Genius, do you remember the UN resolutions against Iraq? How about the treaty Hussein agreed to after the first Gulf War, when he invaded another country. Remember how he agreed to UN weapons inspectors? Then he decided he'd jerk around the international community and not let the inspectors do thier jobs. Lets alsdo talk about firing on our planes patrolling the no-fly zone. Do you remember when he was warned about repercussions? What did you think those would be? More sanctions?

Here's another one. Remember when he used poison gas (aka a WMD) against his own people? This is a man who was a sworn enemy of the US, who previously had WMD, and...stay with me now...USED THEM!! This man would have no problem selling these weapons to our enemies.

When he would not open his closets, as he was required to by the UN, that is when we decided that something had to be done.

And not for anything, but to address your charge of lying, would that also mean that Russia, Germany, France, and England also all lied? Because you do realize a fair amount of thier intelligence went into the decision making process as well, right?

Wow, jersey, I thought you "gave up" three posts ago...ramble on, rose.

MB, back to your binary view of the universe, I see. Shit, I didn't even have time to address Infinatenexus before you had to blast me for being a liberal. Damn your universe is so fucking clear. Must be nice. Funny, you'd think it'd be "liberal" to bring "freedom" to all the world, and "conservative" to think first. But, I digress.

Infinate, relatively speaking, he's given up. Troops in Iraq: 150-175K. Troops in Afghanistan: about 10K. This Bush quote in 2002, from one of his rare press conferences, also makes me think he doesn't give a shit about OBL: "You know, I just don't spend that much time on him"

Yep, we attacked a 3rd-world country led by 2nd-rate, has-been dictator with NO WMDs, NO part in the 9/11 attacks, NO clear ties to al-Qaida, and who posed NO immediate threat to the USA.
We've spent billions of dollars to catch the NON-threat Saddam while the REAL threat, Osama bin Asshole, still runs free and al-Qaida has a colossal recruiting poster called "Iraq"...great work, Dubba!

Oh, and all that blood on your hands George? Fuhgeddaboutit! It's time to celebrate FREEDOM!
Hook 'em horns!

Ok, Electrobuzz, thank you for proving my point, your side is always right and my side is always wrong.

(I do realize that is not the case, but sometimes it seems like your side does not)

Ah, you just proved it again - your is always wrong (saying you realize that is not the case...wrong!)

How many solders do you think it takes to look for him? Honestly, my unit covered more ground than you can imagine in a short peroid of time.

Points of view like yours mystify me... You honestly think Saddam was no threat? Seriously, do you know nothing of the man, or his sons? Not even the UN could not account for all of Saddams WMD’s. We have satellite imagery that shows where they went, but I guess you left that out of the information you used to form your opinion?

Oh, and if you think Osama is still a threat, you have been missing out on about three years worth of news. He is nothing, his organization is crippled, never to rise again... unless we stop pounding them at every given opportunity, and go back to the Clinton mentality.

But hey, we could have done nothing about the problem... right? I mean, bringing democracy to the middle east is not our job .. right? Arabs don’t disserve the same rights I fight for, and you enjoy...right?

If Osama is no longer a threat, then what the hell are troops still doing in Afghanistan, since HE was the reason troops were deployed there in October 2001? Wait, don't tell me...they're looking for OTHER terrorists and those ever elusive WMD's.

Me personally being a Soldier in the United States Army I thank all of you that have kept the Soldiers in mind EVEN in you don't agree with the GWOT (global war on terrorism.) As for the protesting hippies 'em. I know what we are doing there, and even though your argument (digityzed) is "where are the WMD?" Whether they're there or not doesn't matter; the only thing that matters is that President Bush acted rather than sitting back and waiting for it to happen. You are concerned about the Soldiers over there but you are not there; that makes a big difference. Take a survey of Soldiers opinions, you will see that the majority of them are infact glad we are over there as well as the majority of them voted for President Bush's re-election. What you see on the news is only half of what is going on over there, please don't believe it.

He is not a threat, compared to what he was. And yes, we are looking for "other" terrorist. Do you think we are only after him?

AS for the WMD's.. you should have paid more attention to the war, and put less effort into bashing it. The location of the WMD's has already been on the nightly news months, and months ago.

Even though Iraq's supposed harboring of WMD's was one of the top reasons Bush gave for his decision to invade Iraq? You're right, I guess it doesn't matter, now. :rolleyes:

Alright, here we go again.

