Iraq wasnt the biggest threat.

[aerofan113]

I dont see how ppl think Iraq was the biggest threat that we faced. I think its foolish to argue that the world isnt a safer place with Saddam outta the way. But the world would be a hell of a lot safer if we would have invaded Iran instead of Iraq. The thing about it is there is a POSSIBLE link to Al Queda. Possible link, whereas nobody can deney that Iran has harbored way more terrorists than Iraq. Iran is ina better finacial postion than Iraq. THe simple fact of it is that Saddam gave up on wmds right after the first gulf war and the first Bush president disarmed Iraq almost completly and crushed any hope of Saddam ever having the power to invade another country. Look how easily we went in and crushed the Republican Guard. That was their version of the Army Rangers. That was the best they had. We invaded Iraq and they werent able to put up a fight. Untill we started occupying the country we had done really well. It would not have been nearly that easy if we would have gone to Iran. Thats just one example. North Korea has protection from its big brother China and they have continued to advance their nuclear program unapposed. So i guess the question is in which way would we have been the safest. If Saddam had been caputured, or if we would have stayed the course in Afganistan and caught Osama Bin Laden?

[Shotgun Plasma]

come on, let give it a rest, at least iraq got freedom.

[HereticPB]

Well there is a very big link between Saddam and Al Qaeda from the Food for oil program by the UN. As for attacking Iraq that was smart as it is a central part of the world over there and they truely need to advance and restructure. Having a free Iraq ripples the water over there. You know that when a water drop hits water it ripples and it spreads out. Same Idea. Iraq is a three part idea. First to free a country from a tyrant, have them create a peacful and meaningful government, then we find out all the dangers that Iraq had been hiding. Similar to what happened with Germany in WWII we did not find out much until 10 years or so later.

Foreign fighters are being sent in to Iraq by foreign countries that is who we are fighting right now. We could have gone into Iran or Syria but we didn't because Iraq had for years ignored UN resolutions and did what they wanted. Even finding and buying weapons behind saying they did not have them to the UN. There is no cases of Iran or Syria avoiding or manuvering around UN resolutions and sanctions.

Believe it or not China does not want North Korea to have Nukes either. China has been an important figure in talks besides, Japan, America, and South Korea. China does not want the force of the US attacking them so they try to avoid supporting a crazy like Ping Pong or whatever his name is.

THe simple fact of it is that Saddam gave up on wmds right after the first gulf war and the first Bush president disarmed Iraq almost completly and crushed any hope of Saddam ever having the power to invade another country. You truely believe when Saddam a mass murder and evil man says he has no weapons he has no weapons. Good God kid.

Look how easily we went in and crushed the Republican Guard. That was their version of the Army Rangers. That was the best they had. Because we surprized them with precision stricks and bombs and a light fast moving force right to the heart of Baghdad. Another reason is that many in the Iraqi Military did not like Saddam and just melted away knowing what was coming in their country.

Aero use common sense and think. Do not let your emotion cloud your mind.

[Pro A.]

The problem with the Iraq war wasn't the way we beat them in the early rounds, it was the way we planned the aftermath. The Pentagon was dumb enough to think that the Iraqis would jump out and embrace democracy.

[aerofan113]

Believe it or not China does not want North Korea to have Nukes either. China has been an important figure in talks besides, Japan, America, and South Korea. China does not want the force of the US attacking them so they try to avoid supporting a crazy like Ping Pong or whatever his name is.

You truely believe when Saddam a mass murder and evil man says he has no weapons he has no weapons. Good God kid.

Because we surprized them with precision stricks and bombs and a light fast moving force right to the heart of Baghdad. Another reason is that many in the Iraqi Military did not like Saddam and just melted away knowing what was coming in their country.

Aero use common sense and think. Do not let your emotion cloud your mind.

I am using common sense. Nothing i typed was off of emotion although you enjoy using that to explain all of my stances in politics. I didnt say Saddam was weponsless did I? Way to take shit out of context Heretic. The point i was making was he didnt have any WMDs and he didnt have anything close to what he had in the first Persian Gulf. I will work on my emotions when you quit taking shit way outta context and quit being so self righteuos.

[HereticPB]

Jesus he has Toxic gases we found them how many fn times do I have to tell you that. Yes you are referring to Saddam having no weapons which he obviously had and has. They are hidden in Iraq and other places.

If Saddam got rid of his weapons why were there Longer range scud missles than what the UN allowed for them to have and gases found and still in Iraq?

