iraq war - the nonsense of the century

[honeycomb]

U.S. admits the WMD accusations are flawed. Bush made a joke. sounds to me many people died for no reason in this war. the only happy guy here is Bush - while the rest mourns the death of their family, the Iraqis in violent uncertainties. why do you let this happen?

how could we let this happen? the bloods of the innocent is in our hands. think about that.

[MetalMilitia]

Considering we're only 4 years into the century... I'm sure our leaders will think of dumber things to do. I'll put it lightly, this is a situation that we can't un-f**k. It's not a joke. For all those people that said 'lighten up' Bush was jsut joking aorund when he said those things... f**k him. He's the reason 10 more SOLDIERS DIED on Sunday alone.

How funny is that?

-MM-

[dutchie]

...not at all, I would say, but hey, I am not an American...

[SeekNDestroy]

No, it's not at all funny, and no I don't like Bush.

But that doesn't change the fact that morally the war was the right thing to do. The Iraqis have been saved from persecution, they say their lives are now better, and soon they'll be electing their leaders.

[Emerald_Dragon]

I agree that it was the right thing to do, saving the people from a tyrant. But it was for the wrong reasons, we were lied to, to allow it.

We could easily liberate many more people from the tyranny of their nations, but there's nothing in it for us. So we don't.

[lotrfan55345]

The war was to soften the blow of PEAK OIL and to grow food for teh upcoming ice age! A LOT OF US WILL DIE IF THEY NEVER INVADED!

I say the war was justified at teh expence of the "Good Iraqi People".

/just kidding

[bbbv3.5]

Everyone is critizing him about the WMDs. He was just trying to lighten it up a bit. The war freed iraqis and helped America oil wise. And maybe Sadaam could have become a threat. After all we didnt lose that many lives compared to other wars. And this war was not the dumbest thing a president done in the past century.....

[lazserus]

You can't blame Bush for the war. In order for the US to go to war with another nation Congress has to also vote on it. The president can not make the decision on his own. It's been that way for 250 years. I'm not saying I like Bush, but you can't blame him for everything when he can't make certain moves w/o others' involvement. Everyone keeps preaching about the WMD's as if that was the only reason we said we were going. Don't complain about something you don't know about if you didn't pay attention in the first place. The WMD aspect of the war was just ONE of many reasons the US went to Iraq and they were all noted publicly. The WMD was just the biggest concern.

[bbbv3.5]

agree ..................

[Emerald_Dragon]

>In order for the US to go to war with another nation Congress has to also vote on it.

and they abstained from declaring war, but allowed the POTUS the funds in which to initiate it. they feared the imminent threat of alleged WMDs that Iraq possessed which could be launched within 45 minutes for another 911-like strike. they voted against terrorism by allowing the military the funds to support a war. anyone that didn't would have been deemed, "Unpatriotic".

Congress did not declare war. Bush and Co. preached it. Implied that SH/Iraq had a hand in 911. Used that feared to fool 70% of the masses in believing Iraq had anything to do with 911 and support the war. And now, we learn that the intelligence was 'flawed'? ! Who benefitted from the omission of the truth? How many people tried to tell you it was a trumped up charge, yet the media and the administration pushed for war? And now, the truth is coming forward. If you can't see it, you never will.


>Don't complain about something you don't know about if you didn't pay attention in the first place.

i was one of the early voices that was actively anti-war. they lied.


>The WMD aspect of the war was just ONE of many reasons the US went
>to Iraq and they were all noted publicly.

Can i make a guess at the other reasons?
1) Liberate the population from a tyrant,
2) Finish what his father started,
3) Oil, SH wasn't selling us any, so we took it.


>You can't blame Bush for the war.

If i were the mayor of your town and told you that our neighbors possessed WMDs and were going to attack us unless we attacked them 1st, would you or would you not, be in favor of a pre-emptive strike? And assuming you are and we find none, I later tell you that according to my intelligence sources, these WMDs are now in another township, would you believe me? Esp since I didn't want to allow investigative funding for many months after one of our buildings was taken down by an alleged strike by another township?

We attacked Afghanistan and Iraq when the 19 alleged hijackers were Saudis. Some of whom, are still alive.


>The WMD was just the biggest concern.

which has turned out to be unfounded. based on previously proven inaccurate reports, touted as truth. Nigerian Yellow Cake. A graduate students dissertation paper. and we're still saying we're winning this war on terror.


