This is a logical question that I decided to start a thread about, because after looking at the initial goals that President Bush stated as our reasons for invading, it seems like this war should have ended a while ago. If I remember correctly, Bush's original stated reason for wanting to invade Iraq in 2003 was: 1. To bring the Iraqi people freedom 2. To find weapons of mass destruction 3. To topple Saddam Hussein It should be noted that these are the "official" reason for invading Iraq. Those of us that get our information from sources other than Fox News and CNN know that there are other reasons for Bush's decision to invade. at any rate the only thing the United States has succeed at is toppling Saddam. No weapons of mass destruction have been found. The Iraqi people don't have freedom(Sectarian violence plagues the country on a daily basis, and hundreds of people are being killed each week) Given the fact that there are no WMDs in Iraq, and Saddam has been toppled, why is the United States military still in Iraq? Hell, why are we still in Afghanistan?
Who will they invade next? It seems they target countrys who need freedom and all they get in return in abuse and violence Thats courtesy for you....
We should have declared defeat, raised a white flag and began self-loathing on behalf of our country long ago. Oh wait, that's what liberals are for. Nevermind
A) WMD's have been found, and it was a bunch of it...remember WMD's don't consist of just nuclear bombs.... B) Fight the terrorists who want to KILL YOU there or here? I prefer there myself. C)to drive idiot liberals like yourselves nuts. I think that sums it up nicely.
I think the US doesn't want to leave because things are too unstable there. Unstable countries with alot of turmoil tend to acquire unstable leaders, possibly even worse than Saddam. I think there is uncertainty and things have not all gone the way it was hoped for, but perhaps they fear if they left now that things might be worse than before this all ever started. They keep staying and trying to stabilize the area, but I don't know if it's getting better or worse. It seems like a mess with no real easy answers.
They finally found them? I'm surprised it wasn't on the news. Could you point me to some reputable sources online where I can read more about it? You're absolutely right. I didn't realize that WMDs consisted of weapons other than nukes. I mean, WMDs would also included Depleted Uranium, which the US military is using in armor and ammunition, and is capable of doing serious harm to both troops and civilians...........then there is this thing about it having a half life of about 4 and 1/2 billion years......... I don't classify myself as being a liberal.
This has to be the most intellectually vacant talking point in the world today. You mean to tell me that "terrorists" can get funding for gas, vehicles, weapons, housing and so forth, but can't buy a plane ticket or find another way to North America?
It will likley be some time before all the reports are declasified. Here is one as early as two days ago.
You are a liberal, because you dare to question something that the government is doing. You are also guilty of treason, but I bet you knew that already. It's the uneducated in our country that fear questions and seek to shut down those that do by utilizing name calling, classification, and redirection. I know many conservative Republicans that are against the war. I'm not sure how one's views on the war determines what their "label" is.
I read the report, and it is very deceptive. It specifically says that the 500 munitions found in Iraq are pre-gulf war and are comprised of Sarin and Mustard gas. Mia, Sarin and Mustard Gas has a half life of just a few weeks. Any munitions found in Iraq that were developed pre-gulf war lost their lethality a long time ago. These weapons were developed before the first gulf war! In other words, the munitions found in Iraq are completely ineffective The munitions that have been found expired a long time ago, and are not dangerous. They cannot be classified as WMDs, and this means the US has not found them, which is why it is not on the news. Nice try Negroponte, but you didn't fool me.
Bush and Cheney have totally discounted that weapons of mass destruction were found. TOTALLY. They did not go to war claiming that Saddam had decades old shells with traces of mustard gas. In fact Bush used the language of a threatening mushroom cloud. Real decision makers who have to face public scrutiny realized that the decade old shells were not the threat of wmd. Only people who don't have to be accountable continue to anyone continue to make those rediculous claims. One congressman, Hoekstra, and one Senator currently running for office continue to make these claims. The military have complained that Hoekstra is wasting their time. Senator Santorum from Pa. is way way behind in the polls for reelection. It suggests that the US military and the majority of people in Pennsylvania think those claims are bogus. For all those that think that those old shells constitute weapons of mass destruction.....try and get back in touch with the thinking members of the human race!
Me thinks you need to calm down a bit and do a DP search for some Gtech threads. I don't want to get redundant here, but who really was it that claimed there were WMD's? Bush? Cheney? Think again. There is a whole laundry list of Democrats from Kerry, Hillary, Teddy, and the entire Clinton admin. Hind sight is always 20/20... Of course for moonbats, "looking back is still a bit fuzzy".. Man I love MegaDeth!