Yea but you also don't see America being ruled by an insane dictator. :wth: We still have some WMDs from World War II and have destroyed most of them. So yea, we have them from the past. But if other countries are making them NOW then thats the serious issue that needs to be dealt with.
I don't know how you can support going into a country over paranoia and speculation, kill over a hundred thousand innocent Iraqi civilians, and not have a single shred of evidence to back up a justifiable reasoning to go to war. Maybe I'm just one of those crazy people who likes to see proof of things before jumping to rash decisions that result in the deaths of over a hundred thousand innocent people. Better check myself into an asylum, I guess. Getting Saddam out of power was something the US could've done in conjunction with the UN, and is not a justifiable reason to go to war. "Liberating Iraq" is complete Bush Administration bullshit that way too many people blindly believe. Alright, that's a challenge. Let's debate. Start off by showing me a valid reason to go into Iraq, and I'll gladly give a retort. You can't just come in here, give blasphemous claims, and expect people to just believe you, you need to elaborate, give proof. If you don't, which you didn't, that's a very flawed opinion and is not postworthy, nor should it be taken seriously at all. As well; the current totals of Nuclear Warheads on Earth; US - 10,600 Russia - 10,000 China - 400 France - 350 Britain - 200 Israel - 200 India - 30-45 Pakistan - 24-48 In total, around 20,500 nuclear warheads are assembled o nthe planet, with the US owning around 55%. Source That's still too much.
Nicely said Mark Also there's no way iran have nukes, im half persian but im not just saying because of that. There's no way we have the resources and the money, but then again thats just my opinion becuase i have no evidence to back it up.
I do. [/b][/quote] Stole what I was going to say Seriously, what makes Americans so arrogant that they think they are allowed to have all the weapons and no one else can? There's nothing saying our government won't use them inappropriately, as we have with our other means of force, just as there's nothing saying any other country won't. If we want to be all high and mighty about removing WMD's, we'd best start with ourselves. Also, I don't need no accusor, the fact that you have such a vivid political position, yet "stay far away from politics" suggest that you've been listening to too much right wing propoganda.
I don't know how you can support going into a country over paranoia and speculation, kill over a hundred thousand innocent Iraqi civilians, and not have a single shred of evidence to back up a justifiable reasoning to go to war. Maybe I'm just one of those crazy people who likes to see proof of things before jumping to rash decisions that result in the deaths of over a hundred thousand innocent people. Better check myself into an asylum, I guess. Getting Saddam out of power was something the US could've done in conjunction with the UN, and is not a justifiable reason to go to war. "Liberating Iraq" is complete Bush Administration bullshit that way too many people blindly believe. Alright, that's a challenge. Let's debate. Start off by showing me a valid reason to go into Iraq, and I'll gladly give a retort. You can't just come in here, give blasphemous claims, and expect people to just believe you, you need to elaborate, give proof. If you don't, which you didn't, that's a very flawed opinion and is not postworthy, nor should it be taken seriously at all. As well; the current totals of Nuclear Warheads on Earth; US - 10,600 Russia - 10,000 China - 400 France - 350 Britain - 200 Israel - 200 India - 30-45 Pakistan - 24-48 In total, around 20,500 nuclear warheads are assembled o nthe planet, with the US owning around 55%. Source That's still too much. [/b][/quote] Are you kidding me? There have only been THOUSANDS of deaths. MOST OF WHICH are done by suicide bombers. No evidence? THERE'S TONS of information to believe Saddam had nukes. HE HIMSELF was leaking out to his people that he had nukes to scare the U.S. He thought if we knew he had nukes we would get scared but instead we panicked and did what we needed to and took him out. We gave Saddam 12 YEARS WORTH of ultimatums along with the UN. We thought the people of Iraq would over throw Saddam and have another ruler, but that never happened because he gained power again. Saddam DID have weapons of mass destruction that is widely known. It's not whether we know if he has them or not, it's what hes DONE with them. He said ''we destroyed them'' YET there is not a single shred of evidence that he destroyed them. We asked him SEVERAL times ''Where did you destroy them?'' and he NEVER told us. If he had destroyed them in the desert, there would have been metal remains rusting for years. If he destroyed them in the ocean we could have used a sonar scanner and found it. Saddam has broken so many violations over these 12 years like shooting at American planes. Bush didn't LIE about these nukes, he was wrong thats all. If I told you that there wouldn't be any traffic on the way to the mall, I would be wrong, But you would probably call me a liar. And people act like this WMD thing was the one and only reason we went there, FALSE. The weapons of mass destruction were the reason we went in there with such urgency, and why we didn't wait several months to invade. When we had weapons inspectors there Saddam kicked them out BOTH times. And yea you say Bush is an insane dictator in the comfort of your home behind a computer screen. If you lived in Iraq you would see what a monster Saddam was. Edit, To shade: It's not the weapons, it was who was in control of the weapons. And you think that I'm surrounded by Bush supporters. FAR from the case. EVERYONE I know and talk to supports kerry and hates Bush. And I meant I stay away from politics now that I'm completely sick of it from the past few months.
