh.... sorry for the 20% minority that don't agree.... so we should keep it that way to not crush the minority? what ever happened to the majority????

Originally posted by Overdose

Why do we have to right to say our way of Government is better?

well, its pretty obvious that ANY form of gov't is better than when Saddam was ruling..... if England wanted to go into Iraq, spend all the time to get saddam out, and then set up a parliament.... id say they would be right to do so.....
Originally posted by Overdose

Why do we have the right to force people how to live?

Oh, sorry that we "ripped" them away from being ruled in tyranny by Saddam.... LOL
Originally posted by Overdose

Who gave us this right?

What good would it do to take saddam out and just leave, so all the terrorists can take over by intimidation all over again? We owe it to the people of iraq to set up a system where it isn't ruled by tyrants, and terrorist ones at that.
Originally posted by Overdose

And, don't you think that since this is a war on terrorism, we shouldn't be forcing others how to live? The terrorists hate us, and our way of life. And forcing others to live our lifestyle will only make more people hate us.

now you are assuming that all arabs are terrorists....which isnt true. Only a SMALL SMALL minority are terrorists... and we dont want them in the democracy, we want them to get out because they keep killing our soldiers and other people.
Originally posted by Overdose

If they can start to show the Arab World that we are going to try and convert them, then they will gain support like they have been doing already.

Yea, they probably will get other wack jobs to come and try to kill people who are trying to help them..... a wack job is a wack job i guess.
Originally posted by Overdose

This isn't about freeing people, this is about making our country more secure. We are not doing that. The terrorists now can show the world that we are the "evil" Americans because we are forcing them into OUR way of Government and lifestyle.

Iraq can vote what they want... we are just giving them a way to choose and to not be forced to do things without any say. It amazes me how much you would rather see people get bullied around by Saddam than get "forced" into a democratic system LOL.
Originally posted by Overdose

Why should WE give them freedoms? If they truly wanted freedom they would have gotten it on their own, without our help.

So they would use their pick-axe's and overtake Saddam's palace guards with uzi's? oooo do tell how that one would work!
Originally posted by Overdose

And how have these freedoms helped them? They live in a terrorist infested nation, chaos is high and not going down...how are things better?

Well.... look how many people went to vote.... look at how many people want us there..... But you never hear about that, because journalists are only interested in the 3 soldiers killed by terrorists every day... but its not the terrorists fault... its our fault.... in some twisted, distorted liberal way. The terrorists killed our troops.. but its our fault because they died.... thats some F'd up logic.

And give me a chart on "chaos" and how high it is? LOL

And once a democracy is established and iraq can defend itself.... and we put pressure on iran and syria.... expect terrorism to go down.....
Originally posted by Overdose

Making their country more terrorist infested, and creating tons of death is helping them?

tons of death that pretty much already existed.... funny how you never cared about it then.
Originally posted by Overdose

Because of us the terrorists are in Iraq. Because of our planes, and bombs, we are killing their people. Because of us taking our war to their nation, they now have to suffer tons of death.

terrorists were already in iraq genius.... thats why we went there. yea.... we are killing terrorists with our planes and bombs... how are we supposed to combat them? I dont like innocent people dying.... but if you have another way of killing terrorists id love to hear it. The terrorists are a problem for the entire planet.... so i would say we have a right to try to stop them.... they DID attack us... remember?
Originally posted by Overdose

Why didn't they revolt? And why are there so many Iraqis fighting us?

so many? There aren't that many fighting us... just a few regimes... most of iraq is with us LOL.... but you dont want to know that..... you like the idea of the u.s. being in the wrong.

And they didnt revolt because Saddam ruled by intimidation... if anyone even tried it they would get killed, along with their whole F'ing family.....
Originally posted by Overdose

We don't have the right to tell others how to live. It's just not morally okay to tell other people, who have different morals, that our way of Government is the best way to live.

I would feel worse about watching them get ruled by intimidation than not step in and help. Its like walking past a bully beating up a little kid. You are saying we should just walk past and not do anything.... who are we to "force" the kid to not be afriad of the bully? LOL
Originally posted by Overdose

Maybe, but even if it is...isn't this a war on terrorism? Aren't we supposed to be putting our country first, not Iraq?