First of all, You wanted to look like an ignorant asshole and assume that there were NO "other" terrorists, I dismissed that one because how would you know? I mean you live your life without fear of being shot at and not humping around 50 lbs of gear in the desert. Then you say that the WMD aren't there, but after all you are the Military Intelligence Analyst and you know exactly what is and isn't in Afghanistan right? you, all you have is CNN and FOX.

But what really gets me is that AFTER I replied you changed your opinion to what was Bush's perogative and what were his reasons; because after all you are his "advisor" and you knew what he was thinking. I have a challenge for you since you want to put your input on something that you know nothing about; read a book, a biography from the CENTCOM Commander, "American Soldier" by General Tommy Franks. You will see the whole reason behind the GWOT and why Bush made the decision he did.

But then again, you are "for" the Soldiers but, "against" the war. Shut up, that is the most retarded thing I have ever heard put together by an individual.

No need for name calling, chief. And, I gather you signed up for the military willingly? I commend you, don't get me wrong, so why are you pissing and moaning about having to "hump around 50 pounds of gear in the desert"?

Actually, it's not only me who says the WMDs aren't there, Bush said it himself. Remember that cute little video of him they played at the RNC, searching the oval office? "Nope, not there. Hmmm, they're not there either." He's quite a joker, ain't he?

Fair enough. I'll read your book, if you read a book suggestion I have for you. "The Price of Loyalty" by Paul O'Neill, the first Secretary of the Treasury under Bush II. In the first few chapters, he reveals that Saddam was a target of the administration practically from the first week. Why? "That man wanted to kill my daddy."

Correction. I support the soldiers who can accept some gratitude for doing their jobs, not the ones who have a chip on their shoulder thinking they deserve something special. My father, who's a retired Army Reservist of 33 years, feels the same way about the troops and the war as I do. I guess he's retarded then too, huh?

You are right, I did voluntarily subject myself to the Army which was one of the greatest things that I have done; it gave me morals, values, education, and a beautiful family. I did NOT bitch about rucking with a 50lb ruck in 110 degree weather, do not put words in my mouth (you will regret it) what I said was that YOU have no idea what is going on over there, think about it, you sit here smugly talking about the war but you are not in it. You ask why the Soldiers are still in Afghanistan and blame it on Bush, so based upon your theory President Roosevelt is to blame for our military presence in Germany? or that President Truman and President Eisenhower are to blame for our military presence in South Korea? Our troops will not be returning home in the near future, both Afghanistan and Iraq will eventually have permanant military bases in each of the countries. To add to your dismay, the soldiers that come on orders for these bases will face hostile forces for years to come (even though fighting has ended) much like the situation in Kosovo. Think about that before you turn to point the finger at the president. You may argue that he went to that country first because of a bias brought on by his fathers involvement but, if you had a public "jihad" announced on you, thousands of your people killed in a hienous attack, and a dictator claiming responsibility for it all (from the country of Afghanistan) wouldn't you seek revenge? Then you began to speculate that the weapons of mass destruction are indeed not there; all I said was that it doesn't matter if they were there or not, what mattered was that President Bush has a set of balls and went into a country looking for them, not that he waited to see if Suddam was bluffing and get caught by surprise.

Oh and I could care less about your gratuity, I do what I do because I want to not because I demand respect (give that shit to the police and fireman.) Oh and congratulations to your father, that is a great feat to retire from the service, that is not you though so do not hide behind his record. If he supports the Soldiers but not the war then he too is in fact has problems.

All of you liberals need to stop running the party line on WMD's. These are the facts:

- WMD's did exist in Iraq

- Saddam has used WMD's in the past

- Saddam played games with inspectors by using mobile weapons labs, and hiding weapons all over the country (I was in the Navy and did lots of intel analysis on this very subject).

- Saddam shot at our pilots enforcing the now fly zones on a daily basis with the intent to kill them

- Saddam sponsored terrorism and terrorist activities

- Saddam would not prove to us that he did not have WMD's

- France, Germany, England, John Kerry all said that Iraq had WMD's. They had the same intel that President Bush had.

- Saddam murdered and slaughter hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings, many because of their religion

Bush did the right thing based on all of the history, present situations, and available intel from different sources. Does Iraq have WMD's in Iraq now, no. Is it possible that they moved them all, definatly.

After September 11th, we could not afford to wait. We must act, not react.

I totally agree Lincoln.

Iran is a potential trouble spot. So is Cuba, Northern Ireland, Columbia, Most of Africa, North Korea, Israel, Pakistan, India... The whole damn world is a potential trouble spot. There are something like 200 wars going on at any given time. Iran could be eliminated as a threat in much the same way Israel set back Iraq's nuclear program.

