I just threw up in my mouth a little.

[Sgt PSN]

I think that's the "nice" thing to do and it may even the be right thing to do.  But as long as we maintain a military presence over there, we are going to be subject to more terrorist attacks in the US.  I say get out of there and let the animals run the jungle.  Eventually, a group of people will stand out as the lion and appoint themselves king. 

[rjs246]

Sure. Too bad the government made up a story about WMDs in the first place to justify the war.

Made up the story? Tell that to the thousands of Kurds Saddam Wiped out with Chemical weapons.

Since that happened (about a decade ago) Saddam was forced to get rid of those weapons. He told the world he got rid of them. He was subject to searches for years. Those searches turned up nothing. Then, based on information that EVERYONE has admitted was incorrect, Bush claims that there are weapons of mass destruction and decided to start a war.

If he had just said, "Saddam and his sons are farging crazy and we are going to remove them from power because they are a menace since crazy people shouldn't be in charge of whole countries." I would have some semblence of respect for that, but that isn't what happened. A story was concocted to get support. They haven't found a single thing to indicate that there were WMDs anywhere in the country. It was a lie and people are still trying to justify it. Ridiculous.

[Phanatic]

Having patrolled the UN No fly zones over Iraq for the better part of the 90's myself, let me just say that the UN is useless. They left the US and Britain with the job of containing the mad man at great cost. The French stopped patrolling in 92. But hey someone had to be left to keep bad old Saddam in his cage while he built lavish palaces and abused his people. He needed to be removed and not just because of oil. Half of Iraq was a designated 'no fly zone' that had to be patrolled. Saddam would move his SAM sites below the line. We would take it out. Cat and mouse cat and mouse. What the farg for? It accomplished absolutely nothing. What a waste of my military career. I served my country in a just war, only to waste my time for the next 4 years doing nothing. That is frustrating...

Then the guys who put together the plan bought their own press and really thought our troops would go in there and everything would be rosy. They fooled themselves and refused to listen to criticism about the plan while American troops pay the price. They also seemed to listen only to intel that fit their world view. A very very dangerous thing to do. Now we get two extreme views in American politics and neither seems to really know what is going on.

It's like there's lead pipe in the aqueducts...

I think I just Vurped...

[MURP]

[Wingspan]

[phillymic2000]

Since that happened (about a decade ago) Saddam was forced to get rid of those weapons. He told the world he got rid of them. He was subject to searches for years. Those searches turned up nothing. Then, based on information that EVERYONE has admitted was incorrect, Bush claims that there are weapons of mass destruction and decided to start a war.

If he had just said, "Saddam and his sons are farging crazy and we are going to remove them from power because they are a menace since crazy people shouldn't be in charge of whole countries." I would have some semblence of respect for that, but that isn't what happened. A story was concocted to get support. They haven't found a single thing to indicate that there were WMDs anywhere in the country. It was a lie and people are still trying to justify it. Ridiculous.

When did he say he got rid of them? He never let the Weapons inspectors do their job, like Phanatic said it was a cat and mouse game for him. He never fully disclosed his weapons program. The Intel said he had it, most of the world agreed, when we got there it was not there. Just as it is ridiculous trying to justify that the weapons are still there in Iraq, it is just as ridiculous imo to think Saddam did not move the amount he had left. He had plenty of notice we were coming.

[rjs246]

So because some people thought that maybe the guy had weapons, and in spite of an utter lack of evidence, you think this war, under the pretense of a search for WMDs, was justified? Baaah. Baaah.

[phillymic2000]

So because some people thought that maybe the guy had weapons, and in spite of an utter lack of evidence, you think this war, under the pretense of a search for WMDs, was justified? Baaah. Baaah.

