Interesting.

[redrumracer]

I didn't make it appear glorious at all, all I said it happened as a result of his actions.

It wasn't just the U.S. who fought Germany, the U.S. was part of the allied forces that were able to stop the Nazis. Because if the Nazi's took over Europe, who do you think their next target would've been? Gee don't take too long to think about that one.

Of course he should've been taken out. But he wasn't, however that didn't mean he had to be the focus of this war on "terror".

How do you know they haven't been planted already?

except hitler was attacking those other countries that were involved in the war, and he wasnt/isnt the focus of war on terror, and i dont know if they have been planted or not.

[ironchef]

except hitler was attacking those other countries that were involved in the war, and he wasnt/isnt the focus of war on terror, and i dont know if they have been planted or not.

The war on terror comment was aimed at Saddam not Hitler. I was just too lazy to break up your quote.

So what you're saying is because he had been doing it for a long time, we needed to let him continue? NO, He was commiting mass murder and it wasnt just that. He did not comply with UN regulations numerous times.

No, of course we don't need to let him continue. But he shouldn't have been such a big focus when he wasn't behind 9/11.

Of Course they didnt find any major WMD's. The UN wasnt allowed to do random searches for them. Its not hard to hide something if you know where the people are going to be looking. The point is, he said he had no WMD's. And he did. whether or not they posed an immediate risk to the US or not. To have the technology, and have us look the other way only would have bought him the time to get the technology to make one able to attack us. Use your head, just because there was no immediate threat, doesnt mean there wasnt a threat.

Of course theres always a threat, theres no denying that. Theres would have been nothing wrong if Bush sent some troops to Iraq in order to have a presence there, but to go on a full scale war, because he thought there might be WMDs? Thats not a terribly smart move to disjoint the military so much, especially when theres other more potential serious threats around the world, such as North Korea with their nuclear missiles.

And you think it costs a lot now. Imagine we let it go, they got the technology and Hussein had gotten all 7 palestinian nations together before he attacked us and we had to fight back then. That would have cost a sh*tload. Why not just go ahead and foresee a problem, and take care of it before it escalates. Isnt that the first step of conflict resolution. damagae control. Of course you are probably one of those people 10 years from now, if we hadnt taken him out, that would still be bashing Bush for his lack of action when we got attacked....

Do you honestly think Saddam could've had planned something and gotten 7 palestinian nations in cohorts without the U.S. knowing about it? Come on now. As far as Bush taking action, I have no beef with that, my beef is the fact that he could have handled the situation a lot better than he did.

Ok I got halfway through the first page and this made me go .Ok so which is it? Did they find WMD's are not. Sorry but I really don't see the relevance whether they were constructed before the gulf war or after. A WMD is a WMD. PERIOD. And weapons are mobile. What was to stop Saddam from doing what the Soviet Union did during the 60's and just move the things in range. It's funny how people say this war is fruitless simply because they watch the news. I have had friends that have gone over there and said both positive and negative things about the war. Also I love how the mainstream media missed out on how we have now acheived 12 of the 17 or however many objectives they have over there. The press is always guaranteed to do one thing spin negatively. Which is why frankly I don't watch it that much anymore.

How do you not see relevence? One of Bushes major reasons for invading Iraq was because they had WMDs. Well they've had WMDs since before the Gulf War, what was the point of waiting till 2002-2003 to take them out?

I've also had friends go over there, and they all came back with negative views on the subject. Eventually the point comes down to this, this shouldn't still be going on, it should've been over by now, but its not its just costing more lives and money.

[redrumracer]

The war on terror comment was aimed at Saddam not Hitler. I was just too lazy to break up your quote.

yea i know, so was my comment.

[Alan®]

The war on terror comment was aimed at Saddam not Hitler. I was just too lazy to break up your quote.

No, of course we don't need to let him continue. But he shouldn't have been such a big focus when he wasn't behind 9/11.
Of course theres always a threat, theres no denying that. Theres would have been nothing wrong if Bush sent some troops to Iraq in order to have a presence there, but to go on a full scale war, because he thought there might be WMDs? Thats not a terribly smart move to disjoint the military so much, especially when theres other more potential serious threats around the world, such as North Korea with their nuclear missiles.



Do you honestly think Saddam could've had planned something and gotten 7 palestinian nations in cohorts without the U.S. knowing about it? Come on now. As far as Bush taking action, I have no beef with that, my beef is the fact that he could have handled the situation a lot better than he did.

How do you not see relevence? One of Bushes major reasons for invading Iraq was because they had WMDs. Well they've had WMDs since before the Gulf War, what was the point of waiting till 2002-2003 to take them out?

I've also had friends go over there, and they all came back with negative views on the subject. Eventually the point comes down to this, this shouldn't still be going on, it should've been over by now, but its not its just costing more lives and money.

1. They might have Didn't we already establish that they did?

2. I think that 9/11 tought us that it really doesn't matter whether we know about it or not. We knew about 9/11 but it still happened.

3. I don't see the relevance because your basically saying that since they were there before the gulf war we should have basically not worred about them and that they didn't pose any kind of threat to the U.S. I mean seriously you can't have it both ways. Ok we waited forever to do something about it but better late than never.

[stillaneon]

No, of course we don't need to let him continue. But he shouldn't have been such a big focus when he wasn't behind 9/11.
Of course theres always a threat, theres no denying that. Theres would have been nothing wrong if Bush sent some troops to Iraq in order to have a presence there, but to go on a full scale war, because he thought there might be WMDs? Thats not a terribly smart move to disjoint the military so much, especially when theres other more potential serious threats around the world, such as North Korea with their nuclear missiles.

So rather than 1000 miles, you would rather him move troops halfway across the world?? Who care whether or not he was behind 9-11? The war on terror wasn't strictly against Bin Laden, It was against terrorists. I think Hussein easily falls into that category.

Do you honestly think Saddam could've had planned something and gotten 7 palestinian nations in cohorts without the U.S. knowing about it? Come on now. As far as Bush taking action, I have no beef with that, my beef is the fact that he could have handled the situation a lot better than he did.

Why Not? IT happened to Israel. Luckily Someone seems to be watching over them

And no sh*t he could have done it better, all I can safely say is, that he has and will continue to do a better job than Gore or Kerry (who could have been in office when the planes hit )

How do you not see relevence? One of Bushes major reasons for invading Iraq was because they had WMDs. Well they've had WMDs since before the Gulf War, what was the point of waiting till 2002-2003 to take them out?

Ok, and he was busy from 2001 until the invasion having to answer the call of duty after a major attack on our country. Sorry he didnt attack Hussein before 9-11. Chances are, all of you that did nothing but talk down about him after his election took a little time. Not to mention him having to answer all your bitching and moaning after the attacks about what he was gonna do....

I've also had friends go over there, and they all came back with negative views on the subject. Eventually the point comes down to this, this shouldn't still be going on, it should've been over by now, but its not its just costing more lives and money.

Ok, and the person that the country elected and pays, says that you are wrong.

He does get paid to make these decisions. And considering that you werent old enough to vote against or for him, it kind of doesnt give you the right to ***** about the way he does his job