Americans

[juggernaut17]

I strongly belief Bushes mistake was taking Saddam out of power

Also justify this/\

Your belief if that we are there to fight terrorism, and Bush is telling you Saddam harboured terrorists (he did support the PLO in the 80s and there were vague links to Al-Qaeda, but not on the same scale as the Taliban or, for that matter, governments like that of Pakistan where extremism is rife in some areas).

If there were ANY good result of the invasion of Iraq it would be that they took Saddam, a despot who used chemical weapons in an attempt at genocide, a guy who's secret police took away people in the night and who's henchmen and family lived in luxury on the oil profits of his country, out of power. I don't agree it was the right time and I don't agree it was done in the right way, plus it is hypocritical and the motivations are questionable, but at least the result was a good one in itself (if we don't consider the turmoil in Iraq which is a result of bad management by the Americans rather than a lack of Saddam himself). We shouldn't have taken away the infrastructure of power in its entirety like we did (i.e. the entire ruling party and police force) and the British commanders, alongside American experts, urged against this. Getting rid of Saddam, however, was a good thing. Perhaps the only good thing in the whole goddamn mess.

Your facts are true. But, in this case its like fixing a leak, but the added pressure creates three more. He was a bad person no doubt about it. But taking him has created more and worse problems. For instance, the civil war, or close to civil war in Iraq. With him there there was much more order. And another example is, he contended with Iran but with him out now Iran is now the powerhouse in the Middle East aside from Israel, and their highly radical leader, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is going to try and take advantage of it. In the end by removing Saddam the Middle East has destabilized.

[Iz Man]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=38213

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

Did we find huge stockpiles? No.
Did he have PLENTY of time to get rid of them? Yes.

Did Saddam use chem/bio weapons in the past? Yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

The idea that Saddam wasn't a threat and should have remained in power is ridiculous (IMHO).
Remember, it was the precious U.N. sanctions that Saddam continued to violate over the years that that prompted the U.S. to oust him. Who else would do it?
France?

As a veteran of Desert Storm I find very disturbing the voisturous lack of support for America by some Americans.
Could this war have been fought better? Absolutely, without a doubt.

Unfortunately it has been fought with one hand tied behind our backs. The rules of engagement our ground troops must currently abide by are ridiculous and are costing American lives. If weapons are fired, the OIC has to fill out PAPERWORK afterwards justifying the use of force!! This is absurd beyond compare. Let our troops do what they are trained to do. Kill the enemy !

The enemy knows that a vocal (not large, but vocal) segment of the U.S. population doesn't have the stomach for war, and is doing a good job at exploiting it. All they're doing is being patient, pick pick pick a bit here and there, and hopefully the "infidels" will flee with their tails between their legs.

War is ugly, but sometimes it is necessary to erradicate those that wish to destroy us.

Remember 9-11

Just my .02 ........

[ClessAlvein]

[...]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html[...]

You're done.

[Iz Man]

[...]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html[...]

You're done.

[Titanic]

We should only invade Iran to get our troops out, and that is only after their Supreme Leader (Khamieni (or somethign very similar to that)) says where he is standing on this. If he say to release the troops, they will be released. If he says put them on trial or keep them hostage until we "apologise", I say send in the SAS to get the troops out.

I say apologise and remove our troops from the situation. At present everyone of the captives have admitted they were in Iranian waters. No independent 3rd party can confirm the British claim that they were in Iraqi waters (which I question the legality of anyway). The coordinates the government released are based on a region whose ownership is debated (and incidentally has not been surveyed for 20 years and subject to mud flats moving regularly over that time making positioning notoriously inaccurate).
Even if the British navy was in Iraqi waters as they say they were - what were they doing so close to a disputed border with the tension so high at present? A bit of sense and tact was clearly lacking in this boarding policy - or was the governments aim more sinister, I wonder, trying to escalate the current diplomatic problems with Iran.

Not every captive has admitted it. We have only seen 5 or so admit it, and I doubt they are freely admitting it. They were in speedboat, and all 5 could pinpoint exactly where they were at the point of capture. Isn that a bit too perfect? I've been in boats before, and I know after a while you only know vaguely where you are, and there is no way everyone will agree your pinpoint location. I think the other 10 captives have refused to say that they were in Iranian waters, because if they had done then Iran would have broadcast all 15 saying it too boost their ego, rather then just showing 5 people saying it.

[ClessAlvein]

Fox news is a source that is heavily biased towards Republican, and recently, neoconservative views. This would be fine, except that it vehemently denies its conservative bias and would stoop so low as to make "mistakes" in its reporting in order to generate support for the Republican party. Whatever happened to the conservative platform of small government?

No one disagrees that, in a sense, Iraq is better off without Saddam. No one can also deny, however, that Iraq's infrastructure is almost totally destroyed, sectarian violence is now a daily occurance, and that a large portion of the population is living without access to basic needs like clean water or electricity.

