06-09-2004, 02:12 PM
Now it's time for my opinion in this manner... President Bush, should win.
MMMM.... Oil :p
TroGdoR Wrote:He also attended Yale, and unlike Bush, he did fight over in Vietnam.Don't forget the fact that he threw his medals over a bridge in protest of a war he fought in instead of supporting the troops. Can we say connection, with the fact he wants to continue to send over troops to Iraq without body armor?
matt-thybrave Wrote:I hate how Bush is running the war. He's made it a war where we're trying not to kill people, so that we get killed. But leave him in office, let him fix what he started.He's tried to make the U.S. reputation look better to the rest of the world...
Nubli Wrote:According to Bush's plans, we are never EVER going to give control back to Iraq. And to top it off, US soldiers are to be stationed there for the next 20 years!QUOTE]How could you not want someone out of a position of power like that tell me that.
And how is that any different with us shipping troops to other countrys such as Japan, Germany, and Korea? Can you tell me that? And they have been there alot longer then 20 years... Don't tell me that a few more troops in a country will affect anything.
[QUOTE=TroGdoR]Ok, for this I have to comment. Saying Iraq is worse now than under Saddam is being plain foolish. Saddam's regime slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people.
snotling Wrote:I'm still confused why America is in Iraq. its political suicide, not to mention the ammount of time and money it costs, plus lives.What reputation do we have left, it's not political suicide. And for every solider we lose do you here how many die in Iraqies die fighting us? The answer is no. If they told the world, everyone would go crazy.
TroGdoR Wrote:Why are we in Iraq in the first place? Well for one, nobody liked the thought that a power-hungry dictator could have control over chemical and biological weapons and funding money towards developing nuclear weapons. Saddam is not afraid to use these weapons in an offensive manner.Oh, don't forget the part that my 2010 he would have the ability to launch missiles anywhere he wanted globally. But, then again thats why we have patriot missiles.
snotling Wrote:What??So constant war is "stabilizing" is it?
Suddam was like the only stabilizing force in that region, which is why America supported him in the first place. The war against Iran as you might remember was funded by the US. The US supplied him with biological and chemical weapons and then conveniantly turned their back when he started to gas the kurds.
As far as kuwait goes, well Suddam played his cards, Kuwait were refusing to follow OPEC guidlines and Suddam conveniantly used it as an exuse to annexe some of the kuwaiti riches. In the end it was bloody saudia arabia that pressured America to go into Iraq.
America had their chance to take out Suddam in 91, they missed it, Surrounded Iraqi troops were let back into the country fully armoured to quell a shi'te uprising, why because bush realised that keeping suddam there was the only choice he had or else plow the whole region into civil war.
Now, no weapons of mass destruction have been found and the country isnt exactly in any shape better then it used to be, except perhaps minus suddam, The reality is that its a damn mess, and not a damn thing can be done about it, Short of wiping out the whole population as you say. Of course im sure you can imagine the ramifications of that.
Dragon_keep Wrote:lol i vote for democratesI rarely come across a democrate that I like... in fact so far I havn't now that I think about it. (Sssh... Don't forget the Democrats started the Civil War... They supported slavery... And that's bad...)
MMMM.... Oil :p