Saddam is NOTHING compared to the dictators the Americans put in South America to help them stop Che and the spread of the 'evil' 'unfree' communism. I'm not a Stalinist (I'm a trot actually) but at least he did what he was needed to do, not what suited him best like the yankeedoodledandies did to South America.
ever heard of a little thing called the congress buddy.. The president forst has to go through coungress :|. Also, u all know that gore won lol jeb helped george out in florida ^_^ its amazing ther were prolems in florida in both elections (jeb bush is gov of florida btw)
I don't anything about that oil thing, but I think that I also would have invaded Iraq sooner of later. I know that it is bad that alot of people have to die for the democracy, but I don't think it would have died less people if some didn't stopped Sadam, and if we look at Iraq now we can see that the people who have died didn't died without a reason cause Iraq is a better place to live now, the people who live there are not fearing for their life 24/7 maybe it was the wrong way to do it, but it helped!
which world do you live in? more iraqi people have died during and after the invasion than in a decade of saddams regime...In saddams regime no matter unjust allowed iraqis to go on a semblence of normal life, now there are armored U.S. vehichles all over the place, sitting targets for guerrila attacks that kill many innocents, The people of iraq live in fear of thier live now, they are forced to obey and withstand foreign soldiers on their soil and are looking at the prospect of never truly becoming free of american influence in their homeland. All the war did is replace one evil for the next, nobody asked for U.S. forces to intervene, infact most of the world was against it including Arabs who are the closest to understanding the iraqi point of view. The U.S. benefited very few people besides themselves in the attack, are 2000 U.S. soldiers and god knows how many innocent men women and children worth filling American pockets with iraqi oil?
It would have till happened beause : 1.Oil 2.Power hunger 3.Greed But 9/11 wasnt his reason for atacking Iraq... And the Iraqi's were better off under saddam than under US control=, because there were less people dieing, people werent living in fear and they ha somethign to live for(family, house ect)
You probally never heard of the UN have you? Or the "Law of Just war"? or The us congress? or a thing called democracy?
The US is not getting any special shipments of oil. Oil goes through a process that the whole world can buy. Americans would have to buy it in that market that the oil is in. So oil is not a factor in the war.
Bush would not have a reason to invade Iraq if 9/11 had not happened. It would be like 9/11 for them if the US started the war.
Listen bud, we ARE anti bush. You know why? Becuase we actually have our own minds, and question our government. And, yes, we are pissed because gore (won actually) and kerry lost. I can guarrentee you this would be a different discussion happening right now. We saw how much bush loves his fellow americans when katrina hit. Kanye west was half right, just replace black with 'regular americans'.
He won the majority of the people's votes, but he didn't win. In order to win, you have to have the majority of electoral votes, which Bush had.
He won the majority of the people's votes, but he didn't win. In order to win, you have to have the majority of electoral votes, which Bush had. [/b][/quote] And therein lies the critical flaw in the American political system. An electorate does not need to be representative of the people's choice, as seen in the 2000 elections. Gore won by a healthy 500,000 votes, yet he still lost in the electoral college. For decades now, there have been movements to abolish the electoral college and move towards popular elections, like in the rest of the world.
And therein lies the critical flaw in the American political system. An electorate does not need to be representative of the people's choice, as seen in the 2000 elections. Gore won by a healthy 500,000 votes, yet he still lost in the electoral college. For decades now, there have been movements to abolish the electoral college and move towards popular elections, like in the rest of the world. [/b][/quote] I agree. WIth electoral votes, gerrymandering (sp?) could still occur, making an unfair voting system and thus changing the outcome of the election. Popular elections is more of a democracy than electoral way.