OK....I have been watching the Republican National Convention (RNC), and have heard that 9-11 was the main reason for the war in Iraq. For us attacking Saddam Hussien. And as I listen to this, I am thinking....huh?

Now, I may be mistaken, but didn't Osama Bin-Ladin coordinate the 9-11 attacks? So did he change his name to Saddam Hussien? Now I know that Hussien isn't a good guy, but he was killing his people back when the first George Bush was president. Why attack now? I mean, occording to what I've seen, he wasn't involved in it. And why have we not caught Bin-Ladin?

Would someone please be so kind as to clear this up for me? I've been thinking about this for three years, and cannot find an answer!! Please...did Bush just change the name because he wanted to go after Iraq because Saddam tried to assassinate his father? Or did Saddam really have something to do with 9-11?

Yeah. And if you notice in his speech none of the reasons he gave prior to the Iraq War (WMD’s, Terrorist Ties) were mentioned. It was “we are saving the Iraqis” but really, we are giving them a country full of chaos, and hell. And I’ve already shown that if this Administration cared so much about “human death” they should be liberating people from World Hunger and diseases. Plus this is a war on terrorism, not dictators. But it’s funny, because we trade with Saudi Arabia, and they are just as horrible to their citizens as Saddam was to his…

Oh the irony…

OD, you sure make a lot of noise for someone who's not yet attained voting age. You may be able to regurgitate a vast amount of information gleaned from a variety of sources, however your distinct lack of life experience invalidates many of your comments.

Originally posted by es347fan
OD, you sure make a lot of noise for someone who's not yet attained voting age.
Every citizen should be able to give opinions, even if they are not of voting age.

Originally posted by es347fan
You may be able to regurgitate a vast amount of information gleaned from a variety of sources, however your distinct lack of life experience invalidates most of your comments.
Why don’t you debate the issues? My opinions are not “less validated” because of my “life experience”. If you disagree with my opinions, debate them with your “life experience”. This war is something you don’t need “life experience” to make a decision on. I don’t appreciate your snide comments about my age, because they are pointless. If you cannot debate the issues, you must resort to attacking attributes about me that make no sense. It’s childish, and unethical.

Originally posted by es347fan
OD, you sure make a lot of noise for someone who's not yet attained voting age. You may be able to regurgitate a vast amount of information gleaned from a variety of sources, however your distinct lack of life experience invalidates many of your comments.
Do you feel the same way about all teenagers' opinions, es? I always thought you gave me a fair shake on everything, regardless of my age...

A bit of statistics for you, es...

As of right now, 13,628 posts on Allforums are by teenagers, discounting anyone less than 100 posts. Also discounting any member with less than 100 posts, there are 61,112 total posts on Allforums. That's 22.3% teenage posts. If you discount anyone's posts because of age, you're throwing out nearly one fourth of the board for no real reason.

:comphit:

People are always commenting about OD's age, but rarely mine and never Borg or Blib's....

Oh and by the way, I think (not positive) that I might just be the youngest regular poster on here... Yet, I haven't had anyone make any really snide comments about my age. Stop picking on OD, will you?

I think the reason my age is brought up so much, is because I voice an opinion very loudly that most Conservatives on this board dislike. The fashion in which I voice them in, also, annoys them. And instead of attacking my opinions, and ideals…they bring up my age and say I’ll “think differently in the future” They simply discount what I say because of my age, and don’t debate the real issues. It gets fairly annoying, and I thank you all for your support.

If you think my opinions are not valid because of my “little life experience” please, discredit them with your “life experience”…I’ll look forward to the debate.

Aren't we getting alittle off topic here? I mean, I'm 16, so i don't care about peoples age, but I would still like to know how Osama Bin-Ladin morphed into Saddam Hussien? Would someone please enlighten me on this? PLEASE!!

yes, overdose is very annoying, he is right about that

Originally posted by Locke
Aren't we getting alittle off topic here? I mean, I'm 16, so i don't care about peoples age, but I would still like to know how Osama Bin-Ladin morphed into Saddam Hussien? Would someone please enlighten me on this? PLEASE!!

I guess they don't have an answer...

To kill all arabs that refuse to switch from Islam to Evangelicanism.

Dop

Locke....this is all my opinon......but im thinking we went over to afghanistan and wiped it out of terrorism for the most part, arrested many Al-Queda network terrorists. We didn't find the mastermind, Osama, So we are continuing to keep our nose out for him. We went into iraq because:

A. Stop Saddam from being such a vile dictator
B. Find out if he really had WMD considering he wasn't allowing weapons inspectors in
C. EVERYONE wanted to take Saddam down, Dem or Republican.
D. It gives us a huge advantage position-wise to make our next anti-terrorist move toward Iran or Pakistan.
E. While Iraq may or may not have been "in" on the terrorism(i think they were, but noone can really prove it either way)....they were definitely housing terrorists.

So we did capture Saddam, and we DIDN'T just up and leave. So Saddam didn't morph into Osama lol......we are still taking down and arresting Al-Queda operatives all the time, making the world safer for everyone in that region.