[Shotgun Plasma]

you guys calm down, iraq do have weapons, LOOK AT IRAQ's DESERT!!! it will be well-hidden under the billion of billion of sand.

[aerofan113]

Jesus he has Toxic gases we found them how many fn times do I have to tell you that. Yes you are referring to Saddam having no weapons which he obviously had and has. They are hidden in Iraq and other places.

If Saddam got rid of his weapons why were there Longer range scud missles than what the UN allowed for them to have and gases found and still in Iraq?

He was in violation of UN laws. What toxic gases were found? I believe you that they found them but give me a link or something causei wanna read about how much they found. They had a few out of date scud missles but i dont consider those wmds. Do you? And he ever launched em at someone the UN and US forces would come and kick his ass like we did in the first gulf war. Scuds were irrelevant. He was basically crippled and couldnt invade another country. Iran is much more of a threat. They have the same stuff that we thought Saddam had.

[David]

Neither Iran nor Iraq were/are the biggest threat, it's probably North Korea instead of either of the two.

[Barbooski]

Scuds were irrelevant.

Not if you have Nerve gas to load into them.

[Viper]

Aero, the've been found man, go read this.

http://www.nintendonow.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27710


I've been telling you for a year and have given you proof and links but you won't listen.

As for bigger threats. We'll get them all. Iraq was taking care of unfinished business. Something that should have been done a long time ago but you can't blame that on Bush.

[aerofan113]

Aero, the've been found man, go read this.

http://www.nintendonow.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27710


I've been telling you for a year and have given you proof and links but you won't listen.

As for bigger threats. We'll get them all. Iraq was taking care of unfinished business. Something that should have been done a long time ago but you can't blame that on Bush.

Lol. Well i agree it should have been taken care of a long time ago. Bush (1st) had a golden oppurtunity. I did say i belived that they found gases. I just wanted to know if anybody had a link toa news site or something that talked aboyt the different gases they found.

[HereticPB]

It doesn't matter how old the weapons are or how much toxic gases there are. They are against UN resolutions. Hell a cup full of toxins could kill thousands of people if put into a bomb or other means.

[David]

It's still so hypocritical though.

"Oh noz! There's a chance that a country, that isn't us, may have one nuclear warhead which falls in comparison to our 20,000. We must destroys them because they don't follow a UN resolution that we don't follow either and only reference the UN when it's of benefit to us."

Course, that's flawed because Saddam would be 200000000000000x more likely to use a nuclear warhead than Bush, but the US has used 2 of them before.

[Bryan]

Of course it matters how old they are. They implied that Hussein was in the process of developing WMD at the time that they decided to go to war with him. They could have been overlooked in the initial disarming, which would also tie in with where they were found, how long they had been there, and how much there was. These are all very relevant things, Heretic.

Dave: I can't say that you're wrong.

[Lord Worm]

come on, let give it a rest, at least iraq got freedom.

Yes, and the Iraqis are killing their new American-installed leaders. They're really stoked about freedom.

[Shotgun Plasma]

no, there are two type of iraq people, good and evil, we all have it.

[aerofan113]

Some time soon we have to learn that we cant go around pushing ppl into having the same type of goverment that we have. Some countries just arent ready for it. A democratic government is the hardest type of government to maintain because the entire thing is based on ideas like freedom of speech and the abilty to elect your own leaders. It seems to me like it will take time for other nations to come around to our way of thinking. Because I think the Iraqi ppl see us as invaders and they arent all that excited about democracy. I dont think many of you would if it meant having our nation go through what they are going through over there. Its a lot more complex than simply good and evil.

[Viper]

Yes, they are excited we have liberated them and they have been screaming for Democracy for decades. The only ones pissed off are terrorists and those that had dealings with the Baathe party. If you think that common Iraqis are angry that we overthrew Saddam then you need to do some serious research because you are sadly mistaken.

Aero, who told you they didn't want us there?

[Omega]

It was probably our liberal media that "told him they were angry and didn't want us there"

[HereticPB]

Only the loudest idiotic people get on the news the quiet majority do not. Why? Because they are quiet and don't cause a ruckus.

Some time soon we have to learn that we cant go around pushing ppl into having the same type of goverment that we have. Some countries just arent ready for it. Um, we didn't and aren't. The Iraqi Government in no way at all resembles the American Government. If it worked in America why can't it work anywhere else, It works in Brittain why not any where else, It works in Germany why not any where else, France, Spain, Sweden, Japan, Canada, etc, etc.

Of course many of those governments are socialist leaning but they do have democracy in there own strange, misguided or unmisguided, way.

