Knowing that Korea has WMD does not make them a bigger threat than Iraq?

Well, four year in office, we have gone to war twice. Under Bush, I am afraid that he is going to take on Iran and N. Korea at the same time. Ofcourse we will not have Ossama yet and will be waging four wars at the same time (Ossama, Iraq, Iran, and N. Korea). How do you expect to accomplish this without a draft? It seems as if Bush and Cheney would not have a problem implimenting a draft. At the same time, with everyone at war, who would be here to protect us against acts of terrorism? Out of the three countries in the middle east that "had" WMDs we attacked the one that didn't. How do you think it would be fighting a war with WMDs being used against us?

If we are waging the "war against terror" would it be safe to say that we are losing then? If terrorism is growing and we are hated more by terrorists, doesn't that mean that we are at a larger risk of being attacked that we were before?

Facts/sources/links please. I haven't seen anything that supports that Iraqis are blowing them selves up. Like I said, I would like to believe that we are not doing more harm than good but I cannot yet. [/b][/quote]
Bush said no draft. Did you even watch the debate. Technology prevents us from needing more troops to fight the war on terror. Why do you believe we need more troops. Your not listening or thinking. Has n. korea invaded anyone, killed their own people, no. Ofcourse we are struggling with the war against terror. Do you think this is going to end soon. Try a very long time. We are at war against terrorism and that means iran, n korea, ossama and anyone else who threatons us in the future. You may be surprised what Iran, korea, ossama do now because they know we are not going to be pushed around. Republicans will not allow terrorism on are front yard in are own country. With kerry as president you can expect are efforts to protect us to implode because Bush takes action. kerry is simply using the war as a way to get in office, but it makes him look dumb because all he does is point fingers. You want facts/sources/links. I would listen closer during the debate, read the paper, news. I have givin my opinion. War on iraq is worth fighting. Even your buddy kerry (assuming you like him or something) agrees if you actually listened to the debate.

What did I say, Tom, you were just going to open your mouth again and look even more dumb. Good job, it is nice to see that Michael Moore has infected one of America's great minds. :rolleyes:

How has technology made it so we don't need anymore troops? Did we finally start sending robots over there? As far as the troops go, more dieing means more needed. Especially if we want to take on 2 more countries. Does the war on Iraq make you feel safer here? All that has happened from it is increased the risk for other things to happen here. Do you think some people might be scared when the risk of terrorist attacks go up? If we are doing the right thing in Iraq, why are there only very few countries backing us up on the war on terrorism? They aren't even helping us a lot. Arent we funding/controlling most of the war?

We went to Iraq technically over WMDs and Saddams breaking of UN resolutions. If you would have listened to Bush's state of the union address, thier is 0% possiblity you could deny WMDs were a reason for going to war.

Now we just have to follow where they went... Do I here Iran?

He had them and now they are gone... Did they really search Iraqs deserts that closely?

I am certain that saddam had WMD, key word is HAD.

To answer your questions.

Yes I feel safer knowing there is one less regime capable of producing(and selling) chemical and biological weapons.

No I don't think there is increased risk in the US now.

The reason why there are few countries helping is because they are afraid of terrorist attacks against them.You see, unlike the US, these governments(such as France) would rather give into terrorists and meet their demands, instead of fighting.

Not to mention alot of countries like France & Germany were making mad loot off the oil for food program. And russia was selling them military hardware. And Iraq (Sadam) owed all three of those countries bank.

I have stated several times on here that I have not watched the second debate yet. Bush saying no draft means nothing to me. How many times have people lied so far?

[/QUOTE] Technology prevents us from needing more troops to fight the war on terror. Why do you believe we need more troops. We are at war against terrorism and that means iran, n korea, ossama and anyone else who threatons us in the future. You want facts/sources/links. I would listen closer during the debate, read the paper, news. [QUOTE]
I have been reading the paper and watching the news. I missed the second debate but I have it on tape as I plan on watching it. I have watched a lot of CNN and have started watching the "conservative" news on Fox.

I copied this from the first sentence of their text: A suicide car bomber has attacked a US intelligence service base in northern Iraq

I am not sure about you but it sure sounds to me that they were attacking the americans :stick:

Link doesn't work for me.

-But how many of them are going out of their way to just hurt the US soldiers, versus killing 30 other Iraq people at the same time...

People dont invade us because we are following all the UN rules and we are not a threat becuase we are not threatning neighbors that have no right to be threatned. We threatned and kicked Saddam becuase he wasnt following rules, neither is N Korea and a few other countries. They are trying to be hard asses when it comes down to nuclear policies.

I guess one thing I dont understand is why we can have nuclear weapons (I assume we do, but Im not sure...) but no other countries have the right to have any for defense purposes.

I guess if you control other countries and say they cant have them.. then that policy should be for the US too.

That is what I am talking about. If we do not have them, we definitly have the resources to make them.

I thought be went ahead with war before the UN gave us permision. The UN sent in the inspectors and found nothing. I remember watching the news when the first attack happened against Iraq. Bush said that we had a chance to bomb Saddam so we took it. I do not remember the UN backing us when the war began.