Originally posted by Overdose
I think the reason my age is brought up so much, is because I voice an opinion very loudly that most Conservatives on this board dislike. The fashion in which I voice them in, also, annoys them.

Well since you asked . . . There just doesn't seem to be a depth to the opinions that you state. No quarter given to the possibility that the other side's opinion has any value. You seem to be defending your side rather than your ideas. Which would make you exactly like Trav. Watching you guys argue is downright painful. That being said, I don't think your age is that big of a factor, other than the possibility that as you get older you'll be able to see the other side better. Maybe. It doesn't seem to have helped Trav, though.

OD, you sure make a lot of noise for someone who's not yet attained voting age. You may be able to regurgitate a vast amount of information gleaned from a variety of sources, however your distinct lack of life experience invalidates many of your comments.

Thats complete BS.

A. Stop Saddam from being such a vile dictator
B. Find out if he really had WMD considering he wasn't allowing weapons inspectors in
C. EVERYONE wanted to take Saddam down, Dem or Republican.
D. It gives us a huge advantage position-wise to make our next anti-terrorist move toward Iran or Pakistan.
E. While Iraq may or may not have been "in" on the terrorism(i think they were, but noone can really prove it either way)....they were definitely housing terrorists.


Thats a much better explaination than was given in the RNC...why don't they just say all that? Of course, Kerry isn't doing a good job either of explaining his positions.

Originally posted by Decka
A. Stop Saddam from being such a vile dictator
This is a war on terrorism, not dictators. Saudi Arabia is an evil dictatorship, yet we do trade and business with them. Don’t think for one second this Administration cared about him being “horrible to his citizens”, because they turn right around and trade with the Saudis. Plus, if the Bush Administration cared so much about “death”, they shouldn’t liberate the people of Iraq, they should liberate the millions of kids who die of world hunger each year. Now Iraq is suffering shortages at Hospitals, deformities are high among children, and they are on constant alert for terror. They are not that much better off.

Originally posted by Decka
B. Find out if he really had WMD considering he wasn't allowing weapons inspectors in
The UN said he had no weapons since 1994.

And David Kay a few months before the Iraq war said this.

Saddam is complying with our demands, and allowing inspectors in all areas

Which thus means, he was allowing the UN in Iraq. He had no WMD’s and to launch war based on the “chance” he has weapons is reckless and downright stupid.

Originally posted by Decka
C. EVERYONE wanted to take Saddam down, Dem or Republican.
Is it the time or place for it? Did we need to go into Iraq?

Originally posted by Decka
D. It gives us a huge advantage position-wise to make our next anti-terrorist move toward Iran or Pakistan.
We need three times the amount of troops in Iraq to make it stable. Yet you think we can just go invading other countries around the world? How ill-thought is that?


Originally posted by Decka
E. While Iraq may or may not have been "in" on the terrorism(i think they were, but noone can really prove it either way)....they were definitely housing terrorists.
Hardly the 9/11 panel said he had no ties to 9/11, weak ties to Osama Bin Laden, and many other countries were far more linked to terrorism. Yet, terrorism has increased…21 year high my friend.

Decka...well I have thought about your ideas and about OD's responces. And I have a few things to say to that.

A. Yes, Saddam is a dictator, but so is Castro, but we aren't attacking him.

B. Ok, we didn't know if he had WMD's or not, so we went in to stop them.....But didn't N. Korea say they had nuclear weapons? Why are we not invading them if they have it?

C. Yes, everyone wanted to take him down. After Bush put the blame of 9-11 on his shoulders.

D. I can't really argue with this one. If we do stablize Iraq and put in a puppet government, we would have two bases in the middle east to attack from. We would have Isreal and Iraq, but somehow I doubt the people in Iraq would be happy if we continued to occupy them. But that's off topic.

E. Yes, they were housing terrorists, so I will give this one credit as well. But once again, why Iraq? Why not Iran? Or Packistan?

Now, I do have some ideas about why we did go into Iraq.

1) Oil. When we get the country stablized, we can now have cheep oil. That's probably the main reason many of the senators went along with it.

2) Personal vendetta. I think that George W. Bush was after Saddam due to the attempted assassination of his father.

Well I'll be waiting for anyone to trash my ideas. Please do, I would like to find any flaws in my thinking, even if it is how I said it. Thank you all.

please show me the quote or quotes where bush said 9-11 is conected to saddam in anyway at all

He hasn't and that is my point. Where is the link? Bush uses 9-11 to justify the Iraqi war, but there is no connection. So why did he send our military to fight Saddam?

Originally posted by Locke
OK....I have been watching the Republican National Convention (RNC), and have heard that 9-11 was the main reason for the war in Iraq. For us attacking Saddam Hussien. And as I listen to this, I am thinking....huh?

Now, I may be mistaken, but didn't Osama Bin-Ladin coordinate the 9-11 attacks? So did he change his name to Saddam Hussien? Now I know that Hussien isn't a good guy, but he was killing his people back when the first George Bush was president. Why attack now? I mean, occording to what I've seen, he wasn't involved in it. And why have we not caught Bin-Ladin?