No, what i am saying is that many people hate bush so much that they seem to forget what led up to the war. I do not think it was a good idea that Bush pushed the WMD angle to justify his actions. I think it was agood idea to get Saddam out of power for the whole the picture, the UN Violations, the WMD's, the terrorist connection, his history of military action against his neighbors. There was not a total lack of evidence of WMD, the guy had a history of having wmd's and using them against his own people, and his neighbors. That eveidence is a solid as it  comes. He also ducked the Weapons inspectors and kicked them out a couple of times. 

[Wingspan]

So because some people thought that maybe the guy had weapons, and in spite of an utter lack of evidence, you think this war, under the pretense of a search for WMDs, was justified? Baaah. Baaah.

No, what i am saying is that many people hate bush so much that they seem to forget what led up to the war. I do not think it was a good idea that Bush pushed the WMD angle to justify his actions. I think it was agood idea to get Saddam out of power for the whole the picture, the UN Violations, the WMD's, the terrorist connection, his history of military action against his neighbors. There was not a total lack of evidence of WMD, the guy had a history of having wmd's and using them against his own people, and his neighbors. That eveidence is a solid as it  comes. He also ducked the Weapons inspectors and kicked them out a couple of times. 

how's about this...i supported the war. based on the "facts" that were shown as the reasons he pushed for it. him going on those same "facts" was fine in my book. now the question becomes, did bush know these "facts" were "lies" when he told us about them? that is a question we will never know the answer to and is not part of my assesment of him.

however, i dont hate him for that.

i hate him for a hell of a lot of other things.

[Sgt PSN]

how's about this...i supported the war. based on the "facts" that were shown as the reasons he pushed for it. him going on those same "facts" was fine in my book. now the question becomes, did bush know these "facts" were "lies" when he told us about them? that is a question we will never know the answer to and is not part of my assesment of him.

however, i dont hate him for that.

i hate him for a hell of a lot of other things.

Agreed on everything there.  Well said.  I'm not mad at Bush for sending troops into Iraq (based on the intel at the time).  There's no reason (other than oil) to have kept them over there for as long as it's been now. 

[Diomedes]

I think it was agood idea to get Saddam out of power for the whole the picture,

That wasn't the reason given.  If Bush had said "I want to invade this country because they have a crazy leader," how do you think that would have gone over?  Not farging well.  There are lots of crazy leaders.  He had to lie to the people, fix evidence to his purpose, and scare everyone into thinking that Saddam was an immenent nuclear threat.  Even then, the world was justly dubious of the Hitlereque "we must attack the terrorists in their land before they attack us in ours."  Hitler, incdidentally, justifed the invasoin of Poland in almost the exact same grounds.

the UN Violations

Like no one has every violated the UN before.  Read Scott Ritter on the UN inspections/attempt to destroy WMDs in Iraq.  He was an inspector and was very supportive of Gulf 1.  But long before Bush started beating the drum for this latest war, he crowed from every rooftop he could that there were no weapons, the isnpections and destructions had worked, etc.  And he was right.  UN violations is no goddamned reason to invade a country, killed uncounted patriots and foreign insurgents, piss away 2,232 U.S. soldiers, well over 30.000 innocent civilians, etc.

the WMD's,

WHAT fargING WMDs??

the terrorist connection

WHAT fargING CONNECTION?  This is a proven goddamned fact:  there was no connection betwen Saddam and Islamic fundamental terrorists.  He was secular, for God's sake.  Osama hates Saddam.

his history of military action against his neighbors.

Funded by us.  We gave him the chemical weapons he used against Iran, and we knew he was using them at the time.

There was not a total lack of evidence of WMD, the guy had a history of having wmd's and using them against his own people, and his neighbors. That eveidence is a solid as it comes.

You need to do some reading.  We gave him all the WMDs for which any evidence exists.  We knew he was using them against Kurds--the ones you all keep calling "his own people", despite the fact they are more Kurdish than they are Iraqi--and also against Iran.

He also ducked the Weapons inspectors and kicked them out a couple of times.

So is Iran, so has North Korea.  We invading there?  You would support invasions there? 



I opposed this war from the beginning.  I was right.

[MadMarchHare]

Fine, you want to send in troops, your the President, you can do whatever the hell you want.  Clearly.

But this crux of this war was never about troops defeating enemy troops.  It was about convincing the Iraqi people we were invading for reasons other than personal gain.  Bush lost this war the minute he appointed an ex-oil company executive to act as the ruler of the coalition.  And he's blundered badly ever since.

[phillymic2000]

WHAT fargING CONNECTION?  This is a proven goddamned fact:  there was no connection betwen Saddam and Islamic fundamental terrorists.  He was secular, for God's sake.  Osama hates Saddam.

Saddam didn't offer, and give suicide bombers families 20 thousand dollars after an attack in Israel?

Funded by us.  We gave him the chemical weapons he used against Iran, and we knew he was using them at the time.

We did supply Iraq with Arms and supplies to make Chemical weapons, during the Iraq/Iran war.

Hitler, incdidentally, justifed the invasoin of Poland in almost the exact same grounds.

IMO this is a piss poor comparison, we are not going to rule over Iraq.

You need to do some reading.  We gave him all the WMDs for which any evidence exists.  We knew he was using them against Kurds--the ones you all keep calling "his own people", despite the fact they are more Kurdish than they are Iraqi--and also against Iran.

http://projects.sipri.se/cbw/research/factsheet-1984.html

We did not give him "all" the chemical weapons, but this also answers the main issue, we gave him some in the 80's HE HAD FARGIN WMDs.

So is Iran, so has North Korea.  We invading there?  You would support invasions there? 

Do some fargin reading yourself, I already said, I think that Iraq and Afganistan is the set up to an Iran invasion, we would have our military on both sides of them. Would I support a war with either of these countries, not at this point. N. Korea is run by a lunatic with a serious case of the short guy disease that is starving his own people.  I do think Iran may start it Israel before we would be ready to make a move IMO. Bottom line is with the radical Ilsamic terrorists, many people think if we get out of the Middle East they will leave us alone, people need to understand that They want us DEAD, or to turn radical like them and only follow their belief in Islam.

[phillymic2000]

how's about this...i supported the war. based on the "facts" that were shown as the reasons he pushed for it. him going on those same "facts" was fine in my book. now the question becomes, did bush know these "facts" were "lies" when he told us about them? that is a question we will never know the answer to and is not part of my assesment of him.

however, i dont hate him for that.

i hate him for a hell of a lot of other things.

Well said wingspan, I do not agree with all his decisions, but I do not hate the man. I am not dogging anyone who does hate him, everyone has there own opinion. I do find it funny when someone agrees/supports bush in anyway they are drilled for being a "sheep" or "idiot".

[Wingspan]

how's about this...i supported the war. based on the "facts" that were shown as the reasons he pushed for it. him going on those same "facts" was fine in my book. now the question becomes, did bush know these "facts" were "lies" when he told us about them? that is a question we will never know the answer to and is not part of my assesment of him.

however, i dont hate him for that.

i hate him for a hell of a lot of other things.

Well said wingspan, I do not agree with all his decisions, but I do not hate the man. I am not dogging anyone who does hate him, everyone has there own opinion. I do find it funny when someone agrees/supports bush in anyway they are drilled for being a "sheep" or "idiot".

my dislike for him is strictly policitally based. and it going back to his first election in how he railroaded mccain. i am not politically affiliated with any party, i am registered  under nothing (i am a registered to vote). i was really hoping and a supporter of john mccain, and i would still vote for him. and when rumors started to float of him possibly switching parties and joining kerry, again, i was hopeful(even though i was no kerry supporter either). but alas.

however my political opinions should be taken with a helping of salt...in the last 2 presidential elections, the guy who initially attracted me to give them my vote(from one of the two major parties) were gone before you could blink an eye.

the last presidential election i voted for some independant woman candidate. probably the only vote she got.