TweetDon't get me wrong Bush is a very smart man, but i think he just want to say he did something here to suffice his own image. I will bet that he will prob send most of the troops home close to his last yr in office just to say he did something, reguardless of the effect it had on our own ppl here at home and the countless that will die in his vein. It just makes me sick at all the billions of dollars that are being spent there. All our homeless, and ppl hurting could all be getting benefits, food, clothing. Put some of it into the social security so our future generationa will have something when they get older. And how bout prescripiton coverage for the elderly on fixed incomes, and ppl without healthcare. I can go on and on, but these guys at the top have everything, insurance, top salaries, and company cards to charge their perks on. They care little about the common ppl of the usa.

Tweet

Originally Posted by Stout1

The whole world knew he had WMD. LOL That is funny. All there was is SPECULATION. We put all sorts of penalties and things to stop Saddam from building any more WMD. There was NO PROOF! If the whole world as you say knew he had WMD where is the proof? There is none. Therefore I don't see how you can sit there and tell me the whole world knew he had WMD when their is no proof.

Got rid of them. LOL Where were they at? Where is the proof? I don't think you will find any proof.

This is the problem with America, we let too many people think for us. If you take a minute to inspect this a little deeper and not let some nit wit for a president do the thinking for you, you would see what is evident to the the rest of the world. BUSH FUCKING SUCKS AND HE IS A LIAR.

There needs no more proof than when he used them! He agreed to disarm. He agreed to inspections to prove he was disarming. Your blaming the fact he failed to keep his commitment, he made to the U.S. and later to the U.N., on George W. Bush - that's absurd.

The fact we have found 'none' (or enough to satisfy the peaceniks) is irrelevant. The commitment he (Saddam) made was to show the world he was disarming - he didn't (it doesn't get any more simple).

If Bush is a liar then so is:
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

Originally Posted by supasaiyan99

Bro you must of forgot about the IAEA. They were there inspecting and they found nothing yet Bush insisted that Saddam had mobile units hiding the weapons cache. Where are these mobile units now? You probably also forgot that Bush said "Saddam tried to kill my daddy!" I forgot the name of one of his former aids or whatever he was but he was in an interview and said after September 11, 2001 Bush kept trying to pinpoint the attacks on Saddam. The guy was like it was Al'quida and Bush was like "What about Saddam?"

Right, they found nothing but the fact they were being restricted access to certain governement buildings and being shot at - which I might add is being in non-compliance.

TweetYeah but klash your missing the point. Do you know why George Bush Sr didn't overthrow Saddam during the Gulf War? Because he said there was no exit strategy. Obviously this is definitely fact, because as of now there is no exit strategy. Looks like George Jr didn't think this whole thing through first.

Don't get me wrong, I am glad Saddam is out of power. I bet you every person who opposes the war is glad he is out. But they needed to go about it another way. Maybe an assasination, or something of the sort and yes Iraq was giving The UN shit about inspections, and shooting at non hostiles. Everyone knows Iraq deserves what it is getting. But the American soldiers are dying by the boat loads. It's just not right.
They are calling up people that have been long since retired and people that are reservists have been there multiple times (like my buddy who's now there for the 4th time as an army reservist). The whole point people are trying to make is they didn't think before they acted and we are paying for it.

Tweet^ and Iraq civilians by the thousands

Tweet

Originally Posted by Klash

There needs no more proof than when he used them! He agreed to disarm. He agreed to inspections to prove he was disarming. Your blaming the fact he failed to keep his commitment, he made to the U.S. and later to the U.N., on George W. Bush - that's absurd.

The fact we have found 'none' (or enough to satisfy the peaceniks) is irrelevant. The commitment he (Saddam) made was to show the world he was disarming - he didn't (it doesn't get any more simple).

If Bush is a liar then so is:
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002




Right, they found nothing but the fact they were being restricted access to certain governement buildings and being shot at - which I might add is being in non-compliance.

