Dean Dropped Out!

[LightningGSX]

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.

Originally posted by tsiawdspeed@Feb 19 2004, 05:20 PM
I honestly dont see why everyone is blaming Bush for "lying" about the WMD's.  He is not the one who goes out ther and does the recon.  His advisors said that there were WMD's and he believed them, which is a normal thing to do.  He made his decision based on the information he was given by his advisors.  If anyone should be blamed for going into Iraq, it should be his military advisors because they were the ones who told him that the WMD's existed.  Also, who really cares if there are no WMD's?  We got Saddam and that should be a good enough reason to justify the war.  This whole subject really makes me mad because the majority of people believe that Bush is doing a bad job.  He is doing a exceptional job, given the circumstances.  I'm pretty sure that any other president would have made the same choice about Iraq. 

Republicans>Democrats

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?

Originally posted by DSMStyle@Feb 18 2004, 11:57 PM
I hate politics.

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

Originally posted by dcbladeofanarchy@Feb 19 2004, 05:38 PM

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.

Originally posted by LightningGSX@Feb 19 2004, 05:32 PM
any country with a military that acts on the whim of a single man is a serious threat.

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

[npaulseth]

Originally posted by remy+Feb 19 2004, 05:41 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (remy @ Feb 19 2004, 05:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-LightningGSX@Feb 19 2004, 05:32 PM
any country with a military that acts on the whim of a single man is a serious threat.

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.

[LightningGSX]

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.

[LightningGSX]

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?

[LightningGSX]

Originally posted by remy@Feb 19 2004, 05:52 PM
Maybe you could explain it to me, but why would any other president take action against Iraq?&nbsp; It was Bush who came out after 9/11 and&nbsp; in said we are going to fight terrorism Afghanistan then move to the axis of evil.&nbsp; What did Iraq have to do with 9/11?&nbsp; Nothing like you already admitted, so why did we decide they were a threat again?&nbsp; Because he wouldn't let weapons experts in to search the country.&nbsp; 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.

[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.

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.

[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.

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.