Hooray for false wars as well

Yes, that as well.

---

I'm afraid the thread is about to get closed

If it wasn't for Bush America will be getting more bombs right now,or am I right?

That sentence doesn't make sense. It's not "or am I right", it's "or am I wrong", which you are. Iraq never bombed us and, to my knowledge, was never planning to. Our freedom was never in question. That's just something idiots say when they have nothing else to back up their argument.

Siduu101 Wrote: If it wasn't for Bush America will be getting more bombs right now,or am I right?

Thanks for correcting me! I'm on some strong rum now so I can't write properly,I can hardly find the buttons on the keyboard.

Oh, ok then.

Remember people, don't drink and type.

Siduu101 Wrote: Thanks for correcting me! I'm on some strong rum now so I can't write properly,I can hardly find the buttons on the keyboard.

Siduu101 Wrote: If it wasn't for Bush America will be getting more bombs right now,or am I right?

What? You mean there would be more terrorist attacks? Please...Al Qaeda doesn't intend to attack US soil every single day, or even every year. In fact, prior to 9/11, Al Qaeda hadn't attacked US soil since the '93 WTC bombing. Bush has DIVERTED MONEY from fighting terrorism by invading Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein, whose policies and agenda contrasted with the ideals if Islamic fundamentalist terrorist groups (Saddam's Iraq was a secular nation, and he persecuted both Sunni and Shiite leaders; Bin Laden has referred to him as a "socialist infidel").

Granted I wish we would, and should have finished the job in Iraq back with Bush1, but what about the Iraqi people? They have become a democracy, and do not haft to worry about a dictator anymore. Their Olympic team does not haft to worry about being tortured. The people do not haft ot worry about being killed for having different opinions with there leaders.

Everyone seems to loose site of the fact if we would have not went into Iraq, the Iraqi people would still be suffering.

The U.N. sould have taken care of Sadam along time ago. It should not have been our job. Since that was one of the reasons the U.N. was formed, to protect human rights.

go here to see: http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/

They were a democracy before, I believe. Nobody ever ran against Saddam, though.

The picture that spread around the internet that displayed a (fake) Iraqi ballot said it best:

Choice 1 : Saddam Hussein
Choice 2 : Please torture and kill my family

anubis177 Wrote: They have become a democracy

Sure they were a democracy.

Osama Bin Laden is planning an attack right now,believe me. Maybe in four years America will be attacked by fifteen planes.

Technically speaking, they were. They voted for their leader, Saddam.

anubis177 Wrote: Sure they were a democracy.

Sure they had a vote, but come on.

anubis177 Wrote: Sure they were a democracy.

It's not remotely feasible or realistic to start wars to remove dictators who torture, kill, and exploit their people, or we'd be kicking the shit out of half the world. Also, it was never WHY we actually went to war with Iraq. We were told there were WMDs and Al Qaeda ties, when none existed.

Interesting note: when Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia in 1938 he claimed to be "liberating" oppressed peoples, and when he invaded Poland in 1939, he claimed it was a necessary preventative war. I'm not one to go down the path of painting Bush as an actual Nazi, but I found it a bit disturbing to read this parallel, as well as the following statement by Herman Goering, a high-ranking Nazi, about how his party talked the German people into going to war: "Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ...Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."

Bad Intel on the WMDs.

However, it is the U.N.'s Job to take care tyrant dictators that have no regard for human life. They have not done so. Like I said, Saddam should have been taken care of along time ago.

What is the big deal with his daughters attending a Gay Wedding?All because he isn't for Gay marriage dosen't mean his daughters aren't for it.It's not like we follow everything are parents say.

anubis177 Wrote: Bad Intel on the WMDs. However, it is the U.N.'s Job to take care tyrant dictators that have no regard for human life. They have not done so. Like I said, Saddam should have been taken care of along time ago.

I think you kind of missed my point with the WMDs. The Bush administration said we were going to war because Saddam had WMDs and Al Qaeda links. When they found no WMDs or Al Qaeda connections, they used the whole "Saddam was evil, we're liberators" line. That was never why they said we were going to Iraq BEFORE we went. To quote none other than Bush advisor/deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz, "[The criminal treatment of the Iraqi people] is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it."

And as for bad intel, I don't buy that. I've read far too many accounts from intelligence officers and insiders that from the get-go Bush wanted intel to justify invading Iraq after 9/11. Even before 9/11,in 1998, right-wing think tank PNAC (Project for a New American Century), supporters of which include Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle (all of the Bush admin.), sent an open letter to the Clinton administration saying the policy of containig Iraq was "dangerously inadequate," and that the US's aim should be "removing Saddam from power." Bottom line: the Bush admin. wanted to oust Saddam before they even set foot in office, and 9/11 was a convenient excuse.

Siduu101 Wrote: Osama Bin Laden is planning an attack right now,believe me. Maybe in four years America will be attacked by fifteen planes.

You know too much, i'm reporting your ip to the authorities.

krackerjack Wrote: Siduu101 Wrote: Osama Bin Laden is planning an attack right now,believe me. Maybe in four years America will be attacked by fifteen planes. You know too much, i'm reporting your ip to the authorities.

Hehe. You should. See what happens.

Yes I do see your point. Regardless, the Iraqi people are free now.

The problem with saying that Iraq is a democracy now is this: though it meets the basic definition of a democracy, it lacks certain humane aspects. For instance, PBS reports that many Iraqis don't have basic clean water and electricity...hospitals are getting people sick because the basic lack of clean water. These are things they had before the invasion. Now the U.S. had planned for this...Bush & Co had set aside over $25 billion for rebuilding the infrastructure of IRAQ...problem is, they haven't spent it yet. Also according to PBS $8 billion was given from the U.S. to Iraq's new government...but now the money is missing. Where is it? Somebody stole it. Who knows who. Problem though, is that Iraq is not yet better off.

And from the stand point of the U.S., we should never be forced to bare the responsibility of war or refuge alone. We need support, and we should only go to war if (1) We are in immediate danger (2) One of our close allies is in immediate danger (3) Some really bad murders are being done to a large portion of a countries population...in which case we need to get nato peace keepers and an allied force of many questions. But only after negations fail.

I agree we should have not had to set foot in Iraq. The U.N. should have taken care of Saddam long ago, they did not.

So, the Bush daughters are going to a gay wedding and Dick Cheney's daughter is a lesbian.

It's a pity they have absolutely nothing to do with politics.

Wait a minute, ugly chicks shouldn't be attending anything.