ComputerBB

this is gonna be a joke

lol, that was great.!

Right now I am watching Kerry tear Bush apart in the real debate. Bush can barely formulate a sentence that doesn't rely on some overly simplistic campaign slogan he and his cohorts have been repeating for the past 6 months. Kerry is using reality and truth, and he's winning the debate.

I am also watching... Kerry says things like we are going to do something about it but he isnt saying what.. Why dont we just let out Orange Fever there and everyone dies!

I'll make one quick remark about the debate. For the first hour or so, all that could really be noticed was Bush's weak articulation, which contrasted with Kerry's. Concentrating on the message of the candidates, though, which is much more important, they were about even in how well they did.

At the end, Kerry said that we should go it alone into North Korea, after criticizing Bush for going along into Iraq. Kerry repeated it many times in the last few minutes that we should ditch China and the UN and go into North Korea. Hypocrasy at its best.

Kerry said that Bush's plan in Iraq has failed, that we need a new plan.
When is failure only 1000 casualties that stopped a nuclear war that would have knocked 6 billion people off of the face of the world?

The UN is corrupt. They see America as the New Roman Empire and then as the barbarians. They will sacrifice their well being in order to seize power greater than the US. A vote for Kerry is a destructive vote. A vote for Bush is a vote of security.

Why change a working plan?

That is exactly my point.. The war is very close to being over.. A new govenment is being set up and toops will be there for only a couple more years... My point is that Bush is doing exactly what he is supposed to be doing, and doing a hell of a job too...

I couldn't disagree more.

Too all right wingers:

Tebow2000 - First, your post makes absolutely no sense. The second post contradicts the CIA's own assessment (the same ones used before Iraq), which states clearly that a classic guerilla war has just begun and that conflict there is far from over.

Agressor Prime - Iraq would or could never have started a nuclear holocaust, which is what you seem to be saying. That's ridiculous. Failure is saying you will bring peace and bringing only war and death.

Smartweb - I agree, Bush was inconcise and weak compared to Kerry's strong and clear speech. Kerry crushed the misconceptions of weakness that the right has been pushing. As for your second paragraph, the only reason Bush did not negotiate directly with North Korea is because that's what Clinton did. China was all too happy to take up a weak handed attempt at diplomacy to win favor with the US and respect at home - though real negotiation has not yet occurred. China and North korea are both totalitarian states - both are communist nations with nuclear weapons that have mutual hate for Japan. They are the closest thing to allies nations like that will get. Kerry understands the only real pressure Kim Jong Il will respect will be that of the US.



Bush was befuddled and foolish - he sounded like a broken record repeating the same half-truths and rhetoric his campaign has spun for the past 6 months. It was almost as though Bush actually believed the party line on Kerry - that he was indecisive - and didn't prepare. The truth was out there tonight and here it is: Kerry is knowledgeable and decisive, a strong and intelligent man. I didn't like Kerry until I saw him tonight, the quote:

"He [Saddam] was a threat. That's not the issue. It's what you do about the threat."

It was the strongest line in the debate. Kerry was fed up with Bush repeating the same old shit and he articulated this very clearly.

Suvorov wrote:Agressor Prime - Iraq would or could never have started a nuclear holocaust, which is what you seem to be saying. That's ridiculous. Failure is saying you will bring peace and bringing only war and .

War was needed if you call this a war. Wars normally have millions of casualties. We have a mere 1000. 1000 Americans sacrificed their lives to allow us to not live in fear. It doesn't matter what we think we know. What matters is what could be. We couldn't find WDMs so we think they didn't have any. Why would you not want inspectors to inspect you if you didn't have WDMs? What, is it against your religion? My theory stands that Iraq aquired nukes, hid them with the UN, and are waiting for the perfect time to strike. Even if they never had WDMs, what they kept unhidden was far worse. If you thought the 20th century was bad, welcome to the 21st. The 20th century looks like a church compared to the 21st. We are all going to meet destruction if we will vote for Kerry or someone like him in the future.

First we will start to lose ground in Iraq. Then the president will act French and pull out. Then the bad Iraqies get their nukes back from the UN, fire upon New York, and guess what, World War III in 30 seconds, literally.

All I know is, I'll be well out of earth's atmosophere once it reaches above 1000C. I don't want my supercomputers to fry.

Basically, all I am trying to say is, let us not be Frenchmen by complaining about 1000 casualties. Let us be Americans and kick some terroists' behinds.

War was needed if you call this a war. Wars normally have millions of casualties. We have a mere 1000. 1000 Americans sacrificed their lives to allow us to not live in fear.

I also agree with AP on this one... Their were millions of deaths in WWI and WWII, and only but a thousand here... Dosen't it sound like the president has done a tremendous job keeping the rate down.?

I don't do math with human lives. War is war: men, women and children are killed needlessly.

Edit: Opps, clicked on the wrong botton. Really, I am very sorry. Please retype what you said. Again, I am so sorry. I enjoy talking with you about this topic, I just hit edit instead of quote.
-Aggressor Prime

We can either die here ot there. and besides, war is not the main issue. (Not to stray away or anything.) Kerry uses the war to blind us from the bigger issue: abortion.

Kerry supports it.
Bush does not.
Kerry wants to use war money that would be used to protect us in "health care."
Abortion is health care.
Bush is taking money out of abortion centers and putting it into the war.
Bush stops abortion and allows us to live in a secure environment.
Everything that Kerry says made him look like an idiot in global politics. He is doing everything in his power to make Bush look bad. He doesn't understand the situation on the war. All he wants to be is a power freak. And if it means another 911, if it means explosions in abortion rates, if it means another World War, he is willing to do that because he is a power freak.

Hold on. First, I wholeheartedly agree with Suvorov's statement concering Aggressor Prime's opinion that Iraq would have the whole world to be nuked.

So next, yes Bush can't articulate. There's nothing new about that. But he was not inconcise. He attacked Kerry's record, and plus guess what Kerry said:

John Kerry wrote:Well, you know, when I talked about the $87 billion, I made a mistake in how I talk about the war. But the president made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is worse?

So Kerry finally admits that he has messed up with all of his war positions, but he was not just talking about the war when he *voted* against the $87 billion, he was voting in the Senate! He clearly doesn't understand reponsibility.

We will continue to see the effects of the Iraq war for years to come, and Bush's poor speaking will not change that. We've already seen Libya disarm, and the war will greatly help in diplomacy with Iran and North Korea. Kerry himself is probably for the war but has sometimes said that he's against it when he's in front of a crowd that wants to hear him say that he's anti-war.

Kerry is constantly changing his position to appear good to voters, but Bush sticks to his message and remains clear. Even within the debate, Kerry presents loads of contradicting statements. For instance, Kerry says that the Iraq war was a mistake, but later says that the soldiers aren't dying for a mistake to look good answering Lehrer's question. That's how Kerry gets his votes.

Kerry is knowledgable and decisive says Sovorov, and Suvorov is correct. Suvorov doesn't say, however, that Bush is too. He doesn't articulate it, but is it more important for a President to be able to lead or to be able to articulate well, that is the question that voters will answer this November.

On a side note, I was just in Boulder last weekend.

Where do you think the nukes are?
Most likely there were nukes, what did Iraq not want the inspectors to see?

Iraq was developing nukes but destroyed evidence shortly before the war. Whatever they had would not have been able to come close to complete destruction of civilization. If he had nukes, they'd have either been used on Israel or given to terrorists.

But why was the UN giving Iraq 6 months to get rid of the WMDs?

Those were the 6 months of diplomacy that failed, idiot.

Kerry said that the war in Iraq was a mistake, but later says teh the troops in iraq didn't die for a mistake?!

oh My teacher told me that an Iraqi scientist recently wrote a book i think it called "Theres a bomb in my Garden" and he said that when inspectors came around looking for nulcear meterial he burried the items in his garden.

yes bush didn't debate very well, he mentioned several things over and over because he is porpusly doing it not that he has nothing to say. Like kerry is saying how he will be such a great leader in this war, bush is trying to say how can he be so good if he says wrong war, wrong place, ect. he trying to prove a point not sound monotonus

I think the issue here is how America deals with threats. America saw a threat in Iraq after 9/11, but it refused to allow diplomacy and sanctions to continue their work. It is obvious now that Iraq did not have significant weapons stockpiles (perhaps even none) and that the threat in Iraq was blown out of proprtion to reality and going to war was a mistake. However, to say that having Americans die there to help the people we displaced is a mistake would be to cut and run from the burden we loaded on their people's shoulders. The position is clear, but because of Bush's black and white view of global politics and war we don't see the nuance this situation entals. Bush simplifies the war too much, leading us down a path of stubborn ignorance. Bush gets his vote by dumbing the world down to good vs. evil and saying he is good and terrorism (a wide, nebulous ideology that can never be defeated) is evil.

