You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Im curious.. lets get into somewhat of a political debate.... I want to know why do you approve or disapprove on this war....
Oh fun!
I'm sure you can guess what i chose. I disagree with the Invasion of Iraq for many reasons. One, no weapons of mass destruction exist, and i never believed they would find any. Two, we did not have U.N. support, however we went anyway, proving to be nothing but a bully who plays by his own rules. We also got caught "bugging" the U.N., ...sickening. Three, Human life. I do not believe, and call me crazy, but i think it is wrong to invade a country that had done nothing specifically wrong, or the things you acuse them of at least, and end up killing their civillians along with your soldiers. Many of which do not wish to be there.
There are a lot of side-issues that go along with this topic. I avoided them. These are just some of the direct reasons why i think we should have never invaded Iraq.
I'm interested though... Why SHOULD we have invaded Iraq? George. W. Bush and his cronies in the Oval Office obviously thought they had to lie to us to justify this war. And they were right. But you still think it was the right thing to do.
not only were there no weapons of mass destruction, i'll go as far as to say you were lied to about any intelligence saying they existed in the first place. one of bush's little reasonings behind iraq having weapons of mass destruction was they had been bringing aluminum piping in in order to make these so-called weapons.....but's the simple fact of the matter is the piping was no-where near nuclear weapons grade....not only that but bush hired a team to go down to africa to see if iraq was buying plutonium...which they came back and said they were not....so he fires these investigators and hires new ones....hmmmmmm
one would think at first glance this war is all about oil...it looks good...bush being an oil tycoon and all and controling iraq would mean controling a portion of opec...but i think it goes much deeper then that.....there's so many things that dont add up starting with the beginning of his presidency...first his brother happens to run the state that happens to have a deciding vote in the election. second former treasury chief o'neil come out and said bush was planning to invade iraq in his first week of presidency. third there are so many sources that say intelligence knew there was going to be an attack before it happened....hmmm maybe bush saw the catalyst for his war? now i'm no psychiatrist but i think that bush has some screwed up relationship with his father and he feels he needs to finish daddy's war to prove himself....and one other thing i never understood about going after iraq because of terrorist ties is the fact that the denomination of muslim that support the taliban were far in the minority as opposed to the ones that detest them.
but while we're on the topic of the psychosis of good ol' george w......let's talk about some anthrax.....some anthrax that is milled down so fine that only the highest of high tech machinery could get the spores down that small....the kind of equiptment and technology that we are one of the few to possess....now in the (i think) 3 envelopes that were found was a couple grams of anthrax....keep in mine that anthrax of this grade will travel some distance in the air... and it takes waaaaaaay less then that to kill one person, i'n fact if all the anthrax was crop dushed over a decent sized city or town(in case your wondering a couple grams of a substance that is milled down that fine would just about fill a small mcdonalds cup), it could have infected alot, if not most of the population...now these "terrorist" as we like to call them are professionals...they know how much of what it takes to kill someone, but no, instead we find envelopes that are seeping anthrax....maybe so they are found? i dont know? but i do know only democrats were sent the envelopes....weird again?
but anyhow long story short, the war is lame :x
What you said there, is all pretty much true. Except of course for the third paragraph, which is a conspiracy theory. I'm not saying i don't think there is something to that.
And yes, the intelligence was lies. What you said was true. Bush did recieve poor quality intelligence presenting the possibility that Iraq had WMD. But he also recieved better intelligence from higher up, saying there was none. He chose to ignore this.
I tend to believe this war was about oil.
And also, there was tons of intelligence warning the Bush administration about "an attack on the World Trade Centers in New York City, possibily with Jetplanes". From who? From none other the Clinton administration. Who, by certain republicans was acused of having "an obsession with Osama Bin Laden". Of course, when we were attacked, Clinton got blamed. It's always his fault.
WMD was not all Bush's Fault I want to point out.. British Intelligence(Irony?? hehe jk) and the CIA both reported that they had WMD. Also I still believe they do have them or had them... I was talking to Cat a few days ago and he brought up a point I have said once before.. The UN's constant delay to take action could have easily resulted in the movement of these weapons.. I must ask you.. Why in the world would you be trying to hide those Mobile Chemical Labs... Why in the world would an innocent country have a mobile chemical lab?