Would someone please be so kind as to clear this up for me? I've been thinking about this for three years, and cannot find an answer!! Please...did Bush just change the name because he wanted to go after Iraq because Saddam tried to assassinate his father? Or did Saddam really have something to do with 9-11?


Dear Confused for 3 years,
Saddam - we should have just left him alone to continue his killings. What a much better world it would be!

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Well since you asked . . . There just doesn't seem to be a depth to the opinions that you state. No quarter given to the possibility that the other side's opinion has any value. You seem to be defending your side rather than your ideas. Which would make you exactly like Trav. Watching you guys argue is downright painful. That being said, I don't think your age is that big of a factor, other than the possibility that as you get older you'll be able to see the other side better. Maybe. It doesn't seem to have helped Trav, though. NO ONE HERE GIVES THE OTHER SIDE THE POSSIBILITY OF BEING CORRECT....DEM OR REP. I HAVE NOT HEARD ONE REP SAY ANYTHING THAT BUSH HAS DONE WRONG..........SO HE'S PERFECT, WHY HAVE AN ELECTION ? ALL REPS AND CONSERVS SAY HE'S PERFECT, SO LETS JUST LISTEN TO THEM BECAUSE THEY HAVE ALWAYS BEEN SMARTER THAN DEMS........:rolleyes: OH, I ALSO LIKE THE WAY THE INSULTS FLY WHEN THEY DONT HAVE A GOOD ARGUMENT FOR THIS BULLSHIT. NO ONE GIVES THE OTHER SIDE THE POSSIBILITY OF BEING RIGHT.......PARTISAN PEOPLE MAKE PARTISAN ARGUMENTS ! THE ONLY THING HE'LL SEE AS HE GETS OLDER, IS THAT POLITICIANS ARE FULL OF SHIT, AND WE ARE NOT FAR BEHIND !

Saddam - we should have just left him alone to continue his killings. What a much better world it would be!

Yes, you are right, Saddam was an awful leader. He killed millions of his own people. But that's beside the point. Why is it that we went after Saddam instead of Bin-Ladin? I know we are still after Ladin, but not as badly as we went after Saddam. Did Saddam have anything to do with 9-11? Is there any proof that Saddam had anything to do with 9-11? If so, please tell me and I will admit I was wrong. I know I'm not perfect, but I would like to try and be right. Thank you.

Originally posted by 4MAWEARS
Dear Confused for 3 years,
Saddam - we should have just left him alone to continue his killings. What a much better world it would be!
A) Bush did not go into Iraq saying we should get rid of Hussein. His mantra was "WMDs". Not Saddam. Get your facts straight.
B) Yes Hussein was an awful man, but there are equally bad regimes in this world. I believe South Korea is one. Libya. Saudi Arabia. There's more, but I think you get my point here.
C) We should have gotten UN support before we went in. In the middle of a recession, it is not wise to go into a war funded mostly by you when the cost of it would measure in the tens of billions. Our deficit is now quite large indeed.
D) We ended up fighting two wars at once, because we still haven't found bin Laden.

its not two wars at once its the same war. its called the war on terror. saddam was a terrorist. The others will get their turns, be patient my war mongering little friends

Originally posted by Travh20
its not two wars at once its the same war. its called the war on terror. saddam was a terrorist. The others will get their turns, be patient my war mongering little friends
Fine then, if you want to be picky, it's the same war fought on two different fronts. Happy?

First off, OD's age SHOULD NOT be an issue in this discussion. He posts more intelligently than many of the people here.

Anyhoo, onto the Iraq reasons. Quite simply, Locke, the reasons we went into Iraq were a muddled mess of excuses, piss poor intelligence and tragically awful logic. In response to the Forum Republican's reasoning:

A. Sadaam wasn't the worst dicatator in the world. At most, he qualified as a "Minor International Asshole." Libya has a MIA too. S. Arabia, Iran, N. Korea... They all have "Major International Assholes" as their leader and we don't argue. Hell, N. Korea is even devoloping actual WMD's. Hmmm...

B. Not a sufficient reason to invade a country. "Umm.. We think you're lying, but have no proof. Thus, we'll Shock and Awe it out of you!"Ummm... No.

C. Yeah, that's why the UN voted against our actions. And that's why our "Coalition" consists of only two world powers. That's also why we're doing all the work in Iraq. Oh yeah... everyone's on our side 100%.

D. Meanwhile our domestic affairs are going down the toilet, 40% of Americans don't have healthcare, our deficit is through the roof and our military forces are stretched too thin. A good reason to invade? Maybe. A logical, well thought out plan? Absolutely not.

E. See my response to A. Those countries are also harboring far more terrorists than Iraq ever was.

If this was a war against Iran, Saudi Arabia, N. Korea or a war of relief for Africa I wouldn't argue. However, I have yet to be convinced that Iraq was a wise or justified move. Now, rather than insult my character or cheap shot Kerry, would one of our Forum Republicans like to counter Borg, Locke or I's arguments??