I sure hope not... we have the best living standards in the world.....
Originally posted by Overdose

Oh, I can't wait. haha

yea... hahahaha funny!!! really funny stuff isnt it?
Originally posted by Overdose

Oh, but you take steps in those months to lose the 50 pounds. You lose a few every week. Then you lose 50. But you see, in Iraq there are more terrorists, terrorism has risen, and they are growing in huge numbers. So, we are actually "putting on more weight" then "taking it off".

can i get a source for your claim of terrorists "growing in huge numbers"? Or is that just you trying to make vague statements to fit your agenda?
Originally posted by Overdose

Their country is in ruins. It's a battleground. It's a war zone. There is no Democracy "blooming"

LOL... wow i would hate to be you

Decka,

After reading your post, I've come to see myself as a Spock of sorts, attempting to be logical all the time and giving every single little question serious weight, which stalls some of my arguments.

You are more like Captain Kirk in your rebuttals, more down to Earth and shoot from the hip.

You did a good job rebutting overdose, keep up the good work, dammit.

Too bad for whom?
You.

LOL.... dont you see the lack of logic here?
No.

If you want to say we are "forcing"... yea we are "forcing" them to not be able to be "forced" to do things anymore.
Wrong. Decka, many people in Iraq are highly religious and don't think women should vote, or that they should have a religiously free Government. Our morals are different, but those in Iraq, because of the way they were culturally brought up, are different. Who are we to impose our morals on them? Just because we find this wrong, does not mean we have the right to launch war against them.

If they want to go back to the way it used to be, and they vote to have Saddam be in power.... more power to them!
If they were to vote in a Dictator, we would stop that because we want them to have a Democracy. That is what we are foring them to have. Period.

But at least the people decided... which is the safest way to do it IMO.
They did? 45% of Iraq voted in the last election. Not to say that's a high or low number, I'm just pointing that out. The people didn't pick who they were going to vote for, and they knew almost nothing about who they were voting for. They hardly decided anything. It was our idea to start the 300 or so new Government fraction that was going to decide all the new laws for Iraq. They didn't decide this. We are deciding for them, in terms of how they run their Government.

oh.... sorry for the 20% minority that don't agree.... so we should keep it that way to not crush the minority? what ever happened to the majority????
How do you know they are the minority? There is no polls either way to show that the majority wants or does not want us to be in Iraq. With their people dead, lands in chaos, I would think more would be against us. But hey, that's just me.

well, its pretty obvious that ANY form of gov't is better than when Saddam was ruling.....
You think that a Democracy is the best way of Government. Not eveyrone agrees with you. And you have no right to enforce your morals on another country and set of people.

Oh, sorry that we "ripped" them away from being ruled in tyranny by Saddam.... LOL
Isn't there worse rulers in the world besides Saddam? The Saudi Government, and countries all throughout Africa have leaders that are far more inhumane. Seems ironic we would bypass them for Iraq.

What good would it do to take saddam out and just leave, so all the terrorists can take over by intimidation all over again?
What good did it do our country to have Saddam out to begin with? This is a war to make us safer, not to give others a quote "better lifestyle" Saddam wasn't a threat. We had no reason to go in.

We owe it to the people of iraq to set up a system where it isn't ruled by tyrants, and terrorist ones at that.
We don't "owe" them anything. What have they done for us? And this is a war on terrorism, not giving them a better lifestyle. This isn't a time to be getting rid of tyrants, this is a time to be making our country more secure. We've done the opposite in Iraq. Our country is far less secure now, then it was before.

now you are assuming that all arabs are terrorists....which isnt true.
I didn't assume that. I assumed that many religiously disagree with the idea of Democracy.

Iraq can vote what they want... we are just giving them a way to choose and to not be forced to do things without any say.
They didn't have a say in who they voted for, for the people didn't choose, the leaders of the parties did.