>He was just trying to lighten it up a bit.

yeah, when life gives u lemons, make lemonade. when caught lying, hide under a desk and make fun of yourself.

[lazserus]

And now, we learn that the intelligence was 'flawed'?

I don't recall Bush claiming Iraq was behind 9/11. I do recall him blaming Saddam for supporting and training terrorists, including Al Qaeda members (which is the group still being blamed for 9/11).

On the same note, I don't believe there has ever been a war in US history that every party believed in going to from the beginning. You will always have one side pushing for it and one side not. There's no unanimous.

Can i make a guess at the other reasons?

You can guess away. I'd advise going back and reading it so you can see it for yourself. There were many reasons we went to war with Iraq, and as I said before, all were made public. Well, minus the whole "we went to Iraq strictly for oil" that some of you continue to preach.

We attacked Afghanistan and Iraq when the 19 alleged hijackers were Saudis. Some of whom, are still alive.

Where did you get information that we attacked Afghanistan because the Afghanistan government was involved in 9/11? We attacked Afghanistan (this was ALSO made public) because our intelligence said they were harboring Al Qaeda terrorists and had training camps there. We gave them plenty of time to make a decisions. They give up their terrorists or we come in full force. They never said "we have no terrorists", but just flatly refused to give them up. So we went in. There was no flawed intelligence there because we're still taking out training camps and rounding up terrorists affiliated with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

which has turned out to be unfounded.

If you show signs of termite damage in your house but have found no termites, should you just not be concerned? We may not have actually found the WMD, but there was plenty of evidence they had them (especially considering we gave them to Saddam in the 1970s) and Saddam was being uncooperative. All that did was make it look MORE like he had them. The evidence is there, we just haven't found the items. If the items have been moved to Syria then how can we find them in Iraq now? Just because something is no longer in one place doesn't mean it was never in that place.

[Chris4334]

lotrfan wrote:

The war was to soften the blow of PEAK OIL and to grow food for teh upcoming ice age! A LOT OF US WILL DIE IF THEY NEVER INVADED!

lol You're worse than the White House press releases with your propaganda.

lazserus Wrote:

We attacked Afghanistan (this was ALSO made public) because our intelligence said they were harboring Al Qaeda terrorists and had training camps there. We gave them plenty of time to make a decisions. They give up their terrorists or we come in full force. They never said "we have no terrorists", but just flatly refused to give them up. So we went in. There was no flawed intelligence there because we're still taking out training camps and rounding up terrorists affiliated with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

Let's be honest and realize America had to attack SOMEONE after 9/11, otherwise A) Bush would become very unpopular VERY fast B) Other terrorists would see that no consequences result from attacking the U.S.

The U.S. didn't attack Saudi Arabia because it desperately needed allies in that region, and Saudi Arabia is the closest thing coming. Afganistan was simply convenient because of the symbolism of the Taliban.

[VegasRonin]

The invasion of Iraq isn't an action that stood on its own. Its a continuation of an action that happened in 91'. Iraq stated they would follow guidelines outlined in the initial cease fire. They didn't, they payed. Bush didn't need congress for the invasion as the first part of the war already had congressional approval. He did it as a professional courtesy, and he knew he'd need congressional funding.

Afganistan was simply convenient because of the symbolism of the Taliban.

Were you even paying attention to Global Events Chris4334? The Taliban were giving Sanctuary to Al Qaeda, and more importantly Usama. They admitted it for Christ's sake!

[prezhorusin04]

http://www.davidicke.net/newsroom/am...a/100401b.html
http://www.progress.org/archive/terror03.htm

[Emerald_Dragon]

sry prez, that's old news (i think). The $43m we gave the Taliban was pre-911, as "humanitarian" aid and to coerce them into allowing Unocal to build a pipeline thru their country. They were hosted in Houston and a California paper wrote about.

They chose not to allow it. And from what I've read, we were mobilizing to attack them pre-911, with final signoff by the POTUS 9/10/01. The BBC wrote about our vamping up. With 911, the official reason was Al-Qaeda and OBL. Here, we knew he had bases because we helped fund them.

Also, in negotiations with the Taliban, they had offered to surrender OBL, if we could provide some proof that he did it [911]. He denies it and we haven't any proof. Most terrorists take credit for their work. This one has, but didn't. (?)

[lotrfan55345]

[QUOTE=Chris4334]lol You're worse than the White House press releases with your propaganda.