You say there's "tons of evidence", but where is it? May I please have a credible link or source? That'd be great. What if they had WMDs? If?! Possibilities, and unproven paranoid conclusions are not viable reasons to go to war. The fact is, no one knew whether Iraq had nuclear weapons. There was no evidence that Iraq was a threat to American national security. The weapons inspectors of the UN didn't find anything, so where the hell does the US get off on claiming the unproven and saying they had WMDs? Other wars, such as World War II, were started because Hitler and his communist ways threatened Europe and eventually the world through his invasions and growing strength. The Allies had to stop him because he posed a threat to them. Did Iraq pose a threat to the US? No. You couldn't prove it. Sure, you may have given Iraq sanctions and we know Saddam was a bastard, but why should the US feel like they have to babysit the world by going into Iraq and making it their top priority to remove him? Why waste hundreds of billions of dollars concentrating on one man when it could be spent on AIDS relief, education, health care, or on other more deserving causes? Did you know that in Darfur, Sudan, close to 300,000 people have died because of warlords in the last years? If the US is so concerned about invading other coutnries that are no threat to them to help "liberate" their people, then where's the US military in places like Sudan where people who need them the most? Oh, that's right, Sudan doesn't have the vast oil reserves like certain other countries do (Sudan - 200,000 barrels/day Source, Iraq - 2.2 million barrels/day Source). I'm sorry, the fact that you just say things like "Saddam DID have weapons of mass destruction that is widely known" does not make me believe you. Where the hell is the proof? I, along with the entire international community, would like to see some. That's right-winged propaghanda you're spewing there. Absolutely fabricated stories with no evidence to support their accusations. That traffic scenario was absolutely ridiculous. You're totally downplaying the fact that you've unjustfully went into Iraq with no evidence to support your claims to kill thousands upon thousands of people. If there was no traffic on the road, yes, you would be wrong. But would that have meant big consequences? No. It's the HUGE mistakes Bush has made with the massive consequences that leaves millions absolutely loathing the American government. One should not go to war over unproven facts and mass speculation, especially with these consequences that have arisen. I would say, and I think alot of people would agree with me, that the US is in even more danger of getting attacked again than they were before the Iraq war. Smooth move, George. You're only making more enemies.
I really don't believe it. I mean, it would be a world known issue- Like with Iraq and their weapons. Nobody really knows though. It's not on any of the news programs I see. The Iraq news spread like wildfire, within a week, everyone knew about it. But Im like the only one in my entire community who knows about this and that's just because I heard it here. I'm just thinking logically. But it may be true. I mean, you never know right? Let's all hope not. :wth:
Source Read that whole CIA report. What I meant by it is widely known is that he had WMD during the first gulf war and he's never destroyed them.
Because American intelligence is so reliable in the first place My job in the US Air Force is basically WMD effects and to make sure commanders know what to expect from them. I'll tell you first that a lot of people believed that Iraq could launch a TBM to the US filled with a WMD agent, that is FALSE. Iraq's TBM range went to about Turkey, that's about it. Also read up on the government report that stated they have officially called off the search for WMD in Iraq Source, bet you didn't read up on that huh? I'll say one last thing, it isn't an honor serving people like you who won't accept the truth about Bush's intentions in this region.
Because American intelligence is so reliable in the first place My job in the US Air Force is basically WMD effects and to make sure commanders know what to expect from them. I'll tell you first that a lot of people believed that Iraq could launch a TBM to the US filled with a WMD agent, that is FALSE. Iraq's TBM range went to about Turkey, that's about it. Also read up on the government report that stated they have officially called off the search for WMD in Iraq Source, bet you didn't read up on that huh? I'll say one last thing, it isn't an honor serving people like you who won't accept the truth about Bush's intentions in this region. [/b][/quote] My thoughts exactly. It's really intriguing to hear it from a soldier's point of view.