It amazes me how much you would rather see people get bullied around by Saddam than get "forced" into a democratic system
It amazes me how you put the Iraqis before our own security.

So they would use their pick-axe's and overtake Saddam's palace guards with uzi's?
All revolutions cause death. Look at the French revolution. That killed more then half of their people. Revolutions cause death, but if the people really want it they will fight for it. The Iraqis didn't.

And give me a chart on "chaos" and how high it is? LOL
Ummm, have you been living under a rock?

And once a democracy is established and iraq can defend itself.... and we put pressure on iran and syria.... expect terrorism to go down.....
Wrong. Once Democracy is in Iraq, for sure, the terrorists will be very strong and powerful. Why do you think they hated us to begin with? Because of our lifestyle. Now that our lifestyle is invading THEIR lands, they are going to grow and become even more powerful.

tons of death that pretty much already existed.... funny how you never cared about it then.
Who is to say I didn't care about it? There was more death going on in Africa, then in Iraq. Do you think that we can just go to any country that has death? We have the Death Penalty here. Isn't that the Government killing its own people? Just like Saddam was? And didn't we support Saddam when he was killing the Kurds?

terrorists were already in iraq genius.... thats why we went there.
The 9/11 Panel said Saddam/Iraq had little links to terrorism. There was hardly any terrorists in Iraq. Check your facts and the 9/11 reports. Because of us, the terrorists are now in Iraq.

they DID attack us... remember?
Saddam did? The Iraqis did? No, they had no links to 9/11.

can i get a source for your claim of terrorists "growing in huge numbers"? Or is that just you trying to make vague statements to fit your agenda?
I've posted it many times. Go find the 2004 terrorist report. 21 year high in terrorism. You know why? Because they are growing and can attack us with more people.

LOL... wow i would hate to be you
That's nice.

good job decka, I gave up replying to this kids "we lost the war they hate us we are doomed" posts long ago.

Did you hear a new president was appointed by the assemly today? a kurd, with a sunni and a shiite co VP.

keep towing that line OD

:) I love pointless posts, that in no way prove the Pro-Iraq War agenda, they just say it's the right thing, and that's it.

Originally posted by Overdose
How do you know they are the minority? There is no polls either way to show that the majority wants or does not want us to be in Iraq.
There actually have been some polls taken in Iraq:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3514504.stm
http://americanfuture.typepad.com/american_future/2004/12/an_iraqi_opinio.html
http://www.cabalamat.org/weblog/art_168.html

Originally posted by Jester
There actually have been some polls taken in Iraq:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3514504.stm
http://americanfuture.typepad.com/american_future/2004/12/an_iraqi_opinio.html
http://www.cabalamat.org/weblog/art_168.html
I guess I should have phrased it differently. The polls, depending on who you ask and where you look show two different things. Making the polls not relevant. One poll proves my side, the next one proves the other. You can't really go on "news polls".

Originally posted by Decka
well, its pretty obvious that ANY form of gov't is better than when Saddam was ruling.....

Really?!?!?!?!

My, my.

How very odd it is then that this government under Reagan/Bush was AIDING Saddam Hussein during the Eighties and authorized the sale of weapons material to him for constructing chemical and biological weapons.

http://www.photius.com/rogue_nations/rumsfeld_saddam.gif

Originally posted by Overdose
I guess I should have phrased it differently. The polls, depending on who you ask and where you look show two different things. Making the polls not relevant. One poll proves my side, the next one proves the other. You can't really go on "news polls".

well..... where all of these polls that prove your side?

And OD, you are welcome to you opinion.... but why are you going all the way down to the foundation BS... crying "what gives up the right to do this!!".... what gives ANYONE the right to do ANYTHING???

What gives someone "the right" to go into a burning house and save another from a fire.....

What gives someone "the right" to save a drowning person who can't swim...

what gives schools "the right" to make them attend classes?

What gives YOU, od, "the right" to be gay?

I still havnt heard any negative effects about democracy in iraq, and if you are going to use the "it doesnt hurt anybody so its okay" arguement for being gay.... then what about democracy?

