Iraq declares State Of Emergency

[Guest INXS]

Yup. I wonder how many Iraqi's wish that Saddam was still around?

No one that has any respect for life., you fucking asshole.

Woah, check your manners pal.

 

You seem to have a distorted view of Saddam's Iraq.

I have a distorted view? I have a distorted view?

 

You uptight, self-righteous PRICK. How DARE you belittle anything our services are doing. I don't give a damn what Michael Moore told you, let's get a few things straight:

 

Overall, in Iraq, things are BETTER now. People learn just enough english to thank American soldiers for coming. Fallujah? There aren't civilians left, they've run the hell out of there, so basically what's left there is pure evil.

 

I swear, people like you make me so damn sick.

That's where we differ then, as I don't believe that at the moment Saddam's Iraq was any worse than Iraq is now. Both have huge downsides. I do, however, believe that we will get there eventually and that in the future Iraq will be a safe, democratic country with an economy and infastructure.

 

It wasn't my intention to 'belittle' the Armed forces and i'm not sure how you thought that I was doing that?

[Guest INXS]

I agree, I've had about 6 friends that have been or are there currently.  I seriously consider punching people like INXS in the face when they spout this garbage.

Whether you or anyone else has friends/relatives over there it doesn't really come in to this; I fully support American and British troops, it's not their fault that they have been sent to fight a war for oil. Of course we aren't deliberately killing civilians and wrecking Iraqi's infastructure but it IS happenning. Now, saying that, I think my question was valid; I am willing to bet that a fair number of Iraqi's prefered life under Saddam (unless they were Iraqi Kurds).

Cuz . . . MAN, those gas prices have come DOWN since the War ended.

No, Gas/oil prices haven't come down for the consume, but they have for the oil companies that now have the contracts to pump oil from inside Iraq.

[bob_barron 0]

And if the prices for the oil companies went down then the price of gas would go down.

 

It's basic math

[The Czech Republic 0]

He's saying the oil companies aren't passing the savings on to us, Bob

[Guest INXS]

So, you're branding me a racist or something?

I wasn't exactly being subtle about it.

If I didn't CARE about the people of Iraq I wouldn't be so concerned about the civilian deaths over there. You're ignorance is astounding.

No, you want them to live under a tyrant who killed untold hundreds of thousands randomly.

True Cheesala, Saddam's Iraq did have rape rooms. Infact they are still there, under the name Abu Gharib, with a bit of murder and torture thrown in for good measure courtesy of the US Military ;p

We all KNOW you're an idiot. Your attempts to further prove it, while admirable, are not needed.

-=Mike

An amazing amount of ignorance displayed, yet again. I don't WANT Iraq to be ruled by a tyrant who murders quarters of his own people, not at all. I want Iraq to be a peaceful dermocracy. yet again, the point I am raising is how many Iraqi's prefered life under Saddam compared to the current quagmire?

 

I already know that you are an ignorant idiot who is either brainwashed or gimmick poster.

[Guest BDC]

You belittlement of OUR soldiers is that they've not accomplished anything, that Hussien's regime was better than what's going on now, and those sacrifices you're so fucking willing to throw in our faces are for nothing.

 

I'm still at a loss how you got so damned disillusioned.

[Guest MikeSC]

An amazing amount of ignorance displayed, yet again.

I know. I would have edited out your comments, but it would've hampered my points.

I don't WANT Iraq to be ruled by a tyrant who murders quarters of his own people, not at all. I want Iraq to be a peaceful dermocracy. yet again, the point I am raising is how many Iraqi's prefered life under Saddam compared to the current quagmire?

According to polls, about 30%.

I already know that you are an ignorant idiot who is either brainwashed or gimmick poster.

Lookin' in the mirror, eh?

-=Mike

[bob_barron 0]

He's saying the oil companies aren't passing the savings on to us, Bob

I know- and I think he's wrong as usual

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

According to polls, about 30%.

 

Again I ask, how could they have possibly gotten a decent sample for that poll?

[Guest Loss]

I absolutely don't think things were better under Saddam, nor do I think any Iraqi in his right mind wishes Saddam Hussein was in power. Saddam needed to be removed from power, and this is something that will be a good thing in the long run I think. I just don't know that we needed to be there in the first place, and I disagreed with the implication (even if it was never said) from this administration that we were entering Iraq to avenge 9/11.

[Guest MikeSC]

I absolutely don't think things were better under Saddam, nor do I think any Iraqi in his right mind wishes Saddam Hussein was in power. Saddam needed to be removed from power, and this is something that will be a good thing in the long run I think. I just don't know that we needed to be there in the first place, and I disagreed with the implication (even if it was never said) from this administration that we were entering Iraq to avenge 9/11.

The administration never stated that. They said this was a battle in the overall war on terrorism, which it absolutely is. 9/11 was never a reason for this given by the administration.