"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to greater danger. It works the same in any country."

-Hermann Goering (1893 - 1946)
Commander-in-Chief of the Luftwaffe, President of the Reichstag, Prime Minister of Prussia and Hitler's designated successor

Is that not completely applicable here? I remember Cheney saying that a vote for Kerry will bring another 9/11 style attack. This, politically speaking, is one of the oldest tricks in the book, a Machiavellian power strategy I thought America would have the good sense and knowledge to avoid.

http://www.theboywhocriediraq.com/

This is an essay that's been circulating for a while, it has some good points and arguments. It's also fairly inflammatory and opinionated.

Must I say it again that the Iraq war is not just about Iraq? It ended Libya's WMD program and will help greatly in diplomacy with Iran and North Korea. And 18 UN resolutions were passed in the attempt for diplomacy. Saddam was not cooperating, so it was time to remove him. The world is better off without him in power. Less people are dying in Iraq now than were dying when he was massacring them. Bush sees the wisdom in the war, but you don't because you have accepted the liberal propaganda that tries to scare people into voting for Kerry.

First of all, I don't believe in war for any purpose - especially when it is war waged as an example. That echoes the containment days of the cold war - when Americans died in bitter civil wars because of their proximity to the USSR. Must I remind you that it is because of these conflicts that the problems we now face today are appearing? The CIA trained Osama Bin Laden and other Jihadists to use stinger missiles in Afghanistan, the US maintains a storng military presence in North Korea because of the war fought there, and Vietnam and the Phillipines (Who's land we took and built military bases on) are quickly becoming new centers of radical muslim ideology. Not to mention Saudi Arabia, the homeland of the majority of the 9/11 hijackers, where our military bases desecrate the holiest land in Islam.

But, I will agree, if any good comes from this war it will be from diplomatic strength, showing the world that we are crazy enough to attack you for absolutely no reason at all and without provocation or warning. But, lo and behold, North Korea and Iran actually began their nuclear program when they saw us enter Iraq, they realized we were tied down and that the only deterrent to American power is the nuclear threat.

I doubt that less people are dying now than when Saddam was in power, that doesn't make logical sense. If that were true Saddam would have been dealing with the same insurgency that we are. How much worse conditions must be when circumstances force you to fight the strongest military on Earth when a much weaker military existed before it? While Saddam was brutal, all-out urban warfare is worse.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

There is no wisdom in war.

And talk about accepting propaganda - Saddam was cooperating with those goddamn resolutions! Why else would there not be any weapons in Iraq? You think it is easy to conceal a nuclear or chemical weapons program from the world's most technological army? We had dozens of spy satellites locked on 'suspicious buildings' in Iraq, if materials were destroyed would we not know about it?

And let's talk about scare tactics: The terror alert system is a vague and irresponsible guide to how easily culpable the administration wants you, the people, to be. There is never any evidence, never any clues or areas that one should look out for. They simply issue a new color to coincide with some ad campaign or new revision to the patriot act that tears away our personal freedoms. Open your eyes.

Suvorov wrote:And talk about accepting propaganda - Saddam was cooperating with those goddamn resolutions! Why else would there not be any weapons in Iraq? You think it is easy to conceal a nuclear or chemical weapons program from the world's most technological army? We had dozens of spy satellites locked on 'suspicious buildings' in Iraq, if materials were destroyed would we not know about it?

Israel had been saying for months before the US attacked Iraq that they were in the process of shipping what was probaly WMD into Syria.

See here, here, and here.

Oh, and since this topic is really about the debate, lets not forget to mention that Kerry cheated (or look here), even if you say it was only a pen (which it most definetly does NOT look like).