Originally posted by BorgHunter
A) Bush did not go into Iraq saying we should get rid of Hussein. His mantra was "WMDs". Not Saddam. Get your facts straight.
B) Yes Hussein was an awful man, but there are equally bad regimes in this world. I believe South Korea is one. Libya. Saudi Arabia. There's more, but I think you get my point here.
C) We should have gotten UN support before we went in. In the middle of a recession, it is not wise to go into a war funded mostly by you when the cost of it would measure in the tens of billions. Our deficit is now quite large indeed.
D) We ended up fighting two wars at once, because we still haven't found bin Laden.

Take that spoon out of your ear.

Originally posted by 4MAWEARS
Take that spoon out of your ear.
Oh my, EXCELLENT response! I bow to your infinite wisdom as demonstrated in that post! I can't even BEGIN to refute the points you made there! :rolleyes:

Originally posted by 4MAWEARS
Take that spoon out of your ear.

Well geeze, Borg just got slapped there. My oh my what a compelling argument. Well, that's changed my mind; Iraq was a good war.

Medeas pathetic attempt to appear non partisan has evaporated in record time.

Yes borg, I am happy that you clarifyed the two wars thing, it is important that you see them all as athe war on terror.

As far as this whole thing about saddam just being one of the guys, as in just another dictator that was only harming those under his iron boot, lets think about this: N Korea, Iran, Lybia, Syria and a whole host of African dictators VS Saddam, who has gassed his own people, used gas on a battelfield for the first time since WW 1, invaded 3 neighbors, launched missles at israel, maintained a clandestine weapons program and lied to the UN, decieved the UN, mislead the UN, routinely fired on American and British jets enforcign the UN's punishments, tortured, openly tortured, raped and murdered hundreds of thousands of his subjects, harobored terrorist such as nidal and zarqowi, funded palestinian suicide bombers, trained terrorists, attempted assasinations of US presidents, spoke openly of his desire to kill americans, and had 2 sons crazier then him waiting in the wings to keep the whole show going indefinatly? saying saddam was just another one of the boys is short sighted.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Oh my, EXCELLENT response! I bow to your infinite wisdom as demonstrated in that post! I can't even BEGIN to refute the points you made there! :rolleyes:

Get over it - Saddam is gone and the world is better off without that tyrant - end of story. We ought to be looking out for other tyrants as well. Happy.

Originally posted by Locke
Yes, you are right, Saddam was an awful leader. He killed millions of his own people. But that's beside the point. Why is it that we went after Saddam instead of Bin-Ladin? I know we are still after Ladin, but not as badly as we went after Saddam. Did Saddam have anything to do with 9-11? Is there any proof that Saddam had anything to do with 9-11? If so, please tell me and I will admit I was wrong. I know I'm not perfect, but I would like to try and be right. Thank you.

You are not wrong and you are not right just confused like the rest of us. I guess we will never have the real truth about all of this but this we know Saddam was evil and the world and Iraq is better off without him.

Medeas pathetic attempt to appear non partisan has evaporated in record time.

Now now now... I said no character attacks. They distract from the topic at hand.

Who has gassed his own people, used gas on a battelfield for the first time since WW 1

Oh, so if you use other methods (such as raping women and then cutting off their breasts in Syria or simply shooting them) that doesn't make you just as bad if not worse? Genocide is genocide and all of the aforementioned dictators use it frequently.

And maybe there's a reason gas wasn't used since WWI. Oh yeah, it's an outdated method of warfare.

invaded 3 neighbors,

For which he was reprimanded by Bush Sr. Or do you think your Bush H Dubbya didn't get the job done?

maintained a clandestine weapons program and lied to the UN, decieved the UN, mislead the UN...

Funny story about those weapons... No one seems to know where they are. The inspectors never found anything and it's doubtful this will ever be proved, making it a piss-poor excuse.

tortured, openly tortured, raped and murdered hundreds of thousands of his subjects...

So do all of the aforementioned dictators.

harobored terrorist such as nidal and zarqowi, funded palestinian suicide bombers, trained terrorists, attempted assasinations of US presidents...

So do all of the aforementioned dictators.

spoke openly of his desire to kill americans

Show me a recent quote from a non-partisan source.

saying saddam was just another one of the boys is short sighted.

Blaming Sadaam for our problems and not focusing on the imminent threats to this country is even more short-sighted and dangerous. In fact, our attack on Saddam was not only short sighted, but expensive, poorly justified and a waste of 1,000 brave souls. All of these resources could have been better used fighting or fixing other problems that should have taken precedence.

Originally posted by Travh20
N Korea, Iran, Lybia, Syria and a whole host of African dictators VS Saddam, who has gassed his own people
Trav, yes, he has gassed his own people. Although, in 1988 we gave him weapons that he used against his citizens. Previously, in the early and mid-80’s he also gassed his citizens. When we gave him these weapons, we knew (although will never admit) he would us them against his citizens. We bypassed this and gave him weapons to fight Iran. It’s ironic how you would find such horror in this. Plus, our country kills people. What’s the honest difference? Also, this is a war on terrorism not dictators. It’s not the time nor place to be going around the world “liberating” countries when we were severely attacked on 9/11. We should be putting our country first and foremost.

