alright fellas... back on track.

The sad part is, even if it turns out to be true that Bush, Rove, and Associates have intentionally misled us--the public--into war, the country will still be split down the middle.

 

I didn't give my opinion. I'm only speaking from the standpoint of "why we attacked Iraq". I think it's obvious to the most casual of observers that there was a serious conflict of interests as to "why we should go". The real reason we'll have to wait till we're 80 years old watching A&E in a Depends to find out why "it really happened".

I never have nor will I ever trust any political party to the point that I don't criticize their opinions to some degree. I don't care who is elected I'll always question their motives and their policy in an attempt to foresee if they are respectable and ethically made decisions. I'm not saying I dislike the current admin. as much as you do but I definetly see descrepancies that I am far from happy with.

I've only "e-thugged" one person on this site and that was in a "player haters ball" so if you get that impression I apoligize. I try to take at least the politics forum as seriously as I can.

 

That was my point; if I'm speculating, you are too because neither of us knows. I suppose we differ on our opinions of what the 'conflict of interest' was.

Me too. It surprises me that you're willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on the decision to go to war with this in mind.

Hahaha, you didn't start e-thuging...but how else am I supposed to read 'pats self on back and cracks knuckles'. And I appologize if you thought I was making a personal attack.


I guess those videos of Bush saying 3-4 different things as the 'reason' we're going to war and realizing NONE of them are true as far as anyone can tell riled me up. And the infamous 'Mission Accomplished' picture...what the hell were they thinking? Yeah, that's how to get support...say 'we're done' when everyone know's we've just begun...

 

Agreed, that was absolutely retarded mistake. And I try to avoid destroying a thread, forgive me for being a born smart-***.

 

Well, hear again we hear that Saddam was "desparately" seeking the nuclear bomb, but was years away. I assume you left wing pinkos would have preferred we wait and see what he planned to do with the bomb? Yeah, he was no Hitler alright... whatever...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11927856/

I prefer the mess we have right now than him killing millions of Israelis or Americans.

 

Wake up you jack-a$$. Everyone in that region of the world is "trying" to get their hands on nuclear weapons.

If that was our primary concern, shoudnt we have swept through Soviet bloc countries and removed their nuclear caches?

There is always another half-reason why we invaded Iraq. There will never be a substantial, legitimate reason though.

 

So how did Hitler threaten us? You do know we thought he was seeking to create a h-bomb, right?

What if we are only in Iraq to have a hold on the middle-east against China?

 

Half-reason #1001: To create a Middle-eastern front against our largest trading partner, China

Half-reason #1002: Saddam drove a VW bug

 

Well, it was either a combination of valid reasons, or Bush just said, "heck, why not."

Oh, and to validate your line of thinking, Saddam is just an innocent victim here. He's clearly the good guy .... ahuh.... sure

 

Noone ever said (or insinuated) that Saddam was/is a 'good' guy. However several people know that it was none of the US's god damned business. That's where the Hitler comparisons come into play; Hitler was not only an evil dictator, but he was openly bent on world domination and often expressed his desire to rid the world of people that he was prejudice against. The international community came together and agreed that he needed to be removed, and even then the US did not get involved until one of Hitler's allies made a direct attack on US soil.
Saddam, on the other hand, was an evil dictator that was not a threat to anyone's way of life except the citizens of his own country. While it's good for Iraq that he is gone (I believe that the country is better without him), it was really not the US's business to take care of that. Saddam had already messed up with the UN and the international community, and a MUCH more effective plan of attack would have been a world-wide embargo and trade stoppage against Iraq (which would most likely have been supported by an international community). This would have caused a situation where either Saddam would have lost power or opened his country to international inspections through simple neccesity in order to exist.
All of the 'reasons' people site as the true motivation for our invasion, even when taken summarily, do not come close to amounting to a justifiable reason for the invasion of a sovereign state. It is unprecedented in US history and has tainted our image as being the protector of freedom, changing our image instead to that of a world police that uses virtually irrelevant qualifications for our military actions around the globe. It doesn't take a genious to realize that this paradigm shift in our world image is certainly and undeniably a bad thing.

 

And this is clearly the bravado we do not need. This isnt a high-school coach we are talking about here: it is the president of the United States.

Im sure you can come up with a better retort than that. As MVWRX pointed out, this was neither mentioned nor implied.

 

as Iraq continues to spiral out of control and heads towards an imminent civil-war, what do ya'll still think?

 

"Screw Iraq... Let's try our luck with Iran?"


Looks like Bush is going to lie out his *** on this one also so we can go police the next country on our list..

 

move on, nothing to see here

:'cept a failed war due to failed policies by a failure of a president: