I remember seeing that on the television. The sad thing is, we have had the deadliest month with over 100 of our troops killed….and he still things the battle is won (www.iraqbodycount.net).

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&e=2&u=/nm/20040501/ts_nm/iraq_dc_419

That’s a story of them cheering victory over the Americans, in Iraq^^

The war has only begun, it’s only starting. Bombing their homes, and making their country turn to ruins was the easy part. Now it’s on to the hard part, which Bush didn’t think about. It’s just so sad, how arrogant this administration is. Then we act just like Saddam, in killing the civilians, ruin their homeland, and then torture them.

I guess Bush thought we were going to be greeted as "liberators". But we have been greeted with violence, death, and destruction.

Yes, we will bring democracy to Iraq even if we have to kill all of them. Geeesh ... how the heck did it ever get to this point?

5 VietNam deferrments or 5 VietNam ribbons -- you make the call.

Dop

you are one dull son of a bitch dop.

The only way out of this mess now is for Bush to go and a new President take it in a different direction. Bush has dug a hole so deep that it's now not possible for him to salvage the situation - Although I hate to say it, Bush has shown himself to be an incompetant leader who has surrounded himself with the worst kind of incompetants possible.

so I guess when bush is gone the "whole world" and all the idiots like dop will magically be 100% behind the occupatioon. the likes of kennedy and Byrd and all those other backstabbers in the senate will be singing a different tune. its sad that the whole stance in opposition to the war is nothing but a political ploy to get rid of bush. thats what has just been said by drew. it is all bushs fault, so when someone else gets in there, presumably a democrat, it will all be milk and honey and kumbaya

John Kerry is not the answer...unless you want someone in office that will put the wants and needs of other nations before the security of the US. Lets face it the world changed on 9/11 and it was a large wakeup call to America that we need to do something. So far Bush as done an excellent job with the war on terror, disrupting Al Qaeda, eliminating their base of operations, overthrowing a nation that supported terrorism and harbored terrorists and had WMD. Because of these actions Libya has given up all their WMD programs and they are being dismantled and being sent back to the US.

We are less safe now. Spain attacks? Summer Attacks? A poll was taken on MSNBC and the majority of Americans feel less safe now, then a year ago. The war in Iraq, is giving terrorists more time to plot against Americans. Saddam had no link to 9/11...and we are still in Iraq. He had no WMD's, so the Iraq war did not make us "safer".

Bush has done a horrible job in making Americans safer. He is telling us to fear attacks this summer...so really, he even admits it, WE AREN'T SAFER.

Since Bush began the war on terror there have been far fewer terrorist attacks throughout the world than the years preceding. I think that is clear evidence enough the world is safer. And if you think terrorist attacks would have stopped after 9/11 had bush turned a blind eye you are highly mistaken. Terrorist attacks are going to happen, I feel a lot safer being pro-active against the people doing this than being passive and reactive.

John Kerry is not the answer...unless you want someone in office that will put the wants and needs of other nations before the security of the US.
So, what did Bush do with Iraq? Since we know there were no WMDs, and they were no threat. And since closer to war time, after they realized how stupid it was to claim them as an "imminent threat" and to claim massive amounts of WMDs, they then started to pull the "Oh dear, it's a country of oppressed people!" ticket.

Since Bush began the war on terror there have been far fewer terrorist attacks throughout the world than the years preceding. I think that is clear evidence enough the world is safer.
I don't think it is. You're not fighting an organized army, one that they start to back off when they begin to get defeated. You're fighting guerrilla tactics and small cells of people who tend to have no connection with any others. Plus, they're terrorists, they're supposed to instill terror. It's much more effective to strike when they start to feel safe, secure, and arrogant. Hence 9/11.

So are you arguing that Iraq was not a country full of oppressed people?

On your second point, i agree, it is very different fighting terrorists than organized countries. But we've got to try damnit!




PS. Sry I haven't been on in a while, grounded. But I'm back baby!

Trav

If you don't have something to say to me other than calling me a 'son of a bitch' -- just ignore my posts dude.

You are the most crude, crass person I've ever seen on a forum -- and you get away with it.