One more quick thing... WMD WAS our main goal and selling point.. but the reason we went to war was because Iraq refused to comply with the UN Resolution..
I have to go, my next post i will post more trust me heh.. but I need to take care of my school work real fast..
not entirely a theory.....my step father is a doctor and according to his expirience in bio chemestry, only our government facilities could make that anthrax
I don't doubt that. The Anthrax Iraq had was given to them by us too. We do a lot of wonderful things for the world. And FB... you are a good example of what i was talking about. Quit defending him. They don't have WMD. Give it up.
I tend to believe this war was about oil.
No wonder Bush changed it from Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL) to Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) 
i personally dont give 2 shits and a peanut
I agree with you on everything Mold
We shouldn't mof gone to war because:
There were no WMDs.
There was no U.N backing
In Britain they still didn't get the majority of people on side to go to war despite leing through their arses about WsMD.
I disagree. I'd rather have seen Saddam capture Bush and put him to justice
Their is no proof that Bush lied... Infact only the extreme leftists like Kerry, and Kennedy say that he lied to the american people.. Most Liberals look at the facts, which are he received poor intelligence from the CIA and British Intelligence.. However there is no proof that their wasnt WMD in their either.. Those pictures of large trucks leaving every place the UN checked just 30-60 mins before the UN showed up are very suspicious.. The fact that Iraq delayed the UN inspectors for months.. The fact that when the UN inspectors were in their Iraq would no cooperate.. The fact that we found mobile chemical labs... The fact that there were reports that Saddam was trying to buy the stuff he needed from the nuclear Black Market... That guy in Pakistan that was giving away nuclear secrets, I believe admitted to contacting Iraqi agents.
Their is no proof that Bush lied...
Lol.
Infact only the extreme leftists like Kerry
Kerry is NOWHERE near the extreme left.
say that he lied to the american people..
Wrong. Half of America thinks he lied. Wait, knows he lied.
Most Liberals look at the facts, which are he received poor intelligence from the CIA and British Intelligence..
Poor intelligence? Yes, along with great intelligence. He picked and chose the stuff that fit with his agenda. This is a man who wanted this war, so he warped truths into getting what he wanted. Almost every liberal believes he lied, and conservatives are turning their backs on your leader too.
However there is no proof that their wasnt WMD in their either.
Yeah, and there is no proof that i can't fly. Give me a break. Where did they go? Why are they now saying, "we were all wrong"" Who is still telling you to believe this?
The fact that there were reports that Saddam was trying to buy the stuff he needed from the nuclear Black Market....
i'd like to see these "reports" i believe my thread pretty much sums up all the "evidence" of wmd.
Lol Kerry is farther left than Kennedy.. if you say Kennedy is far left you are nuts =p
but your right who knows where these WMD are.. I mean all that time the UN stalled they could be anywhere now... I wouldnt put it past France to even be storing them(though this was just a little joke between Catbert and me), since they did sell them some Nuclear Bomb making materials back in the 1980's... Go France.. another Bone headed move..
Lol Kerry is farther left than Kennedy.. if you say Kennedy is far left you are nuts =p
Neither are anywhere near the far left. Not even close.
I wouldnt put it past France to even be storing them(though this was just a little joke between Catbert and me), since they did sell them some Nuclear Bomb making materials back in the 1980's... Go France.. another Bone headed move..
I'm actually really glad you said that. Because Fireborn, do you know who sold them their chemical weapons? Thats right! Us.
Under Reagan/Bush mind you...
that's not even all though, check it out, this is just the first website i came across...
In conclusion: Don't be so quick to point the finger.
I pointed this about before... remember?
http://www.illusorystudios.com/messageB … p;start=15
I got kinda pissed, I'm sorry. 
WMD = Wiggly Man Dick?
No, WMD = Woman's Man Dick
mine was funnier
Currently installed 5 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.