Oh really? Is allowing free passage of terrorists through your country not linking to terrorism? That's exactly Lebanon's policy - let the terrorists roam because we don't care, that kind of thing. And look, now it's a huge problem for Israel since they've been able to multiply in numbers and gain access to weapons. And because of Lebanon's policies, our allies are suffering. Iraq isn't a major oil producer (compared to Saudi Arabia and Iran) - and as I said in this thread EARLIER (which you obviously are too arrogant to read) states that oil imports haven't increased any noticeable amount except for the usual consumer demand increase. And we aren't in control of it, either. We're setting up a formal democracy headed and led by Iraqi citizens. Who, by the way, since you probably forgot, are now FREE PEOPLE. I already covered this topic. Well the guys that support the murdering of babies but care to led the murderers live, is pretty evil in my opinion. Abortion is a horrible crime. Murder is just as bad - in fact, it's the same. Murderers should be put to death. It's the only way to serve justice to them until the great judgment day (if you believe in such, as I do myself) when their full penalty will be upon them. No... where do you get that impression, I'm curious? Yeah.... which is why we're in the middle east.... remember 9/11? Remember what happens when we let threats rise to power (*cough* Hitler *cough*)
So, why did we attack Iraq? I'm sure you are aware that Saddam Hussein hated Bin Laden--who was responsible for 9/11 and in Afghanistan not Iraq. Do we then attack each country that has a terrorist in it? Iraq produces over 2 million barrels daily and has the capacity to produce more. Of the top oil producers in the world, Iraq represented the lone takeover option. By colonizing Iraq through policy (read: democracy in Iraq), we can secure access to a major oil source. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. Even President Bush said as much. As to threats, Iraq wasn't one. They were effectively crippled from years of sanctions. Try again.
Apparently you missed the ENTIRE paragraph you quoted. Let me re-post it for you: That's exactly what Iraq was doing... (remember Hitler, too!) No. We don't attack any countries. We invade as a police action each country not to declare war on the country itself (as there technically is no war with Iraq) but to declare war on the forces of evil inside it that has a viable terrorist threat in it. And Alaska can produce up to 2.2 million barrels a day with just a few more wells, but has proven reserves of 4,327 million barrels (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/state/ak.html) - government site... so really we could be blaming the conservationists for this whole oil shortage problem... if they would just let us drill in Alaska? Also, if we went into Iraq for oil, then why... (http://maps.unomaha.edu/Peterson/funda/Sidebar/OilConsumption.html) I'm going to ask YOU to try again. Just because Iraq didn't have anything directly to do with 9/11 doesn't mean they weren't a threat... N. Korea has nothing to do with 9/11 and THEY'RE a threat... Iran didn't also, but still a threat. You're being very narrow-minded here --- 9/11 isn't our only war-deciding factor.
What is there to say? Everyone knows this is just another one of the Republican controlled country's many failures. The one thing they did that made sense (invade afghanistan), they didn't even bother finishing or doing right. Now it's a coin toss as to wether or not the afghan people are even going to be on our side in 6 months.
- Taliban still exists and is making a comeback - It's likely the Afghani people will not side with us in 6 months if conditions haven't improved, they would rather not be free. - OBL hasn't been captured - There's 4x more opium (heroin) being grown and exported around the world now than before. If that's not failure, then what is?
chulium, What immediate threat did Iraq pose? If Iran decides to "police" the USA, because there is "evil" here, is that ok as well? It's pretty easy to throw around generalizations.
Indeed. It raises the question of what, if anything, some would fight for. Some people are never really for anything, they are just against everything. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html
Surrender, death of our own people, and/or internal defeat of morale. None, but AGAIN I SAY: TAKE A LOOK AT HISTORY. They may not be an immediate threat but just 10 years or less down the line, they could try to rule the world.... If they have the means, resources, and good intention to do it, then it probably is okay. However; there is a difference. Iraq had no national guard (or very very small one, not capable of keeping its own country under control) - Iraq had an evil dictator at the control of all its military. There's the difference. There is no need for military police action in America.
I guess you agree with murdering as a sense of law a country under control. Saddam was OUT of control.
"Islam is a religion of peace. The extremists in the middle east infer it as a violent method. Not all Muslims are bad. There are good Islamic people." Islam is not a religion of peace. No not all Muslims are bad however you must admit that most terrorists are Muslim. "Look who's talkin - I suggest YOU do some research. Meet some true Muslims, get out of the media and the liberal brainwashing techniques - Islamists are not bad people. Extremists are - but not all Muslims." I have met a lot of true Muslims, I have done reasearch and plan to do more. Islam is a brainwashing cult. What else could bread people just to use them for bombs? How dare you assume I'm liberal and all I do is sit here and watch tv for my information. You don't know me from a hill of beans how do you know how much I know? Immature statements like that just tell me you have to resort to trying to belittle me to prove your point, which is a form of brainwashing! "I concur." You would Obviously he does not. FACT, you mean? That's the fact - tell me how many terrorists disbanded because of your post. I don't know and I don't care because I can't just sit here and wait when I know so much about the truth. "None of your posts here have been intellectual or intelligent. You're ignoring the majority of text being typed for you to read and comprehend... either that or you fail in ability to do so." Well maybe you are not the only person here who thinks that are you? You don't find them intellectual or intelligent because they are not what you want to see. What text am I ignoring? I'm sorry if I missed something, I have other things to do besides sit here watching you try to belittle me for my opinions. I would not be here if I fail in ability to do so.