IRAQ WAR your thoughts

[BLUE EYED GIRL 0]

wow,well said,even thuogh im not surposed to be touching on this subject again due to certain people winding my clock[smile,i can get a bit bitchy at times,so its safer i stay of some times],i even think with us in our own homes,let burgulars in and steal and murder,the law doesnt help the victims,they shake the criminals hand,much to ninnas happyness.who cares about the victims..........

[nina874 48]

What about the horrors that are taking place on a daily basis in Zimbabwe? What about Tibet? What about all the countries all over the world where people are denied their basic human rights.China - who lets face it both Britain and America spend a lot of time buddying up to - have an APPALLING human rights record......and yet we do nothing....why is that do you think???

I have a good friend who is a Royal Marine Commando, decorated helicopter pilot, he has fought in the Falklands war, the first Desert Storm,Northern Ireland, in Afghnistan in fact all over the bl**dy world, wherever his country sent him..and now in Iraq.

He has just put in his notice to quit, and do you know why, becuse he is sick of being lied to, he is sick of feeling like a gun for hire.

In WWII the death toll estimates range from 40,000,000 to 71,000,000 how can you possibly compare that to what is happening in Iraq??? The whole of the free world had to take sides in WWII, of course people never complained, they were fighting to stop Hitler invading THEM, that is not the situation here.

There are not Iraqi jets flying over London dropping bombs,there are not Iraqi troops on our streets - or anyone elses for that matter - so how can the two situations be comparable?

Again I would like to say, I also have friends over there, and Lord do I want them home safely, I love our troops - thats why I dont want them involved in this sort of conflict!

[BLUE EYED GIRL 0]

a true christian wouldnt do that in the first place ninna,do you read your bible?doesnt sound like it!

[L8BloomR 1]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJTzKPBQZ94]YouTube - Al Gore claims 1,400 terrorists in Iraq prior to Gulf War[/ame]

For anyone who is interested, this link is a video of Al Gore in 1992 berating George H.W. Bush for not taking out Saddam Hussein during the Gulf War. In his remarks on the Senate floor, he claimed there were over 1400 terrorists working from Iraq to harm our country and he goes into great detail about Saddam's WMD.

Dennis Miller's take on why the Iraq war is helpful to our fight against terrorism is that Iraq is like "a giant salt lick in the Middle East." It brings out the terrorists to one central location where we can fight them. Since they don't come from one country and they don't wear uniforms, this is the best way to find and get to them. It is an interesting (and unique) way to look at it, I think.

[nina874 48]

wow,well said,even thuogh im not surposed to be touching on this subject again due to certain people winding my clock[smile,i can get a bit bitchy at times,so its safer i stay of some times],i even think with us in our own homes,let burgulars in and steal and murder,the law doesnt help the victims,they shake the criminals hand,much to ninnas happyness.who cares about the victims..........

PMSL - Thats absolutly right, what a well reasoned and logical argument, if only Bush had been able to put you in front of the UN, they would have given him the green light without a seconds thought......

[anonemouse 1]

So you don't believe the truth then? It only gets old to people like yourself who don't like to hear it.

Your point on that is baseless. The Saudi government is not a supporter of terrorism and fights it there. Actually the terrorists hate there leaders also.

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002

United States House of Representatives

Party Yeas Nays PRES No Vote Republican 215 6 0 2 Democratic 81 126 0 1 Independent 0 0 0 1 TOTALS 296 133 0 3

United States Senate

Party Yeas Nays No Vote Republican 48 1 0 Democratic 29 21 0 Independent 0 1 0 TOTALS 77 23 0

Seemed that most did .....................

And yet, most isn't everyone, is it?

