• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

A question aimed at the anti-war crowd

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
To clarify things, I'm not upset with the anti-war crowd or the media. Rarely do anti-war folks actually disrespect any of the troops here, and Karma will catch up with the ones that do. And as far as the media goes, I'll stick to forming my own opinions. I don't really watch television anyways. News is supposed to be information, and not opinion.

I am upset however with people agreeing with other people's opinions without the ability to create their own. Anyone that has a clearcut answer on every single topic obviuosly is being fed answers from someone else. It is possible to unsure of a situation based on not having enough facts.

And I do laugh at people like Dealmonkey who are quick to call someone a Wingnut as a solution to a problem. If I were a few years younger, or decades older, I would probably be upset with someone like him. But if he is such a big proponnent of civil liberties, he probably wouldn't poke fun at people enjoying Free Speech on an mostly open forum.

 
The media continues to sugar-coat this war and give its instigators a pass. So the premise of the OP is false. According to the Nuremberg principles, principles developed at the insistance of the US, waging a war of aggression is a war crime. The invasion of Iraq is a war of aggression and the participants are war criminals by the code of justice we developed. To claim that the war loving media somehow warps people into opposing this war is silly. The media has faithfully parroted the rantings of this administration, rarely bothering to investigate the accuracy of the statements made.
 
TallBill, you also have to remember that those of us who do not agree with the war in Iraq are, in fact, supporting it where it really counts: we pay taxes, which pay for bullets, body armor, salaries, and benefits.
 
I've been pro-Iraq war from the very beginning because in my analysis of the situation, Hussein was either going to be dealt with today, or dealt with later. Better now than twenty years down the line when half the Middle East has nukes and worse (can't really call me unrealistic considering current day events).

I do however blame President Bush for a dishonest bill of sale to the American people - fudging the facts is dishonesty too - and I thank the American people for putting forward with this daily sacrifice in lives and dollars for the people of Iraq, even if the side effect was to lock up an oil producer in the Middle East as a friendly and all that. I believe the people of Iraq will thank the U.S. for that too in the long run.
 
Originally posted by: TallBill
If you do not support the war, why not? Is it under your own opinion, or are you just following along?

I don't support the war because we simply should have never had gone there. The Bush Administration deliberately lied the American Public and held their own private interests above humanity. We need to send either ~50,000 more troops to Iraq which would get us to the amount of troops that should have been in Iraq we invaded to begin with or leave.

I don't think the American Public is willing to send ~50,000 more troops and I don't see the point of having a half-assed war. You and the rest of the men and women in Iraq need to come home now. Anything else, is a waste of money, time and American lives.
 
Q: If you do not support the war, why not? Is it under your own opinion, or are you just following along?

A: War? War? It ain't no war. It's a massive armed robbery & murder spree. bush & his gangsters invaded, occupied and systematically destroyed that entire country. The invasion is 100% wrong and any sane person knows it.

bush is laughing at all of us.
 
I don't support the war in Iraq. It's based on very bad intelligence and lies. 🙁

I do, however, support our troops, who are just doing as they are required.

I make it a point, to thank every serviceman and woman I come in contact with.
Thanks to you, as well. 🙂
 
Originally posted by: yllus
I've been pro-Iraq war from the very beginning because in my analysis of the situation, Hussein was either going to be dealt with today, or dealt with later. Better now than twenty years down the line when half the Middle East has nukes and worse (can't really call me unrealistic considering current day events).

I do however blame President Bush for a dishonest bill of sale to the American people - fudging the facts is dishonesty too - and I thank the American people for putting forward with this daily sacrifice in lives and dollars for the people of Iraq, even if the side effect was to lock up an oil producer in the Middle East as a friendly and all that. I believe the people of Iraq will thank the U.S. for that too in the long run.

I respect this. I may not agree with you on your pro-Iraq war stance, but you are the very first pro-war person I've seen call Bush on his BS sale of this war.

 
:roll:
Yawwwwwwn. Don?t you people get tired of blaming Bush for everything? Why don?t you start blaming the other individuals that LIED to you about reasons for going to the sandbox? Here, I?ll even give you some reading material.

Tallbill,
Stay safe Brother. You guys are doing a one Hell of a job taking care of business.

Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright > February 1, 1998"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."

President Bill Clinton > February 4, 1998?One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

Tom Daschle > February 11, 1998 "The (Clinton) administration has said, 'Look, we have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?' That's what they're saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily."

President Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998"If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

President Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998 "We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st Century.... They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein."

President Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998"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."

National Security Advisor Sandy Berger > February 18, 1998"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983"

Senator John Kerry (D-MA) > February 23, 1998 "Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East."

Bill Richardson (D-NM) > May 29, 1998 "The threat of nuclear proliferation is one of the big challenges that we have now, especially by states that have nuclear weapons, outlaw states like Iraq."

Letter to President Clinton Signed by Senators Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry -- all Democrats > October 9th, 1998"We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Al Gore > December 16, 1998 "f you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He has already demonstrated a willingness to use such weapons..."

Nancy Pelosi - House Minority Leader > December 16, 1998Saddam 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 processes."

President Bill Clinton > December 17, 1998 "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq.... Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."

Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) > September 30, 1999 "One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that North Korea, Iran, Iraq, or some other nation may acquire or develop nuclear weapons."

Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright > November 10, 1999"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

Letter to President Bush signed by Senator Bob Graham (D-FL), Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT), Congressman Harold Ford (D-TN), Congressman Tom Lantos (D-CA) and others > December 6, 2001"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."

Madeline Albright > February 18, 2002 Iraq is a long way from (here), but what happens there matters a great deal here, for the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest national security threat we face -- and it is a threat against which we must and will stand firm."

Senator John Edwards (D-NC) > February 24, 2002"I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country."Joe Biden > August 4, 2002"e does have the capacity, as all terrorist-related operations do, of smuggling stuff into the United States and doing something terrible. That is true. But there's been no connection, hard connection made yet between he and al-Qaida or his willingness or effort to do that thus far. Doesn't mean he won't. This is a bad guy."

Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) > August 4, 2002 "This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world, and this is a guy who is in every way possible seeking weapons of mass destruction."
> August 4, 2002 "I think he has anthrax. I have not seen any evidence that he has smallpox, but you hear them say, Tim (Russert), is the last smallpox outbreak in the world was in Iraq; ergo, he may have a strain." > August 4, 2002 "We know he continues to attempt to gain access to additional capability, including nuclear capability." > August 4, 2002 "First of all, we don't know exactly what he has. It's been five years since inspectors have been in there, number one. Number two, it is clear that he has residual of chemical weapons and biological weapons, number one."

Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) > August 4, 2002 "I'm inclined to support going in there and dealing with Saddam, but I think that case needs to be made on a separate basis: his possession of biological and chemical weapons, his desire to get nuclear weapons, his proven track record of attacking his neighbors and others."

Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) > August 25, 2002 "[M]y own personal view is, I think Saddam has chemical and biological weapons, and I expect that he is trying to develop a nuclear weapon. So at some point, we might have to act precipitously."

Jane Harman > August 27, 2002 "I certainly think (Hussein's) developing nuclear capability which, fortunately, the Israelis set back 20 years ago with their preemptive attack which, in hindsight, looks pretty darn good."

Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) > September 14, 2002 "I believe he has chemical and biological weapons. I think he's trying to develop nuclear weapons, and the fact that he might use those is a considerable threat to us."

Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) > September 19, 2002"We begin with a common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."

Al Gore > September 23, 2002"We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."> September 23, 2002"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

Dick Gephardt > September 23, 2002 "(I have seen) a large body of intelligence information over a long time that he is working on and has weapons of mass destruction. Before 1991, he was close to a nuclear device. Now, you'll get a debate about whether it's one year away or five years away."

Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) > September 27, 2002"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." > September 27, 2002"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed."

Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) > October 3, 2002"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of '98. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons."

Senator John Kerry (D-MA) > October 9, 2002"I will be voting to give the president of the US the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

Russell Feingold > October 9, 2002 "With regard to Iraq, I agree Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the president argues."

Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) > October 10, 2002"There was unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. We also should remember that we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

Senatorc Chuck Schumer (D-NY) > October 10, 2002 "It is Hussein's vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and future potential support for terrorist acts and organizations that make him a danger to the people of the united states."

Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) > October 10, 2002"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, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including Al-Qaeda members. 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."

Senator John Edwards (D-NC) > October 10, 2002"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal."

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi > October 10, 2002 "Yes, he has chemical weapons. Yes, he has biological weapons. He is trying to get nuclear weapons."

Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA) > October 10, 2002"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."

Senator John Edwards (D-NC) > January 7, 2003 "Serving on the intelligence committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. It's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons."

Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) > January 22, 2003 "I voted for the Iraqi resolution. I consider the prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein who can threaten not only his neighbors but the stability of the region and the world, a very serious threat to the United States."

Senator John Kerry (D-MA) > January 23, 2003?Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm.So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real? > January 31, 2003 "If you don't believe Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me."


Hmmmmmmmm. So, who lied about WMDs? I thought so. Try looking past your preprogrammed selective hatred for Bush. There is plenty of blame to go around.

T Y
 
Originally posted by: ironwing
How many of those people ordered an illegal war of aggression? It was Bush's choice, Bush's crime.

Sorry, But the man can not go to war on his decision alone. Who gave him the thumbs up? I'll tell you who, the same politicians who are trying jump on the anti-war band wagon by blaming Bush when the war effort and approval started moving south. I bet if for some reason the war was a big sucess and approval was high they would be lining up to take credit for all of the hard work. Look, I don't like Bush either, but to strictly blame him is just ignorant.
 
Originally posted by: TallBill
If you do not support the war, why not? Is it under your own opinion, or are you just following along?
My own opinion. As everyone is quite aware, I was one of the rah-rah Bush supporters prior to the war. That was before I found out about all the acronyms: the PNAC and its work thru the OSP and bringing the INC back into the fold along its traitorous and criminal support of AIPAC.

Last night a few soldiers were watching CNN in disgust of the way that the news handles the war in Iraq. Our conclusion was that politicians are merely "anti-war" because that is what the news says that general public wants. The news repeatedly shows the "anti-war" politicians because it keeps viewers watching, which leads to a growing rate of population that is "anti-war", merely because that is all that they see on tv! It is a vicious cycle of an uninformed populace. No politician elected into office in 2008 will end the war, because it is growing more and more necessary. Don't be decieved about a pull-out.
Quite the comforting change from the Rah-Rah jingoism we've been subjected to ever since 9/11. Jingoism and rhetoric <> sound policy.

Now I'm not saying that everyone that is anti-war hasn't formed their own opinion. And I'm not saying that our thoughts on the subject are correct. However, there was a 30 second piece yesterday on a soldier that threw himself on a grenade to save his buddies and will surely will some award. Then the next 3 hours were about Anna Nicole Smith. Some awesome support that we're getting. Not even presidents dying get that much media.
The morning shows and sh*t like E! aren't news. But, the media will circle-jerk itself whenever someone they sainted with celebrity status dies or marries or adopts a puppy or....

And the daily death tolls are rediculous. Roughly 4000 soldiers have died in OEF and OIF since late 2001, over 5 years. Look at the Civil War, World War I, World War II, Korea, and Vietnam, and realize how incredibly high their death tolls were daily.
Oh, gee, let's baselessly compare the current "war" with those fought decades ago. Yeah, like methods and tactics haven't a changed a bit since then. Tell me, how many tanks and Stealth fighters and A-10s and Predator drones and Tomahawk missiles did we have in the Civil War, WWI, WWII, etc.? Hmmm?


Lastly, any media depicting a soldier that doesn't want to be over here is completely biased. Who in their right mind would want to leave their family and home to be put in the 115 degree desert for an entire year, regardless of the mission or reason? Well, I do, but its pretty basic human instinct not to.
Why would that mean the media is biased? Sounds like your love of war is what's tainting your viewpoint. If the media is reporting what you yourself say is "pretty basic human instinct" then how the fck is that biased? :roll:

Anyways, just a few of our thoughts from over here. Life is decent, and its about to get real hot. 6 months left!
And may you get home soon and safely.
 
Originally posted by: TallBill
If you do not support the war, why not? Is it under your own opinion, or are you just following along?

Last night a few soldiers were watching CNN in disgust of the way that the news handles the war in Iraq. ...

Politics and active duty military service do not mix.

The American public strongly supports the soldiers.
The American public also needs to loudly question the need to participate in war so our politicians understand there is opposition to having our sons and daughters in harms way for questionable return on investment (ROI).

Do not allow the political discussions back home cloud your mind or you will find yourself unfocused at a critical moment.
Stand proudly and stay safe.
 
We can spend 5 more years in Iraq
We can spend another 1 trillion dollars
We can bury 50,000 more civilians
We can bury 3,000 more US troops

Thousands of Iraqi children will be 9 years old and never know a life without foreign troops driving down the street
Thousands of American children will know their mother or father being deployed over and over
Ten of thousands Iraqis will fight us because they blame us for the loss of their family
Taxpayers bear the brunt of this cost

Iraqis will always hate us, but we will win, maybe

This is why cannot support this effort, I do support your efforts and wish you a safe return



 
When was the last time Iraq attacked the USA or even attacked a NATO nation

Who were the last American citizens Iraq killed on American soil
 
Originally posted by: The Yeti
Originally posted by: ironwing
How many of those people ordered an illegal war of aggression? It was Bush's choice, Bush's crime.

Sorry, But the man can not go to war on his decision alone. Who gave him the thumbs up? I'll tell you who, the same politicians who are trying jump on the anti-war band wagon by blaming Bush when the war effort and approval started moving south. I bet if for some reason the war was a big sucess and approval was high they would be lining up to take credit for all of the hard work. Look, I don't like Bush either, but to strictly blame him is just ignorant.

He did decide on his own. Congress gave him that decision, he took it.
 
Originally posted by: Aimster
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: Aimster
There is no reason for us to be inside Iraq.

Saddam was not a brutal man (the way the media portrayed him). The U.S made him brutal. They signed off on him to become brutal. If Saddam needed to be removed from power because of his brutality then the entire Regan administration should be hanged as well.
Unfortunately , Regan is honored in this country and he is highly respected.

Also Saddam never armed anyone to begin with so the first claim of WMD was total bogus B.S. Every Middle Eastern nation has a chemical weapons program. Might as well invade the entire M.E, including Israel as well. Call up the draft.

Sure, Saddam was a bad man in 1991 by invading Kuwait. The world bitch slapped him for it and his army was turned into dust. He learned he was an idiot and he felt ashamed. His generals felt like idiots. However, I guess it is OK for Saddam to invade Iran but not OK for Saddam to invade Kuwait.

U.S should have never got involved in the M.E, but for some reason the U.S feels a need to be the M.E govt. police. As a result the entire region is poop.

You're living in a fantasy world. Anyone who uses chemical weapons on his own people is brutal. Oh, and there is no other region in the world more important for the US to be more involved in. Our entire country relies on oil, and if we were to lose our oil supplies our country would be crippled.

If he is brutal then the U.S is brutal for supplying him with the chemical weapons.

So are you saying the U.S is brutal??

Is that what you are doing since I live in a fantasy world?

No, I'm not saying the U.S. is brutal, you are. See, right here:
If he is brutal then the U.S is brutal for supplying him with the chemical weapons.

I disagree with that statement. They sure as hell didn't give him the weapons to use on his own civilians, I can promise you that.
 
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: Aimster
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: Aimster
There is no reason for us to be inside Iraq.

Saddam was not a brutal man (the way the media portrayed him). The U.S made him brutal. They signed off on him to become brutal. If Saddam needed to be removed from power because of his brutality then the entire Regan administration should be hanged as well.
Unfortunately , Regan is honored in this country and he is highly respected.

Also Saddam never armed anyone to begin with so the first claim of WMD was total bogus B.S. Every Middle Eastern nation has a chemical weapons program. Might as well invade the entire M.E, including Israel as well. Call up the draft.

Sure, Saddam was a bad man in 1991 by invading Kuwait. The world bitch slapped him for it and his army was turned into dust. He learned he was an idiot and he felt ashamed. His generals felt like idiots. However, I guess it is OK for Saddam to invade Iran but not OK for Saddam to invade Kuwait.

U.S should have never got involved in the M.E, but for some reason the U.S feels a need to be the M.E govt. police. As a result the entire region is poop.

You're living in a fantasy world. Anyone who uses chemical weapons on his own people is brutal. Oh, and there is no other region in the world more important for the US to be more involved in. Our entire country relies on oil, and if we were to lose our oil supplies our country would be crippled.

If he is brutal then the U.S is brutal for supplying him with the chemical weapons.

So are you saying the U.S is brutal??

Is that what you are doing since I live in a fantasy world?

No, I'm not saying the U.S. is brutal, you are. See, right here:
If he is brutal then the U.S is brutal for supplying him with the chemical weapons.

I disagree with that statement. They sure as hell didn't give him the weapons to use on his own civilians, I can promise you that.

ooooo

so giving him weapons to kill hundreds of thousands of Iranian is justified.

Sorry but the U.S has done far worse acts than Iran has ever done.