Dop

you would think at 62 you would have heard the sticks and stones bit by now

So are you arguing that Iraq was not a country full of oppressed people?
No. I am just saying that the reasons behind it changed as we got closer to war. And it changed to the "wants and needs of other nations before the security of the US". Just a bit of contradicting logic on his part that I pointed out.

On your second point, i agree, it is very different fighting terrorists than organized countries. But we've got to try damnit!
And we're doing it in a way that will never work. You can't kill the person, you have to kill the fundimentals.(oh, bad pun...)

Yeah I'm a 'sticks-n-stones' guy Trav but I just don't take it from 32 year old punks that should have listened to his parents when they were teaching good manners and how to control a trash mouth.

Apparently you slept through a lot of lessons in life.

Dop

hey you 2 cool it.

get some stress out (http://www.miniclip.com/knockout.htm)

We make politics FUN! (http://www.miniclip.com/joust.htm)

Originally posted by The Republican
Since Bush began the war on terror there have been far fewer terrorist attacks throughout the world than the years preceding. I think that is clear evidence enough the world is safer. And if you think terrorist attacks would have stopped after 9/11 had bush turned a blind eye you are highly mistaken. Terrorist attacks are going to happen, I feel a lot safer being pro-active against the people doing this than being passive and reactive.

Fewer attacks? Spain attacks? Pay ATTENTION!!! Spain was attacked, by TERRORISTS! Hotels in Iraq have been bombed, by TERRORISISTS. Bush is warning us of TERRORIST attacks in the Olympics and in the summer. Us being in Iraq, has not directly stopped terrorism, what-so-ever.

European Commission President, Romano Prodi, stated, "It happens in Iraq as elsewhere - Istanbul, Moscow, Madrid. The terrorism that the war in Iraq was supposed to stop is infinitely more powerful today than it was a year ago."

A poll was taken on MSNBC, and the majority of Americans are still in fear of attacks on America. So in seems to the majority of Americans, that we are less safe now then ever before.

when did anyone ever say that invading afghanistan or iraq would end terrorism forever? do you think if we did nothing but put a few people in prison we would be seeing less terrorism? what exactly were you expecting?

Originally posted by Travh20
when did anyone ever say that invading afghanistan or iraq would end terrorism forever? do you think if we did nothing but put a few people in prison we would be seeing less terrorism? what exactly were you expecting?

It should have stooped, and most likely prevented terrorism. Iraq isn’t stopping terrorism while Afghanistan is. I’m frustrated because, attacking Iraq isn’t doing anything to stop terror…and they have no link to 9/11. I also was expecting we would go after and spend more time hunting Al Quidea, and not spend it in Iraq, liberating people who don’t want to be.

Originally posted by Liberal 4 Life
Fewer attacks? Spain attacks? Pay ATTENTION!!! Spain was attacked, by TERRORISTS! Hotels in Iraq have been bombed, by TERRORISISTS. Bush is warning us of TERRORIST attacks in the Olympics and in the summer. Us being in Iraq, has not directly stopped terrorism, what-so-ever.

European Commission President, Romano Prodi, stated, "It happens in Iraq as elsewhere - Istanbul, Moscow, Madrid. The terrorism that the war in Iraq was supposed to stop is infinitely more powerful today than it was a year ago."

A poll was taken on MSNBC, and the majority of Americans are still in fear of attacks on America. So in seems to the majority of Americans, that we are less safe now then ever before.

You need to read what I wrote and loose your arrogance. There have been much fewer attacks this past year than years past. Chris Matthews talked about it on hardball this past week. So you can name one terrorist attack in Spain and suicide bombings in a combat zone. There have been more than that but the numbers are less now than before. I think it is you that needs to pay attention and stop spinning everything your way. I would have more respect for your arguments if you were not so hell bent at twisting everything to fit your argument and called things as they are.

Like I stated earlier terrorism was not going to stop on 9-11. If you preffer a pacifist approach and think that by ignoring terrorism it will go away then fine you are entitled to your opinion. I on the other hand preffer a proactive approach by making the terrorist respond to us rather than us responding to them.

first of all the majority of iraqis are glad to be rid of saddam, of course all you hear about is the 5 % that wants him back. as far as hunting al qeada, I dont see why people think it impossible to do 2 things at once. its silly to claim that a country that fought a major two front war against germany and japan and won cant do two things at once. its more a question of if we are willing. from what I see we have no will. we worry about our own skin more then the way our children and thier children will have to live. every generation of americans has sacraficed to make things better for the future. I dont see that anymore, now people are more worried about being killed in a terrorist attack then killing terrorists.

