WW3?

[maroman88]

ok get us out of iraq and bomb the **** out of all the bad middle eastern countries, do it from our own soil so we can watch and enjoy the fireworks

[Brando56894]

Originally Posted by BigAls87Z28

Not good at all. Looks like we will be moving more troops to the area incase of a problem. I wouldnt be surprised if there was some sort of uproar in Saudi Arabia as well, THEN we are ****ed. We are smack dab in the middle of Arab Central, and its deffinatly not gunna be pretty. Its time to move troops out before it becomes a mess.

we should of never ****en gone over there in the first place!

[Ian]

Originally Posted by maroman88

ok get us out of iraq and bomb the **** out of all the bad middle eastern countries, do it from our own soil so we can watch and enjoy the fireworks

as soon as one of our nukes leaves the ground, any of those countries will launch their own right back at us. a nuclear war is something that should be avoided at all costs.

[enRo]

Well, how I figure it... since we have a ship at the international space station, why not have them push the moon onto the middle east. Nothing nuclear about it

[shane27]

Originally Posted by Brando56894

we should of never ****en gone over there in the first place!

yeah so then they can just attack us again

[Frosty]

This will be another huge opportunity North Korea to grow big balls.

Shane, while I support the Iraq campaign to a point Iraq didn't have much to with 9-11.

[NJSPEEDER]

if a bunch of countries that have been fighting amongst themselves for 500+ years is what makes you think a world war is going to break out, then you must also believe that the easter bunny and santa are coming to save teh day.
all these groups know is terrorism, not war. all of the things that are getting pointed at as signs of war are just proof that terrorism will be around for a long long time.
there is no need to change your daily routine or stockpile a supply of weapons and provisions in a bunker somewhere. just pay attention and do your fellow citizens the favor of paying attention to and reporting if you see anything suspicious.

[shane27]

Originally Posted by Frosty

Shane, while I support the Iraq campaign to a point Iraq didn't have much to with 9-11.

iraq had terrorist training camps. they had weapons of mass destruction, saddam hussein was himself a terrorist. 9.11 was a terrorist attack. we declared war on terror. that is why we went to iraq and that is why we are still there.

[Slow 88]

Originally Posted by shane27

iraq had terrorist training camps. they had weapons of mass destruction, saddam hussein was himself a terrorist. 9.11 was a terrorist attack. we declared war on terror. that is why we went to iraq and that is why we are still there.

Saddam was a terrorist among the shi'ites and kurds but not americans...There were terrorist camps in Germany also does that mean that they fund them? Australia too!!

Also, what weapons of mass destruction are you talking of? They did not find anything except some chemicals which he never denied...

We definitely went to the wrong country, because "IRAN" has been funding terrorist camps for decades and now that Iraq is very venerable right now is exactly what Iran wants....Because the minute we step foot out of there Iran we'll be doing there best to take it over...Even though Saddam is a whack job he kept other countries at bay and the radicals with in the country he ran...

[shane27]

Originally Posted by Slow 88

Also, what weapons of mass destruction are you talking of? They did not find anything except some chemicals which he never denied...

..Even though Saddam is a whack job he kept other countries at bay and the radicals with in the country he ran...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200763,00.html
those weapons of mass destruction

and as for saddam, do you not remember the first gulf war...he also killed his own people and had ties with al queda, a terrorist organization.

[Frosty]

If you think we're in there soley for people of Iraq and to "protect" ourselves I have some ocean front property to sell you in Arizona, I'll let it go cheap.

I support most of the war efforts but let's be honest, most of the reasons the administration has given us has been ********.

[Slow 88]

Originally Posted by shane27

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200763,00.html
those weapons of mass destruction

and as for saddam, do you not remember the first gulf war...he also killed his own people and had ties with al queda, a terrorist organization.

