Do you know why he did not listen to the UN? It's because he was concerned with the safety of the United States. Something the United Nations cares little about. If we wanted the United Nations to run the United States, we wouldn't have a president to begin with.
my point is that the war hasnt helped iraqis to a 'better life' it has only made things far more unstable than when saddam was in power, saddam may have been evil but at that time he was a neccesary evil. and who said anything about mainstream media? i watch both english and arab news stations and they are both bull, i get this out of the mouth of iraqis who have been there. there isnt plenty of iraqis who want the u.s. there, there may have been at the beginning but by now that support has faded. morally it is wrong to pick a fight and then claim that it was for the sake of others its called hypocrisy and saddam hasn't been 'wiping out' his citizens scince the iraq war, he cant afford to harm his own people even if he wanted, it might have caused the U.N. to agree with the united states for war, nor does he have the capabilities to fund terrorist cells as all his assets are watched, whatever is left of them anyway. and for your info there is a huge diffrence between your dad getting fired and your dad getting killed. just as there is a huge diffrence between not liking the u.s. cause of political reasons and hating the u.s. for the death of family, make no mistake 10-20 years from now there will be some terrorist attack that would never have happened if not for this war and what 'terrosrist cells' have been caught in iraq? not a single known terrorist has been found,the u.s. army attacked a country, this was a war on iraq not a war on terrorism.
Yes america would have becoz all they wanted really was the oil and no matter what anyone says thats the truth there was never any weapons of mass destruction it was all an excuse to invade without showing their true intentions. Personally I dont think much of america as a country fair enough they may be the only superpower in the world today but they have a tendancy of making a lot of stupid decision's but my answer is Yes.
Stop looking at the small picture. This war hasn't made anybody's life better... yet. The war's not over. You don't always see the fruits of your labor until you're finished. You don't paint a house and expect it to look good when you've only got one coat of paint. You wait until you apply your last coat. Yes, they are fading and are fading fast. Same goes for Americans. Same went for the Civil War in the North. People lose hope because they're tired of hearing negativity, or they're done with an idea, so they want to move on, but war never happens like that. You can't just quit where you are and leave. Best offense is a good defense. Why wait until we're attacked again? What about the genocide? What about the torturing of his own people? I don't care if it's "another country", it's sickening and wrong. It needed to be stopped, and that's what we're doing. If Saddam wasn't such an evil man, why is it almost certain that he's going to be convicted of his charges. It's the same principle. You hurt a parent, a child will act in the same manner. The child will act in differently comparative to the situation, but the principal idea is that the child is going to react negatively towards those agressors who hurt their parents. Sure, in 10-20 years that will happen, but you realize that the KKK started up again once the Civil Rights Movement went into high gear, right? These lunatic white supremists wouldn't have done this if the blacks would have just let themselves stay opressed. Did I ever mention anything about terrorist cells being caught in Iraq? I'm talking about the funding and the support of those cells and groups.
addressed towards beets Wow you're stupid doesn't begin to describe what you just said, I think no matter what we would have come to blows with a middle eastern country. Terrorism was a problem that was on the rise and Sadam was continuing to give the UN the run around. Iran is still out of hand and Saudi Arabia is losing control of its own country. I think that installing more democracies in the middle east will stablize their countries. Even though some of the animals that live over there can't even come to comprehend freedom. Just think about America from 1890 to 1920 but much more conservative on women and religion. The middle eastern countries must grow and realize that they will not continue to suceed on the current path they follow.
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE ("gbull")</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> America fought this war only for Iraq's oil. - FALSE When you make this assumption you show your complete incompetence toward the truth and borrow all of your ideals from such well known scholars as Eminem and Madonna. While what I said maybe completely untrue, it is undeniable that you sound completely ignorant even to most of the critics of the war. For God's sake, stop makeing this assumption. It's tired, it's old, and it's untrue.[/b][/quote] Throw your keyboard out the window please.
My post wasnt about anything to do with saddam my post was about whether or not there was a genuine reason why america invaded they wanted the oil and thats the beginning middle and end of it. Im not stupid I just have a different opinion from you so dont go calling me something im not.
Do you know why he did not listen to the UN? It's because he was concerned with the safety of the United States. Something the United Nations cares little about. If we wanted the United Nations to run the United States, we wouldn't have a president to begin with. [/b][/quote] Oh my ----ing god guess what: For 2000+ lives less, in 2 less years, the UN came up with the same result of America's wild goose chase for WMD: They found nothing. WMD was the main point of the war. In other words, you're pretty much saying "---- the UN, we're too good for them or whatever they say." We should probably move the UN building, obviously Americans find themselves too good to listen to them.
ahhhhhh all this terrosim and political stuff is so complicated, but i do think bush is a well...... no comment anyways you can argue all day and everyone will think the same thing at the end but a good topic indeed
man who do you think you are criticising the way of life of middle easterners? and whats with 'installing democracies' who put you in charge of other peoples countries? man middle east is growing just fine the way we are, we have very little terrorist attcacks on our soil, we live in peace, and our economies are booming, very much unlike the U.S. some people here dont want democracy. In the U.A.E. and Saudi Arabia for example we're doing well without democracy, if anything it would destabilise the situation the only 'unstable' countries are iraq which the U.S. invaded and palestine where the Israeli's are having a field day with U.S. support. you think that bringing saddam to justice or spreading democracy is worth the lives of your soldiers? can you say that to the face of the families? You take war too lightly, if things were left as they are noone would've gotten hurt, saddam couldn't have financed terrorist cells with all the restrictions placed in him. i wouldnt have been against the war if saddam had commited an atrocity in the near past, or if he had WMD's, but to avenge those who are dead you kill more? edit: i dont appreciate you calling anyone 'animals'
Oh my ----ing god guess what: For 2000+ lives less, in 2 less years, the UN came up with the same result of America's wild goose chase for WMD: They found nothing. WMD was the main point of the war. In other words, you're pretty much saying "---- the UN, we're too good for them or whatever they say." We should probably move the UN building, obviously Americans find themselves too good to listen to them. [/b][/quote] This reminds me of an old cliche. If someone told you to jump off of a bridge, would you do it? At the time the president was given information from thought to be reliable sources of a WMD presence in Iraq. So he acted. You act as if it was the president's fault he was given "false" information. In any case, because of the UN the United States was delayed several days before the invasion could occur. Leaving plenty of time to transport any that may have been in Iraq to Syria, or to be buried in the middle of the desert.
Yes, i'd have to say no because there would be alot of controversey if he went in without a solid reason. It might have happened eventually but not as soon as it did. Hey, you can't mess with that stuff like if you get in an Just dont daccident you can't say "Oh i should of took a left not a right". It's just fate.