Originally posted by The Republican
You need to read what I wrote and loose your arrogance. There have been much fewer attacks this past year than years past. Chris Matthews talked about it on hardball this past week. So you can name one terrorist attack in Spain and suicide bombings in a combat zone. There have been more than that but the numbers are less now than before. I think it is you that needs to pay attention and stop spinning everything your way. I would have more respect for your arguments if you were not so hell bent at twisting everything to fit your argument and called things as they are.

Like I stated earlier terrorism was not going to stop on 9-11. If you preffer a pacifist approach and think that by ignoring terrorism it will go away then fine you are entitled to your opinion. I on the other hand preffer a proactive approach by making the terrorist respond to us rather than us responding to them.


Spinning it my way? You say there are less attacks now then before 9/11. Well no because of the Spain attacks and attacks in Iraq. That is not spinning it any-way, it is providing the fact that terrorists have been indeed working just as hard now, then before 9/11.

This war has brought more people around the world against us, then for us. It is creating more enemies, then stopping.

I think we should go after Al Quidea, and not spend it in Iraq, who is no threat to us. We could me much further along if we had not been in Iraq.

would you rather the attacks happen in your town? Al qeada is in iraq right now getting their asses handed to them. now I guess you think al qeada is capable of fighting us in iraq and plotting to blow up NYC but we cant fight in iraq and fight al queada at the same time, thats some real faith you have in your country you got there :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Travh20
would you rather the attacks happen in your town? Al qeada is in iraq right now getting their asses handed to them. now I guess you think al qeada is capable of fighting us in iraq and plotting to blow up NYC but we cant fight in iraq and fight al queada at the same time, thats some real faith you have in your country you got there :rolleyes:

Our military generals say our military is overstretched…and if that doesn’t ring a bell I don’t know what does.

overstretched and on the verge of defeat are two totally different things. our manpower has not even begun to be taped yet. I could see if this were berlin and the soviets were at the gates, then being overstretched would mean what you are trying to say. what it really is is to few men in uniform, not lack of men.

Originally posted by Libral 4 Life: Saddam had no link to 9/11...and we are still in Iraq. He had no WMD's, so the Iraq war did not make us "safer".
I'm going to go out on a limb here and tell you to visit the "Al-Quaida Plot Foiled in Jordan" thread in the World News Forum. There are specific references in that article (that I found and posted, btw) to Al-Quaida, Iraq, Syria, etc. For you to totally deny that we had no right to be in Iraq is wrong. You are right, however, IMO, in stating that we probably could have waited until AFTER we captured Osama Bin Laden. But, I have to agree with Trav...why can't we do both? Obviously we ARE doing both now, perhaps not as well as we could be, but there's no turning back now. Here's a comparison: I dunno about you, but I can work and post to All Forums at the same time - it's extremely difficult, but I do manage to get my work done too. :D

I ask you - as I ask everyone else - what do you suggest we, as a nation and military, do now? Pull out of Iraq completely? Did you think that going into Iraq that their militia would have been so deadly to our soldiers as they have been recently? I don't think you (or most of our government) ever expected this type of attack to occur with this frequency. You can't blame the government for not being able to predict the future. This is war, afterall. The majority of Iraqi's wanted to be liberated. Those attacking our soldiers are those that eventually have to be weeded out, otherwise Iraq will be in the same situation as it was prior. We have to set a standard...you can't slap their hands and expect them to comply...you have to give them a consequence. A consequence that, given their characterisics, they will understand.

On another note: Originally posted by Lungdop to Trav: You are the most crude, crass person I've ever seen on a forum -- and you get away with it. Not so long ago I recall several of your posts labeling our soldiers in Iraq as "BABY KILLERS". If that isn't the most crude, crass and assinine remark (especially coming from a former soldier yourself) then I don't know what is. It's funny how you can say such nonsense but nobody else can. Even though Trav may be 32 (and me only 34), I think the majority of his posts spark a chord in a lot of us...so for you to accuse him of being a snot-nosed punk is waaay out of line. And, finally, don't toss his parents into this mix. Obviously Trav's parents raised him to stand up for what he believes in. That's the best type of parenting skill there is! - even if he is a right winger.

actually dop is wrong yet again, I am 29, it says that right under my name

Shit -- and I KNEW that!!