"/just kidding"


...

[DarkAce]

bloods of the innocent is in our hands

There's a massive amount of blood of innocents that have been spilt in that country and would of continued even more so without Americas' and the coalitions' involvement. Think about that.

To me it seems so many people are so gd stubborn. So you were allegedly 'lied' to. Suck it up and move on. Concentrate on what we've accomplished and still have to do. Laz has already pretty much clearly outlined the whole WMD issue of it's placement.


People that keep restating over and over again why don't we go to (insert country name here) and liberate them, think about it more clearly and logically for a second or more if needed. Wars cost $$$, plain and simple. Where the heck are they suppose to get even more funds to wage war on even more fronts. Strategically it makes no sense. You'll exhaust your resources and economy trying to fund something of that magnitude.

Also you have to think of how much of a threat said country would be to yours. Iraq may or may have not been a threat to us right now, but given intelligence they have they would be down the line..10..20..years from now?
If you know something and could help prevent a future disaster from happening wouldn't you try and stop if before it's too late? Perhaps if we didn't invade and when/if the shit hits the fan people will be complaining about how something should of been done earlier in Iraq to prevent this. The ends justify the means, no?

Most wars have monetary gains as an intention. Considering the way gas prices keep raising in America perhaps this war wasn't merely for oil...
A soldiers life isn't the most glamourous occupation and they know the risk; people die in war. People that complain unneccesary deaths are taking place sound to me like they don't give a shit about what happens to the Iraqi people. It would be great if we could eradicate evil from all these countries that are runned by tyrants but $$$ rules all. Not to mention if you don't have the support of the people, you're not going to be getting anywhere. To be honest, if Bush said he was going to war with Iraq because of the atrocities Saddam and his regime have done, I doubt people would of supported the war. Enter the WMD.

[mickydoolittle]

He's the reason 10 more SOLDIERS DIED on Sunday alone.

How funny is that?

-MM-

You couldn't be more wrong.

Bush is not the reason those 10 soldiers died. They died because they are soldiers...that's what soldiers do.

They died because of some sicophantic moron with a vendetta to prove to allah how worthy he is . They died because some rowdy fuq'd up citizens of another country decided to try and get a hand in being in charge after years of repression.

What you know-it-all's fail to see is the:
BIGGER picture.

No country grows to freedom easily. This is a repitition of a cycle that is older than you OR any other member on the board.

Quit emmulating my avatar and learn from history, or pay attn to current events, as they are indeed both one in the same.

In short: duh.

[substand]

Something everyone seems to leave out as a reason for going into Iraq, which to me is much bigger than if they even had or were working on NUKES, much less WMD, is that we are changing the face of the middle east. There is a MUCH larger strategic objective @ hand than oil or WMD, that perhaps the future of our world rests on.

I don't understand why it is hard to see.

1) Recognize terrorism is a huge problem
2) Kill afghanistan 1st as a response to 9/11 because they are harboring al qaeda and refuse to give them up
3) Kill Iraq, the unquestionably militarily strongest terror supporting regime. By killing Iraq, perhaps other terror supporting regimes will cease supporting terror. See Libya for a nice example- although their claims have yet to be substantiated by history, only time will tell.
4) Eradicate countries who give material or nonmaterial support or sanctuary to terrorists, starting from strongest to weakest. As the stronger ones fall, the weaker ones will do more to combat terror in thier regimes- not for a lesser reason than fear that it will appear as if they are helping terrorists, and helping terrorists = no more power for you. The defeated regimes are replaced with regimes that will fight terror.

Simple, no?

[Emerald_Dragon]

I don't recall Bush claiming Iraq was behind 9/11.

then count yourself one of the 30% of the population that didn't.
I didn't. but hey, that's what the poll said. and a similar % supported the war.
it makes sense that those who supported the war, may have also felt SH/Iraq was behind 911.

who are they "polling"? sheeple?

even more so without Americas' and the coalitions' involvement.

true. however, in this case, Americans are the cause of the death of innocents.

agreed that if we weren't there, SH goons would have done it.
so its debatable whether or not 'life' for a typical Iraqi is better. I think it is.
Unless you happen to be praying in a Mosque when a Marine bomb hits.

To me it seems so many people are so gd stubborn.

thanks, you are very 'PC'.