Because American intelligence is so reliable in the first place My job in the US Air Force is basically WMD effects and to make sure commanders know what to expect from them. I'll tell you first that a lot of people believed that Iraq could launch a TBM to the US filled with a WMD agent, that is FALSE. Iraq's TBM range went to about Turkey, that's about it. Also read up on the government report that stated they have officially called off the search for WMD in Iraq Source, bet you didn't read up on that huh? I'll say one last thing, it isn't an honor serving people like you who won't accept the truth about Bush's intentions in this region. [/b][/quote] The military favors Bush 4-1 over Kerry, but yea I really care that one person doesn't respect my opinion . I guess it's an honor to serve protesters who basically say soldiers die for nothing. Mark posted his source from the same exact website as mine, but yet his is valid but mine is false? See this is why I posted no sources and said ''I might not respond'' because no matter how many sources I put up or how many come backs I have people are just going to say ''BLAH BLAH BLAH ITS NOT TRUE, BUSH IS THE DEVIL.'' And yea they've called off the search, point? After two years why would you keep going? Does that mean they didn't have them? No. Please tell me why Saddam would refuse to tell us where he destroyed all of the weapons if he had indeed destroyed them. And is that suppose to be better, that it can JUST reach turkey? And Saddam could sell the nuclear weapons to other terrorists who could cause more damage. And btw what is so bad about the patriot act? PLEASE tell me. If you're doing nothing wrong there is no reason to care about the patriot act. Invasion of privacy? I would care if someone I knew was listening in. But government officials do not give a shit about who Brittany is *******.
The military favors Bush 4-1 over Kerry, but yea I really care that one person doesn't respect my opinion . I guess it's an honor to serve protesters who basically say soldiers die for nothing. Mark posted his source from the same exact website as mine, but yet his is valid but mine is false? See this is why I posted no sources and said ''I might not respond'' because no matter how many sources I put up or how many come backs I have people are just going to say ''BLAH BLAH BLAH ITS NOT TRUE, BUSH IS THE DEVIL.'' And yea they've called off the search, point? After two years why would you keep going? Does that mean they didn't have them? No. Please tell me why Saddam would refuse to tell us where he destroyed all of the weapons if he had indeed destroyed them. And is that suppose to be better, that it can JUST reach turkey? And Saddam could sell the nuclear weapons to other terrorists who could cause more damage. And btw what is so bad about the patriot act? PLEASE tell me. If you're doing nothing wrong there is no reason to care about the patriot act. Invasion of privacy? I would care if someone I knew was listening in. But government officials do not give a shit about who Brittany is *******. [/b][/quote] The only thing the men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces ask and expect from our nation's leaders and people is that we never get put in harm's way unless it is a direct threat to US national security. Myself, PLENTY of my fellow Airman, just about half of the U.S, and a vast majority of the rest of the world did not see a reason to send US forces to Iraq. Bush has broken that trust and that's what makes him dangerous to our nation and this world. The 4 and 1 ratio you got was for elections, Kerry is no longer in the picture (had the Democrats presented someone stronger Bush would be back in Crawford cryin' to his daddy right now) And I can't speak for the brainwashed Marines, the Army or Navy, but I know here in the Air Force it's not a 4:1 ratio, more like half and half, just like America, so don't lecture me on what the military really thinks unless you're over here right now in the middle east with me. As for the war itself I refer you to what Mark said earlier, why don't we remove every dictator and liberate everyone? There comes a point when our nation needs to back off, Bush needs a history lesson or two, after all the Romans were all powerful too and thought they were untouchable, remember total power totally corrupts. The US can go down as quickly as it came up if our ''allies'' think we're building a neat little empire.
Well put. Don't forget that Napoleon did the same thing, and paid for it when he overstepped himself. Dubya would do well to think of that as well.
Well put. Don't forget that Napoleon did the same thing, and paid for it when he overstepped himself. Dubya would do well to think of that as well. [/b][/quote] i agree. i plan to be in the army myself soon (the british army though) and i dont think it was right to send troops into iraq, and when ever i say that to anyone they say 'so if you dissagree with it, why do you want to take part in it?' to which i dont really have a reply because i dont know, but its nice to know that other people in the armed forces feel the same, even if they are from another country.