Very excellent points bro! It's naive to think Iraq didn't have WMD, absolutely naive. Just because the weapons were hid, maybe out of the country, doesn't mean they never existed. Sadam even admitted himself he had them and was dissarming them. I guess no one wants to talk about that. I tell you what, if I ever commit a murder I hope I have these people in the jury because I will say 'where's the gun that proved I killed them?'. According to some people, things can't happen without evidence disappearing. Even though we know it happens every day. Everyday people are committed for murder without the murder weapon being found. They might have only a finger print or a clothing fiber, but yet a man who formerly admits he had WMD all of a sudden no longer has them. Only a naive person would buy that crap. Tyrants are tyrants and they aren't known for their honor or integrity yet some people are foolish enough to believe a tyrant would totally disarm their WMD. LOL! True 'common sense' would not allow a wise man to trust a tyrant.

Tweetthousands of people dead, little progress in iraq, and somehow there is still that last 30% of the people who refuse to get off of Bush's nuts.

Tweet

Originally Posted by DJDIGGLER

Yeah but klash your missing the point. Do you know why George Bush Sr didn't overthrow Saddam during the Gulf War? Because he said there was no exit strategy. Obviously this is definitely fact, because as of now there is no exit strategy. Looks like George Jr didn't think this whole thing through first.

I'm not missing the point - I'm responding to a statement that Bush lied to get us in war with Iraq. Your point is completely different. We shouldn't go to war with Iraq because to keep the peace isn't going to be worth removing Saddam. That is a better debate against the war but I still disagree. Saddam had WMD's, that is a fact. Saddam also financially supported terrorism against Israel.

Bush (41) couldn't have done what Bush (43) is doing because the public would not have tolerated it in 1991 and this could be argued for the Clinton Administration too. Sept. 11, 2001 showed what ignoring enemies (even if they seem irrelevant) can result in, to a majority of Americans.

Originally Posted by DJDIGGLER

Don't get me wrong, I am glad Saddam is out of power. I bet you every person who opposes the war is glad he is out. But they needed to go about it another way. Maybe an assasination, or something of the sort and yes Iraq was giving The UN shit about inspections, and shooting at non hostiles. Everyone knows Iraq deserves what it is getting. But the American soldiers are dying by the boat loads. It's just not right.
They are calling up people that have been long since retired and people that are reservists have been there multiple times (like my buddy who's now there for the 4th time as an army reservist). The whole point people are trying to make is they didn't think before they acted and we are paying for it.

State sponsored assasination is illegal. Which we should start another debate on. I'm for it, if there could be alot of strict stipulations protecting people like me from being assassinated.

Like Rumsfield said: you go to war with the army you have, not the one you wish you had.

Tweetso you're saying we went to Iraq to eliminate terrorism/get rid of WMDs that didnt exist that didnt work so we're going to iraq to free iraq's people?

Tweet

Originally Posted by Skarhead

thousands of people dead, little progress in iraq, and somehow there is still that last 30% of the people who refuse to get off of Bush's nuts.

Little progress? Hell just off the top of my head.
- Saddam removed
-Iraqi's are voting
-Constitution approved by Iraqi's
- Iraq is now governed by a democratic rule of law.
-Insurgent recruitment pay has went from $50 to $3500, i.e. mercenaries to oppose America are getting harder to find.

I know "little" is a relative term but damn what would have to happen for you to claim there is "moderate" progress.

Tweet

Originally Posted by Skarhead

so you're saying we went to Iraq to eliminate terrorism/get rid of WMDs that didnt exist that didnt work so we're going to iraq to free iraq's people?

Freeing Iraqi's was just a secondary effect and like I said whether or not WMD's existed is beside the point - it was Saddam's responsibility to show he was getting rid of them. Your blaming the bank for it's client not paying their home mortgage.

Tweetmoderate would mean we at least have a plant o get out of iraq

TweetSoon as I hear that guys' voice I jus wanna puke !

Tweet

Originally Posted by Klash

Little progress? Hell just off the top of my head.
- Saddam removed
-Iraqi's are voting
-Constitution approved by Iraqi's
- Iraq is now governed by a democratic rule of law.
-Insurgent recruitment pay has went from $50 to $3500, i.e. mercenaries to oppose America are getting harder to find.

I know "little" is a relative term but damn what would have to happen for you to claim there is "moderate" progress.

LOL...good point bro!