I said what I did because that is how I genuinely feel these days. I didn't mean it as a trap, and I'm not harboring any ulterior motives that I know of. I realized how immature I was being simply because I didn't agree with GWB's politics. It was certainly no grounds to personally insult him and all Republicans. I also realized most of my arguments stemmed from the question "Why did we go to war in the first place?". Certainly it's okay to question that, but it is of no use to bring it up now. Now, we need to focus on minimizing casualties on both sides, but most importantly, channeling as many resources as necessary to get the jobe done right.

I want to see as much body armor, humvee armor, provisions, as many troops, as much airpower, as many cruise missiles, and as many diplomatic resources as is necessary to ensure that democracy takes root in Iraq. It would be a shame for Iraq to slip back into a dictatorship or terrorist quagmire after all this trouble. In the best case scenario, Sine just might be right.

That site is intresting as it proves a point about the Iraq War as it shows that the US government just likes to waste money. Its okay as this money comes from the people. The war was a typical Republican stunt of wasting money 'for a good cause'.

Im British and our government did the same thing with the war and now us Taxpayers (as the politicans call us) are paying for the war, which was Tony Blair's pledge to America that Britian is still 'allied' with them. In Britian, we will have our General Election and no doubt the War will impact it.

As a liberalist, I feel that the war broke international law and if the superpowers are doing it, what does this say for America's
'war on terror'?.

"Atleast the money is going towards something good" is not a very good argument, at all.

Ice cream is something good, according to the money going towards something good argument, we should spend a bajillion dollars to flood the Atlantic Ocean with Ice Cream. As a side effect, this would also end global warming. And that is something good too.


I mean, who hates ice cream?



Thats the damn problem though. We all think we're doing "the right thing." What if the right thing is different for everyone else? NAH! Thats inconcievable! We're just gonna bust all up in someone elses country and force our way of life on them! That ALWAYS works! I mean, it worked here with those darned Indians! Sure showed them!

GENOCIDE ROCKS....

A war in a desert!

Can you feel the excitement!?

Rob, comparing the Iraq war to genocide is ridiculous and you know it.

I wasn't comparing.


Although, you have to admit a helluva lot of Iraqi's die every day for absolutely no reason.

But alot is done by the military force to prevent Iraqi death. Innocent deaths most likely happened in every armed conflict.

You can't say 'for no reason' when the reasons have been put out there time and time again.

For a reason you don't agree with? For a reason you don't think is important enough? Sure.

But NOT for no reason.

And they'd all be prevented if Iraq wasn't invaded in the first place.

I wasn't talking about you specifically (actually, your comment probably didn't factor into my statement). I was just saying that this thread has basically turned into an anti-war/pro-war frag fest.

No, they wouldn't. In fact, who knows, maybe even MORE deaths would have taken place--either American or Iraqi. Saddam Hussein isn't exactly a nice guy, and his friends didn't exactly have positive feelings towards us. In fact...they attacked us. And Iraq supported them.

Don't even attempt to try and link Saddam Hussein to the World Trade Centre attacks, it's a ludicrous assertion and you'll only make yourself look a fool.

...I wasn't. But you can't deny he and those responsible were linked by friendship, and god only knows what would've happened had we let that friendship grow past the attacks. And don't bring up any bollocks about "THAT'S NOT WHY WE WENT INTO THE WAR OMG"--I know. But what he's accomplished in Iraq makes up for the lack of justification he had originally (he being GW)

'linked by friendship'?

Osama bin Laden is quoted as calling Saddam Hussein a "bad Muslim", and openly opposes the Ba'ath party. There were no 'links of friendship' between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Quite the contrary. The Ba'ath party is a secular doctrine, very much opposed to the Islamic fundementalist government that Al Quaeda are fighting for.

Yes, Saddam Hussein was probably happy to see the towers collapse. But so were a lot of people around the world. If you're going to start invading on that basis, then you have a lot of invading to do.

Iraq was not a threat to the West, beyond the usual rhetoric.

Mort, you talk about the casualties that could have been avoided had America not gone to war. I'm curious, what would you do about the Iraq situation right now as president of the United States and commander in chief of armed forces? Talking about what could have been doesn't solve any problems. However, there are still problems to be solved there.

I'd really like to see proof of this, because last I checked, they were fairly good 'chums'. I may be wrong, however.

A little late to keep *****in' about that, ain't it?

When Osama bin Laden called on Iraqis to stand up against American invaders, he also called on them to stand up against the Ba'ath party. What Osama bin Laden has always wanted in Iraq is revolution, for the Ba'ath party to be overthrown by the Iraqis. The Ba'ath party in turn opposed Al Queada, because they are a secular party and opposed to an Islamic state.


Yes, Iraq was a dictatorship. But so is the most of the Middle-East, and most of the rest of Asia. So is pretty much all of Africa. Iraq was nothing special, nothing different. Compared to those in other Middle Eastern dictatorships, and especially those in African dictatorships, Iraqis really were very well off. So the whole 'overthrowing dictatorships' reasoning doesn't make much sense, because it raises the question.. why Iraq?

The real imminent threat is that of poverty in Africa, and that can be so easily solved. Moving this topic slightly back on track, the money spent on the Iraq invasion would have gone an incredible way towards helping poverty in Africa.

So I see you're content to rail on and on about what could have happened instead of offering any solutions..

Hey, the guy's obviously a romantic.

My take on the subject: finish what you started. It shouldn't have been started, but now deal the **** with it. Excuse me for not being up to date with political lingo.

This isn't a case of 'oh well, it's all over, never mind'. The important thing is to make sure this doesn't happen again.


But yes, what is also important is that British and American troops stay in Iraq, if for no other reason than to act as bullet shields. Iraqis did not ask to be invaded, they should not be suffering from attacks. Britain and America invaded, it is they who should be suffering. If anything, Iraq needs more troops, even if the purpose is merely to divert attacks away from civilian targets and onto military targets.

soldiers are people too.

they need hugs

Here we go again. so... stupid...

Three blind mice...three blind mice...see how they run....

strange. all of this. $160,000,000,000. wow. that's alot. and it does have at least a little to do with oil. or maybe a bit more than a little.
if it was about freedom it would be much bigger than all of this and there would be many more people involved.

i remember seeing the video of kennedy standing up and saying we're going to the moon (people i mean). and americans footed the bill for that. why? because they needed to show superiority over the soviets.
a president could stand up and say, 'by the end of this decade (10 years from now not 2010) we will all be driving hybrids and all of our oil will come from our country to fuel those vehicles', and i guarantee you it would cost a heck of a lot less than >$200,000,000,000 and thousands of lives. even if the american tax payer funded 100% of the re-tooling of the big three it would cost less.

I'm kind of doubtful on that. Personally, I think most of the world is too self-centered in which case most leaders would be too afraid to take a political blow on the matter.

So Mort...I'm waiting for that proof. A quote, a news article, something.

I fail to see what is so stupid about discussing major world events. You seem to think that those who disagree with you should sit down and shut up.

Bah. couldn't find much. There is probably alot more on this. And there is the possiblity of some "connections" between Osama and Saddam



http://www.cnn.com/2003/fyi/news/02/11/binladen/index.html



http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/14/binladen.tape/index.html



http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/11/otsc.bergen/index.html