LOL, no prob cricket, thanks.

Originally posted by saycricket
I ask you - as I ask everyone else - what do you suggest we, as a nation and military, do now? Pull out of Iraq completely? Did you think that going into Iraq that their militia would have been so deadly to our soldiers as they have been recently? I don't think you (or most of our government) ever expected this type of attack to occur with this frequency. You can't blame the government for not being able to predict the future. This is war, afterall. The majority of Iraqi's wanted to be liberated. Those attacking our soldiers are those that eventually have to be weeded out, otherwise Iraq will be in the same situation as it was prior. We have to set a standard...you can't slap their hands and expect them to comply...you have to give them a consequence. A consequence that, given their characterisics, they will understand.

B][/I]

What should we do as a nation? Bring the UN into Iraq.

Predict the future? The reason the Iraqis are revolting so much, is because President Bush handled the situation worse, so I blame him.

The majority wanted to be liberated, but not to go under soldiers in Iraq who torture them.

They also wanted to be liberated to a country that isn’t being blown up, and in chaos. Also when fighting is occurring every day, how can they feel better off now? We are doing a horrible job in Iraq.

Also, I still do not see how us being in Iraq, is stopping terrorism around the world.

name one thing the UN has accomplished successfully on such a large scale, or on any scale

Originally posted by Travh20
name one thing the UN has accomplished successfully on such a large scale, or on any scale

Pilfering billion$ from the Oil for Food program. :D

Originally posted by Travh20
name one thing the UN has accomplished successfully on such a large scale, or on any scale
Wasting time and energy is one.

Originally posted by Travh20
name one thing the UN has accomplished successfully on such a large scale, or on any scale

The eradication of Smallpox.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
The eradication of Smallpox.

Damn how long ago was that? They have done nothing sense then?

Originally posted by The Republican
Damn how long ago was that? They have done nothing sense then?

He asked, I answered...I think it was 1988.

OK, the erradication of smallpox, tahts a good thing, how about military operations, since we thats what we are talking about. when was the last successful UN led military operation?

Originally posted by Travh20
OK, the erradication of smallpox, tahts a good thing, how about military operations, since we thats what we are talking about. when was the last successful UN led military operation?

Probably Korea, 1953.

American officers were in charge of Korea, and even it wasnt a total success. how about the last UN led, no americans, that was a success. it sounds to me like these liberals who want the UN to take over imagine no americans involved, since all we do is torture and murder just like saddam.

the whole stance in opposition to the war is nothing but a political ploy to get rid of bush
Remember the reasons for going to war? I don't know how many times I've stated them and how often you disregard them.

It was not to save the Iraqis, it was to protect the US against a threat of nuclear weapons and WMD. It was to take out the people who aided and conspired with Al Queda. It was a lie.

Therefore, the war was fought because of a lie. Bush would never have had the support to go to war without that lie.

This war was caused because of Bush and all the casualties from the war are ultimately the fault of Bush.

Casualties include: 862 Coalition troops, 9018 - 10,873 Iraqis

Though iraqbodycount.net labels them as 'civilians' they are incorrect. It is a combination of 4,895 to 6,370 military deaths with the remaining as civilians

Originally posted by Travh20
American officers were in charge of Korea, and even it wasnt a total success. how about the last UN led, no americans, that was a success. it sounds to me like these liberals who want the UN to take over imagine no americans involved, since all we do is torture and murder just like saddam.

The UN is a coalition of countries, including America.

Originally posted by Travh20
American officers were in charge of Korea, and even it wasnt a total success. how about the last UN led, no americans, that was a success. it sounds to me like these liberals who want the UN to take over imagine no americans involved, since all we do is torture and murder just like saddam.

Trav, you're being completely ridiculous. The UN forces were made up of many countries and since the U.S. has the most powerful military in the world we would undoubtedly have the most troops involved and also would undoubtedly insist on an Americam commander since no other country has a right to command American troops in battle. We of course have the right to order British, French, Turkish, Greek, and Korean troops to their death because...well...we're Americans.