Thats just ignorant of you to believe that if we force our will on people that they will just change their mind and wither into nothing and the world will be all love and peace. That is the stupidist thing I have ever heard (And Lighting has said some wonderful things). There has always been, and there will always be terrorism, democracy or not.

Actually the 9/11 commision proved that Iraq had no links to Suddam, and just the other day it came out that Iraq had NO wmd's. Wrong again.

We wnt into the gulf war because Suddam attacked Kuwait. I don't know what you were trying to say? Probably something stupid, but you look like an ass. They had the capacity? Well they had no weapons so you must simply mean Suddam had the capacity to want to attack us. Prove it. The burden of proof is on you, and everyone who supports the war. So far you have not proven a sound reason for invading.

As for the draft. Bush like any politition says a lot of things, but if we stay the course of "defeating" evil we will need many more troops. One way or another we will get them.

Thats just ignorant of you to believe that if we force our will on people that they will just change their mind and wither into nothing and the world will be all love and peace. That is the stupidist thing I have ever heard (And Lighting has said some wonderful things). There has always been, and there will always be terrorism, democracy or not. [/b][/quote]
Do you believe the people of iraq would rather have saddam in power again? Now who looks stupid. By the way this statement was a quote from the debate by Bush. In response to your last statement. Would you rather see more terrorism or more democracy in the world and if there is more democracy would the world be better off? If you answer that honestly then you will see the light why we took saddam from leadership. If you dont believe we should of taken care of iraq then you dis agree with kerry because he is for dealing with the terrorists even though he changed his mind so many times for political reasons. He is claiming he is for the support of iraq, he just thinks there is a better way to deal with the problem. Political bs and the guy has no spine.

POINT BEING:

The war is here and we cant just leave Iraq and hope fore the best. So with that, who is going t be the best person to finish or attempt to continue doing what we need to do over there... because I doubt Iraq will ever be finished in the next presidential term.

You guys all fight about the past. What about the future?? Isnt that what we need to look at?

Kerry- Indecisive, rich bastard.

Bush- straight cut even though he may have been a little wrong off the intelligence he had. Rich also but not nearly as much as "democrat I give to the lower class" Kerry.

I dont buy his BS just because he has one summer home worth 10 million and he has 4 other houses. That "summer home" has a 2 level kitchen WTF?? His wife is the one getting all the tax breaks so what is Kerry complaining about??

Whatever :fworld:

kerry is a rich basterd who is indecisive who married someone to become wealthy. Allot of things I dont like about Bush either, but he is allot better and he is republican. I happen to disagree with democratic views. I believe we will be better off with Bush and republican administration and war in iraq is worth fighting.

Sounds to me that you are jealous of Kerry's wealth. Is that a reason to hate someone? Bush is also filthy rich.

Kerry was also in support of Iraq but support does not mean going to war. Bush went into Iraq saying that war is inevitable. He didn't leave any other options open. If the Iraqi people hated Saddam so much, why didn't they take him down? All it would take is one person to assassinate him. With the whole country hating him, I am suprised that someone would not step up. It doesn't make sense. Why would 10,000+ Iraqis give their lives for someone that they hated?

BTW Peter, Kerry is going to eliminate the tax cuts for the rich bastards like him and Bush. You guys complain that he married into wealth. If he married into it, wouldn't he have a better idea of the needs of the common american? Bush grew up rich. How should he know what the common american needs?

We wnt into the gulf war because Suddam attacked Kuwait. I don't know what you were trying to say? . [/b][/quote]
What about the 2nd gulf war (Clinton)? He had not invaded anyone. He was just pulling the same BS with the UN inspectors that he was before we went in this time. If Clinton had taken care of it (Saddam/Alqueda) when he was in office we wouldn't be dealing with it now. Air attacks alone will not accomplish anything as he has proven over & over again. If he would have put troops in Afgahnistan instead of cruise missling it there would be no 9/11.

Just because we haven't found WMD's doesn't mean they didn't exsist. We found stockpiles of missles set up for delivering chemical attacks when we first went in after 9/11. There was no chemicals in them but why have weapons like that if you did not have the Chems or are trying to procure them? I think alot of the WMDs were destroyed unknowingly during the 2nd gulf war. They say that weapons bunkers were improperly searched/inspected before disposal (blowing up). It is said that the incineration and inhalation by our troops of those chemicals is the cause of Gulf War Syndrom which has hurt many of our GI's.

Kerry voted FOR the war veiwing the same intelligence that bush had to go on. Just because he changed his mind (imagine that) he is now trying to blame Bush & Bush alone for going to war.

They tried in 1991. The Sheite (sp?) uprising.

We told them that we had there back and to rise up & overthrow Saddam. Then we pulled out because Saddam agreed to UN RESOLUTIONS which he never intended to follow. After he signed the bullshit paperwork we pulled out and the Sheite's were slaughtered.

Saddam had such terrorist hold over his people that even if he was killed the people knew Uday or his other Brother or a high ranking Bath party official would rape torture and kill their famaliy & freinds. Would you kill him if everyone you loved would be punnished severly for it? I doubt it.