I already stated chemicals! Plus, I never said that he was a nice guy re-read my post I said that he is wack job......Yes, he killed his own people but that has NOTHING to do with the U.S.A....They are animals over there and he knows how to keep 'em in check.....Ties to Al qaeda where did you get this info? If I remember correctly they never found a connection between the two...WE SHOULD NOT BE THERE RIGHT NOW!!! I know people are goin start saying that we are helping them form a government but it is useless they do not want one!!!! I.E. if you have your mind set on something like buying a GM brand car but your friends tell you to buy from brand B, I'll guaranty that you'll buy the GM because that is what you want and nobody can change your mind....You just can't make someone or group of people want what you want.... Off track but Bush said that he would off set gas prices by pretty much taking oil from them to help pay for the war but guess what we're paying out our ass so what are we gaining from this war nothing but A HUGE DEFICIT that is all.....But The Bush's and the likes of oil companies are making out like fat cats....Let's face it do you really care if they have a government over there? I sure in the hell don't because it's all about religion with them and their views and YOU or I will never change that..

[BigAls87Z28]

Saddam was the best thing to happen to Iraq. Yeah, he killed his own people...but the different sections werent at war with eachother, blowing up car bombs and killing people left and right. Iraq needs to be ruled with an Iron Fist. If he didnt start all that fuss in 89, we would have just kept him on our good side. He bit the hand that fed him.
Bush went into Iraq for other motives other then WMD. Saudi, Iran, Syria, and Afganastan ALL have or had a lot more to do with terrorist attacks then Iraq. We have been patroling Iraq since the end of the Gulf Conflict in 91. No fly zones, constant watch over everything Saddam does....we had that place damn near locked down. If anything didnt look right and something was out of place, there was a GBU dropped on it, a Maverick launched at it, and 400 rounds shot it up.
I support the troops, but I do not support why we went in there, why we are sending men of my age, people I know and grew up with, into war for a reason that amounted to be nothing. Our leadership is clouded. Bush think's hes on some Dude Ranch, and that enough shooting and bombing, this will all go away.
BTW, did anyone see how big of a dumbass he made himself look in Germany? Daily Show was running "highlights" of it....AMAZING he was voted back in office.
I wish that McCain won the party in 2000. I hated Bush after he smeared the **** out of that good man.

[Slow 88]

Originally Posted by BigAls87Z28

Saddam was the best thing to happen to Iraq. Yeah, he killed his own people...but the different sections werent at war with eachother, blowing up car bombs and killing people left and right. Iraq needs to be ruled with an Iron Fist. If he didnt start all that fuss in 89, we would have just kept him on our good side. He bit the hand that fed him.
Bush went into Iraq for other motives other then WMD. Saudi, Iran, Syria, and Afganastan ALL have or had a lot more to do with terrorist attacks then Iraq. We have been patroling Iraq since the end of the Gulf Conflict in 91. No fly zones, constant watch over everything Saddam does....we had that place damn near locked down. If anything didnt look right and something was out of place, there was a GBU dropped on it, a Maverick launched at it, and 400 rounds shot it up.
I support the troops, but I do not support why we went in there, why we are sending men of my age, people I know and grew up with, into war for a reason that amounted to be nothing. Our leadership is clouded. Bush think's hes on some Dude Ranch, and that enough shooting and bombing, this will all go away.
BTW, did anyone see how big of a dumbass he made himself look in Germany? Daily Show was running "highlights" of it....AMAZING he was voted back in office.
I wish that McCain won the party in 2000. I hated Bush after he smeared the **** out of that good man.

thumbs up!

[shane27]

Originally Posted by BigAls87Z28

Saddam was the best thing to happen to Iraq. Yeah, he killed his own people...but the different sections werent at war with eachother, blowing up car bombs and killing people left and right. Iraq needs to be ruled with an Iron Fist.

this comming from people who say we need peace, and fighting isnt the answer...classic.

[BigAls87Z28]

Uh...anyone who knows me would never say I belive in "peace", but I guess since im a "liberal" I must want peace on earth and love for all.
I never said that NOT fighting is the answer. I dont like Bush, and the moves he has made over the past 3-4 years are insane. Invade a country without ever being attacked or them attacking any other country, on false pretenses that were made not only to the US, but the UN and the world. We went against our own allies wishes and invaded a country. THAT is my problem with it all. We are now in Vietnam II, a quagmire of ****. Two troops killed here, four more in a car bomb, 5 in a fire fight, 10 in a suicide bombing....its not massive numbers, but its in numbers in which the public can tally in there head. They know 10 people off the top of there head. A mom knows 5 kids around 18 years old, and that plays a heavy toll on peoples heads. We are never going to leave, and this can only mean very bad things.