For a government that seemingly hates terrorism, the Saudis sure seem to produce a lot of al-Qaida terrorists, don't they? Al-Qaida was and is present in Saudi Arabia. Fifteen of the nineteen hijackers on 9/11 were Saudis (none were Iraqi). If the presence of Al-Qaida is a automatic justification for invasion, we should have invaded Saudi Arabia a long time ago. Yet we don't. Why? Because we need them more than we hate them. Your comment about the Saudi Arabian government is, well, pointless. Al-Qaida and Saddam hated each other also. Yet we still invaded Iraq.

The only person avoiding the truth here is you. No matter what anyone says, no matter what proof is shown, you and people like you continue to defend the indefensible. Our government has even admitted that Saddam and bin Laden had no connections. Why can't you?

[anonemouse 1]

For anyone who is interested, this link is a video of Al Gore in 1992 berating George H.W. Bush for not taking out Saddam Hussein during the Gulf War. In his remarks on the Senate floor, he claimed there were over 1400 terrorists working from Iraq to harm our country and he goes into great detail about Saddam's WMD.

Honestly, I think that's the first time I've seen a Republican giving anything Al Gore says any credence at all. And that was 1992, also. It was a bit different from 2003. Eleven years is a long time.

[Chris_NJ 9]

And yet, most isn't everyone, is it?

For a government that seemingly hates terrorism, the Saudis sure seem to produce a lot of al-Qaida terrorists, don't they? Al-Qaida was and is present in Saudi Arabia. Fifteen of the nineteen hijackers on 9/11 were Saudis (none were Iraqi). If the presence of Al-Qaida is a automatic justification for invasion, we should have invaded Saudi Arabia a long time ago. Yet we don't. Why? Because we need them more than we hate them. Your comment about the Saudi Arabian government is, well, pointless. Al-Qaida and Saddam hated each other also. Yet we still invaded Iraq.

The only person avoiding the truth here is you. No matter what anyone says, no matter what proof is shown, you and people like you continue to defend the indefensible. Our government has even admitted that Saddam and bin Laden had no connections. Why can't you?

I guess we are both wrong to each other and that will never change.

I never once stated Saddam and Bin Laden were connected so don't try and put words in my mouth.

THE SAUDI GOVERNMENT DOES NOT SUPPORT TERRORISM.

Thats the difference between Saddam and Saudi Arabia.

Can you get that or are you still in denial ?

[Chris_NJ 9]

What about the horrors that are taking place on a daily basis in Zimbabwe? What about Tibet? What about all the countries all over the world where people are denied their basic human rights.China - who lets face it both Britain and America spend a lot of time buddying up to - have an APPALLING human rights record......and yet we do nothing....why is that do you think???

I have a good friend who is a Royal Marine Commando, decorated helicopter pilot, he has fought in the Falklands war, the first Desert Storm,Northern Ireland, in Afghnistan in fact all over the bl**dy world, wherever his country sent him..and now in Iraq.

He has just put in his notice to quit, and do you know why, becuse he is sick of being lied to, he is sick of feeling like a gun for hire.

In WWII the death toll estimates range from 40,000,000 to 71,000,000 how can you possibly compare that to what is happening in Iraq??? The whole of the free world had to take sides in WWII, of course people never complained, they were fighting to stop Hitler invading THEM, that is not the situation here.

There are not Iraqi jets flying over London dropping bombs,there are not Iraqi troops on our streets - or anyone elses for that matter - so how can the two situations be comparable?

Again I would like to say, I also have friends over there, and Lord do I want them home safely, I love our troops - thats why I dont want them involved in this sort of conflict!

In WWII the death toll estimates range from 40,000,000 to 71,000,000 how can you possibly compare that to what is happening in Iraq??? The whole of the free world had to take sides in WWII, of course people never complained, they were fighting to stop Hitler invading THEM, that is not the situation here.

There are not Iraqi jets flying over London dropping bombs,there are not Iraqi troops on our streets - or anyone elses for that matter - so how can the two situations be comparable?