People didnt have a choice under Saddam.... if he wanted every woman in the town to come and line up to give him blow jobs... it was done. Gee.... too bad those days are gone and they are "forced" to have rights and stuff like that.... sheeeeshh...

And if the masses in iraq didnt want us there, i dont think we would be there..... but most citizens want us there.... but of course you only look at the extremist, terrorist regimes.....

If giving someone a choice is "forcing" something on them..... than yes we are forcing..... we are forcing them to make a choice, so they dont get forced to do things anymore.....

Foundationally, you are probably correct.... its not good to force things on people.... but a democracy is the exact opposite of what you claim we are doing. A democracy doesnt force anything on anyone... so how can you force something on someone, when the thing you are "forcing" them to do is to not get forced into doing anything???

It just doesnt make any sense..... and neither do you

Originally posted by Decka
... we have the best living standards in the world.....

Sorry.

Wrong.

Norway is first, followed by Sweden, Canada, Belgium and Australia.

The USA comes in sixth.

http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/world-top-ten-quality-of-life-map.html

But keep waving that flag.

Originally posted by Freethinker
Sorry.

Wrong.

Norway is first, followed by Sweden, Canada, Belgium and Australia.

The USA comes in sixth.

http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/world-top-ten-quality-of-life-map.html

But keep waving that flag.

LMAO

first... living standards is a conditional phrase.... it all depends on what is taken into account in the particular measurment.

second... 6th is GREAT, it shows that yea, we are among the elite in living standards, which is how i originally meant it but obviously phrased it wrong. And im not waving a flag.... its just fact buddy.

third.... its funny to see you nit-pick at anything to try to put america down.... and your true intentions definitely shine through. I'm no all-american guru.... ask my friends that and you'll soon find out that there are alot of things about america that piss me off..... but i dont frantically try to verbally attack it like you do.... do you have insecurity issues?

Decka, you seem to forget all the other points I made in my reply. That if they wanted a Democracy they would have fought for it to begin with, but they didn't. If they truly wanted it, they would have been up in arms trying to fight against Saddam. They were not.

You forget that this is a war on terrorism, and making our country more secure. Sure, this idea of brining Democracy to Iraq is a good idea, if you are an imperalist. But anyway, it's not a good idea for our security. The terrorists are gaining support and are growing in numbers. We must put our country first, not the Iraqis. This is not the correct way to run the war against terrorism. Period. Saddam wasn't a threat. He had almost no links to terrorism, no links to 9/11, and no WMD's. We had no right to attack him. We had no reason to attack him because of our security. This is a war on making our country secure. Period. We aren't doing that.

Countries face many more hardships then those that were in Iraq. Iraq was not the country that was the worst off. Why did we pick them? When in Africa and even other countries in the Middle East are worse off? Seems very strange.

Originally posted by Overdose
Decka, you seem to forget all the other points I made in my reply. That if they wanted a Democracy they would have fought for it to begin with, but they didn't. If they truly wanted it, they would have been up in arms trying to fight against Saddam. They were not.

they did try to rise up at the end of the first gulf war, we left em hanging and they got brutally put down. besides, we have gone over this time and time again overdose, how do you organize a revolt when you cant trust anyone or assemble a group without government approval? It was said that three people could not meet in Iraq without Sadaam knowing about it. your so naive to think they could have just all gathered in a town hall somewhere and decided it was time for a change. it didn't work like that in Sadaam's Iraq. go read 1984. The two worlds were very similar. you never knew who was an agent of the "thought "police" so you didn't dare confide in anyone, you never knew when someone was listening. I cant believe we are still arguing bout this. According to your logic since they didn't revolt they approved of Sadaam. that means you say since the north Koreans or Iranians don't revolt they choose to live under dictators, that's just not the case.