You just can't make a reasonable argument. Everything is absolutes with you. If someone says that the conduct of the prison guards in Iraq was reprehensible, you insist they said all American troops are torturers and murderers.

Try and look at it realistically. The UN is ineffectual because we supply most of the troops and the system for determining when the UN will commit troops requires the unanimous vote of all countries on the Security Council. The only reason UN troops were committed to Korea is because the Chinese delegation walked out and lost their veto power. If we were to try it again, no doubt we would insist on being in charge and why should other countries put their troops under our command?

The majority wanted to be liberated, but not to go under soldiers in Iraq who torture them. You have a few soldiers who are on a power trip...or perhaps they are so burned out from being there so long that they're losing it. Whichever, who knows. Either way, yes, it's wrong. But a "handful" isn't "entirety". Same as with your post -- the "majority" wanted to be liberated. Those that didn't are the ones wreaking havok.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Trav, you're being completely ridiculous. The UN forces were made up of many countries and since the U.S. has the most powerful military in the world we would undoubtedly have the most troops involved and also would undoubtedly insist on an Americam commander since no other country has a right to command American troops in battle. We of course have the right to order British, French, Turkish, Greek, and Korean troops to their death because...well...we're Americans.

You just can't make a reasonable argument. Everything is absolutes with you. If someone says that the conduct of the prison guards in Iraq was reprehensible, you insist they said all American troops are torturers and murderers.

Try and look at it realistically. The UN is ineffectual because we supply most of the troops and the system for determining when the UN will commit troops requires the unanimous vote of all countries on the Security Council. The only reason UN troops were committed to Korea is because the Chinese delegation walked out and lost their veto power. If we were to try it again, no doubt we would insist on being in charge and why should other countries put their troops under our command?

damnit Pagan, I will ask again, what was the last successful UN led mlitary campain or occupation, no US military involved?

Originally posted by Travh20
damnit Pagan, I will ask again, what was the last successful UN led mlitary campain or occupation, no US military involved?
What possible reason would the U.N. have for ignoring the U.S. in a military campaign, when the U.N. and U.S. have similar views on such things and the U.S. is obviously the most powerful country in the world today?

dont ask me, ask all these poeple who think we are nothing more then torturous thugs not any better then saddam. clearly anyone who thinks this would not want a single tyranical US soldier involved in the opepration, to much chance they may see the US and the UN as together, which would blow the cover.

Originally posted by Travh20
dont ask me, ask all these poeple who think we are nothing more then torturous thugs not any better then saddam. clearly anyone who thinks this would not want a single tyranical US soldier involved in the opepration, to much chance they may see the US and the UN as together, which would blow the cover.

yeah, yeah, yeah.

bla, bla, bla.

thats your response to a lot of posts, what is that supposed to mean? is that your way of saying you have no counter?

Originally posted by Travh20
thats your response to a lot of posts, what is that supposed to mean? is that your way of saying you have no counter?

just saying, your point isn't valid and it is just BS

Originally posted by Travh20
dont ask me, ask all these poeple who think we are nothing more then torturous thugs not any better then saddam. clearly anyone who thinks this would not want a single tyranical US soldier involved in the opepration, to much chance they may see the US and the UN as together, which would blow the cover.


I don’t think the military is torturous thugs. I think a lot are, yes. You are making over generalizations, and judgments. A lot of our troops are acting no better then Saddam, and that then reflects to the world and me that we are heading in the direction of acting like Saddam. Don’t BLOW things out of proportion. There, that is my counter attack…that you didn’t think I had.

ya ok. in ohter words yuo got your card pulled and are embarrased.

Originally posted by Travh20
ya ok. in ohter words yuo got your card pulled and are embarrased.

You caught me

Originally posted by Liberal 4 Life
You are making over generalizations, and judgments. A lot of our troops are acting no better then Saddam,

You don't see any conflict between those two sentences?

Originally posted by LionelHutz
You don't see any conflict between those two sentences?

I would be making an over generalization if I said all of our soldiers acted this way. I firmly believe that many; many more soldiers in Iraq are committing these atrocities.

Originally posted by Liberal 4 Life
just saying, your point isn't valid and it is just BS

His point is valid - even if you disagree.