But I do agree that Kerry came across as sounding much better. (Then again, he probably had that cheat sheet)

First of all, aishel, how does your sentence there even relate to your point? If that were true we would be investigating Syria or we would have stopped those shipments. As for the pen-gate thing it's just the republicans changing the focus of media attention away from the fact Kerry won the debate.

Suvorov wrote:As for the pen-gate thing it's just the republicans changing the focus of media attention away from the fact Kerry won the debate.

Yeah, like the Democrats never did that.

Suvorov wrote:First of all, aishel, how does your sentence there even relate to your point? If that were true we would be investigating Syria or we would have stopped those shipments. As for the pen-gate thing it's just the republicans changing the focus of media attention away from the fact Kerry won the debate.

This is where I agree with your sentiments that Bush hasn't followed through on going after all axis' of evil "no matter where they are." You're right. I'd like to see him bomb the Iranians, Saudi's, and North Koreans too. I know he isn't, however, I'd rather go after some countries with WMD than none at all.

As for the pen-gate thing it's just the republicans changing the focus of media attention away from the fact Kerry won the debate.

And what would happen if Bush was caught cheating? Would the Democrats just 'try changing focus?' The plain fact is that he did indeed take a pen out of his pocket, and that was against the rules.

"It's just a pen," you'll say? This is the fight for the NEXT LEADER OF THE UNITED STATES! I've heard so many kids say things like "if Clinton could lie under oath, why do I have to tell the truth?" These people should be setting examples! If someone is willing to lie and cheat over something as 'small' as this, who knows what he'll do on something on a greater level?

Aishel if you truly believe we should bomb every nation on your list than you are either...

A- An Idiot
B- A Child
C- A Nazi

Check which one applies. War is not cheap or easy or fun, nor is it something to be taken lightly. I don't want to be drafted, do you?

You are making a moral argument about a man using a pen when a president who knows nothing of war drops bombs on the rooftops of innocent people? I know it's hard, but pull your head out of your ass and realize the larger moral issues at stake here.

"O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with hurricanes of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with their little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it – for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen."

-Mark Twain, "The War Prayer"

Suvorov wrote:Aishel if you truly believe we should bomb every nation on your list than you are either...

A- An Idiot
B- A Child
C- A Nazi

Check which one applies. War is not cheap or easy or fun, nor is it something to be taken lightly. I don't want to be drafted, do you?

My point there was that had Bush done what he had promised to do, those are countries that he should have bombed as well. He has not followed through on those promises.

You're right, I don't want to be drafted. You're right, war is ugly. But is it always unnecessary? Was WWII unnecessary? You said: "I don't believe in war for any purpose." So we should have let the Japanese try to destroy our entire Navy at Pearl Harbor? We should have let Hitler try and conquer Europe?

War is ugly, no doubt about it. But just like nothing would have stopped Japan or Germany from continuuing to try and conquer their respective regions, we need to make sure people like Sadaam are stopped. I'm sure you remember when Sadaam gassed his own people. We all know his thoughts against Israel. Would we have acted on them had he had nukes? Probably.

And before you say that its all hypothetical, its also hypothetical to argue that he wouldn't use the nukes. We already have the proof that he was willing to use gas on his own people, and to continue to kill large amounts of citizens and dump them all into mass graves. The guy was a killer, and a psycho.

We needed to get rid of him.

Suvorov's Manifesto Of Reform

Yes, war is completely unneccessary. If we were to stop the roots of war, ignorance and fear, there would never again be another war. For millenia the people in power have used fear and ignorance to further their own agendas. Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito came to power by appealing to and profiting from their people's ignorance and fear. Their people committed all of humanity to the will of these people.

Bush used the ignorance and fear of the Middle East and of Terrorism to wage a commercial war using the sons and daughters of poor America.

"When the institutions of money rule the world, it is perhaps inevitable that the interests of money will take precedence over the interests of people. What we are experiencing might best be described as a case of money colonizing life. To accept this absurd distortion of human institutions and purpose should be considered nothing less than an act of collective, suicidal insanity."
-David Korten

I will say again what I have said many, many times before. Saddam was an evil, evil man - I agree. He was a real threat to the nations around him and perhaps even to us.