Originally posted by Overdose
You forget that this is a war on terrorism, and making our country more secure. Sure, this idea of brining Democracy to Iraq is a good idea, if you are an imperalist. But anyway, it's not a good idea for our security. The terrorists are gaining support and are growing in numbers. We must put our country first, not the Iraqis. This is not the correct way to run the war against terrorism. Period. Saddam wasn't a threat. He had almost no links to terrorism, no links to 9/11, and no WMD's. We had no right to attack him. We had no reason to attack him because of our security. This is a war on making our country secure. Period. We aren't doing that.

to me it seems you wnat to fight terrorism just by killing terrorists. that is a part of it, but a big change was needed in the terrorist factory that is the middle east. you can argue that invading iraq has inceased terrorism, but you cant argue that leaving the status quo would have reduced it. You seem to be incapable of thinking strategically overdose. the middle east needed a big change in a big way. Iraq was the prime candidate. saddam had done plenty to put his name at the top of the list, its not like we just pulled his name out of a hat, he wasnt just "some guy". we had been forced to forcibly remove him from a neighbor and deploy anti missle units in israel to shoot down fucking missiles he was shooting into israel. how many people have acutally deployed and used chemical weapons like saddam? he atacked iran, kuwait, saudi arabia and israel. seriously, who is worse then him or more deserving of being ousted? there are some vey terrible dictators out thre, and all deserve the noose, but when you look at reality and the facts, none have come close to doing what saddam had done.

Originally posted by Overdose
Countries face many more hardships then those that were in Iraq. Iraq was not the country that was the worst off. Why did we pick them? When in Africa and even other countries in the Middle East are worse off? Seems very strange.

see above. seems strange you dont want to attack iraq because they have "done nothing to us" yet want to attack and overthrow the governments of countries who really have done nothing to anyone. I do not like north korea, saudi arabia, iran or syria any more then I liked Iraq, but honestly, what have they actually "done" to any country anywhere? If that is your criteria for attack then Iraq was the top of the list, for Saddam was the top of the list, having done more then all the other bloody dictators put together.

Originally posted by Overdose
Decka, you seem to forget all the other points I made in my reply. That if they wanted a Democracy they would have fought for it to begin with, but they didn't. If they truly wanted it, they would have been up in arms trying to fight against Saddam. They were not.

im still waiting as to how a pick ax would defeat an uzi.... im anxious to hear it..... and good post trav....
Originally posted by Overdose

You forget that this is a war on terrorism, and making our country more secure. Sure, this idea of brining Democracy to Iraq is a good idea, if you are an imperalist.

i'm an imperialist huh?..... so just answer me YES or NO..... would you rather have Saddam ruling Iraq right now?
Originally posted by Overdose

We must put our country first, not the Iraqis.

lol... a little selfish aren't we? So we should just say screw all the other people... lets just think about ourselves.... wow i would hate to play on your basketball team.
Originally posted by Overdose

This is not the correct way to run the war against terrorism.

well.....enlighten us then
Originally posted by Overdose

Saddam wasn't a threat. He had almost no links to terrorism, no links to 9/11, and no WMD's. We had no right to attack him. We had no reason to attack him because of our security.

Well, harboring terrorists is a link to terrorism, thus it would link him to 9-11, and he had means of making wmd's, just none made, and who knows what he did during the 18 times he sent weapons inspectors back.
Originally posted by Overdose

This is a war on making our country secure. Period. We aren't doing that.

really? have we been attacked since 9-11? How is our country less secure?

im still waiting as to how a pick ax would defeat an uzi.... im anxious to hear it..... and good post trav....
What? How did the United States defeat England when we fought for our independence? England had control over most of the world. But because we truly wanted it, we got it.

i'm an imperialist huh?..... so just answer me YES or NO..... would you rather have Saddam ruling Iraq right now?
Yes, you are an imperalist. Decka, many people in Iraq are highly religious and don't think women should vote, or that they should have a religiously free Government. Our morals are different, but those in Iraq, because of the way they were culturally brought up, are different. Who are we to impose our morals on them? Just because we find this wrong, does not mean we have the right to launch war against them. Yes, I would rather have him in power. Our country would be more secure.

So we should just say screw all the other people... lets just think about ourselves.... wow i would hate to play on your basketball team.
In a time of terrorism, and massive threats to our security, we must put our nation above all else. Saddam had little links to terrorism, and was no threat. We should be working towards making our country more secure, not making it less secure.