Putting all this aside, it was the initial "justification" for war that is what's so wrong about it all. If you'll recall from the early days of 2002, the initial idea was that Iraq was a immediate threat to the safety of the citizens of the United States of America. Aside from the refusal of the United Nations to give sanction to a war started on some vague notion of "pre-emption," the United States never had any evidence to justifiably start any sort of war in the first place. Vague satellite photos of random trucks and plagiarized portions of a graduate student's essay is suddenly sufficient "evidence" to start a war? Please. Iraq, with all its enforced no-fly zones and sanctions, barely had enough technology and hardware to launch a missile into Iran (which would be suicide), much less develop an ICBM and a nuclear warhead capable of reaching North America. The idea of "liberating the Iraqis" came much later, when it was patently obvious that there were no WMDs.

You think you fought with one hand tied behind your back? Try two. The administration also never had any idea of what to do with Iraq once they've, by some vague notion, "achieved victory." The declaration of "end of all major combat operations" was years ago, yet conflict and skirmishes are seen everywhere. Throwing more soldiers and hoping for an open-arm welcome from the entire citizenry was about all that was on the table before the invasion began. The soldiers of the US deserve better than this.

The rest of your post shows some blanket desire to "destroy the enemy." Well, who are the enemy? Is it the civilians living in the buildings on which cluster bomb after cluster bomb have been dropped? Is it the droves of citizens for whom their livelihood and way of life have been eradicated in a matter of days? Was plunging the national treasury into a trillion-dollar deficit worth it? Did this action save lives, like a timely response on Katrina would have?

Don't expect the Democrats come next election, should they win, to fix this, either. The situation is now a catch-22. Damned if you pull out, damned if you don't.

Edit: This is the longest reply I've ever written in response to an emoticon

[foolish_yeti]

He didn't. And no one is trying to claim that Afghanistan was a bad idea, other than you. Even the rest of the world.

I'll argue that Afghanistan was a bad idea. The States initially invaded Afghanistan under the pretense that they were trying to get Bin Laden (they even told the Taliban rulers they would not invade if he was handed over). Three weeks after the invasion started, they changed their tune to the ever so grand liberation of the Afghani people from Taliban rule. There were prominant Afghani's going on record saying that the invasion was actually hindering getting the Taliban out of power (the Taliban's power was waning). This goes in the same category as Iraq....was the Taliban great- no (although they were better than those they replaced)....but again, they are not among the worst in the world by far...

Did we find huge stockpiles? No.
Did he have PLENTY of time to get rid of them? Yes.

Did Saddam use chem/bio weapons in the past? Yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

The idea that Saddam wasn't a threat and should have remained in power is ridiculous (IMHO).
Remember, it was the precious U.N. sanctions that Saddam continued to violate over the years that that prompted the U.S. to oust him. Who else would do it?

He would have time to dispose of weapons but to find no evidence of the infrastructure needed to create WMD, or traces of the processes is very suspect. Of course he would have some and he has used bio/chem weapons before- but remember who paid for those weapons- the States... why was this not a problem then? You're quite right about the UN sanctions though- Saddam stepped out of line with the States and paid for it. The lesson is (and always has been)- you can pretty much do whatever you want with your country as long as it is aligned with the States.

The idea that Saddam was an immediate threat is also flawed- in that Iraq was the weakest country in the area, and much weaker than they were in Saddam's prime- when he was funded by the States.

Was Saddam a great guy? Hells no. But that had nothing to do with the invasion. The idea that the States has a global conscious is laughable.

[unriggable]

Its hilarious how you justify my ignorance with yours. First of all, I firmly believe as the evidence suggests that the Iraqi weapons are in Syria, as the Syrians told them that they would take them. And you are clarifying what i'm saying. The terrorists have no standing army. So, they can't invade anywhere, nor would it be a smart strategic move, because of the US's superior soldiers, equipment, and tactics. Now how do they fight us? Like I said, hit us where it hurts, and where we can't defend it. Did you think for a minute that terrorist attacks would not follow our invasion?

Syria is not a nation of terrorists. I'm pretty sure that Syria would not take the weapons if offered to, and even then the Iraq-Syria border is the most well-defended border of Iraq.

Terrorism: a term used to describe violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians by groups or persons for political or other ideological goals.

Straight from the dictionary. Get your facts straight.

But somehow, just somehow, the US in Iraq does not qualify as that.

[ritz627]

Remember 9-11

Sadam had nothing to do with 9-11. If its Al Qaeda your after, Sadam's not the one to go after. In fact, his regime was was probably better at keeping Al Qaeda out than we are in there right now. Granted, Sadam was not a good person, and certainly was a terrorist himself, but not only was this war against the Geneva Convention articles, its was founded on completely unproved acusations...and yea, if you trying to make an arguement in any way whatsoever, fox news is not the source to quote. (Unless of course you are making the arguement that Fox News is a joke and complete crap)

[ritz627]

The enemy knows that a vocal (not large, but vocal) segment of the U.S. population doesn't have the stomach for war, and is doing a good job at exploiting it.

