The WMDs are not a figment of Bush's(or his advisors) imagination and did exist in Iraq at some point.Whether the threat was immediate or not, Saddam was a threat, any country with a military that acts on the whim of a single man is a serious threat.And just because there is no evidence of Saddam supporting Al Queida, doesn't mean he didn't support Al Queida or other terrorist groups.I don't think Bush is a very intelligent man, but he is at least intelligent enough to know that his actions(so called lies) would have to stand up to public scrutiny.Invading Iraq was a justifiable act against terrorism, face it most countries that don't share are ideals(such as Iraq) hate us,even if Saddam didn't directly support Al Queida up to the present, it was only a matter of time before he did support Al Queida or other terroristic efforts against us.Iraq maybe wasn't the highest priority, but it was a start.

We are or I am blaming Bush because he is the fucking President, Commander in Cheif, and foremost the person that sold the war to you impressionable lap dogs. Of course he's not going to come out saying "yeah everyone I was wrong" hell no he is going to do what he did, blame the CIA. And your sure any other president would have done the same thing huh? What in the hell makes you think that? Days after 9/11 Bush had Iraq in his cross-hairs. A sencible president would have gone after terrorists, not countries with which he and his father had standing disagreement with. And how is "the world" safer now that Saddam has been captured? Seems to me that as americans we have pissed off an already angry region, and the backlash will be felt for years to come.

and shouldn't democrates and republicans work together to make America a better place, instead of always fighting and getting nothing done?

I could not agree with you more.......... I just like Bush cuz he looks funny. Hes bald and looks like a monkey.

God I hope you can't vote, it's people like you who put nut jobs like Bush incharge of our nation.

watch out world G.W. 's on the loose.

watch out world G.W. 's on the loose. [/b][/quote]
I saw a funny t-shirt that had something like that written on it.

Since 911 happened before our actions in the middle east, I'd say that "backlash" was felt before are current actions in the region.I agree that any other president would have taken action against Iraq, I don't know about a full scale invasion though.

And the US is far from a country whose military acts on the whim of a single man.

Maybe you could explain it to me, but why would any other president take action against Iraq? It was Bush who came out after 9/11 and in said we are going to fight terrorism Afghanistan then move to the axis of evil. What did Iraq have to do with 9/11? Nothing like you already admitted, so why did we decide they were a threat again? Because he wouldn't let weapons experts in to search the country. I highly doubt the U.S. would allow the UN to search are stockades either so what was the reason?

What gives you the idea that any military action taken by the US after 911, is the result of 911? Regardless of what you think about Bush, our country is not a tyrannical regime.Why would the the democratic US need UN weapons inspections?Are you implying our government is similar to Saddam led Iraq? At least Bush took action, instead of ignoring broken UN resolutions.

Exactly, Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11. So what are we doing there? And what I am impliying is that we have more nukes than the rest of the world, and biological and chemical weapons as well. We think that because of this we can do what ever we want . But the reality is, is that we need to allow other countries to work things out on their own instead of going around spreading our beliefs.

The reason I think other presidents would have taken similar action is, after 911 it became apparent that far away countries, groups, etc could attack the US on our own soil, which most people never thought would be possible.Then you have Saddam ignoring UN resolutions, which makes him a threat, if a terrorist group can commit such an attack, think about what a country with more resources, money, weapons can do to us.

Not as much, terrorist groups succeed because they are very hard to find and root out. Taking on a country would be much easier IF it were necessary.

Funny, we never invaded Russia during the cold war, and wouldn't you have called them a threat? I am all for outsing Saddam, we just did it in an idiotic and immoral way. We should have waiting untill the UN would have gone along with us. That would have greatly decreased the number of Americans dead. Was Iraq an immediate threat? No. So why couldn't we have found more evidence, and gone in with the UN, and done joint operation. It's a pretty huge and costly assumption to make that Iraq was selling WMD's, or giving terrorists whatever they wanted. But hey, what do they care, it's not their kids that are dying over there.

Easier for us to attack after the fact.But Iraq could have committed the same attacks against us just as easily as Al Queida.In my opinion it's people(that hold similar views as you) in our governments past that allowed terrorism to become as widespread as it is.If their were more people like Bush in the past, 911 wouldn't of happened.

