Is The War In Iraq Worth Fighting?

[Jana]

Originally posted by Eclipse99+Oct 23 2004, 10:15 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Eclipse99 @ Oct 23 2004, 10:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-92tsiawd84@Oct 20 2004, 05:20 AM
I am tired of wasting my time on this thread for now.&nbsp; I am not even going to read the 2 long responses.&nbsp; All I read is the quick 1 liners.&nbsp;
&nbsp; As far as porn site,&nbsp; I am on www.yomamma.com right now.
just admit it fuck bags you got owned!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :dsmrule: [/b][/quote]
Another comment like this and you will be banned.

[A//// Guy]

Yea that went over the line...

[Jakey]

Granted I am a very agriculture oriented person, seeing articles like this reinforces my backing of Bush even futher: http://www.fb.org/issues/legact/election2004/
One thing I would point out from that article is that Kerry is degrading Bush's implementation of conservation programs. I have no idea where Kerry is getting this but I can say from person experience that conservation programs, specifically the Conservation Reserve Program are outstanding right now. My parents just re-enrolled a bunch of our land in the CRP program at a dollar/acre rate drastically increased to what we were getting paid when we initially enrolled under the Clinton administration. I can also say that the number of wetland restoration projects and watershed preservation projects has increased under the Bush administration.

[john]

Originally posted by Eclipse99@Oct 18 2004, 12:56 PM


Ok, I will finally respond to the bull shit response you all seem to call a fact with absolutely none in it.

:stupid:
yeah, you are.

The fact of the matter is that saddam did have weapons of mass destruction as well as chemical weapons.&nbsp; ask anyone suffering from gulf war syndrom,&nbsp; they are still feeling the effects of the chemical weapons used by saddams regime in the gulf war.&nbsp; If he had them then and also to gas the kurds I am so sure that he just got rid of them all and could no longer create them, I seriously dobt it.&nbsp; The fact is after we had control in Iraq numerous hidden weapons depots were found inside in many places including inside schools and hospitals.&nbsp; the truth is chemical shells were found.&nbsp; they were not equiped to be fired at the time but how hard would it be to attach them to another shell and fire them, not to tough.&nbsp;

We did not find any WMDs and therefore there is no proof that they have, had them when we went to war. Did you not read the newspaper or watch the fucking news the past several weeks. If you have, you should have known that the investigation was finally closed to say that Iraq had no WMDs. How come none of these hidden weapon depots never made the news broadcasts? I am sure Bush would be all over that. There only evidence of WMDs leading us to war was the gas which had expired decades ago. Theses "chemical shells" could have been used for several other things like rockets and other non-weapon uses. They listed several other uses on the news a while ago but I cannot remember all of them. Since chemical weaponry is so easy to make and come by, why doesn't everyone have them?


&nbsp; The war was not focused only on wmds, (which were found), but also the brutal tactics used to rule in Iraq.

Bush led us to war on the sole basis of WMDs. I suposse they had something to do with 9/11 huh??? They were not a threat to the US no matter how Bush tries to convince everyone. He says that they are a threat to the world as they had WMDs. Also in this section you go lying again about the US finding WMDs. Why do you have to lie about it? There were NO WMDs FOUND . How hard is it to get through your head?

[b] Also Iraq was the host nation to a number of large terrorist training camps and was also providing funding to terrorist groups including al queda who if you remeber killed over 3000 americans in the attact of 9/11.&nbsp;

You are going to try and associate 9/11 with Iraq at fault? You are retarted. Ossama , the person behind 9/11, is still a free man. We decide we wanted to just forget about that fucker and attack Iraq. It has been proven that Iraq is not responsible at all for the actions of 9/11.

[b]&nbsp; Don't even try to pin this war on oil.&nbsp; this war is about removing a tyrant and a terrorist from a powerful and influential postion in the middle east.&nbsp; Had saddam used his head and complied with the treaties of the gulf war in 1991 and complied with the U.N. resolution this war would not be necessary.&nbsp; The reason we attack him more when he burn oil fields is because this is the major source of economy for the nation of Iraq, and without it the people will have no economy and will fall into the same position as many poor african nations that have minimal resources.&nbsp; Without this oil the poeple of iraq have no chance of ever becoming anything.&nbsp; With it they can be a major contributor to the worlds economy.

I agree that the war was probly not for oil but if they burn their oil, it affects everyone. Not just the economy of Iraq which I doubt anyone cares much about. Oil prices would rise sky high as they are starting to climb now. It is all supply and demand. Less supply= greater demand.

The truth is the oil isnt all that importatnt to the U.S., there is more oil in alaska than in the entire rumala oil field of the middle east.

I was starting to agree with you untill you said this. Oil is a HUGE problem for the US. I will try to find the magazine I had and give you the stats. Why do you think we are looking for alternative sources of energy? Because the oil supply is going to run out iin I believe 20 yrs. Do not quote me on that though. I will try and find the stats. The US is consuming more oil than we can produce. This is a great problem and the issue should be looked at before voting.

Your factfull spiel is factless. I do not see how anyone on here agreed with you. If you actually studied facts, why don't you share them with us???

[1QUICK4]

Originally posted by 92tsiawd84+Oct 27 2004, 08:53 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (92tsiawd84 @ Oct 27 2004, 08:53 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Bush led us to war on the sole basis of WMDs.* I suposse they had something to do with 9/11 huh???* They were not a threat to the US no matter how Bush tries to convince everyone.[/b]

Actually that was only one of the reasons we went to war. And Iraq was linked to AlQuada.

Originally posted by 92tsiawd84@Oct 27 2004, 08:53 AM

You are going to try and associate 9/11 with Iraq at fault?* You are retarted.* Ossama , the person behind 9/11, is still a free man.* We decide we wanted to just forget about that fucker and attack Iraq.* It has been proven that Iraq is not responsible at all for the actions of 9/11.


When Colin Powell adressed the UN before the war he listed the Depleted uranium intel (which is the same intel KERRY received when he voted FOR taking action against Iraq), But Powell also listed that Zarqawi, a known AlQuada terrorist was in Iraq. If thats not a link to AlQuada/Terrorists in Iraq I don't know what is. Now I admit it was a weak link but it is a link to AlQuada non the less. And it's funny but that seems to be the only thing (Zarqawi being there) that we were 100% right about. (So Far ;) )

Do you remember what was playing over & over on Iraqi television on Sept 11th? It was a loop of the planes hitting the towers and the towers falling while "Down with America" & "Praise be to Allah" scrolled along the bottom. To say these guys were not a threat is crazy.

Originally posted by 92tsiawd84@Oct 27 2004, 08:53 AM

We did not find any WMDs and therefore there is no proof that they have, had them when we went to war.
That is your speculation, not fact. Did you go snoop around Iraq previous to the war? The UN was deneid access to many areas they wanted to search. What was Saddam hiding? I guess having him sign another UN agreement which he has no intention of following would have been a better option? Then we could deal with it a 4TH TIME 5-10 years from now. The WMD's most likely disapeared while we were waiting for the crooked members of the UN(Germany/France/Russia) to vote on this issue.

<!--QuoteBegin-92tsiawd84@Oct 27 2004, 08:53 AM
Did you not read the newspaper or watch the fucking news the past several weeks. If you have, you should have known that the investigation was finally closed to say that Iraq had no WMDs.[/quote]
The ivestigation your reffering to says they FOUND no WMD's, not that there were none. We will probably never know if there was or wasn't.

I'm just worried we will find out (they did have them and they made it out of Iraq) from forensic (sp?) scientists peicing together the peices/facts in the aftermath of a major terrorist attack in the US or abroad.