While I have the utmost respect for you as a war veteran, I must say this, its not the stomach we don't have, its the brain we do have. And yes, I guess if you consider 65-70% of American people not a large number... . I dont think the enemy is so much exploiting as they are defending the land we unrightfully invaded... this is true for most "enemies" at least .

[Iz Man]

I must say this, its not the stomach we don't have, its the brain we do have.

"A conservative at 20 has no heart; a liberal at 40 has no brain"
-Winston Churchill

Had to.
Just having fun with you. We can agree to disagree.
I wouldn't expect to change anyone's mind nor do I expect anyone here to change mine.
Especially in an internet forum.

Just chiming in with my .02

[iAnonymous]

He didn't. And no one is trying to claim that Afghanistan was a bad idea, other than you.

I was just making sure that you wouldn't think that it was a good idea.

And with Iraq, again, many people thought he had weapons, and almost no one does.

That'd be a more accurate statement. Indeed, you don't wreck an entire country and slowly kill your troops to find MDW

So your telling me Bush, with his master plan hoodwinked the entire world, and made them think that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Ridiculous.

What the f*ck? I've said that USA invaded Iraq and used the MDW excuse. That's ridiculous.

Indeed, I rest my case. Everyone has different opinions on the war.

[Psilocbin]

I must say this, its not the stomach we don't have, its the brain we do have.

"A conservative at 20 has no heart; a liberal at 40 has no brain"
-Winston Churchill

Had to.
Just having fun with you. We can agree to disagree.
I wouldn't expect to change anyone's mind nor do I expect anyone here to change mine.
Especially in an internet forum.

Just chiming in with my .02

Winston Churchill is only human, no genious. at all. just. human. like everybody.


US Invading Iraq is really stupid, Bush is a major faggot. Looks like he might pass Truman in most hated president.

[Anarkistsdream]

I must say this, its not the stomach we don't have, its the brain we do have.

"A conservative at 20 has no heart; a liberal at 40 has no brain"
-Winston Churchill

Had to.
Just having fun with you. We can agree to disagree.
I wouldn't expect to change anyone's mind nor do I expect anyone here to change mine.
Especially in an internet forum.

Just chiming in with my .02

Winston Churchill is only human, no genious. at all. just. human. like everybody.


US Invading Iraq is really stupid, Bush is a major faggot. Looks like he might pass Truman in most hated president.

Agreed... But Truman is not most hated Pres... I would think Johnson or Nixon were for Vietnam.

[Jolly Roger]

Agreed... But Truman is not most hated Pres... I would think Johnson or Nixon were for Vietnam.

And don't forget about that fucker Millard Fillmore

[Anarkistsdream]

Agreed... But Truman is not most hated Pres... I would think Johnson or Nixon were for Vietnam.

And don't forget about that fucker Millard Fillmore

Why are you being a smartass when the guy tried to get Texas as a state, California as a territory, and Washington D.C. to be slave-free?

[Jolly Roger]

Agreed... But Truman is not most hated Pres... I would think Johnson or Nixon were for Vietnam.

And don't forget about that fucker Millard Fillmore

Why are you being a smartass when the guy tried to get Texas as a state, California as a territory, and Washington D.C. to be slave-free?

Leaders accomplishments have little to do with with whether or not they are hated. It's more often their failures that matter.

[Anarkistsdream]

Agreed... But Truman is not most hated Pres... I would think Johnson or Nixon were for Vietnam.

And don't forget about that fucker Millard Fillmore

Why are you being a smartass when the guy tried to get Texas as a state, California as a territory, and Washington D.C. to be slave-free?

Leaders accomplishments have little to do with with whether or not they are hated. It's more often their failures that matter.

And all I am saying, bro, is that I feel that due to Johnson and Nixons failings, they were given a much worse rap than they normally would have received. But with the violence and controversy surrounding Vietnam, they were shit on, regardless of their leadership abilities...

Beyond that, I agree with you.

[protector_6]

Nixon is probably most hated by Democrats...well because what he authorized at watergate. but idk about Republicans. but it's said Ronald Reagen is the Devil. his first, middle, and last name all are 6 letters. 6 6 6!

[unriggable]

Agreed... But Truman is not most hated Pres... I would think Johnson or Nixon were for Vietnam.

And don't forget about that fucker Millard Fillmore

Why are you being a smartass when the guy tried to get Texas as a state, California as a territory, and Washington D.C. to be slave-free?

Leaders accomplishments have little to do with with whether or not they are hated. It's more often their failures that matter.

Wierd - the living presidents get bashed, the assasinateds get praised.

[juggernaut17]

modern republicans probably hate Clinton the most because he was such a scumbag.

[unriggable]

modern republicans probably hate Clinton the most because he was such a scumbag.

That's the only real thing they have against democrats. He might have had a blowjob.

[unriggable]

The power of a scumbag

[feiterman]

but yet it is Clinton's fault for 9/11 so i think it balances out

[minihaymanz]

unriggable, thats impressive.

I never knew that (seriously). Thats some good research.