Do not make the assumption, and an uninformed one at that, that I am a "Liberal" or a "tree hugger". Just because I wont blindly follow Pres. Bush with whatever he says doesnt make me a "liberal".

[Ian]

Originally Posted by shane27

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200763,00.html
those weapons of mass destruction

and as for saddam, do you not remember the first gulf war...he also killed his own people and had ties with al queda, a terrorist organization.

I like how in the entire news story, they dont say what they found or if they were left overs from 1991

and as for how saddam ran his country, do you think you could do any better? when a country is in a constant state of civil unrest steps have to be taken to preserve the peace. Sometimes you have to show force to get the point across.

I don't agree with what saddam did, but it seemed to keep the middle east pretty calm. no one type of government works the best in every situation, if that were the case there would only be one type of government. For most of the middle east, a democracy wont work yet we are trying to force it upon them as if we know whats best for people living on the other side of the planet in a completely different situation than our own.

As much as you all hate it, Clinton was a better president. he left the whitehouse with no threats of war, we had a national surplus and the stock market and economy was doing pretty well. Enter Bush. Now we have an economy that can be likened to that of the great depression, a war on "terrorism" that we will never win and $8,442,959,662,084.53 worth of national debt. each person in this country would have to pay $28,159.11 to clear it and the deficit increases an average of 1.69 billion dollars a day since september 30th of 2005.

so to sum it all up, we have no business in the middle east unless it is to actually apprehend extremists who pose a tangible threat to us. That and Bush is the worst president ever. Thanks for ****ing all the little people while you and your buddies make millions....no really.....thank you so much for screwing the very country I grew up loving.

[Dark_Knight7096]

I had this huge response planned but I rwalized something the one or 2 people it was directed towards wouldn't care, nor would it mean anything to them.


Carry on.

[Savage_Messiah]

Originally Posted by Ian

I like how in the entire news story, they dont say what they found or if they were left overs from 1991

and as for how saddam ran his country, do you think you could do any better? when a country is in a constant state of civil unrest steps have to be taken to preserve the peace. Sometimes you have to show force to get the point across.

I don't agree with what saddam did, but it seemed to keep the middle east pretty calm. no one type of government works the best in every situation, if that were the case there would only be one type of government. For most of the middle east, a democracy wont work yet we are trying to force it upon them as if we know whats best for people living on the other side of the planet in a completely different situation than our own.

As much as you all hate it, Clinton was a better president. he left the whitehouse with no threats of war, we had a national surplus and the stock market and economy was doing pretty well. Enter Bush. Now we have an economy that can be likened to that of the great depression, a war on "terrorism" that we will never win and $8,442,959,662,084.53 worth of national debt. each person in this country would have to pay $28,159.11 to clear it and the deficit increases an average of 1.69 billion dollars a day since september 30th of 2005.

so to sum it all up, we have no business in the middle east unless it is to actually apprehend extremists who pose a tangible threat to us. That and Bush is the worst president ever. Thanks for ****ing all the little people while you and your buddies make millions....no really.....thank you so much for screwing the very country I grew up loving.

I completely agree, and could not have put it any better.

[Frosty]

Show me where your boy Clinton had a surplus? It was on paper, nothing more. Also, how would you expect ANY president to overcome a national disaster like 9/11 without the economy hurting?

No threats of war? How can you say Bush had ANYTHING to do with 9-11?(which started this entire fiasco) If you REALLY want to dig deep Clinton could've nailed bin Hiden while he was in office be said he wasn't a threat. I may think Bush is an idiot but c'mon, Clinton ****ed up in some areas too.