Well, harboring terrorists is a link to terrorism, thus it would link him to 9-11
The 9/11 Panel said he had "little to no links" to terrorism. And the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11 and Osama were not linked to Saddam. Why didn't we attack the countries that were more linked to terrorism? Why didn't we attack the countries that HAD wmds?

and he had means of making wmd's, just none made, and who knows what he did during the 18 times he sent weapons inspectors back.
Who knows what he did? Well, we do. He did nothing. He had no weapons.

really? have we been attacked since 9-11? How is our country less secure?
Just because we have not been attacked that does not mean we are less secure. There are more terrorists and terrorist movement. That means, overall, we are less secure.

overdose, you are one cluless dumbass, go back to dancing in the clubs pretty boy

LOL

your comparison is laughable....

i hate to break it to ya, but we were well armed and capable when we broke away from England.....

AND now that you bring it up.... we really had NO BUSINESS breaking away from England..... we had great living conditions.... but i cant find reasons that would warrant us slaughtering Britains...
[b]
Yes, you are an imperalist. Decka, many people in Iraq are highly religious and don't think women should vote, or that they should have a religiously free Government. Our morals are different, but those in Iraq, because of the way they were culturally brought up, are different. Who are we to impose our morals on them? Just because we find this wrong, does not mean we have the right to launch war against them. Yes, I would rather have him in power. Our country would be more secure.
[b]
First off.... shame on you for wishing Iraqi's to be bullied and scared into a Saddam rule... but wait, you dont have to deal with it..... so yea i can see why you would say that.

And there are many religious people in AMERICA...... so why is it okay for us to take away OUR religious freedoms here at home.... but suddenly its NOT okay to do it to iraqi's???? You make no sense.
[b]
we must put our nation above all else.
[b]
you are selfish
[b]
The 9/11 Panel said he had "little to no links" to terrorism. And the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11 and Osama were not linked to Saddam. Why didn't we attack the countries that were more linked to terrorism? Why didn't we attack the countries that HAD wmds?
[b]
well....i WOULD say "sure, lets attack them too".... but then you have liberals crying "but we dont have enough troops!!!!!" So.... its just a a lose-lose situation with you guys.
[b]
Who knows what he did? Well, we do. He did nothing. He had no weapons
[b]
actually, we don't know... because he wouldnt let anyone in his country..... but it comforts you to think that we did.... show me a link that we knew everything he did while he sent weapons inspectors away 18 times...... im waiting.....
[b]
Just because we have not been attacked that does not mean we are less secure. There are more terrorists and terrorist movement. That means, overall, we are less secure.
[b]
Nah.... they are just in the papers more nowadays.... but thatever the paper prints is true right?

Originally posted by Decka
im still waiting as to how a pick ax would defeat an uzi.... im anxious to hear it.....

And i'm still waiting for a response to the following exchange...........I'm anxious to hear it.

Originally posted by Decka
well, its pretty obvious that ANY form of gov't is better than when Saddam was ruling.....

Originally posted by Freethinker
Really?!?!?!?!

My, my.

How very odd it is then that this government under Reagan/Bush was AIDING Saddam Hussein during the Eighties and authorized the sale of weapons material to him for constructing chemical and biological weapons.

i cant say i know very much about how we were "aiding" saddam in the 80's...... as i was a young buck back then.

If our intentions were to help saddam do evil things... than shame on us.

But i dont know the details.... so you can give me some one-sided insight from liberalunderground.com now......

Originally posted by Decka
i cant say i know very much about how we were "aiding" saddam in the 80's......

(gasp!)

HOW could our overwhelmingly LIIIIIIIBRULL Media have POSSIBLY failed to report it?!?!?!

Originally posted by Decka
If our intentions were to help saddam do evil things... then shame on us.

Oh, all this government did was authorize US Corporations to sell Saddam the material to make chemical and biological weapons with which he gassed a few thousand peons.

No need for the terribly harsh --"Shame on us!"..........you might hurt some poor Reagan worshipper's feelings.