Originally posted by DrewM
His point is valid - even if you disagree.

If you followed up, I did refute his point, and made it "not" valid.

you refute it by sayign saddam destroyed his weapons based on the fact a handful of bumbling UN weapons inspectors opened a few drawers and warehouses.

Originally posted by Travh20
you refute it by sayign saddam destroyed his weapons based on the fact a handful of bumbling UN weapons inspectors opened a few drawers and warehouses.

Handful? hahaha, nice try. You are so ignorant to the fact that we sent the UN into Iraq, we sent more then just a "handful".

Wow, every area Saddam said he destroyed something, was checked, and searched to be proven he did indeed destroy everything he was asked of. Nice way to try and spin it and say a "handful"...though.

I've explained this in the other thread better....though.

how many inspectors were there? what was ther routine? schedule? how many buildings did they search? how long was the average search? seriously, do you think 100 inspectors, 200, 300 500 would be neccessary to do a thourogh search? so they went to al lthe areas saddam said he destroyed something and didnt find anything? Yup, no weapons here! thats some grewat proof, go where saddam say and find nothign, thats real nice. why dont you wake up to reality. a hundred thousand inspectors working 24 hour shifts for 10 years would be needed to search the country. I guess you didnt hear about nuclear centrifuges buried under rose bushes in people back yards, were the inspectors digging in back yards or just checking al the places saddam told them to look? damn your dumb

Originally posted by Travh20
how many inspectors were there? what was ther routine? schedule? how many buildings did they search? how long was the average search? seriously, do you think 100 inspectors, 200, 300 500 would be neccessary to do a thourogh search? so they went to al lthe areas saddam said he destroyed something and didnt find anything? Yup, no weapons here! thats some grewat proof, go where saddam say and find nothign, thats real nice. why dont you wake up to reality. a hundred thousand inspectors working 24 hour shifts for 10 years would be needed to search the country. I guess you didnt hear about nuclear centrifuges buried under rose bushes in people back yards, were the inspectors digging in back yards or just checking al the places saddam told them to look? damn your dumb

And you think the United States could find them any faster? Do you honestly, think with us fighting terrorism, war in Afghanistan, and in Iraq trying to “liberate” those people, we could find them any faster then the UN? You are the one that would be “dumb” to think that we could find them ANY faster.

The proof is all in the UN reports, and if you care to look them up, be my guest. They are all out there, and I’m not going to be your fucking mother and find them for you. They searched; in every area that Saddam said he destroyed the weapons. In every area where he kept the weapons, we gave him.

What more is the US going to do when we go into Iraq? Even Colin Powell said that Iraq most likely has no WMD’s, and was no threat. The UN said Iraq was no threat to the world. All reports show Iraq had nothing, and that Saddam did disarm.

To say it would take 10 years, is unrealistic and not factually backed up. It will take us even longer, because the UN at least wasn’t doing many, many other issues worldwide.

Liberal you have such a one sided mind. Like I have said before you would gain a lot more credit if you gave credence to other people's point of view that may be different from yours. While most of the people here have strong feelings left or right most can see the other side of the equation. You cannot. I find it very hard to believe that a person that seems to be intelligent can so blindly discredit people who believe Saddam lied, again, and that his WMD could be buried in the sand in Iraq or in Syria right now. For the exact same reason you are discrediting people (the fact the UN found no WMD) is the exact same reason you are discrediting your own statement that Saddam was telling the truth (because the UN also found no proof that Saddam destroyed his WMD).

Originally posted by The Republican
Liberal you have such a one sided mind. Like I have said before you would gain a lot more credit if you gave credence to other people's point of view that may be different from yours. While most of the people here have strong feelings left or right most can see the other side of the equation. You cannot. I find it very hard to believe that a person that seems to be intelligent can so blindly discredit people who believe Saddam lied, again, and that his WMD could be buried in the sand in Iraq or in Syria right now. For the exact same reason you are discrediting people (the fact the UN found no WMD) is the exact same reason you are discrediting your own statement that Saddam was telling the truth (because the UN also found no proof that Saddam destroyed his WMD).

I can totally see your side; I just completely, and utterly disagree. Saddam gave the world proof and documentation of him disarming. We, being wise, decided that since he has had a history of lying, we should investigate for ourselves; by sending the UN into Iraq.