"He [Saddam] was a threat. That's not the issue. It's what you do about the threat."

Because there are hundreds of terrorists and dictators out there that are just as bad and perhaps even worse than Saddam Hussein. People like Kim Jong Il.

That we would compromise the search for a man that actually attacked us for a man that hadn't is injustice enough to the people of New York and Washington D.C - even without the fact that the war we waged over there has killed nearly 14,000 innocent Iraqis and over 1000 Americans and hasn't provided a single positive element to their nation.

That is inexcusable. People need to be held accountable. As the man solely responsible for the conflict over there, President Bush should be held accountable for everything that has happened and will happen as a result of this war.

If you feel that Bush has handled this nation well and kept it's best interests in mind than go ahead, give him your vote and prove once and for all that we are happy living a lie and we are perfectly content having the tax money we paid to our government for things like education, social security, police and fire fighters used instead for the smart bombs and tanks laying waste to a nation that did nothing to us. Voting for Bush says there is nothing wrong in the world today, that presented the same options you too would have attacked Iraq without rhyme or reason.

Sleep well with this in mind and you cannot claim to be human.

Ok, so what you're trying to do is say (again) that America is like pre-WWII Germany, Italy, or Japan. That's complete BS.

Pre-War Germany:
Brutal, Mentally Unstable Dictator
Sites of Mass Murder
At first crippled by WWI Peace Treaty, but later ignores treaty and builds up military
Lead by leader who views neighboring countries as theirs by right
Pursued WMD's but never actually finished one

Pre-War Iraq:
Brutal, Mentally Unstable Dictator
Sites of Mass Murder
Crippled by Desert Storm Peace Treaty, but not yet violating it.
Lead by leader who views neighboring countries as theirs by right
Pursued WMD's but never actually finished one

There were clearly great similarities between Nazi Germany and Pre-War Iraq. Practically everyone saw this threat in Saddam Hussein, even Suvorov. Perhaps we actually learned from History this time and didn't let the threat become a bigger threat ... but ... the question I think is if we rushed to war ignoring our allies. Let's take a look back at history again. The Allied powers in Europe in the 1930's saw a threat in Hitler and ignored him until he was about to invade them. That sounds like what we had with Iraq, and the French were doing it again. So should we let these proven failures at handling threats decide whether we handle this new threat? Hell no!

Iraq is a quagmire like Vietnam? That is the other thing held against Bush. The truth of the situation in Iraq is that the insurgents are loosing by January's elections, they will have lost control over all the cities in Iraq that they now have. We took one of those cities back this week.

There's a very simple cause of the Anti-Bush hipe in America now: Bush lost the popular vote in 2000, so the Democrats as well as the liberal media are feeling extra hateful towards Bush, and they will take all chances to bash him as they can. The propaganda is increased, the reality is normal. Bush is not a Hitler who lies to his country, that would be Saddam Hussein and the liberal media.

But even if that does not convince you to vote for Bush, remember that Kerry if elected will act in whatever way American politics pushes him. Bush will lead the world to a peaceful future, and with four more years he will settle the Iran and North Korea nuclear weapons issues to clear the way for a safer world.

Well said SmartWeb.

(I'm not going to have internet access for several days, but I'll be back)

I agree with what aishel said. Well said smartweb.. The circumstances were the same in some type of way..

I never compared pre-war Germany to America, I debunked the idea the pre-war Iraq was a threat equal to that of those 3 nations.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/ ... index.html

That's reality.


You say we are winning in Iraq? Let's look at the guerilla warfare in general. It has been called the most successful form of warfare known toman, all it takes to win is simply to not lose. If America 'reclaims' a city, it takes it in much the same way it captured Baghdad at the beginning of the war, Bush's 'catastrophic success'. The insurgents will fade away to another city and strike there, causing the same unrest that sparked the US's attack in the first place. This isn't WWI, trench warfare, fellas. The enemy will not wait to get targeted by smart bombs and snipers, they move among the people and strike from the shadows. That's the nature of the enemy.

There are many, many reasons to dislike Bush, the stolen election not withstanding. And liberal media is not, as you say, Hitler. You sound like Ann Coulter.

