'Bout 37 hours left.. Time to see how many folks are brain-washed

[Redz]

Reasonable point? For us to leave him alone? HE attacked US!! Why in the hell should we leave him alone?

Yes from your perpective, but from the point of view of those murders,they were attacked first, by the U.S supporting israel and by having troops based in Saudi Arabia. in addtion certain radical islamics involved believe that western culture is diseased by capitalist individualism. i'm not saying they are right but it is what some of them believe.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

what WMD the ones your own survey group could't find?
no proven links with 9/11
many of the reasons for taking out saddam were based on possibilities, not realities. in my opinion war should always be based on realities.
yes its fair that you try to defend your nation, just be careful how you do it, curtailing civil liberties and invading soverign nations preemptively is not the best way to protect your country in my opinion, maybe solving the palestinian issue and withdrawing your troops from the middle east would help

Well, now we're on the verge of getting into the same, tired arguments that always come up. I'll just say that a link to 9/11 was never a reason given for going into Iraq, though a link to terrorism itself was a concern.

No WMD's have been found, but the final report made it clear Saddam had intention of restarting the WMD program once the UN inspectors left. Considering all that had some out about the Oil for Food scandel, I question just how hard those UN inspectors were looking to begin with. Speaking of Oil for Food, my own personal opinion leads me to question exactly how close France and Russia were snuggling up to Saddam, and exactly what they might have helped him with.

 

[Redz]

That is the prime difference between the US and Old Europe. You would prefer just to let well enough alone and say (whiny voice) "If we would stop butting into other people's business they wouldn't wanna kill us!"

Well that's what Clinton tried. And it failed. A good theory, to be sure. But a failed one. It got us more terror attacks in a single decade then ever before, culminating in 9/11. The "leave us alone and we will leave you alone" theory proved its uselessness. 9/11 was the last straw. We are not gonna take that shit anymore, and we're gonna kick some ass. .

the term "old europe" is pure propaganda.
clinton didn't do anything about what drives these madmen, like solving palestine and leaving Saudi Arabia.
the ass kicking approach to terrorists is used by israel and has only made things much worse for everybody in that region

 

[phadras]

That is the prime difference between the US and Old Europe. You would prefer just to let well enough alone and say (whiny voice) "If we would stop butting into other people's business they wouldn't wanna kill us!"

Well that's what Clinton tried. And it failed. A good theory, to be sure. But a failed one. It got us more terror attacks in a single decade then ever before, culminating in 9/11. The "leave us alone and we will leave you alone" theory proved its uselessness. 9/11 was the last straw. We are not gonna take that shit anymore, and we're gonna kick some ass. If Europe disagrees, fine, but stay the hell out of our way; because neither the them, the UN, nor pissant little countries like Belgium and France (who are currently trying to justify their own worthless existance) are going to stop us from trying to defend ourselves.

EXACTLY!!!!

 

[phadras]

what WMD the ones your own survey group could't find?
no proven links with 9/11
many of the reasons for taking out saddam were based on possibilities, not realities. in my opinion war should always be based on realities.
yes its fair that you try to defend your nation, just be careful how you do it, curtailing civil liberties and invading soverign nations preemptively is not the best way to protect your country in my opinion, maybe solving the palestinian issue and withdrawing your troops from the middle east would help

and burn there.. And get the HELL outta our way or you may be next... JAckass jerkwad.. If I had you in person you'd EAT those words...Classic liberal wimp!!! My gawd how lucky you are that REAL men defend The United States and our umbrella (just for now mind you) extends to those arrogant Euro's...that you so love!!! I'll say it simply.. To the Euro's join us and be welcome, oppose us and watch your ass...