-=Mike

[AboveAverage484 0]

My hippie friend said there was a poll in the U.K. that said 45% of Britons fear Saddam the most, but 45% fear Bush the most, and 10% fear both. Why should I throw his argument out and tell him he's full of shit?

Because hippies suck ass.

[Vanhalen 0]

The administration never stated that. They said this was a battle in the overall war on terrorism, which it absolutely is. 9/11 was never a reason for this given by the administration.

-=Mike

Mike, I remember numerous times both Blair and the Bush administrations stating that Saddam Hussein was in part responsible for 9/11

[Guest MikeSC]

The administration never stated that. They said this was a battle in the overall war on terrorism, which it absolutely is. 9/11 was never a reason for this given by the administration.

          -=Mike

Mike, I remember numerous times both Blair and the Bush administrations stating that Saddam Hussein was in part responsible for 9/11

The Bush administration never once said Saddam was behind 9/11.

-=Mike

[2GOLD 0]

The administration never stated that. They said this was a battle in the overall war on terrorism, which it absolutely is. 9/11 was never a reason for this given by the administration.

          -=Mike

Mike, I remember numerous times both Blair and the Bush administrations stating that Saddam Hussein was in part responsible for 9/11

 

Yeah, but the goal of removing Saddam was always to stop future terrorist funding. His money may or may not have been used in connection with 9/11. Turns out his money wasn't used in connection with THAT attack but it didn't mean he wasn't funding terrorist elsewhere.

 

Frankly, I don't care if he didn't have anything to do with 9/11. Saddam gave money to terrorist somewhere and he was a brutal monster to his people, so good enough for me.

 

I'm still pissed off we listened to the UN in the first place during the first Gulf War. Should have stayed and helped the rebels finish the job instead of listening to the UN and backing off. Iraq could have been a stable country by now if we had ignored the UN during the Gulf War. Instead we had to overthrow a government and listen to people, who apparently have brains the size of corn chips, be SHOCKED that the region is in a little bit of chaos.

 

Anyone who thought it would take us less than 5 years to remove Saddam, get the new government a chance to set up and stablize the region was a moron.

[Vanhalen 0]

Found in 2 minutes via google

 

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles...911_challenged/

 

No doubt this website is some biased lefty liberal site, and therefore should de discounted immediatly tho

[2GOLD 0]

Well, even in that he says "we don't know", which was the truth. There was a reported meeting that was looked into but that wasn't the reason for the attack. But there was a meeting and no one knew.

 

So he doesn't say, "yes there is a connection". He says "there might have been, we don't have all the evidence gathered".

 

Basically, he handled it like a cop.

[Guest Sagrada3099]

Okay.

 

I'm a Democrat. If I hear the phrase "war for oil" again from any Democrats mouth, I might very well puke blood.

 

Shut up about it. Shut the fuck up for once and try to listen to yourselves. Y'know what? It may very well be a war that was fought with oil as a big factor. There's a real shocker, innit folks? Human beings making decisions based on what might benefit them in the future!

 

It's a radical concept, I know, but you try to tell me when the last time was that you did something without even the SLIGHTEST hope of reimbursment, or an ulterior motive lurking in the back of your mind.

 

Do that, then shut the fuck up about this "war for oil" shit.

 

Believe it or not, it's kinda been overused.

[Guest MikeSC]

Found in 2 minutes via google

 

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles...911_challenged/

 

No doubt this website is some biased lefty liberal site, and therefore should de discounted immediatly tho

"We don't know" is "Saddam was behind it"?

 

Al Qaeda sending people to Iraq for training isn't exactly obscure knowledge.

-=Mike

[Guest INXS]

Al Qaeda didn't send anyone to Iraq for any training.

[Guest MikeSC]

Al Qaeda didn't send anyone to Iraq for any training.

Actually, they did. Do you think Iraq had terrorist training camps for the hell of it?

-=Mike

[Guest INXS]

The administration never stated that. They said this was a battle in the overall war on terrorism, which it absolutely is. 9/11 was never a reason for this given by the administration.

          -=Mike

Mike, I remember numerous times both Blair and the Bush administrations stating that Saddam Hussein was in part responsible for 9/11

The Bush administration never once said Saddam was behind 9/11.

-=Mike

Bush (and especially) Cheney blurred the lines between Saddam and 9/11. The less educated or even 'typical' American fell for this. Yes, no one came out and specifically said that there was a connection but the implication was there and it certainly seems intentional. In the run up to the election a disturbingly large proportion of American's believed that Saddam had a hand in 9/11, however small, which of course was not the case at all.

[Guest INXS]

Al Qaeda didn't send anyone to Iraq for any training.

Actually, they did. Do you think Iraq had terrorist training camps for the hell of it?

-=Mike

Iraq had terrorist training camps? Afghanistan, sure, but Iraq?

[Guest MikeSC]

Bush (and especially) Cheney blurred the lines between Saddam and 9/11.