Now this brings me to this, you say the UN found nothing and the weapons could be hiding in the desert. But what changes the fact that it could be hiding in the sand, if America goes into Iraq. It’s not as if we could find them any faster, more likely slower if anything. So the US being in Iraq, doesn’t make us “find” them any faster, and it doesn’t change the fact he may have them. Just that it will take us much longer to find them. Yet, we kick the UN out of Iraq. So to say they didn’t search enough, or could have missed a spot is our own fault.

The proof of destroying something is the fact that you don’t have it. What more can you have? Hussein has documents and reports of him destroying the weapons, and we found none. Therefore we must know that he doesn’t have any.

He MAY have weapons, but you do not go to war on an assumption but fact. Bush had no facts, and that is just a huge mistake.

Originally posted by Liberal 4 Life
I can totally see your side; I just completely, and utterly disagree. Saddam gave the world proof and documentation of him disarming. We, being wise, decided that since he has had a history of lying, we should investigate for ourselves; by sending the UN into Iraq.

Now this brings me to this, you say the UN found nothing and the weapons could be hiding in the desert. But what changes the fact that it could be hiding in the sand, if America goes into Iraq. It’s not as if we could find them any faster, more likely slower if anything. So the US being in Iraq, doesn’t make us “find” them any faster, and it doesn’t change the fact he may have them. Just that it will take us much longer to find them. Yet, we kick the UN out of Iraq. So to say they didn’t search enough, or could have missed a spot is our own fault.

The proof of destroying something is the fact that you don’t have it. What more can you have? Hussein has documents and reports of him destroying the weapons, and we found none. Therefore we must know that he doesn’t have any.

He MAY have weapons, but you do not go to war on an assumption but fact. Bush had no facts, and that is just a huge mistake.

You missed the point again and I am tired of trying to hammer it home. I have a better chance getting my cat to talk than getting through to you.

Originally posted by The Republican
You missed the point again and I am tired of trying to hammer it home. I have a better chance getting my cat to talk than getting through to you.

You say I'm immature. :p

Honestly, how does the US being in Iraq give us more of a chance at finding the WMD’s? I see no reason why the UN could not have stayed and searched…but we kick them out to launch wars on terrorism, Afghanistan and Iraq, and then say we are more equipped and ready to search?

The UN would and did have a much more peaceful and effective way at searching.

And people in Bush’s on administration are saying there are no WMD’s…Colin Powell?

Originally posted by Liberal 4 Life
You say I'm immature. :p

Uhm...yeah. Please show me what was immature in my comments.

Wait nevermind I will only end up wasting my time.

Originally posted by The Republican
Uhm...yeah. Please show me what was immature in my comments.

Wait nevermind I will only end up wasting my time.

Keep talking...

Geez liberal,

The U.N. was charged with finding WMDs for what, a dozen years? They coudn't do it. Just how much time do you plan on giving the U.N.?

What DOES make the threat of terrorism shrink is democracy. If everyone has the oppurtunity to enjoy the freedoms and oppurtunities that we possess, then the recruiting pool of potential terrorists dries up. People who are happy and feel the future will get better don't encouage their kids to strap themselves to bombs. Dammit!

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Geez liberal,

The U.N. was charged with finding WMDs for what, a dozen years? They coudn't do it. Just how much time do you plan on giving the U.N.?

What DOES make the threat of terrorism shrink is democracy. If everyone has the oppurtunity to enjoy the freedoms and oppurtunities that we possess, then the recruiting pool of potential terrorists dries up. People who are happy and feel the future will get better don't encouage their kids to strap themselves to bombs. Dammit!

How much time to I plan on giving to the UN? Well, for starters we could have not kicked them out of Iraq, before they were done searching. This all brings me to this, the United States being in Iraq isn’t finding the weapons any faster then the UN would have. All reports from the UN came back, and said Saddam had no weapons. Therefore, we didn’t have the right to invade. But, Bush wanted to “check” for himself (I guess), but sadly it will take us longer then it would have taken the UN.

Spreading democracy in a religious torn country, with almost no world support is impossible. We cannot do it alone, and we need the support of the UN if we were truly, wanting to bring democracy to Iraq.