Originally posted by Travh20
launched missles at Israel
Trav, Israel has done things that have made countries hate them. They have broken UN resolutions and invaded the West Bank (when they were not supposed to). They have their fair share of killing and attacking places that should never have been hurt. Our blind love to them is sickening.

Originally posted by Travh20
maintained a clandestine weapons program
Actually Trav, the UN said he didn’t make any weapons past 1994. It’s silly to assume he was still “maintaining” these programs with the satellites and UN inspectors in his country. I guess we haven’t found the “weapons” he was maintaining. Plus, North Korea has weapons, we’ve seen them. We “thought” Saddam had them (don’t make me laugh) but we knew NK did. And we left them alone, which is oh-so ironic.

Originally posted by Travh20
lied to the UN, decieved the UN, mislead the UN
This can only be used up to a certain point, Trav. David Kay said that he was complying with all orders and everything we asked at the last UN inspection. They found nothing. He was letting us go wherever we wanted to go. There were no weapons found, and from the looks of it, he was completely disarmed.

But I guess the fact that we haven’t found any weapons (that were a threat to America) makes it even clearer that he really did have the weapons. Good one Trav!

Originally posted by Travh20
tortured, openly tortured
You mean like in the Prisoner Abuse Scandal? And ALL the other dictatorships?

Originally posted by Travh20
raped and murdered hundreds of thousands of his subjects
That’s horrible, and it’s not correct. But we do not launch war on that. It’s not our duty as America to be the world police. This is a war on terrorism, not dictators. If this Administration cared so much about “death” and people “dying”…they would help out causes that have extreme death like world hunger and diseases. Try liberating those first.

Originally posted by Travh20
harobored terrorist such as nidal and zarqowi
I find it funny how the 9/11 Panel said his ties to terrorism were weak and that many other countries were far more linked to terrorism then Saddam. But now we can’t attack the countries that really have terrorism because we don’t even have enough troops in Iraq. Good planning Mr. Bush.

Originally posted by Travh20
funded palestinian suicide bombers, trained terrorists
Maybe because Israel was breaking UN resolutions, invading and killing people because they have the blind support of the United States.

Originally posted by Travh20
spoke openly of his desire to kill Americans
That reminds me of almost all of the other dictators in the world…that we haven’t attacked.

He didn’t have WMD’s, his ties to terrorisms were weak and his “killing” is not our business, when people die far more from world hunger and many other things. I would think the Bushies would try and liberate those causes first and foremost, since it’s a larger issue in the world today.

It’s ridiculous to assume we went to Iraq because he killed his people. All I heard from the Bush Administration was WMD, WMD, WMD! Hardly ever about “Saddam is a cruel dictator!” Plus he had no ties to 9/11, and we are still in search of Osama Bin Laden…

This war is making us less safe. The Iraqis are suffering deformities, have homes demolished, chaos is running high, we need three times the amount of troops in Iraq to stabilize it, and they are not that much better off.

But I still support the Iraq War!

Originally posted by Overdose
Trav, yes, he has gassed his own people. Although, in 1988 we gave him weapons that he used against his citizens. Previously, in the early and mid-80’s he also gassed his citizens. When we gave him these weapons, we knew (although will never admit) he would us them against his citizens. We bypassed this and gave him weapons to fight Iran. It’s ironic how you would find such horror in this. Plus, our country kills people. What’s the honest difference? Also, this is a war on terrorism not dictators. It’s not the time nor place to be going around the world “liberating” countries when we were severely attacked on 9/11.


I just find it funny that just because its labeled a war on "terror" that we can't still try to undue harm in the world whenever we can.

Originally posted by Overdose
We should be putting our country first and foremost.
[/B]

hmmm i dont know....sounds a bit greedy. I dont know about you but the way i see it most americans live like kings compared to other countries.

Originally posted by Overdose
Actually Trav, the UN said he didn’t make any weapons past 1994. It’s silly to assume he was still “maintaining” these programs with the satellites and UN inspectors in his country. I guess we haven’t found the “weapons” he was maintaining. Plus, North Korea has weapons, we’ve seen them. We “thought” Saddam had them (don’t make me laugh) but we knew NK did. And we left them alone, which is oh-so ironic.
[/B]

while you constantly say they didnt have weapons past 1994...i have to constantly remind you that ALL of your top-boy democrats agreed to take down Saddam and that he had WMD.....UNTIL it was convenient for them to go against the president. Its just classic turn-faced politics.

Originally posted by Overdose
You mean like in the Prisoner Abuse Scandal? And ALL the other dictatorships?
[/B]

something doesn't seem right here....prisoner abuse scandal= a few people.....Saddam=hundreds of thousands, even millions of people. They aren't even comparable OD...so can it already geez.

Originally posted by Overdose
That’s horrible, and it’s not correct. But we do not launch war on that. It’s not our duty as America to be the world police. This is a war on terrorism, not dictators. If this Administration cared so much about “death” and people “dying”…they would help out causes that have extreme death like world hunger and diseases. Try liberating those first.
[/B]

If anything its you democrats who started our "world police" status. Once we put our foot in its hard to just up and leave, allowing anyone to do anything.