[Ian]

all I'm saying is that our economy was better and we didn't live in a constant state of fear because of terror attacks. and if I wanted to be a real big dick, I could point out that bush could have nailed bin laded too, but he chose to ignore the warnings of the attack and the result is us arguing over the internet about crap we can do nothing about

[Frosty]

But somehow Bush is getting blamed for the effects of 9/11...it doesn't make sense.

Ok, yeah Bush heard warning signs of 9-11...you do realize the FBI and CIA were/are getting thousands of "leads" every week right?

[shane27]

ok where oh where do i start...

clinton...a better president.... thats the funniest thing i have heard in a WHILE. HE the reason we were attacked on 9.11 we did abosutly nothing about the attacks on the WTC in the early 90s, gave our atom bombs secrets to China, cheated on his wife with an intern and straight up lied to the world about it. he was probably one of the worset presidents since jimmy carter.

and how can u say we have no busniess in iraq, and its liek vietnam. this is nothing even close to vietnam. this is war, and we loose soldiers, it happens. we took out bin ladens second hand man whatever his name was, and we have sent al queda into hiding along with bin laden, who were not even sure is alive anymore. we have been in iraq a little longer then i think needed, but what do i know, im just a civilian just like all you. we will pull out when the time is right....lol

as for donig a better job in iraq, im not a leader so no, i could not do a better job in iraq im sure someone who is qualified could. also unemployment is very low atm

oh and it wasnt the whole story becasue i could find it, but it does say: has been edited for clarity.

[Ian]

but when you got close to 100 leads about the same thing you'd think you'd look into it. I personally think that if you have the intel about something like that, you should take a few steps and at least investigate it, but nothing was done. and the thousands of leads are not all for planned domestic attacks, some are for other countries that we seem to care about. I'm just trying to say that if they can bust a plan to blow up the holland tunnel, why couldn't they at least look into the threats of a WTC attack?

I'm not blaming bush for 9/11, far from it. I am blaming him for our present military situation though. go in there, kill that people responsible for what happened and get out. if you cant find the person who was responsible, look harder. bin laden is still missing because we focused too much on saddam. if the leader on iraq cant escape from us, how did a small militant leader? we've been over there for years trying to institue a new government in a country that doesn't want it. even if we do setup a gov for them, within a year of our withdrawl (if that ever happens) it will be overthrown by some dictator and we'll go through the whole thing all over again.

[Ian]

Originally Posted by shane27

clinton...a better president.... thats the funniest thing i have heard in a WHILE. HE the reason we were attacked on 9.11 we did abosutly nothing about the attacks on the WTC in the early 90s, gave our atom bombs secrets to China, cheated on his wife with an intern and straight up lied to the world about it. he was probably one of the worset presidents since jimmy carter.

him cheating on his wife really affects our national security and violates our freedom. thousands of men cheat on their wives every year and no one so much as blinks, but because he was the pres, he must be the worst man alive. obviously he did something right regarding the early 90's attacks because we didnt have to go to war or live with new threats every week. and if he didnt give the nuclear bomb secrets to china, someone else would have. Back then china wasn't such a big deal like it today.

Originally Posted by shane27

and how can u say we have no busniess in iraq, and its liek vietnam. this is nothing even close to vietnam. this is war, and we loose soldiers, it happens. we took out bin ladens second hand man whatever his name was, and we have sent al queda into hiding along with bin laden, who were not even sure is alive anymore. we have been in iraq a little longer then i think needed, but what do i know, im just a civilian just like all you. we will pull out when the time is right....lol

fighting terrorism is never going to work because terrorism isnt tangible. Oh big deal, we made osama bin laden go into hiding. He's not dead like he should be, but its okay cause we have saddam who was obviously behind the whole thing. taking out the second in command does nothing at all, you have to wipe them all out.

Originally Posted by shane27

as for donig a better job in iraq, im not a leader so no, i could not do a better job in iraq im sure someone who is qualified could. also unemployment is very low atm

oh and it wasnt the whole story becasue i could find it, but it does say: has been edited for clarity.

edited for clarity does not mean they removed the mention of what weapons they found for the sake of the public, it means they formatted the dialogue so it would flow better.