Yeah I know...I believe that Iraq had many terrorist training camps and Osama Bin Laden was said to be hiding there. I do however think that setting Iraq up with a democracy without consent was slightly hipocritical but in the end will turn out to be a good decision.
Hmmm some one has too much time on your hands. Its been provin they had intelligence telling them about a possible attack that day. Time to read more than 'bushrules.com' Name one country who has had a Democracy set up FOR the people by an invading force, and had the government succedd. You can't. It can't be done. The people need to DO IT THEMSELVES. It won't work unless they want it so much as to rebel themselves.
I know...By helping them on their way we can prevent Terrorists from comming back to takeover the government. Care to provide me with that proof?
Terrorists? What group, name it, now. Saddam was evil, but Sr. only pulled out to prevent extended conflict. The shooting at us part should be a clue they're wrong. Most likely. Because a 3rd world country that just had the hell bombed out of it and a leader whos full of himself doesnt exact acquire a massive stock of WMD so easily. The UN. I meant listen to them, because oddly enough... they tend to be right alot of the time.
Yeah I know...I believe that Iraq had many terrorist training camps and Osama Bin Laden was said to be hiding there. I do however think that setting Iraq up with a democracy without consent was slightly hipocritical but in the end will turn out to be a good decision. [/b][/quote] Forcing democracy upon them doesnt look that good publicly. Instead it pisses more people off and causes ---- like whats going on now. Yes, do it themselves mainly, but a little assistance can be a good thing. Like the Frech did for us in the American revolution. Dunno if thats true or not. But I do remember that morning, there was a Defense department breakfest where Rumsfeld talked about the beginning of a "new age", a "war on terror", a few hours before the ---- hit the fan on 9/11.
You will most likely blow this off, but here. "But the investigation was transformed a month before its first hearings were set to begin. In May 2002, a string of explosive leaks ignited a public debate over the government’s handling of the 9/11 attacks and made the performance of the intelligence agencies a political issue. CBS reporter David Martin revealed that weeks before the attacks, the CIA had warned Bush personally of Osama Bin Laden’s intent to use hijacked planes as missiles. That followed the damaging exposure by The Associated Press’s John Solomon of a pre-9/11 FBI memo from an officer in Phoenix warning of suspicious Middle Eastern men training at flight schools—a warning that went unheeded. So it may not be that day, it is still alittle un-nerving http://www.inthesetimes.com/comments.php?id=340_0_1_0_C you should read it, its quite interesting.
how would you like to have some foreign force to be walking around carrying big guns under the name of democracy? how would you like if in your own country a foreign soldier has the right to search you/arrest you? i live next door to iraq, i know several iraqi's, and no matter how much they hated saddam they did not want the U.S. to go into war with their own countrymen, 'a iraqi who wanted the war wanted to kill his brothers' thats the response i got from one of the people i know. As for the news you watch you cant seriously consider a couple of beaurocratic politicians that are now in position to replace saddam to represent the iraqi people. also wheres your proof that terrorists used iraq to stage operations? osama was never reported to be in iraq, and if theres a terrorist cell there theres 10 times as many in the U.S. and europe scince that is where the attacks are targeted. besides with all the U.N. sanctions and survelliance iraq actually isnt a friendly place for terrorists even if saddam harbors them. unlike afghanistan where the taliban officially stood with osama and there was very little international restrictions. terrorist never 'lost' power to regain it, all a war does is give them more recruits, when bush sr. pulled out he decreased the number of potential terrorist recruits. while i dont like sr. much more than jr. he did the right thing when he puled out. all this hypocritical dribble about democracy and removing dictators and freedom. If the U.S. a permanent member of the U.N. secrity council and the symbol of democracy defies the U.N. to start a personal war over frivolous reasons then i dont think we live in a very free world, whats to stop bush or whoever comes after him from starting another iraq? the U.S. is a worse dictatorship than saddam, at least saddam went clean and got tid of his WMD's as the U.N. asked. Even if he did commit atrocities there was no reason to kill 2000+ soldiers and god knows how many civilians to bring one man to justice
Well said. I don't particularly agree, but +rep for the eloquence. This may or may not be related, but I just heard on the news that we (U.S.) are beginning 'slow' proceedings to withdraw troops from Iraq. After the December elections, approximately 22,000 troops will be withdrawn. Staggered over the next 10-12 months, the U.S. will remove another 40,000 troops from active duty in Iraq, the largest amount of soldiers to return home since the war began. Granted, this will still leave over 100,000 troops in Iraq, but I guess we've got to start somewhere.
Meh, we should leave right now for this alone: http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?p...-12-2005_pg4_14 O----. IRAQIS WANT SADDAM TO ----ING RUN FOR ----ING ELECTION. WE SURE DID ALOT OF ----ING GOOD NOW, DIDNT WE?
I didn't read but a few posts here, and I just want to say... Don't post if you don't know what you are talking about and haven't researched what you are saying. ^ Why I'm not saying anything on the subject
Meh, we should leave right now for this alone: http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?p...-12-2005_pg4_14 O----. IRAQIS WANT SADDAM TO ----ING RUN FOR ----ING ELECTION. WE SURE DID ALOT OF ----ING GOOD NOW, DIDNT WE? [/b][/quote] those are probably some pro saddam supporters and a few people who dislike the U.S. military presence, as long as saddam has beeen ousted hell never win a real election, theyre probably trying to find some legal loophole to use in the trial
The only thing that comes to mind right now is the fact that even though it happened. Most people have forgotten it ever happened in the first place. All those who died and are dieing in Iraq and they could careless....its really sad
Jeremy I don't know what you have been smoking but there were never terrorist in Iraq until Bush reared his ugly face into the picture. And you said "to prevent terrorist from taking over the government" that has to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard, 1. Saddam isn't a terrorist and nor will he ever be, he's just one evil tryant, 2. Terrorist don't care about government they care about killing off all Americans.