So you were allegedly 'lied' to. Suck it up and move on.

right on! www.moveon.org

and remember 'lessons learned', not to believe everything they tell us to support whatever they're doing. and vote. too few vote anymore. its like, the 10% that do, are the ones voicing complaints (or maybe the ones calling the shots). everyone else seems to be fine with the state of our nation. which I love, BTW. Its a great country and we should keep it in check when its not balanced [like now].

Concentrate on what we've accomplished and still have to do.

i believe the media has accomplished its part to convince the masses that we were justified in our invasion of Iraq, in spite of the flaws in our reasons for going. OTOH, i hope they continue to expose the lies and manipulations that misled us to war. i think the National commission will document all the clues and events, and report a 'politically correct' assessment, much like the Warren commission, only to be revealed 50+ years later [ala JFK Act of 1993], when all accountable parties are deceased of advanced, old age.

I'd advise going back and reading it so you can see it for yourself. Laz has already pretty much clearly outlined the whole WMD issue of it's placement.

The WMD aspect of the war was just ONE of many reasons the US went to Iraq and they were all noted publicly.

Can i make a guess at the other reasons?
1) Liberate the population from a tyrant,
2) Finish what his father started,
3) Oil, SH wasn't selling us any, so we took it.

So these are justifiable reasons to go into $1 Trillion of debt, lose 600+ soldiers? Sounds like a personal vendetta or corporate greed. Neither seem justifiable to me.

Esp since I'll be paying for it taxwise for the next 10 years.
And now my social security will help pay for it [speculation].
Good thing I have a pension plan. I hope i'll still have one by the time I retire. Its a good thing i didn't work for Enron, Global Crossing, or Worldcom, my pension would be worthless. Its not a good thing that my 10+ years of paying SS, will amount to nothing.

I don't know about you, but if i pay for something, I'd like to see it.

You guys must be well off [or well paid] to support this war.
This war does not benefit us. Middle America.

What reasons am I missing that you guys seem adamantly supportive of?

We attacked Afghanistan and Iraq .Where did you get information that we attacked Afghanistan because the Afghanistan government was involved in 9/11?

did i say that? or was that an implied interpretation, much similar to the Bush 911/Iraq connection.

If you show signs of termite damage in your house but have found no termites, should you just not be concerned? We may not have actually found the WMD, but there was plenty of evidence they had them.

and when we learned that the termite damage was caused because someone in our house?

the evidence came from Iraqi exiles (from the 1950s), a graduate students dissertation paper, Rumsfeld's notes on what he allowed SH/Iraq to acquire in the 70/80's. Hell, even Powell is questioning the intelligence [see below]. He and Rice had already said in 2001 that SH was not a threat and could not exert his influence northward. Only to reverse their positions after 911 as drums of war started for Iraq. Their assessments came in lieu of regular bombings to Iraqi military assets since 1991 and U.N. sanctions.

The evidence is there, we just haven't found the items

that are likely not to exist. says Kay and Powell.
[from another thread]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3426703.stm
"
In the run-up to the US-led war against Iraq, he gave a presentation to the Security Council, in which he asserted that Saddam Hussein had amassed secret weapons of mass destruction.

He said then that he believed Iraq possessed, among other things, between 100 and 500 tonnes of chemical weapons agents.
....
On Friday, Mr Kay, who had led the US hunt for weapons in Iraq, resigned.

He told Reuters news agency he did not believe there had been large-scale production of chemical or biological weapons in Iraq since the end of the first Gulf War in 1991.

"I don't think they existed," Mr Kay said."

Just because something is no longer in one place doesn't mean it was never in that place.

true.
and if they weren't there to begin with, are suddenly there a year later, and then gone missing again after a year of looking?

The U.S. didn't attack Saudi Arabia because it desperately needed allies in that region

good point. didn't consider that. i strongly agree with A) and B).

The Taliban were giving Sanctuary to Al Qaeda, and more importantly Usama. They admitted it for Christ's sake!

yeah. i remember that. true on both points. now the debate is, how come he didn't accept responsibility for the attack and the video tape that has him admitting he did it, turned out to be an imposter wearing a US army jacket? notice, that video hasn't been aired ever again. because of the anomaly, no doubt. Else, it would be key evidence in his conviction. and guilt.

