Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Chat' started by MiniCooperS, Oct 23, 2004.
you aren't funny.
You're in Iraq!?$?/1?!???
Whats with you and cats?
Pointless question. We are already there, and it would be a greater evil to just throw in the towel right now and leave.
Too bad Kerry does not agree with your way of thinking.
Actually, he does agree...
Actually, John Kerry voted YES to go to war with Iraq.
He kind of forgets this from time to time.
Yes, but Blatant lies wasnt the way to get support for it.
The UN thought Saddam had WMD's.
As did Clinton, Kerry, and MANY other US and international leaders.
The fact is, he most likely DID. If we could go into Syria, we could prove it.
There were no blatant lies that you or I or the general public know about. And anyone who says otherwise is a dipshit.
He may not have. We don't know. But Bush did not want to take even the remotest chance that he did.
i hope this question doesn't start any flaming and isn't meant to offend, but are there concerns that this war is turning into a 21 century vietnam? meaning is it just going to continue with now win possible.
Unlikely. In Vietnam, most of the Vietnamese didn't want us there. In Iraq, however, despite what the liberal media would have you belive, more than 85% of the people want us to help them put their country back together.
really eh! the media does spin the situation to make it look hopless. i thought that the vietnamess wanted the american assistence. it seems that both wars though have a "winning of hearts and minds theme"
The south vietnamese government requested the help of the U.S., when in fact most of the people didn't care either way or wanted the communists to take over. It wouldn't have changed much.
Remember, John Kerry is on your side, come to think of it he is on everyone elses also.
Don't post unless you have a point.
i guess Tony Blair lied, too, then.
I ask everyone who opposes the war, what would you have done in Bush's position?
Is it a loaded question, yes it is. There is no right answer. Saddam played his cards and outsmarted Bush diplomatically, calling Bush's bluff (well threat) of going to war with Iraq. The way I see it Bush had 3 different ways to approach the situation.
A) Let Saddam completely off the hook. Yes thats a good thing to do, let a dictator that has committed genocide, and that supports terrorism (It is proven he had supported terrorism, there are money trails, and terrorist camps inside Iraq. It is not proven if he supported Al Qaeda or not. ) Then let this blood thristy regiem continue and possibly rebuild its army. (Which it most likely would try and drive out/kill the Kurds.)
B) Keep playing the UN game, were the UN inspectors are let in for a limited time, then get kicked out again. Keeping sanctions up, literally starving millions of Iraqis, while Saddam funnels the money to his regiem. Eventually become another state like Cuba or North Korea, except we would be indefinately patrolling the no-fly zone.
C) Remove Saddam by force, and try to bring Democracy to Iraq. This is of course war, costing Lives and Money. This has the greatest reward, possibly changing the face of the middle east, or the greatest risk, throwing the middle east into chaos. Only time will tell. Don't expect it to happen over night, either way.
Bush took a gamble, and I hope it works out for everyones sake. I see the reward being worth the risk.
yep, he said we could be attacked with WMD in 45 Minutes <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/emoticons.html"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="http://speed.supercars.net/pitlane/emoticons/disappointed.gif"></A>
Hes apologised for lying though.
apologized for lying, or apologzied for being incorrect?
can you back that fact with concrete proofs or did you imagined this statement from your own?
He said he could apologise. As far as I know he never 'actually' apologised for anything.