 

[Redz]

jimmy yes some old arguments
i know about the russian and french oil stuff interesting. the mainpoint i'm trying to make is use of 9/11 to justify iraq war, one of many changing resons given for war. kurds, freedom, deomcracy, regieme change wmd etc..ect..blah blah..the point is they keep shifting position on this, the real reasons arn't for the public i guess, but the admin never stuck to one reason. maybe they flip floped!..thats what makes me suspicious of them, but hey i'm suspicious of all authority cos i think thats a healthy attitude

 

[Redz]

and burn there.. And get the HELL outta our way or you may be next... JAckass jerkwad.. If I had you in person you'd EAT those words...

why so much abuse and emotion. i'm only trying to make a reasonable point. from my perpective your anger and name calling is a sign that you have been a victim of propaganda, as you have been emotionally stimulated. but hey thats just what i think

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

jimmy yes some old arguments
i know about the russian and french oil stuff interesting. the mainpoint i'm trying to make is use of 9/11 to justify iraq war, one of many changing resons given for war. kurds, freedom, deomcracy, regieme change wmd etc..ect..blah blah..the point is they keep shifting position on this, the real reasons arn't for the public i guess, but the admin never stuck to one reason. maybe they flip floped!..thats what makes me suspicious of them, but hey i'm suspicious of all authority cos i think thats a healthy attitude

It's a lot more simple than some are making it out to be. What it all boils down to is the U.S. went into Iraq to take Saddam out of power. He is now in a jail cell, so that obviously isn't why there are troops still there. Now, we are in Iraq to help the new Iraqi government and military build itself up, which is looking better than most give them credit for. Another reason is it had become the front line in the war on terror. That was the terrorists choice, not the Bush administrations.

There were many reasons given for going into Iraq, and to many of us they were justified reasons. Even to some that say they are against it now, it was justified when we did it.

 

[phadras]

why so much abuse and emotion. i'm only trying to make a reasonable point. from my perpective your anger and name calling is a sign that you have been a victim of propaganda, as you have been emotionally stimulated. but hey thats just what i think

the point of being dangerous...

 

[Redz]

It's a lot more simple than some are making it out to be. What it all boils down to is the U.S. went into Iraq to take Saddam out of power. He is now in a jail cell, so that obviously isn't why there are troops still there. Now, we are in Iraq to help the new Iraqi government and military build itself up, which is looking better than most give them credit for. Another reason is it had become the front line in the war on terror. That was the terrorists choice, not the Bush admin

look jimmy
i find that things are always more complicated than some make them out to be.
sure saddam was evil and deserves to rot in jail. but the U.S isn't in Iraq to soley promote freedom, it has other reasons, not just oil either. how exactly was it the front line in terror?, i thought that was afganistan.
fundamentally i have a Big problem with this pre-emptive strike idea. do you thinking other nations have the right to make preemptive strikes to protect their security??

 

[Redz]

phadras
how exactly am i ignorant? because i don't agree with you?

 

[dilloduck]

look jimmy
i find that things are always more complicated than some make them out to be.
sure saddam was evil and deserves to rot in jail. but the U.S isn't in Iraq to soley promote freedom, it has other reasons, not just oil either. how exactly was it the front line in terror?, i thought that was afganistan.
fundamentally i have a Big problem with this pre-emptive strike idea. do you thinking other nations have the right to make preemptive strikes to protect their security??

They already have that right and would use it if they thought it would be successful. Iraq has become the front line on the war on terror because the arabian fighters all choose to go there to defeat America while America is trying to protect itself from a crazy man AND rebuild Iraq as a free country. Seen any terror attacks elsewhere recently?

 

[phadras]

phadras
how exactly am i ignorant? because i don't agree with you?

it makes you ignorant... And ignorance is dangerous... Please don't vote...

 

[Redz]

phadras
there is no such thing as facts and truth in the modern world,there is too much information for us to deal with. you just have to critically examine the sources of your information and what their interests are. i'm not sure i know any truths about the middle east except its one big mess. how are you so sure of your facts? ever been wrong before?

