Going with one of the bigger discussions now, just a little poll...

I voted no. ...but whether it was before or not, it is now.

Of course not, but hey it distracted America from the horrible economy!:D

Nope.. I've been against the war from the start.

Nessecary? Probably not, but it's subjective.

Right? Yes.

i've always figured it as the snipers were taking to long, and he had too many doubles to take out

Was it neccessary? Probably not, when compared with other nations. Is it now? Certainly. Otherwsie, Iraq completely disintegrates.

Hah. Six votes for the war and not one with the balls to tell us why.

I voted yes and I am not going to say anymore because this is just inciting a flame war

Just say it geez.

I can't imagine anyone voting yes because they felt their security was threatened by Iraq. I mean, come on! AMERICA. 50% of world military power is America's military itself! And the war was pre-emptive.. we had not been attacked. How is that fair?

While I did vote "No", I do say that it is now the obligation of the United States to keep troops in Iraq until it becomes a stable nation again (which is likely to be a long, long, time). However, going in and invaing Iraq was a collosal mistake, one of the biggest blunders of Bush's presidency; I hope that mistake costs him the Oval office, so he doesn't get the opportunity to do something like that again. There has been and still is proof that Sadaam Hussein had complied with the UN and eliminated all of the weapons of mass destruction that were sold to him by Ronald Reagan. The WMDs was the only thing that was used, and could have, justified military action in Iraq. Please, everybody, don't let anybody bull**** you on that. (every nation on Earth, both their legislature and public, aside from Israel, had been against the war before it began. However, when asked if WMDs would justify military action, the majority of all groups said yes)

It won't.

Hahaha....no

What horrible economy?

It distracted America from a rapidly declining economy--let's say that.

While it's popular to assume that we can suggest all middle-eastern countries that hate us actually plan to attack us, but it's just not (According to the UN, which we are technically in support of, and depend upon to uphold many world-laws that are in our favor, just not this one...) justifiable to pre-emptivelly strike. The ONLY way we could pre-emptivelly strike is if we were threatened, and nothing of the sort happened.

And I'd like to note that, while we're getting LOTS of resistance over in Iraq right now, almost if not all of that resistance isn't from Iraq, or even affiliated with Iraq. They're mostly just the equivilent of our outragous extremist hicks that hate musleams. It's the same as a racial crime, only that there's not as much control and reprocution for actions over there, as well, their religion provides less control over life and death, and their social standings also detracts from the fear of punishment and death. We're fighting hate-born extremists, not 'followers of Saddam.'

JediKirby

What rapidly declining economy?

oh good god.

I don't know about where you live, but things are looking pretty bad over here. I've got a friend who's living pretty much hand to mouth, I swear to god I'm not kidding that he goes days at a time without any food. Several of my friend's parents and many many people that I know are unemployed. It's not that they're lazy, it's that there's a shortage of work. And we live in the RICHEST county in Ohio. I'm not even going to talk about Cleveland (which happens to be the poorest city in the country..)

The economy wasn't declining. It had already declined and hit the ****ter.

I voted No. I do, however, think Saddam had the potential to be a threat. Whither Saddam had stores of chemical or biological weapons is irrelevant in my theory because he had everything he needed to make those weapons if he wanted. He had worked with certain terrorist groups pre-9/11. He funded Palestinian terrorists. He allowed terrorists(I don't think they were Al-Qaeda related) to train in his country even when the US was rolling tanks in through the desert(SOF and/or SMU units took it out). Now, I have no idea why he didn't sell chemical or biological weapons to terrorists to use against the US and others, but the possibility of him doing it was there and definately a strong one.

Now, this is where I am confronted with a difficult moral question. Do we do a pre-emptive strike and wipe out the possibility of him selling weapons like that to terrorists, or do we wait for some confirmation that he has already done it? I would prefer the latter before we act, but that kind of information isn't always available, even more so in the horrible human intelligence we had inside Iraq before the war. It's an ethical problem for me.

Evidently though, the Bush admistration knew something because both Afghanistan and Iraq were on their hit list from day one. 9/11 just made Afghanistan the first target.

Warlord: Just a point of argument, you should never use personal experience to back up a point you make. Everyone has different personal experiences and in the case of livelihood, there are more factors that the economy. I, for instance, have maintained a fairly consistent if not slightly better lifestyle since 9/11 and Utah is by no means the richest state either.