If you know something and could help prevent a future disaster from happening wouldn't you try and stop if before it's too late?

yes, you would, if you could. but if the agenda and/or administration didn't allow for it. no. Pat O'Neill, Karen Kwiatkowski, Richard Clarke, John Kokal, Colleen Rowley, the FBI Phoenix Memo to the NSA, the NSA training manual cover, warnings from foreign intelligence, the Put option trading trail for the 2 airlines, and many, many more.

IMO, 911 was allowed to happen. I'm only happy that so few people died relative to the possible number that were normally present. I don't know how busy a tuesday morning at your office is @ 9am, but mine is full of people. Those towers housed 50k people on a given day of the week. I'm thankful that most of them got out.

The ends justify the means, no?

the heart of our debate. i guess i'm saying 'no' and you're saying 'yes'.

Considering the way gas prices keep raising in America perhaps this war wasn't merely for oil...

very good point. but with the admission by the Saudis/OPEC(?) that oil reserves weren't as high as previously thought, Shell's (?) writedown of their reserves, and Halliburton still unable to produce Iraqi oil due to insurgents, i'm not sure we'll ever see low gas prices.

A soldiers life

i don't blame the soldiers. i blame the politicians. soldiers do their duty.

I doubt people would of supported the war. Enter the WMD.

i agree. without that argument/propaganda, chances are good, we wouldn't/shouldn't be there. but we are. so do we admit it was a mistake? or make ourselves comfortable to protect corporate civilians?

is that we are changing the face of the middle east.

Is it our self appointed job to make lives better for people in foreign countries? why do they hate us so much if we're only there to help? why would they be willing to kill themselves in order to get back at us for giving them better lives? Is it because they hate us for our "freedoms"? How stupid do you think these people are? How uninformed do you think I am to believe that 'line'?

If a foreign power were to invade America and impose 'freedom' in the form of a theocracy, when we've existed for 200+ years under a republic, i think i'd resist. and if i failed, i'd teach my children that democracy and freedom existed before foreigners influenced our way of life with brute force while stealing our natural resources.

1) Recognize terrorism is a huge problem

agreed. we shouldn't add to it, if we want the cycle to stop.

2) Kill afghanistan

accomplished. Taliban are out of power, opium production is up. business as usual.

3) Kill Iraq, the unquestionably militarily strongest terror supporting regime.

they were against Israel, not us. the SH/AQ connection was mythical. much like Cheney's line that Atta was in Germany.

4) Eradicate countries who give material or nonmaterial support or sanctuary to terrorists

well that's hypocritical. how are we supposed to fund regime changes if we kill ourselves?

Chile, Nicaragua, Somalia, Guatemala, and so many others. Hell, we even trained the 911 hijackers on our bases.
And more recently, Haiti and Venezuela. How would I know? John Stockwell, former CIA. I'm sure he's been 'discredited' for what he's said. Much like Clarke will, by Rice.

As the stronger ones fall, the weaker ones will do more to combat terror

what happens when you decapitate an earthworm?

Simple, no?

overly. in a simple world [to a simple mind], sure. in todays world, not likely.

[mickydoolittle]

Ppl...ahem, ppl?!

Take a long and slow indepth read of the above post.

This is some very insightful understanding of the situation in the M.E. that has been repeatedly, REPEATEDLY, posted about by me and several others here on the board. This is all those points from us summarized into a neat little list.

Many of you could learn from this if you took the time to read and then accept this as the most concise representation of truth you will ever encounter concerning the M.E.

My hat is off to you substand. Kudos.

[DarkAce]

so its debatable whether or not 'life' for a typical Iraqi is better. I think it is.
Unless you happen to be praying in a Mosque when a Marine bomb hits.

It seems you're implying that Americans are killing Iraq civilian life as if they have no regard for it. The military takes strong precautions to ensure the safety of civilians whenever possible. Doesn't neccessarily mean that civilians won't get caught within crossfire from time to time....but that's just the way it is...this is reality not a video game.
By the way most of the Iraqi civilian deaths are caused by their own....don't forget how a suicider bomber in a mosque caused (if I remember correctly) 400+ casualties.

and remember 'lessons learned', not to believe everything they tell us to support whatever they're doing. and vote.

You're very correct. We shouldn't believe everything they tell us or support everything they're doing. With all the resources available at our fingertips it takes very litttle effort to research all the different views/angles/spins/opinions/etc. But in context for the topic we're discussing I continually see the anti-war posters post about how it's all about oil or some other inane thing without actually realizing the bigger picture in ME as mickey and substand have already touched upon.