Originally posted by Overdose
I find it funny how the 9/11 Panel said his ties to terrorism were weak and that many other countries were far more linked to terrorism then Saddam. But now we can’t attack the countries that really have terrorism because we don’t even have enough troops in Iraq. Good planning Mr. Bush.
[/B]

Im sure the whole situation is as simple as you discribe it OD...with your "supreme allied commander" status, why don't you go lead our forces against terrorism and show us how easy it is. You don't know the situations and don't know anything about military procedure, so your claims are only based on the media you choose to read. Thats not your own opinion therefore, but someone else's. All im saying is you dont know jack about the military so quit criticizing it....geez.

Originally posted by Overdose
He didn’t have WMD’s, his ties to terrorisms were weak and his “killing” is not our business, when people die far more from world hunger and many other things. I would think the Bushies would try and liberate those causes first and foremost, since it’s a larger issue in the world today.
[/B]

you cry about world hunger and all, but you say we should worry about ourselves first and foremost. You say he didnt have WMD like you were there and know 100%....and yet ALL your top boys say they did have them. Since when is it the presidents job to solve world hunger? Its the presidents job to protect our nation...and that was his intention in going into iraq.

Originally posted by Overdose
This war is making us less safe. The Iraqis are suffering deformities, have homes demolished, chaos is running high, we need three times the amount of troops in Iraq to stabilize it, and they are not that much better off.
[/B]

So you think the draft should be in full force eh?

Originally posted by Overdose
But I still support the Iraq War!
[/B]

i thought you strongly opposed it..man this is familiar..are you really John Kerry is disguise?

Originally posted by Decka
I just find it funny that just because its labeled a war on "terror" that we can't still try to undue harm in the world whenever we can.
It’s not the time or place to be doing it. Terrorism is big, and we were just attacked. It’s not the time to be liberating people around the world.

Originally posted by Decka
hmmm i dont know....sounds a bit greedy. I dont know about you but the way i see it most americans live like kings compared to other countries.
Greedy? Putting your country first and foremost, when you are vulnerable to terrorism and were just attacked? Really? I wouldn’t call that greedy...

Originally posted by Decka
while you constantly say they didnt have weapons past 1994...i have to constantly remind you that ALL of your top-boy democrats agreed to take down Saddam and that he had WMD.....UNTIL it was convenient for them to go against the president. Its just classic turn-faced politics.
It’s not my fault I believed the President of the United States after 9/11. I was trusting, and willing to put aside my political differences to come together as a nation of one. He mislead us, and Saddam never had the weapons. He was no “threat” to the United States in terms of the WMD’s.

Originally posted by Decka
....prisoner abuse scandal= a few people.....Saddam=hundreds of thousands, even millions of people. They aren't even comparable OD...so can it already geez.
Let’s see, Decka. They are still the same crimes being committed, they are still very similar to Saddam’s tactics. But regardless, you didn’t reply to the second part. Which is, many dictatorships did and do what Saddam did. We even trade with the Saudis. And you also forgot to respond to the fact that if this Administration cared so much about “human death” they would try and cure diseases, and world hunger before going and liberating the Iraqis. But again, this is not a war on liberating people but terrorism.

Originally posted by Decka
If anything its you democrats who started our "world police" status. Once we put our foot in its hard to just up and leave, allowing anyone to do anything.
I don’t have a problem with it, but it’s not the time to be doing it. We should be going after terrorism, not dictatorships.

Originally posted by Decka
You don't know the situations and don't know anything about military procedure, so your claims are only based on the media you choose to read.
I’m sorry….but seeing reports of hospitals having no electricity, not enough supplies, children being born with deformities, homes being demolished, car bombings occurring, officials being shot, I don’t think they are much better off.

As far the “three times the amount of troops” General Tony Mickpeak (Bush 2000 Supporter, lives in Oregon) was one of the head if not top general during the Gulf War said we need three times the amount of troops in Iraq to stabilize it. I’m sorry, but that’s enough for me to think the Iraqis are screwed.

Originally posted by Decka
you cry about world hunger and all, but you say we should worry about ourselves first and foremost.
Wrong. I said if the Bush Administration cared so much about “World Death” we should be putting world hunger first because that kills far more then what was occurring in Iraq.

But, to me, we do need to worry about ourselves first and foremost, I’m just using that as an example to show that Bush does not really care about these people.

Also the fact that the only reason he gave us was “WMD” not that “Saddam is a horrible dictator”

Originally posted by Decka
You say he didnt have WMD like you were there and know 100%....and yet ALL your top boys say they did have them.
Because they were mislead by the President to believe so. We trusted him, and he abused our trust. Bottom line.

Originally posted by Decka
Since when is it the presidents job to solve world hunger? Its the presidents job to protect our nation...and that was his intention in going into iraq.
Since when is it our job to stop Saddam from killing his people? And we are not safer from going into Iraq…2003 terror report buddy.