The U.S didn't care if Saddam was killing his own people. They wanted Saddam to use chemical weapons on everyone as long as it wasn't the Jews.
 
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: Aimster
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: Aimster
There is no reason for us to be inside Iraq.

Saddam was not a brutal man (the way the media portrayed him). The U.S made him brutal. They signed off on him to become brutal. If Saddam needed to be removed from power because of his brutality then the entire Regan administration should be hanged as well.
Unfortunately , Regan is honored in this country and he is highly respected.

Also Saddam never armed anyone to begin with so the first claim of WMD was total bogus B.S. Every Middle Eastern nation has a chemical weapons program. Might as well invade the entire M.E, including Israel as well. Call up the draft.

Sure, Saddam was a bad man in 1991 by invading Kuwait. The world bitch slapped him for it and his army was turned into dust. He learned he was an idiot and he felt ashamed. His generals felt like idiots. However, I guess it is OK for Saddam to invade Iran but not OK for Saddam to invade Kuwait.

U.S should have never got involved in the M.E, but for some reason the U.S feels a need to be the M.E govt. police. As a result the entire region is poop.

You're living in a fantasy world. Anyone who uses chemical weapons on his own people is brutal. Oh, and there is no other region in the world more important for the US to be more involved in. Our entire country relies on oil, and if we were to lose our oil supplies our country would be crippled.

If he is brutal then the U.S is brutal for supplying him with the chemical weapons.

So are you saying the U.S is brutal??

Is that what you are doing since I live in a fantasy world?

No, I'm not saying the U.S. is brutal, you are. See, right here:
If he is brutal then the U.S is brutal for supplying him with the chemical weapons.

I disagree with that statement. They sure as hell didn't give him the weapons to use on his own civilians, I can promise you that.

WE KNEW Saddam was a brutal satan.. but we supported him AND gave him WMD's .. to use on Iranian citizens?
 
Originally posted by: dahunan
When was the last time Iraq attacked the USA or even attacked a NATO nation

Who were the last American citizens Iraq killed on American soil

When was the last time a nato country was attacked by ANY country? When was the last time any country openly killed an American on American soil?

Fact of the matter is that we haven't been attacked since WW2 and still have been in 3 major wars.
 
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: dahunan
When was the last time Iraq attacked the USA or even attacked a NATO nation

Who were the last American citizens Iraq killed on American soil

When was the last time a nato country was attacked by ANY country? When was the last time any country openly killed an American on American soil?

Fact of the matter is that we haven't been attacked since WW2 and still have been in 3 major wars.

Then how did us attacking Iraq help anything other than a neocon fantasy.. to have power and influence in the middle east

If Saddam never attacked or killed any of us then why do we sol arrogantly kill the people of Iraq? blood on our hands all 300,000,000 of us.
 
I don't support the war because it took resources away from the the real fight on terror. If we had put additional troops in Afganistan, we would have gotten Dickwad #1 in Torra Bora, and wiped out all trace of the Taliban. The government (ours) would have additional income from its cut of the opium trade to finance a little air support in Darfur. This would have given us enough world support to go after the country that really does need to have its infrastructure whiped out, and be equiped with a US base or two to make a difference in the war on terror (you guessed it, Iran). I'm sure if Sadam and Co. remained a problem after that we could solve the problem with a few 'radical Shiite groups' crossing over from Iran on assasination jobs (well funded by the US).

Instead, we went after Iraq because they kept poor records of their disposal of their chemical agent stockpiles, and told the US to eat shiite when we told them to bend over further. Now we have the bulk of our fighting troops stuck in Iraq and forced to witness the fact that the Iraqi people need to kill eachother off until they are sick of it before peace and a stable government can exist in Iraq. Our presence there will only increase the length and depth of this process.

 
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: dahunan
When was the last time Iraq attacked the USA or even attacked a NATO nation

Who were the last American citizens Iraq killed on American soil

When was the last time a nato country was attacked by ANY country? When was the last time any country openly killed an American on American soil?

Fact of the matter is that we haven't been attacked since WW2 and still have been in 3 major wars.

Then how did us attacking Iraq help anything other than a neocon fantasy.. to have power and influence in the middle east

If Saddam never attacked or killed any of us then why do we sol arrogantly kill the people of Iraq? blood on our hands all 300,000,000 of us.

Why'd we kill Korean and Vietnamese people?
 
Back
Top