Did you ever maybe think that an elected official, a representative of the people, should be governed by those who elected him? Isn't that the basis of an representative democracy like ours? And what evidence is there that Bush will lead us to a peaceful world? Where does that come from? Faith will not save you from reality, friends, and Bush is not god. All we have to go on is what he has done, the real facts, and they do not lie.

Suvorov wrote:I never compared pre-war Germany to America, I debunked the idea the pre-war Iraq was a threat equal to that of those 3 nations.

You said that Bush lied to America as Hitler lied to Germany.

Suvorov wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report.ap/index.html

That's reality.

That's liberal propaganda based in reality.

Suvorov wrote:You say we are winning in Iraq? Let's look at the guerilla warfare in general. It has been called the most successful form of warfare known toman, all it takes to win is simply to not lose. If America 'reclaims' a city, it takes it in much the same way it captured Baghdad at the beginning of the war, Bush's 'catastrophic success'. The insurgents will fade away to another city and strike there, causing the same unrest that sparked the US's attack in the first place. This isn't WWI, trench warfare, fellas. The enemy will not wait to get targeted by smart bombs and snipers, they move among the people and strike from the shadows. That's the nature of the enemy.

The world will soon see that there is a limited number of insurgents in Iraq. There aren't many more than what you see in the news, which makes it look like there are a lot. They will be defeated within a few years, and Iraq will be a stable country. What the news media has achieved by making you think that there is an endless supply of insurgents in Iraq is a true "catastrophic success."

Suvorov wrote:There are many, many reasons to dislike Bush, the stolen election not withstanding. And liberal media is not, as you say, Hitler. You sound like Ann Coulter.

I never said that there weren't more reasons that Democrats hate Bush, I said that that is one reason. I did not say that the media is like Hitler either, I said that they are much closer to the liars that you compared Bush to than Bush is.

Suvorov wrote:Did you ever maybe think that an elected official, a representative of the people, should be governed by those who elected him? Isn't that the basis of an representative democracy like ours? And what evidence is there that Bush will lead us to a peaceful world? Where does that come from? Faith will not save you from reality, friends, and Bush is not god. All we have to go on is what he has done, the real facts, and they do not lie.

A slight majority agrees with President Bush's decision to go into Iraq, but it is nonetheless a majority. So you say he should not go in because the minority says we shouldn't have? That doesn't quite sound like a representative democracy to me.

You hardly touched my argument. I'm not sure whether that means that you agree, you disagree with but cannot make an argument to counter my argument, or you just simply didn't bother answering my argument. I know you can do better than this ....

You're right - I said that Bush, as leader of our nation, lied to America. He lied to our nation by falsely connecting Iraq to Al Qaeda, two completely different threats. This lie is similar in that as Hitler falsely connects 2 things (Jews and Germany's Post-WWI Difficulties), Bush falsely connects 2 other things (Terrorism/9-11 and Iraq). There is no strategic connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

Moving on:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134625,00.html

Don't tell me Fox News is liberal propaganda or I will quit this argument altogether. This article proves that America's war against Iraq was illegal, no matter what good intentions lay behind them. You cannot attack a nation without reason. This is like killing a man you thought was going to kill your wife and realizing he didn't even know her. Good intentions maybe, but you still killed the man. And don't use the 'bad guy' argument, I will counter by saying there are hundreds of bad guys out there and that killing one matters little in the price you have paid and will have to pay for your crime.

Yes, we will see the outcome of this war for years to come.

As for news media, Liberal propaganda and conservative propaganda are both the voice of a free and democratic nation.

As for the fact that a majority agrees with the Iraqi Occupation, just visit these links here.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq ... poll_x.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq ... poll_x.htm
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34313
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/Worl ... _iraq.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5189004/

I will concede that you are right about people agreeing with the war in Iraq. I suppose that is why I am here arguing today, and why I have kept on arguing for so damn long.