We'll just sweep it all under the rug, like every other attrocity perpetrated during Reagan/Bush's tenure.

Originally posted by Decka
But i dont know the details.... so you can give me some one-sided insight from liberalunderground.com now......

Actually, the best documentation of the info refered to above comes from the website of a group of military veterans.

But there is no point in handing the info to you on a platter.

It is painfully obvious that you have already decided to ---in the time honored conservative tradition--- keep your head in the sand on this one.

Oh my gosh freethinker PLEASSEEE

you are laying it on thick, and i actually cringed from all the extra attitude and other crap you added to your post......it made me want to hurl

As far as your "points" are concerned...

Originally posted by Freethinker
(gasp!)

HOW could our overwhelmingly LIIIIIIIBRULL Media have POSSIBLY failed to report it?!?!?!

LMAO.... you give me a picture of it... but yet the media never reported it. Im sure when we sold stuff to Saddam, it was reported.... And yes its a liberal media.... my beleif(along with MANY MANY others) is that spirit of journalism IS liberal... and there is proof it all over the place... just off hand.... how come Hilary Clinton is being given a free pass right now from the media? she's not being questioned or anything on her prior blunders and contradictions????


Originally posted by Freethinker

Oh, all this government did was authorize US Corporations to sell Saddam the material to make chemical and biological weapons with which he gassed a few thousand peons.

I dont know the details.... like i said. Ill say that we didnt gas people, Saddam did. But if we knew 100% that Saddam was going to use it to do bad, than yea we are guilty. I bet you think america is the one to blame... how did i guess? Well... i dont have an opinion because im un-informed.
Originally posted by Freethinker

No need for the terribly harsh --"Shame on us!"..........you might hurt some poor Reagan worshipper's feelings.

We'll just sweep it all under the rug, like every other attrocity perpetrated during Reagan/Bush's tenure.

LMAO

Well, i wouldnt want to hurt your feelings by actually saying positive things about america would I?
Originally posted by Freethinker

Actually, the best documentation of the info refered to above comes from the website of a group of military veterans.

well.... vets are allowed to have their point of view aren't they? along with every other citizen.
Originally posted by Freethinker

But there is no point in handing the info to you on a platter.

It is painfully obvious that you have already decided to ---in the time honored conservative tradition--- keep your head in the sand on this one.

HAHA.... i laugh at you. If anyone is keeping their head in the sand its you, "hey guys. lets blame america for EVERYTHING bad on planet earth!!!" :) :) :)

if i were "keeping my head in the sand"..... i wouldnt be acually listening to what you are saying, and agreeing that IF our intentions are what you say they are, than yea we were wrong. But amazingly you seem to know every person's intentions throughout history...

And, all of this stuff is off point.... you try to bring it up but yet what is going on HERE and NOW... it has no bearing on anything.... it may be ironic... but thats all it gets from me......

Lets worry about what we can do now with what we have... you seem to think that i am a 100% america supporter.. you are wrong... i just dont automatically assume that we are guilty of all these attrocities that you try to paint on us. The fact that in EVERY post you claim it shows your colors.... and hurts your credibility....if you even have any left.

Originally posted by Decka
Im sure when we sold stuff to Saddam, it was reported....

It was not reported anywhere. Not then. Not now.

Like so many despicable things that the Washington crowd does, they do it with no compunction or fear of exposure, counting on complacency, lack of criticism and the "Rah rah rah, Go USA, my country can do no wrong!!" attitude that the gullible masses have been indoctrinated with since birth.

Originally posted by Decka
I bet you think america is the one to blame........."hey guys. lets blame america for EVERYTHING bad on planet earth!!!" :) :) :)

No, not *everything*.

Actually, my position is much closer to one of ----- "Hey guys, let's finally begin to hold America and its political leaders acccountable for a small fraction of the murderous, underhanded, greed-driven acts they have perpetrated over the course of the past 60 years".