[Lord Worm]

I'm was born in Canada and I am a Socialsit, and I'll have to respectfully request that you don't go out of your way to bash Socialism if it isn't a direct part of your arguement.

"Of course many of those governments are socialist leaning but they do have democracy in there own strange, misguided or unmisguided, way."

This was not needed. Or if you prefer, I can just bash Republicans for no reason whatsoever.

Bush is an idiot, and anyone who likes him is an uneducated hill-billy.

Kinda like that.

[HereticPB]

So the people that run the country and put money in the stock market and into banks and stores and restaurants that allow for me to get paid so I can go out and buy things are uneducated hill billys eh? Bush is somebody you could hang with he is not an assO like other people.

Yea Kinda like that and no disrespect towards you just your Government.

[Lord Worm]

You diss my government, you dissin' me.

Bike-racks after school, fool.

[Loomer]

"Regrettably, I can say there is no Iraqi people yet, but only deluded human groups void of any national idea. Iraqis are not only disunited but evil-motivated, anarchy prone and always ready to prey on their government."

- King Faisal in waaaaaay back in 1937, but still applies today

Now can someone remind me how Iraq will be liberated with not just freedom, but with security as well? Anyone?

[Viper]

War on Terrorism, I'm sure you are familiar with it.

[plebben]

Most people here believe you can throw democracy at someone and then think they will adapt it just like that.
They dont realize that a people need to be somewhat united for a democracy to work.

[Viper]

Most people here believe you can throw democracy at someone and then think they will adapt it just like that.
They dont realize that a people need to be somewhat united for a democracy to work.
Really? Our Civil War back in the 1860's sure wasn't a united moment but what prevailed? Democracy.

[The Dude]

Yes, and the Iraqis are killing their new American-installed leaders. They're really stoked about freedom.


That is the extream minority in Iraq, Most Iraqis are so happy we are there. But most of the media already believes in the worst possible situation, civil war. Bad news sells.


Iraq was also in violation of 17 UN resolutions, one of wich authorized military force.

[plebben]

Really? Our Civil War back in the 1860's sure wasn't a united moment but what prevailed? Democracy.
Beacuse the end of the civil war united the people of america?
The different groups in iraq wont nessecarily be united when the US army leaves iraq. theyre held in place while there is a stronger force that can keep them down. But what happens when the US army leaves?
As absurd as it may sound, democracy is forced upon them. And if you dont understand democracy you dont know how to use it.
It could go just as planned but there are very big clouds of worry that might start a storm after the calm.

[aerofan113]

Most people here believe you can throw democracy at someone and then think they will adapt it just like that.
They dont realize that a people need to be somewhat united for a democracy to work.

Well not just that but you gotta remember that what we call the Iraqi ppl is actually two or three religions that have hated each other and fought amongst each other for thousands of years. They have never gotten along which is why this region has been in conflict for so long. Its one thing to bring democracy to a country willing to embrace it because its united as a ppl. Iraq isnt that type of country. They are still divided as a ppl and the only thing that seperates Iraq from being what it is now and Iraq being a land of complete and utter chaos is US forces. They simply are not ready for democracy.

[Viper]

Then perhaps Iraq should become 3 countries?


This new governement, a Democratic one, gives them that option. One they've never had before.

[aerofan113]

Then perhaps Iraq should become 3 countries?


This new governement, a Democratic one, gives them that option. One they've never had before.

I dont know weather or not you are joking but that, at least to me seems like a good idea. Dont get me wrong, i know there are a lot of ppl over there that want Democracy and want peace. But unfortunatly there are more that are fanatical. Id would be nice if we could seperate the two.

[Viper]

No joke at all. Yugoslavia did it recently. Russia in the early 90's.

[aerofan113]

No joke at all. Yugoslavia did it recently. Russia in the early 90's.


I dont know if thats possible to do though in Iraq. Was Russia under the same religious tension when tat happened. I do remember hearing about it though.

[Loomer]

Then perhaps Iraq should become 3 countries?


This new governement, a Democratic one, gives them that option. One they've never had before.
More like... 4 5 or 6. Sounds like a step in the right direction (i can't think of a better way), but that doesn't have anything to do with long-term security.

Long-term security should be the main issue before mass murder should become the main issue. And I think I'll mark that sentence for myself.

[Viper]

True, it would become Palestine/Isreal II.

"My land first"

"I'm Shiite, this is now my land, you have your own,"

"Allah be with me" *blows self up with 20 other innocent people*