That whole never saying there was a connection must be brutal.

The less educated or even 'typical' American fell for this.

Seeing you refer to anybody as "less educated" is the apex of comedy.

Yes, no one came out and specifically said that there was a connection but the implication was there and it certainly seems intentional.

The whole curse of them never saying that Saddam was behind it.

In the run up to the election a disturbingly large proportion of American's believed that Saddam had a hand in 9/11, however small, which of course was not the case at all.

Even stranger, since Bush never said he was involved.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

Al Qaeda didn't send anyone to Iraq for any training.

Actually, they did. Do you think Iraq had terrorist training camps for the hell of it?

-=Mike

Iraq had terrorist training camps? Afghanistan, sure, but Iraq?

Read up on Salman Pak.

-=Mike

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Bush (and especially) Cheney blurred the lines between Saddam and 9/11.

That whole never saying there was a connection must be brutal.

The less educated or even 'typical' American fell for this.

Seeing you refer to anybody as "less educated" is the apex of comedy.

Yes, no one came out and specifically said that there was a connection but the implication was there and it certainly seems intentional.

The whole curse of them never saying that Saddam was behind it.

In the run up to the election a disturbingly large proportion of American's believed that Saddam had a hand in 9/11, however small, which of course was not the case at all.

Even stranger, since Bush never said he was involved.

-=Mike

I-m-p-l-i-c-a-t-i-o-n-s.

[Guest MikeSC]

Bush (and especially) Cheney blurred the lines between Saddam and 9/11.

That whole never saying there was a connection must be brutal.

The less educated or even 'typical' American fell for this.

Seeing you refer to anybody as "less educated" is the apex of comedy.

Yes, no one came out and specifically said that there was a connection but the implication was there and it certainly seems intentional.

The whole curse of them never saying that Saddam was behind it.

In the run up to the election a disturbingly large proportion of American's believed that Saddam had a hand in 9/11, however small, which of course was not the case at all.

Even stranger, since Bush never said he was involved.

-=Mike

I-m-p-l-i-c-a-t-i-o-n-s.

Too bad Bush never made the implication.

-=Mike

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Bush (and especially) Cheney blurred the lines between Saddam and 9/11.

That whole never saying there was a connection must be brutal.

The less educated or even 'typical' American fell for this.

Seeing you refer to anybody as "less educated" is the apex of comedy.

Yes, no one came out and specifically said that there was a connection but the implication was there and it certainly seems intentional.

The whole curse of them never saying that Saddam was behind it.

In the run up to the election a disturbingly large proportion of American's believed that Saddam had a hand in 9/11, however small, which of course was not the case at all.

Even stranger, since Bush never said he was involved.

-=Mike

I-m-p-l-i-c-a-t-i-o-n-s.

Too bad Bush never made the implication.

-=Mike

Then why do so many Bush voters think that Saddam was tied to 9/11? I can show you a study on this if you'd like.

[Guest MikeSC]

Show a study if you wish.

 

Try finding a quote of Bush or Cheney saying it, as they did not do so.

-=Mike

[Guest INXS]

Bush (and especially) Cheney blurred the lines between Saddam and 9/11.

That whole never saying there was a connection must be brutal.

The less educated or even 'typical' American fell for this.

Seeing you refer to anybody as "less educated" is the apex of comedy.

Yes, no one came out and specifically said that there was a connection but the implication was there and it certainly seems intentional.

The whole curse of them never saying that Saddam was behind it.

In the run up to the election a disturbingly large proportion of American's believed that Saddam had a hand in 9/11, however small, which of course was not the case at all.

Even stranger, since Bush never said he was involved.

-=Mike

Well, THAT went totally over your head.

 

The lines between Saddam and 9/11 were blurred DELIBERATELY by the Bush administration to such an extent that many Americans were in the belief that Saddam had ties to 9/11.

 

Hell, the less educated and more ignorant of them still think that Al Qaeda had training camps in Iraq.

 

Which brings me on to:

 

Al Qaeda.

 

Go read a detailed history of the group and then come back to me.

 

Al Qaeda as an organised group with a rank structure simply doesn't exist.

 

Bin Laden bankrolls various small terrorist groups and assists logistically with attacks, as well as paying for fighters to be trained in camps in Afghanistan (not Iraq!).

 

Al Qaeda itself wasn't behind 9/11 if one wanted to be pedantic; it was the brainchild of a member of a smaller terrorist group as were the hijackers; Bin Laden provided money and logistical support.

 

All the smaller terrorist groups and Bin Laden, along with his aides, have all been coupled together under the umbrella 'Al Qaeda'.

 

*I feel I need to clarify my post before some of the less intelligent posters here go off the deep end. I am NOT saying that Bin Laden or Al Qaeda were not behind 9/11 - they were. My point is that Al Qaeda isn't structured like we are lead to commonly believe.