Easier for us to attack after the fact.But Iraq could have committed the same attacks against us just as easily as Al Queida.In my opinion it's people(that hold similar views as you) in our governments past that allowed terrorism to become as widespread as it is.If their were more people like Bush in the past, 911 wouldn't of happened. [/b][/quote]
The thing that you said was "could." Nothing ever happened. And as if we were going to invade every country and try and oust the terorists that stay there. Please. :rolleyes:

A Russian evasion during the cold war was not an option, not one that would leave humanity intact after at least.

A Russian evasion during the cold war was not an option, not one that would leave humanity intact after at least. [/b][/quote]
But we were so sure that Iraq had nukes.

hahahahahahahhahahahahah, thats fucking funny. First off we knew that Iraq didn't have any missles that could even come close to us. So how could they have hurt us? Secondly I am so very sorry for being "unpatriotic", and by that I mean sensible.

I really hate to bring this up again, for its been played quite a bit so far, but where was Bush? AWOL. I seem to remeber that when Clinton was running, the right-wing mud slingers were making a big case about Clinton dodgeing the draft. HAha ohyeah, Clinton was on a Rhodes scholorship studying at Oxford. But I guess thats draft dodging.

Bush magically joined a part of the national Guard or something like that, that had a 6 or 7 year waiting list durring Viet Nam. He got to sit in an office while the war was going on.

The world is also very different now, as apposed to during the cold war.A war with russia was a bigger threat than russia itself was.Iraq didn't have to have missiles capable of delivering nukes, nuclear missiles are the least of our worries.

So you think we should just let people attack us before we do anything about it? Do you like seeing 911-type attacks?

Of course I don't. But I'm not going to go around killing people based on half-ass info and ego trips. What is you plan for stopping world terorism? I'm done.

Nukes, Chemical, and Biological weapons were the least of our worries? What were we worried about, sand gernades?

And let people attack us? WTF are you talking about, Iraq wasn't going to invade us, and if you think that you must be trippin homie.

911 type attacks are going to be carried out by TERRORISTS which have nothiing to do with governments.

Oh and just so you know if it had been Gore that made all of these stupid decisions I would be against them then too.

1.I said nuclear missiles are the least of are problems, I didn't say chemical,biological or other nukes.
2.I said nothing about an invasion from Iraq.Thats just stupid
3.If terrorists have nothing to do with governments, why did you say Al Queida is linked to Saudi Arabia and Egypt in one of your previous posts.And in that case you must be against the Afghanistan invasion also? Al Queida linked Taliban wasn't the governing authority("government") in Afghanistan?

The previous post you are refering to said that the terrorists were FROM Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Let me make myself clear, I am sorry, what I should have said is that none terrorist governments have nothing to do with terrorists. As for Afghanistan they were a government that was being ruled by Al-Queda and the alusive Bin Laden. I do think that it is horrible that we have hundreds of people down in Guantanemo Bay with no rights, that are being totured. I though we were above that.

So you think we should just let people attack us before we do anything about it? Do you like seeing 911-type attacks? [/b][/quote]
Sorry I assumed you were still refering to Iraq. :bowdown:
To think that Iraq was even close to capable of any sort of attack is ridiculous. Thats what I am saying.

How could Iraq(or any other group or country) NOT be capable of putting a few hijackers on a pre 911 US plane?

Hmmm, PRE,oh ohyeah that's right, it is now POST 9/11 so "Iraq(or any other group or country)" couldn't have pulled that crap either, still not example of them being a threat. Where do you come up with this stuff?

:lol: Hehehe rem is pissed, this threads funny. Lightning :toast: to you buddy! haha

:censored: :bounce:

Yea this is really amusing to see all this antiwar BS...

Anyone remember what Clinton did after his little :bj: incident? Well guess what he tried to take the spotlight off him by going and bombing an Iraqi radar site... well that was a day before the impeachment trials... How interesting isnt it. Fucking gay is what I say. He post poned his impeachment and made him look "presidential" for a few hours... While they really didnt hit anything in Iraq, becuase they moved the radar station and the bomb didnt do squat.