I feel that the war in Iraq has made us less safe, stolen thousands of innocent lives and cost us more than it will ever pay back. I feel that Iraq constituted far less of a threat than Al Qaeda did at that time and that the war there has only bred new recruits to Al Qaeda and allowed them easy access to Americans, as evidenced by the hundreds of decapitations there. I feel that breaking the laws set by the UN has compromised the US both in terms of security and in terms of global communication and trust. We now know that Iran and North Korea have taken this conflict as evidence that the US will easily destroy a nation without WMD's and respect those that have them. Removing American strength from those two diplomatic situations has weakened global security as a whole. I feel that we were led to this current situation by poor leadership.

A reson why we didn't invade Iran or any other badguy is they haven't broken 12 years worth of UN resolutions. Kerry wanted more resolutions to be broken. I saw on the news that Iraq never had any WMD's since 1991, but Sadaam told his leaders that he did have them only to keep countries like the US and Iran from invading. He lied to his top people saying he did have them.

How is what you said any defense of the war? The man was crushed from the first gulf war, he held no power and sought only to create the image of WMD's to keep Iran from invading. He personally believed that the idea that he had WMD's kept Iran from invading during the Iraq-Iran war. The irony here is that by simply pretending to have WMD's he brought destruction upon himself.

To go back to the analogy I had made before, Germany was utterly crippled after WWI, but they sure came back.

Germany lost only men in WWI, the amount of bombs dropped in the Gulf War was monstruosly larger than the amount dropped by any ally nation in WWI. Germany's homeland was basically untouched, though their economy was destroyed by the fallout of the ally trade embargos. They had more than 30 years of economic aid. From America and Great Britain. Your analogy is false and over-simplified, something Bush would use at a campaign stop.

A quick little note, Germany depended on the people a lot more then Sadaam did, all he did was take the oil money to fund everything.

Suvorov wrote:You're right - I said that Bush, as leader of our nation, lied to America. He lied to our nation by falsely connecting Iraq to Al Qaeda, two completely different threats. This lie is similar in that as Hitler falsely connects 2 things (Jews and Germany's Post-WWI Difficulties), Bush falsely connects 2 other things (Terrorism/9-11 and Iraq). There is no strategic connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

If A=B and B=C, then A=C.

Al Qaeda = Terror.
Iraq = Terror
Therefore, Al Qaeda = Iraq.

Moving on:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134625,00.html

Don't tell me Fox News is liberal propaganda or I will quit this argument altogether. This article proves that America's war against Iraq was illegal, no matter what good intentions lay behind them. You cannot attack a nation without reason. This is like killing a man you thought was going to kill your wife and realizing he didn't even know her. Good intentions maybe, but you still killed the man. And don't use the 'bad guy' argument, I will counter by saying there are hundreds of bad guys out there and that killing one matters little in the price you have paid and will have to pay for your crime.

If there's 100 bad guys out there, and each one causes harm to 10 people, thats 1,000 people getting harmed. If you eliminate one of them, there's only 990 people getting harmed. Sadaam himself was worse than all 100 bad guys out there, which we see from the thousands of bodies we found in all the mass graves. He used gas on his own people.

Further, how do you expect Iraq to take us seriously when the main guy in charge of the $60 billion oil for food program is taking bribes? Read the Duelfer Report and the Key Findings (pdf) for more information on this.

As for the fact that a majority agrees with the Iraqi Occupation, just visit these links here.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq ... poll_x.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq ... poll_x.htm
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34313
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/Worl ... _iraq.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5189004/

After doing well with the FoxNews link, you just HAD to go ahead and use all very liberal news sources

I feel that the war in Iraq has made us less safe, stolen thousands of innocent lives and cost us more than it will ever pay back. I feel that Iraq constituted far less of a threat than Al Qaeda did at that time and that the war there has only bred new recruits to Al Qaeda and allowed them easy access to Americans, as evidenced by the hundreds of decapitations there. I feel that breaking the laws set by the UN has compromised the US both in terms of security and in terms of global communication and trust. We now know that Iran and North Korea have taken this conflict as evidence that the US will easily destroy a nation without WMD's and respect those that have them. Removing American strength from those two diplomatic situations has weakened global security as a whole. I feel that we were led to this current situation by poor leadership.

On the contrary. If you think that this is making us unsafe, then why are Hamas and Iran backing Kerry and not Bush? I think its funny and sad that terror groups are willing to go after someone who they know will be easily swayed by their actions.[/url]