Tell that to the Kurds and the Kuwaitis and even though I don't care for them even ask the Iranians

I have a good friend who is a Royal Marine Commando, decorated helicopter pilot, he has fought in the Falklands war, the first Desert Storm,Northern Ireland, in Afghnistan in fact all over the bl**dy world, wherever his country sent him..and now in Iraq.

He has just put in his notice to quit, and do you know why, becuse he is sick of being lied to, he is sick of feeling like a gun for hire.

Not for nothing he volunteered and what do you think he was being a Marine? Yep he was a government hired gun.

[anonemouse 1]

I guess we are both wrong to each other and that will never change.

I never once stated Saddam and Bin Laden were connected so don't try and put words in my mouth.

THE SAUDI GOVERNMENT DOES NOT SUPPORT TERRORISM.

Thats the difference between Saddam and Saudi Arabia.

Can you get that or are you still in denial ?

I understand that they SAY they don't support terrorism. Unfortunately, I think we've got enough evidence to say that they're lying. Or at least, they don't do all that they could to prevent it.

No, you've never outright said that Saddam and bin Laden were connected. But you (I think it was you, anyway) have pulled 9/11 into the discussion of the Iraq war, and that implies that you believe 9/11 had something to do with Iraq or somehow excused our actions there, and it didn't. 9/11 was a result of bin Laden and his cronies, and had shit-all to do with Iraq and Saddam. That's what I'm sick of, people pulling 9/11 into any discussion of Iraq and Saddam. IMO, all it does is defile the memories of the people that died that day, using their deaths as an excuse for something that had nothing to do with them. If we're going to talk about Saddam and Iraq, let's talk about Saddam and Iraq. Not Afganistan. Not Al-Qaeda. Not bin Laden. Not 9/11. Saddam and Iraq.

[L8BloomR 1]

Honestly, I think that's the first time I've seen a Republican giving anything Al Gore says any credence at all. And that was 1992, also. It was a bit different from 2003. Eleven years is a long time.

Why wouldn't I give Al Gore any credence on this subject? He was a senator and privy to intelligence...he saw Saddam as a threat and so did most of our government, including Clinton when president and most of the Congress. During Clinton's years in office, Saddam grew stronger and more threatening. Clinton gave many speeches about the danger he posed. To suggest, as some here are doing, that we knew Iraq was no threat and that we attacked them for no reason is ludicrous. Just because they were not responsible for 9/11 did not make them less a threat. They were trying to attain nuclear weapons, they had used chemical weapons in the past, they were paying the families of suicide bombers, they were meeting with terrorists who had al-qaida ties, and there are some who believe Saddam was allowing terrorist training camps to flourish. If you were in charge of keeping a country safe, saw several horrendous attacks against that country both within and outside of it, and then had someone like Saddam defying 17 U.N. resolutions in its Quest to become a bigger threat to the world, couldn't you see that the need to get rid of that threat before it got bigger might be a necessity? I can't second guess Bush and I wouldn't have if it had been Clinton. We are not in the loop and don't know all the information they saw. And it is so easy to criticize something when using hind site.

[Chris_NJ 9]

I understand that they SAY they don't support terrorism. Unfortunately, I think we've got enough evidence to say that they're lying. Or at least, they don't do all that they could to prevent it.

No, you've never outright said that Saddam and bin Laden were connected. But you (I think it was you, anyway) have pulled 9/11 into the discussion of the Iraq war, and that implies that you believe 9/11 had something to do with Iraq or somehow excused our actions there, and it didn't. 9/11 was a result of bin Laden and his cronies, and had shit-all to do with Iraq and Saddam. That's what I'm sick of, people pulling 9/11 into any discussion of Iraq and Saddam. IMO, all it does is defile the memories of the people that died that day, using their deaths as an excuse for something that had nothing to do with them. If we're going to talk about Saddam and Iraq, let's talk about Saddam and Iraq. Not Afganistan. Not Al-Qaeda. Not bin Laden. Not 9/11. Saddam and Iraq.