 

[Redz]

They already have that right and would use it if they thought it would be successful. Iraq has become the front line on the war on terror because the arabian fighters all choose to go there to defeat America while America is trying to protect itself from a crazy man AND rebuild Iraq as a free country. Seen any terror attacks elsewhere recently?

thats true of post war iraq, but it was not a frontline before the U.S led invaision.before Iraq2 preemptive action was not used, i think its use there, sets a new precedent, which can only destabilise security.ok so other states can use the example of U.S preemptive strikes, but what if those states were threatened by the U.S or the U.K, would those states be justified in attacking first?

 

[dilloduck]

thats true of post war iraq, but it was not a frontline before the U.S led invaision.before Iraq2 preemptive action was not used, i think its use there, sets a new precedent, which can only destabilise security.ok so other states can use the example of U.S preemptive strikes, but what if those states were threatened by the U.S or the U.K, would those states be justified in attacking first?

oh ya---you forget about 9/11 right?

 

[Redz]

oh ya---you forget about 9/11 right?

no but that was perpetrated by terrorists, not a nation. so the traditional rules of international law will be ignored by them. whereas the U.S action in Iraq set a new precedent in international law. what if iran or north korea attacked the U.S now?, because they are in the "axis of EVIL" and can reasonable expect to be attackec by America in the future, would they be justified, as they were protecting their securuity from a future threat, just like the U.S in Iraq

 

[dilloduck]

no but that was perpetrated by terrorists, not a nation. so the traditional rules of international law will be ignored by them. whereas the U.S action in Iraq set a new precedent in international law. what if iran or north korea attacked the U.S now?, because they are in the "axis of EVIL" and can reasonable expect to be attackec by America in the future, would they be justified, as they were protecting their securuity from a future threat, just like the U.S in Iraq

Garbage--pre-emption is attacking your enemy before they become powerful enough to damage or possibly destroy you. The whole COLD WAR was fought pre-emptively and numerous other pre-emptive strikes have been made throughout history. International law is an attempt to weaken America. I guess you support that. Iran and N.Korea can attack the US or its' allies anytime the want and trust me--they won't worry if it's legal or not. How gullible are you anyway? What illusionary curtain of security do you live behind? International law ??????

 

[Redz]

Garbage--pre-emption is attacking your enemy before they become powerful enough to damage or possibly destroy you. The whole COLD WAR was fought pre-emptively and numerous other pre-emptive strikes have been made throughout history. International law is an attempt to weaken America. I guess you support that. Iran and N.Korea can attack the US or its' allies anytime the want and trust me--they won't worry if it's legal or not. How gullible are you anyway? What illusionary curtain of security do you live behind? International law ??????

the cold war was mainly a stand off, or fought between allies of the superpowers. eg;vietnam, afganistan, iran-iraq etc..America has just essentially dictated international law,so how does it weaken america. i just think that if America has the ability to attack its enemys for future potential threats, then so does every other country. And thats a big horrible mess for us all to live in. i am pretty guilible i guess and i live in ireland, not really a prime target in any war,my nations harmlessness is my curtain of security. but to extend the idea of preemptive action to all states as you must logically do, then its just a free for all, and nobody wants that

 

[dilloduck]

the cold war was mainly a stand off, or fought between allies of the superpowers. eg;vietnam, afganistan, iran-iraq etc..America has just essentially dictated international law,so how does it weaken america. i just think that if America has the ability to attack its enemys for future potential threats, then so does every other country. And thats a big horrible mess for us all to live in. i am pretty guilible i guess and i live in ireland, not really a prime target in any war,my nations harmlessness is my curtain of security. but to extend the idea of preemptive action to all states as you must logically do, then its just a free for all, and nobody wants that

Wrong----economic bullets were fired all the time and the US won by staying ahead of the game--NOT by waiting until we were hit first! International law weakens America because we are the only ones who are expected or try to follow it. The terrorists have declared war on America---any strike from that time was not pre-emptive but strategic. I know other countries like Ireland see us as a bully but American blood is red too and we don't like seeing it spilled. Let us hear your anger at the islamo-facists sometime--do you think we would be in Iraq if it weren't for 9/11 ????