I have only read that Saddam was an old fashioned dictator who didn't give a **** about the rest of the world, as long as he was in power in his own country and could do what ever he wanted to those unfortunate enough to be his subjects. His biggest mistake and the beginning of his downfall was Kuwait.

And nobody can deny that Iraq today is far worse breeding ground of terrorists than during the regime of Saddam. The only difference is that now Western countries (=USA) can directly do something about it. As futile as that "something" has seemed to be so far.

Well, these are just my opinions and based on as much fact as fiction...

It was totally not neccessary.

I think we are led to believe by the media that there is nothing good happening in Iraq, period. I honestly think a lot of good is happening in Iraq as a part of reconstruction, and yes I know there are negative things happening as well, but the media tends to like to focus on the negative only.

Hmmm...
"US soldier saves puppy"
"US bombs kill 324632 civilians"

WHICH HEADLINE SHALL SELL MORE PAPERS?

PETA sent me a nickel to help fight animal cruelty.

Indeed.

I just voted yes however I see no reason to explain the reasons. This is such a tired old debate here everyone should be relatively familiar with the arguments of both sides. I will say that I find it amusing that some of you seem to think Iraq is a bigger problem now than before the coallition took military action.

The point is assuming Saddam Hussein had stores of chemical and biological weapons, which the American invasion has proved false, how exactly would that serve as a threat to America? Unless Iraq had ICBMs (which the U.S. could easily discern with its spy satellites that Iraq did not) there would be absolutely no way for Saddam Hussein to deliver any significant damage to American soil. Given the sheer quantity of harmful materials that Iraq would need to send by boat to do any damage that would make America think twice before bombing Iraq to **** in retaliation (which it could much more effectively than it is now to protect its ***), I'd imagine that the U.S. would be asking a little for it if they could not have the foresight as to what a shipment via a fleet of cargo ships from the Persian Gulf would consist of. I'm sure Saddam has free oil gushing out of every orifice.

Well, sure doesn't hurt overpopulation. Oh, and it will be easier to build that oil pipline, just need to get that pesky Iran to cooperate. Yes, things will be grand.

While pessimism seems useless, people will think twice before invading somewhere else, such as say, Iran or Syria. So we won't have similar debates about those countries.

Kuat--your argument made no sense. I understood it, but it was stupid, and baseless, and just further proved finity's point. Maybe this WASN'T a war for oil, you know? (then again maybe I'm Princess Diana) Maybe Bush had Iraq's best interests at heart. Maybe you shouldn't believe everything the media tells you.

STEALTH EDIT

Tonberry, to assume that WMD's were never there is as bad as assuming the WMD's were always there. There are more possible explanations for why we can't find them then that they didn't exist at that point of time. Also, I illustrated that Saddam wouldn't need an ICBM to harm us with WMD's had he chosen to.

It's people like Mikus that make me think I'm wasting my time here and justifies why America has the electoral collage.

Either the debate is tired, or you just lack some good solid argurments.

Hell, people debated over the start over the Spanish American war, until the explosion of the boat over in cuba turned out to be just a malfunction. Waving your hand away never stops a debate. Besides, if you had some real meat to back your arguments, I bet you would love to say it. Yes, I am just baiting you, I want to hear what you have to say. Hell, just PM me some good links/arguments if you don't want to get flamed by others. I'd love to know that our country went to war for the right reasons...

Has Star Wars taught us nothing?

Star Wars isn't a moral guide to the world. The only advice it offers us is Karma--treat others like you want to be treated.

Was it necessary? No. Was it morally right? Probably. Was it well-planned and executed well? No. Are we in deep **** now? Most definitely.

That is all. :p

Security? Ahhh, It wasn't security that I'm worried about, I mean just taking Saddam Huesein down is good enough reaason, and since none of you were in the war, you don't know what really happened. And by the way, for those of you who are like this I'm like this at you, because obiously I voted yes.

Negative on that. It wasn't baseless, your opinion is wrong on this. What has Bush done to show he gives a **** about Iraq?

Maybe you should actually think before posting, instead of flaming. And when did the stupid media say anything about oil? Post some proof before you rant on stupidly, and don't assume what other people think.

Finity's point was to focus on the positive. Why should we? If we make it seem completely right, then other such wars wouldn't be hampered.