Ditto in Iraq - maybe not the "master-mind", butwe certainly were looking for several targets wanted in connection with it, not to mention that red-headed asshole buddy of Saddam's.

I don't think it is possible for someone who has never been there to grasp the reality of the GWOT. Since the Iraq invasion, there have been zero act of terrorism on the U.S. Iraq's borders were/are porous - not gonna get in an arguement over that. Everyone that has had a beef with the US has gathered there enmass. Now, which would you prefer - carbombs in Baghdad or carbombs in New York? RPGs fired at police in Mosul or bombs at police stations in LA? Is Iraq a shitty place right now? You better believe it. Is it better than fighting terrorist at home? I think most Americans would believe so. That's the reason we are over there, but that be made a policy. Think about how bad that would look - we don't want to fight in our back yard, so we are gonna do it in yours. The worst thing about the GWOT is that most Americans, and most of the world is too worried about how the war is won. They would rather see dead soldiers than dead Iraqis. I have said it from the beginning. If we were able to do this thing like we did WWII, it'd be almost finished. We wouldn't have any Iraqi-based insurgency - only outside non-state actors. Unfortunately, you people can't stomach a real war - you all think it should be a police style operation. You can't have a sterile war. If you live on a battlefield, life is gonna suck. That's the nature of modern warfare. We don't fight out in fields anymore. You can't bring your lunch and the family to sit and watch the battle take place. If our troops were given the ROE that said do what ever you have to do to come home alive, I can guarantee you things would be much better. Well, maybe not for the Iraqis, but they would for us. It comes down to whose side are you on? You can't say that you are on the side of the US and Iraqi civilians. Most of the civilians are either apathetic or supporting the insurgency in some way. Time for a lesson. There are three components to an insurgency: the fighters, the auxillary, and the sympathizers. The fighters are the ones carrying out attacks. The auxillary helps them by either hiding them or transporting weapons, providing supplies, etc. The sympathizers are those that just turn a blind eye to it all. Of those three, the only ones we can currently attack are the fighters, which are hard to nail down as they don't wear a uniform. Unless we capture one and he gives us names and addresses, we can't get them. All three are guilty of carrying out the insurgency. We had an entire neighborhood of auxillary and sympathizers across the street from our compound in Mosul. The insurgency knew everytime a patrol left, who was on it, and where they were going. We didn't have many attacks, but then, it was a much quieter time back then.
As far as not finding WMD, it's not suprising. Iraq is a really big sandbox. We are still finding MiGs that were buried prior to the war. Do you really think Saddam sat around since '91 and didn't create some way of hiding those things? I doubt we will ever find them, but I don't doubt that they exist. The Sphinx was accidentally hidden in the desert for thousands of years. No one doubts that it exists. Think how easy it would be to hide a few bombs on purpose.

Who is that? Conan O'Brien?

Inf -- Sorry, chief, but that's a weak, and absolutely unproveable connection. What if we didn't attack a country that had no Al-Qaeda ties? There could just as easily be "no car bombs in Metropolis, USA". A poor justifcation for a shitload of blood , a lot of money, and proof that the USA's current administration sees the sword as mightier than the pen. By the way it's OK to start to accept that WMD's don't exist, and haven't since 1995. It's been said by hundreds of CIA operatives, international inspectors...and even President Cheney, errr, Chimpy has said as much.

EDITED TO ADD: PS -- you are in the middle of a civil war. The US's actions actually unified Sunnis and Shiites for some time, however that has broken down. Hey, how about that -- Chimpy really is a unifier. "Insurgency" is a new buzz word for "Iraqi civil war".
Ain't it great to be in the middle of it for no fucking reason whatsoever?

Oh yeah, let's kick the shit out of Venezuela, too, now.

http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/news/newsbyid.asp?id=20281

Hmmm...why could that be? Beyond the reasons Dr. Rice states? Anyone? Anyone?

Yeah, Saddam had weapons...that the US GAVE HIM. Last time he had them was in the mid 80's-early 90's, until he used them on the Kurds.

That ass clown Reagan was handing Saddam WMD's left and right illegally behind Congress's back. Seriously, this whole mess lays at the feet of that wrinkled old turd. Alzheimer's was too nice of a way for that devil to go.

As was said earlier...Saddam couldn't even hide HIMSELF...how could he mastermind the hiding of tons and tons of WMD's? Come on...you righties aren't REALLY this stupid are you?

oh wait...you DID re-elect Bush. You just might BE that stupid.

Yes, who is that dapper young sadist cozying up with the maniacal Saddam Hussein?

Is that Ted Kennedy in the background?

Maybe. He probably took a wrong turn just past the Chappaquidick.