Originally posted by Decka
So you think the draft should be in full force eh?
Nope, never said that either Decka. Bush should have planned this war out, so we could “win” and stabilize it. His lack of planning has cost our country record deficits, and world disgust. He knew we didn’t have enough troops, and went in anyway. If we actually had the world on our side, we maybe could get the job done (since we have to finish it) but Bush has ruined our world reputation…

Originally posted by Overdose
It’s not the time or place to be doing it. Terrorism is big, and we were just attacked. It’s not the time to be liberating people around the world.


you cant always pick what you want to do when you want to do it....in my opinion iraq was housing terrorists and thus warranted our attention, and the reason we took it over by force is because Saddam wasn't cooperating. Im no expert in the middle east, but maybe the other countries that aren't iraq were cooperating a bit better...thus we havn't had the need to go in by force.


Originally posted by Overdose

Greedy? Putting your country first and foremost, when you are vulnerable to terrorism and were just attacked? Really? I wouldn’t call that greedy...


Hey...call it what you want, thinking of yourself first, i dont know, its just what came to mind.

Originally posted by Overdose

It’s not my fault I believed the President of the United States after 9/11. I was trusting, and willing to put aside my political differences to come together as a nation of one. He mislead us, and Saddam never had the weapons. He was no “threat” to the United States in terms of the WMD’s.


Listen to this....wow. You were trusting, and willing to put aside political differences. Somehow i question if you were'nt just ripping into George W. the whole time, but thats off subject.
Well we called his bluff. I would rather be CERTAIN that he didnt have WMD's than wondering if he did, and paying for it later.

Originally posted by Overdose

Let’s see, Decka. They are still the same crimes being committed, they are still very similar to Saddam’s tactics. But regardless, you didn’t reply to the second part. Which is, many dictatorships did and do what Saddam did. We even trade with the Saudis. And you also forgot to respond to the fact that if this Administration cared so much about “human death” they would try and cure diseases, and world hunger before going and liberating the Iraqis. But again, this is not a war on liberating people but terrorism.


Well..maybe the other dictatorships have theirs coming, and i consider iraq to me a thorn in our side, and it was more of a symbolic meaning than anything. After the gulf war and all....i think Iraq is more symbolic than world hunger. Hey, i don't like world hunger as much as you dont like it....but i don't see many people giving a damn about it over here.....so what's your complaint? We have the RIGHT to not care. That's whats so F'd up about this place

Originally posted by Overdose

I don’t have a problem with it, but it’s not the time to be doing it. We should be going after terrorism, not dictatorships.


Nice to know...i dont mind it as much.

Originally posted by Overdose

I’m sorry….but seeing reports of hospitals having no electricity, not enough supplies, children being born with deformities, homes being demolished, car bombings occurring, officials being shot, I don’t think they are much better off.


Who are you to decide....ive actually heard the contrary...most of the civilians are glad we did it, because Saddam was such a powerful force. Car bombings and that stuff will happen from the religious terrorists REGUARDLESS of what we do, and if you think we are under-manned over in iraq than why don't you pack up and go over there when you are old enough.

Originally posted by Overdose

As far the “three times the amount of troops” General Tony Mickpeak (Bush 2000 Supporter, lives in Oregon) was one of the head if not top general during the Gulf War said we need three times the amount of troops in Iraq to stabilize it. I’m sorry, but that’s enough for me to think the Iraqis are screwed.


Well i guess its kind of like the old parable.....Should we just not care because we can't stop it? or should we do all we can to try to contain it. I dont think iraq will be fully stabalized in a LONG TIME...but we are containing it thats for sure.

Originally posted by Overdose

Wrong. I said if the Bush Administration cared so much about “World Death” we should be putting world hunger first because that kills far more then what was occurring in Iraq.


Im not wrong....i stated an opinion...swallow your pride and get over yourself.

Originally posted by Overdose

But, to me, we do need to worry about ourselves first and foremost, I’m just using that as an example to show that Bush does not really care about these people.


Oh really? gee you must know him pretty good if he told you that.

Originally posted by Overdose

Also the fact that the only reason he gave us was “WMD” not that “Saddam is a horrible dictator”


hey...if we went back and did the whole thing over i'd do it in a heartbeat....because i wouldn't want to stay over here and wonder "what if"

Originally posted by Overdose

Because they were mislead by the President to believe so. We trusted him, and he abused our trust. Bottom line.


Im sorry...but i really don't buy the whole "he told us to" argument, and thats all it is. Gore, Clinton, Kerry.....they all get resources..they all agreed....hey, i can give you guys credit. Its a sly and sneaky way to pass the buck onto the president. I know politics is dirty...and you should to. If you think that Kerry's claim is legit than i highly disagree with you. I think he did it just because it was convenient.

Originally posted by Overdose

Since when is it our job to stop Saddam from killing his people? And we are not safer from going into Iraq…2003 terror report buddy.


if you mention that 2003 terror report again i might puke. I read the thing....If we AREN'T safer than where are all the attacks? Oh yea....THERE AREN'T ANY....don't take what you have for granted geez. And the 2003 terror report is all circumstancial evidence....yea terror went up, but you can't blame it all on us going into iraq.....they successfully attacked us on 9-11, that put wind in their sails IMO. You just spin it so that its negative.