OTOH, i hope they continue to expose the lies and manipulations that misled us to war.

Perhaps. Whether or not, we're there and nothings going to change about that. We can't turn back time, what's done is done. Whether you dwell negatively or postively on the results of the war, is up to you.

So these are justifiable reasons to go into $1 Trillion of debt, lose 600+ soldiers? Sounds like a personal vendetta or corporate greed. Neither seem justifiable to me.

Once again it's all about the bigger picture. Judging by the post I'll have to restate this atleast 3 more times before I'm finish:p I've been aware of the situations in the ME and have speculated on what needs and should be done.
Substand touched upon this earlier in the discussion. ME is an extremly unstable region of the world. Left uncheck it will continue to degenerate, but this isn't the problem. With the way those countries are runned and the way their society is brought up to hate the other side of the world it would only be a matter of time before massive amounts of terrorism would be carried out.
This war isn't entirely about the now, but more or less about what's to come.

This war does not benefit us. Middle America.

I would hold my breath on that one ;)

The U.S. didn't attack Saudi Arabia because it desperately needed allies in that region

The word ally in conjunction with Saudi Arabia should be used very loosely. Why would they attack Saudi Arabia? The hijackers may have been saudis but that doesn't mean that we go after Saudi Arabia because of that. If the hijackers were chinese would we have gone after China? No. We went to Afghanistan because of Usama and the harbouring of Al Qaeda. Yes Saudi Arabia funds terrorist but invading them would be suicide for the US.

>If you know something and could help prevent a future disaster from happening
>wouldn't you try and stop if before it's too late?

yes, you would, if you could. but if the agenda and/or administration didn't allow for it. no. Pat O'Neill, Karen Kwiatkowski, Richard Clarke, John Kokal, Colleen Rowley, the FBI Phoenix Memo to the NSA, the NSA training manual cover, warnings from foreign intelligence, the Put option trading trail for the 2 airlines, and many, many more.

My question, while it has relation and relevance to 9/11 was directed towards Iraq, not 9/11.

i don't blame the soldiers. i blame the politicians. soldiers do their duty.

A soldiers' life is to protect his/or her country. This is what they are doing. Whether you fail to see the bigger picture right now, you might not understand this.

Is it our self appointed job to make lives better for people in foreign countries? why do they hate us so much if we're only there to help? why would they be willing to kill themselves in order to get back at us for giving them better lives? Is it because they hate us for our "freedoms"? How stupid do you think these people are? How uninformed do you think I am to believe that 'line'?

Us making life better for the Iraqis is more of an after affect. I more invision that we're saving our own asses by taking out SH and trying to stabalize a good foothole in the ME so we can further stabalize the ME before it destabalizes and America feels the effects of it through increased terrorism.
You seem to be generalizing that all Iraqis hate America. The majority truly don't. The people you speak of are the ones that are loyal supporters of the regime that have abused them for so many years, the people been so ridiculously brainwashed to hate the west from small, and those afraid to voice their favour for America because of retaliation by those that don't. You see what they do to their own people because of their co-operation with America and the coalition.

[Chris4334]

Substand Wrote:

Kill Iraq, the unquestionably militarily strongest terror supporting regime.

Just as an endnote to the above, I'd like to suggest North Korea is arguably, militarily, the strongest country that potentially supports terror. I haven't read anything conclusive about North Korea's involvement with terrorism, but it isn't hard to imagine. In addition, the country has the largest standing army in the world...over 1 million strong.

[honeycomb]

iraq is in more violent chaos. there's staggering number of suicide among US soldiers. humanitarian aids are attacked. journalists are shot dead. the future is uncertain. more instability in the middle east. terrorism is ever stronger... how is this better?

i guess just bcoz Saddam is gone, suddenly its a better situation? to whom?

Bush said if he had the correct intelligence, he would have stopped the war. but he did have it (from UN inspectors), yet denied it. i honestly think, he would go to war no matter what anyway. so to pro war guys, u've had ur war... whatever ur arguments, now its time to give back iraq to the iraqis. to be liberated, they have to rule their own country - not by outside force.

yup, i look forward to the handling over of iraq to iraqis...

[SeekNDestroy]

i guess just bcoz Saddam is gone, suddenly its a better situation? to whom?

To the majority of Iraqis who think their lives have got better since the war? I'm really tired of people saying the Iraqis are unhappy, do you know better than them how they're feeling?