Dean Dropped Out!

[remy]

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.

[LightningGSX]

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.

[remy]

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.

[npaulseth]

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.

[LightningGSX]

Originally posted by remy@Feb 19 2004, 06:16 PM
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.
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.

[npaulseth]

Originally posted by LightningGSX+Feb 19 2004, 06:22 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (LightningGSX @ Feb 19 2004, 06:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-remy@Feb 19 2004, 06:16 PM
Not as much, terrorist groups succeed because they are very hard to find and root out.&nbsp; Taking on a country would be much easier IF it were necessary.
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:

[LightningGSX]

Originally posted by npaulseth@Feb 19 2004, 06:22 PM
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.
A Russian evasion during the cold war was not an option, not one that would leave humanity intact after at least.

[npaulseth]

Originally posted by LightningGSX+Feb 19 2004, 06:25 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (LightningGSX @ Feb 19 2004, 06:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-npaulseth@Feb 19 2004, 06:22 PM
Funny, we never invaded Russia during the cold war, and wouldn't you have called them a threat?&nbsp; I am all for outsing Saddam, we just did it in an idiotic and immoral way.&nbsp; We should have waiting untill the UN would have gone along with us.&nbsp; That would have greatly decreased the number of Americans dead.&nbsp; Was Iraq an immediate threat?&nbsp; No.&nbsp; So why couldn't we have found more evidence, and gone in with the UN, and done joint operation.&nbsp; It's a pretty huge and costly assumption to make that Iraq was selling WMD's, or giving terrorists whatever they wanted.&nbsp; But hey, what do they care, it's not their kids that are dying over there.
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.

[remy]

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.

[npaulseth]

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.