Originally posted by Overdose

Nope, never said that either Decka. Bush should have planned this war out, so we could “win” and stabilize it. His lack of planning has cost our country record deficits, and world disgust. He knew we didn’t have enough troops, and went in anyway. If we actually had the world on our side, we maybe could get the job done (since we have to finish it) but Bush has ruined our world reputation…


Yea, and in my opinion had we waited for the UN to decide, we'd still be waiting and we'd be attacked a few more times by now.

have a good one!

Originally posted by Decka
you cant always pick what you want to do when you want to do it....in my opinion iraq was housing terrorists and thus warranted our attention, and the reason we took it over by force is because Saddam wasn't cooperating. Im no expert in the middle east, but maybe the other countries that aren't iraq were cooperating a bit better...thus we havn't had the need to go in by force.

Housing terrorists? Care to show me any proof? The 9/11 Panel said his ties to Al Queda, Osama Bin Laden, and terrorism all together were fairly weak. Not to mention that countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, and many others are far more linked to terrorism. Don’t think for one second Saddam was the most prevalent threat to us in the Middle East. Plus, the fact is, he was cooperating. I’ve already shown you why.

David Kay (lead UN Inspector) at the latest UN Inspection said Saddam was complying with our demands, and allowing us to search wherever we wanted. Why would we attack him when he was finally cooperating? Plus, he never had any WMD’s. Not past 1994 anyway, and we haven’t found any. That’s oh so ironic.

Originally posted by Decka
Well we called his bluff. I would rather be CERTAIN that he didnt have WMD's than wondering if he did, and paying for it later.
Sorry you don’t go to war on assumption, but fact. You don’t put our military into Iraq, just because he “may” have WMD’s (which he didn’t). Killing 10,000 Iraqi’s and over 1,000 US Soldiers is reckless for the “chance” of Saddam having weapons.

Originally posted by Decka
Well..maybe the other dictatorships have theirs coming, and i consider iraq to me a thorn in our side, and it was more of a symbolic meaning than anything.
We can’t attack the other dictatorships, for we don’t even have enough for Iraq. Our deficit is at a record high, and we cannot go after these dictatorships (that are far more terrorist orientated then Saddam was) Good job GWB!

Originally posted by Decka
Hey, i don't like world hunger as much as you dont like it....but i don't see many people giving a damn about it over here.....so what's your complaint? We have the RIGHT to not care. That's whats so F'd up about this place
Wonderful, but George Bush never cared about the “Iraqis” living in a cruel dictatorship, he only cared about the “WMD threat”.

And I’m saying, that if the Bush Administration cared so much about people dying, they should be solving world hunger first, because that kills more then what was occurring in Iraq. I’m sorry you don’t get the meaning of what I’m trying to convey here.

Originally posted by Decka
Who are you to decide....ive actually heard the contrary...most of the civilians are glad we did it, because Saddam was such a powerful force. Car bombings and that stuff will happen from the religious terrorists REGUARDLESS of what we do, and if you think we are under-manned over in iraq than why don't you pack up and go over there when you are old enough.
1. If you hear the contrary you’re being lied to. I remember posting a report long ago that showed the majority of Iraqis want the US out of Iraq. I suggest you catch up on forum history.

2. I don’t recall many car bombings when Saddam was in power, or deformities among children. He was a bad man, but it’s not our time or place to be doing this in Iraq. We are not making it much better...

3. I don’t believe in fighting for something I don’t believe in. And you’re old enough, you support this war, why don’t you go!

Originally posted by Decka
Im not wrong....i stated an opinion...swallow your pride and get over yourself.

Nope wrong. Read again, and try and refute it this time.


Wrong. I said if the Bush Administration cared so much about “World Death” we should be putting world hunger first because that kills far more then what was occurring in Iraq.

Originally posted by Decka
hey...if we went back and did the whole thing over i'd do it in a heartbeat....because i wouldn't want to stay over here and wonder "what if"
There was no “what if”. The UN said he didn’t have weapons, and Bush mislead us, even with that information, to believe he did have weapons.

Originally posted by Decka
Gore, Clinton, Kerry.....they all get resources..they all agreed....hey, i can give you guys credit. Its a sly and sneaky way to pass the buck onto the president. I know politics is dirty...and you should to.
Sorry the President was making speech after speech about Saddam having weapons. It wasn’t true. He mislead us. It’s his fault.

Originally posted by Decka
if you mention that 2003 terror report again i might puke. I read the thing....If we AREN'T safer than where are all the attacks? Oh yea....THERE AREN'T ANY....
21 Year high my friend. That means there is some attacks.

Originally posted by Decka
Yea, and in my opinion had we waited for the UN to decide, we'd still be waiting and we'd be attacked a few more times by now.
Yeah, with Saddam’s “missing” weapons. I’m sure we’d be attacked…

quick question, if you had to live in Iraq, would you rather live there pre saddam or post saddam? you pick the city.

If you read between the lines the real reason why Bush invaded Iraq was for oil.

Originally posted by MakeMoneyWemail
If you read between the lines the real reason why Bush invaded Iraq was for oil.

:comphit: