To those who aren't from the USlol

[aurik]

mostly?


do you base everything from what you've read from random people submitting posts online?

That website is notorious for false info.

Point me to a reliable site that says otherwise. Seriously, you're wrong, they were mostly Saudi and not a SINGLE one of them Iraqi.

Either way, I have first hand experience that there are Al Queda members in Iraq, very much so, and have fucking SHOT at me. They are there, and our intelligence shows evidence that is the MAIN source of operation.

First off, there's Al Quaeda operatives in every nation. Lets go invade Britain! Lets go invade Spain! Lets go invade Saudi Arabia! Lets go invade ourselves!

And since there's no way in hell you're quoting classified evidence, provide a source for your claim that Iraq was the main source of AQ's operations before the US invaded.

It's my personal opionion that if they had WMD they would use them.

Except the reason we went to war was because they did have them and they were going to use them. Except after we invaded the country we found out they didn't have them. Whoops.

[Bebopaloo]

did anyone step up with a major counter-argument or protest when powell made his presentation of the satelite photos of what they thought to be the WMDs? Did people back the Iraqis when they kicked the UN inspectors out of the country for no apparent reason making it look like they may have been hiding something? The Reasons to go into the country were most apparent, I don't agree with us being in there for this long, but there were very viable reasons for the government to take action based on Sadaam's history and the evidence that was provided to them.



FYI: The Al'Qaeda did not have a major role with Sadaam, the intelligence given to the white house was given to them by a position that was created to insure the intelligence was legitimate, but turned out to fail because of many reasons, mainly the point that he was giving them intelligence based on what could be going on or several different possibilities/scenarios that weren't actually happening.

[finale23]

No, I did not.

It's my personal opionion that if they had WMD they would use them.

so you agree that this war is based on false pretenses, and yet you are so obedient to bush despite being sent to war and killing iraqis for unjust causes?

[Jerseyprophet]

I can see why you stand behind your arguement, and while it makes sense (if proven true - three sides to every story), I simply cant agree with you.

Agreeing with you would mean that the panic attacks and nightmares I sometimes (rarely, but either way) have are in vain, and that the friends I have that passed died in vain.

You have to see why I refuse to see your side.


My daughter said her first words while daddy was on orders. Do you know how .......betrayed I would feel if what you argue was true?

[RuBP]

I can see why you stand behind your arguement, and while it makes sense (if proven true - three sides to every story), I simply cant agree with you.

Agreeing with you would mean that the panic attacks and nightmares I sometimes (rarely, but either way) have are in vain, and that the friends I have that passed died in vain.

You have to see why I refuse to see your side.

It's too early to see if the invasion was in vain. Iraq won't be a stable nation for many years. The way things are looking right now, it doesn't seem we'll get anything from going into Iraq except another generation of trouble.

[finale23]

I can see why you stand behind your arguement, and while it makes sense (if proven true - three sides to every story), I simply cant agree with you.

Agreeing with you would mean that the panic attacks and nightmares I sometimes (rarely, but either way) have are in vain, and that the friends I have that passed died in vain.

You have to see why I refuse to see your side.


My daughter said her first words while daddy was on orders. Do you know how .......betrayed I would feel if what you argue was true?

i understand why you did what you did and i have nothing but admiration towards you for serving in iraq. i also understand the fact that soilders obey commands and such, but your thought of not-to-question no matter what just because bush is the chief is hard to fathom, or even a bit navie, for lack of a better word.

[Jerseyprophet]

Its what I have to believe.


I literally fear things like the stupid loose change movie, things like that.

I'm afraid to think that the blood on our hands is for anything but the right thing to do.

Sounds dramatic, but take someones life and you tell me how you'd feel.


When you're told to go to war or go to jail, you really have to believe what you're doing is either just following orders or the right thing to do.

Right now when I hold my daughter, I think that she'll see me as a hero. Someone who wasn't afraid and someone who did what he had to to provide her a proper life. If I ever found out that I was part of a massacre and --- a killer, I wouldnt be able to look her in the eye.

[aurik]

did anyone step up with a major counter-argument or protest when powell made his presentation of the satelite photos of what they thought to be the WMDs? Did people back the Iraqis when they kicked the UN inspectors out of the country for no apparent reason making it look like they may have been hiding something? The Reasons to go into the country were most apparent, I don't agree with us being in there for this long, but there were very viable reasons for the government to take action based on Sadaam's history and the evidence that was provided to them.

Actually I do recall a bunch of controversy over the accuracy of Powell's remarks to the UN on feb05 2003, but I don't recall when those were raised. Certainly prior to the fall of that year.

While Saddam was no angel, the investigation into whether the US administration willingly deceived itself to provide a casus belli has really now just begun.

[Jerseyprophet]

The translated words of what Saddam said before his execution were "No man can kill the devil".


Thats what I was told, and I cannot guarentee any promise of its credibility, but those words haunt me.

[Ace-o-fire]

sound fun. where do i sing up?

[Charla]

The Way I Heard It:
We as Americans respect the office of the President, and regularly "question" the decisions made by the holder of that office. That's just fine. A few people like to make a lot of noise by disrespecting that same person, and sometimes they get some attention for it, especially when he happens to make some bad decisions. That's what is happening.

Now, 5 years ago, we needed to do something about the threat of terrorism. That's what we did in 2002 in Afghanistan. It worked out pretty well, and we had things sort of under control for a little while. After that, something else happened, and I'm not exactly sure what. Maybe Saddam Hussein was a real threat to us, maybe Bush just took advantage of the situation to pursue his own goals. And at this point, I don't care. We won the "war" in Iraq, and then we stayed around and failed to create a nation there. This, more or less, is what Americans are now complaining about.

You 're both right in certain ways, but I think you both need to stop relying on preconceptions and give the other party a little more credit. Yes, Al-Qaeda was created in Saudi Arabia, and one of their greatest goals was to bring down the Saudi government. No, Saddam Hussein did not have anything to do with 9/11, although I don't doubt that some operatives were in Iraq at the time.

As for what Bush has done that's illegal, the best example is those wiretaps that someone already mentioned. Even if you see it as disrespectful, America's complaints about his actions will only get louder and more vehement as long as he continues to ignore them.

Oh, and trying to defend the civilians hiding weapons to kill each other is pretty retarded too.

[Jerseyprophet]

God, my head hurts. And this is quickly turning depressing.


Someone post some good punk girl porn for me. Derail the shit out of this.

[Tyche]

The problem i have with people regarding presidential actions is that when we went to iraq, which was march of '03, the approval rating was well over 50%. It was assumed that the intentions of the president were well and good, and was justified in his actions. Now, well over 50% say that we should have never went into iraq. Hindsight is 20/20. We are there, and we are there because the majority of the people thought that it was just. Now the majority who thought it was just despise how it turned out, yet have no exit route.

[Ace-o-fire]

national security versus whats in the constitution. It's the same argument all over again with what people are saying about bush.

[finale23]

"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither ... Benjamin Franklin

the chance of dying from a terrorist attack is much lower than that of dying from traffic accidents. live free or die hard.