So whats up with that? Clinton oh the almighty surplus maker goes and bombs another country for the hell of it. You guys dont even know half of all the shit tha went on with Clinton... He half assed it all and it lays in Bush's lap now. Eh you Bush-whackers wont get it anyway. Your stuck thinking Bush is a bad president and that we should just leave iraq alone.

If we would have left Iraq alone does that make us any better for letting a countries leader kill off his fellow citizens for fun? Saddam has ties to terrorism. He is a terrorist. So we either take him down and protect his people and ours or leave him to keep growing and make whatever weapons/armies he wants becuase he refuses the UN to check it out. There are WMD they are just not found yet. Im sure they are in a different county in the middle east.

You should be glad Im not president cuz the middle east would be a big lake right now.

:rant:

Lightning - :cheers:

I'm also glad your not president. You repiblicans are all alike. Your only defense is to bring up the Clinton blow job scandal. How many people died from that? That was personal thing. Anywho, bitching about Clinton is about the stupidest and most meaningless thing anyone can do. It doesn't help or prove anything. People like you need to think about things. "The middle east would be a lake." That makes you no better than Saddam, because you would be deliberately killing innocent people. I hope your young still.

They will eentually kill themselves off.. we dont need to even help them, look at isreal... they will never stop fighting, tis what they live and die for I guess..

Im not like saddam... If i were president it would be quick and painless. Just how we ended WWII and won. There has to be a winner/loser.

Im not bitching about clintons BJ thing Im saying why did he go bomb iraq? And did you even know that? No, Im sure you still dont care.. clintons still the coolest. :lol:

Whatever.. its a waste to type my views. Peoples views wont change. The economy is improving by the way.

Go Bush! :razz2:

I belive that Iraq shot at US air planes. That's why we destroyed the radar thingys. I never said he was the coolest either.

Remy is owning :) On another note Bush needs to go... He got his chance and fucked up IMO.

I still don't get where you get the idea everything is a result of 911.Something needed to be done with Iraq for quite some time, even before 911.Because of Bush, there is no more taliban, no more saddam, and libia is scared straight.I'm curious to hear what you anti-Bush people think the appropriate course of action was.Like I said Iraq might not of been the highest priority, but it was as good as place as any to start.There is no doubt in my mind, history will show Iraq did support terrorism and its WMDs ended up in the wrong hands.Since you guys brought up Clinton, I think the president should be entitled to as many blowjobs as he wants, and its none of our business, Clinton also took some commendable steps against Bin Laden and Iraq.Everybody has the right to their own opinion and the right to question our government as much as they want, but when there are hundreds of thousands of US soldiers fighting in foreign lands, criticizing their commander in chief is damaging to morale, very unpatriotic and just plain wrong.

I have to disagree with you once again. To call someone unpatriotic, because they disagree with an unjust action by our president is fucking stupid. I think that it fucking sucks that our soldiers are over there dying everyday. I only hope that YOUR war was worth it.

Because of Bush our relations with the UN are shit. We should have waited for the UN's support instead of fucking ourselves in the ass.

I agree with Eric that criticizing the Commander in Chief when it comes to the military actions commenced upon under his term is truly un-patriotic. Patriotism is defined as (courtsey of dictionary.com):
Note the "devotion to the welfare of one's country" phrase in there. When you're sitting here bashing Bush about his military actions, not only are you criticizing Bush himself, but you are also criticizing the soldiers that are overseas risking their lives for our freedom. Bush's views about world politics and those situations that require military action is something that we can not control, we elected him, so live with it. He is commencing upon what he belives are the best actions for the welfare of the United States of America, and when you bash him, you are not showing patriotism. I am not saying anywhere that you have to agree with his choice of actions, but what I am saying is that you can not sit here and bash George W. Bush and still call yourself patriotic. I personally do not agree with all of the decisions has undertaken during his time as President, but I sure as hell am not going to sit and cut down Bush's military record down instead of supporting my fellow citizens 150% who are fighting for us, whether I agree with the basis of the cause or not.

Are we having fun yet or what ;)