No actually I never brought it into the conversation I just showed a pic of Saddam enjoying 9/11.

I hate to tell you al qaeda is in Iraq. So it will be in the conversations.

Just be happy you live in a country where you can have your opinions and express them freely. If we had it your way the people of Iraq would be tortured by there government if they spoke like you.

9/11 changed our country and people need to realize that. I hope you are not implying that I am defiling the memories of my friends lost on 9/11.

I lost a few friends and a over 300 brother firefighters that day. The time I spent digging holes with my bare hands looking for survivors at the WTC will forever be burned in my head and maybe thats why I feel the way I do.

[anonemouse 1]

No actually I never brought it into the conversation I just showed a pic of Saddam enjoying 9/11.

I hate to tell you al qaeda is in Iraq. So it will be in the conversations.

Just be happy you live in a country where you can have your opinions and express them freely. If we had it your way the people of Iraq would be tortured by there government if they spoke like you.

9/11 changed our country and people need to realize that. I hope you are not implying that I am defiling the memories of my friends lost on 9/11.

I lost a few friends and a over 300 brother firefighters that day. The time I spent digging holes with my bare hands looking for survivors at the WTC will forever be burned in my head and maybe thats why I feel the way I do.

And I'm sorry that you had to experience that. But it doesn't change my disgust for the people that use their deaths as an excuse for invading Iraq. To me, yes, it is defiling their memories to use 9/11 as an excuse for invading Iraq. Saddam didn't kill them. Bin Laden did. To use a really horrid analogy ('cause it's getting late and I can't think), it's like going and robbing one computer game store that has a bad reputation because another one sold you a bad console and wouldn't give a refund. Yeah, they're both game stores, and they may both be owned by crooks, but one has nothing to do with the other.

Yes, Saddam was an evil man. No one here is saying he wasn't. Yes, he deserved to die. But my whole point is that 9/11 has absolutely nothing to do with the Iraq war and it's bullshit to say that it does. Bush and Co. used the deaths of all those innocent people as an excuse to invade a country that had NOTHING to do with their deaths, when they should have been focusing on catching the man who DID cause their deaths. If we'd been focusing on bin Laden instead of Saddam and Iraq, we MIGHT have caught him by now. THAT'S what I mean by "defiling their memories." We've been so focused on a man and a country that had nothing to do with their deaths, we've allowed the man that DID murder them to go free.

[Chris_NJ 9]

And I'm sorry that you had to experience that. But it doesn't change my disgust for the people that use their deaths as an excuse for invading Iraq. To me, yes, it is defiling their memories to use 9/11 as an excuse for invading Iraq. Saddam didn't kill them. Bin Laden did. To use a really horrid analogy ('cause it's getting late and I can't think), it's like going and robbing one computer game store that has a bad reputation because another one sold you a bad console and wouldn't give a refund. Yeah, they're both game stores, and they may both be owned by crooks, but one has nothing to do with the other.

Yes, Saddam was an evil man. No one here is saying he wasn't. Yes, he deserved to die. But my whole point is that 9/11 has absolutely nothing to do with the Iraq war and it's bullshit to say that it does. Bush and Co. used the deaths of all those innocent people as an excuse to invade a country that had NOTHING to do with their deaths, when they should have been focusing on catching the man who DID cause their deaths. If we'd been focusing on bin Laden instead of Saddam and Iraq, we MIGHT have caught him by now. THAT'S what I mean by "defiling their memories." We've been so focused on a man and a country that had nothing to do with their deaths, we've allowed the man that DID murder them to go free.

Actually the one who let him go free was Clinton, but that is a whole new thread.

[anonemouse 1]

Actually the one who let him go free was Clinton, but that is a whole new thread.

Yeah, he did. But so did Bush, so we can blame both of them. Look, I'm not going to claim that Clinton was a perfect President. Hell, it's obvious that he wasn't. But Clinton wasn't responsible for the invasion of Iraq in 2003, either.