_____________________________

“The enormous gap between what US leaders do in the world and what Americans think their leaders are doing is one of the great propaganda accomplishments of the dominant political mythology.”-— Michael Parenti

Originally posted by Freethinker
It was not reported anywhere. Not then. Not now.



LOL.... well it could be one of a few things....

maybe Saddam is ACTUALLY being held accountable for actually committing the acts he did.... and we aren't... with thinking like that.... all the gun shops would be in jail because they "sold the gun that killed the person"......

OR

Maybe it wasn't seen as such a bad thing back in the day.... and we had no idea that Saddam would do the things he did.....

BUT

Even IF its being played down.... which it is.... but like it probably should be.... what is your motive? Im just playing devil's advocate.... but would it ease your counscious that much to just have it labeled onto us? What good would that do? Shouldn't we be more worried about more important issues?
Originally posted by Freethinker

Like so many despicable things that the Washington crowd does, they do it with no compunction or fear of exposure, counting on complacency, lack of criticism and the "Rah rah rah, Go USA, my country can do no wrong!!" attitude that the gullible masses have been indoctrinated with since birth.



Um... are you an idiot? Congress cant do a damn thing without it being all over the papers. And you are taking extremes again.... you forget that you are part of the gullible masses.... and if you are even hinting the I am just some mindless propoganda follower..... well first off fuck you, because if i am than its you and me both buddy..... and second off your assumptions and extreme examples are very stupid, and in no way represent the real state of whats going on... its nice you live in a fantasy world though, and keep telling yourself you are right, because if you say it enough times i guess anyone can convince themselves they are......

Originally posted by Freethinker

“The enormous gap between what US leaders do in the world and what Americans think their leaders are doing is one of the great propaganda accomplishments of the dominant political mythology.”-— Michael Parenti

Well what are you going to do about it?

Oh yea....

NOTHING

because you are spineless and have no balls in your sac

I get the impression that the other side's argument goes basically like this:

America sucks, why would anyone want to be like us?

We shouldn't stick our necks out for others because we have problems of our own.

Fuck 'em. If they wanted change, they should make it happen. They dont need us.

We have no right to do anything. If we act, it is evil, imperialistic, and self motivated.

Some people don't like us, therefore, no one likes us.


Does that about sum it up?
btw, has anyone heard this quote before?
"Democracy is the absolute worst form of government...once you discount all the others."

actually, we don't know... because he wouldnt let anyone in his country..... but it comforts you to think that we did.... show me a link that we knew everything he did while he sent weapons inspectors away 18 times...... im waiting.....
Err, in the 2002 Inspections he was complying far more then he had been doing in the past. And even if he did send them away, you are still assuming that HE had them. We didn't know for SURE. So you are making a huge decision, WAR, based off an assumption. Why didn't we attack the countries that actually HAD the weapons? Explain that one.

And there are many religious people in AMERICA...... so why is it okay for us to take away OUR religious freedoms here at home.... but suddenly its NOT okay to do it to iraqi's???? You make no sense.
You have the freedom to be and or practice any religion in America. We aren't taking away religious freedoms here, you can do whatever you want in terms of religion in America. But we are forcing OUR morals, which would be Democracy, onto Iraqis who are Islamic and some don't think that the Government should be free, because of the way they have been culturally raised. We have no right to invade them and tell them how to live. Period. And why didn't we, if we cared so much about spreading Democracy, go to other countries that needed it more then Iraq?

you are selfish
This is a war on terrorism, because we were attacked, Decka. Of course we should put our country first. And by attacking Iraq we have made our country less safe. Good job Republicans.

maybe Saddam is ACTUALLY being held accountable for actually committing the acts he did....
Why don't we make the other killers around the world be held accountable? Many other leaders around the world killed more of their citizens then Saddam did. And didn't we support Saddam when he was killing his people in the 80's? Yeah, I think that was us.

"sold the gun that killed the person"......
You are so funny. Firstly, if the gun store didn't do a background check, and gave a criminal a gun, then it would be somewhat their fault. We knew Saddam had a history of killing his people, but we still gave him the weapons.

and we had no idea that Saddam would do the things he did.....
LOL, Right...haha