Why are we still in Iraq?

[Borne Too Loose]

If you follow the reasons that the gov't has given us for invading Iraq, you gotta wonder why were still there.
A: To find WMD. If so, we haven't found any, so what are we still looking for.
or
B: To remove a tyrant. done and done.

I don't know. i supported it strongly up until this point, but i am getting frustrated. Why are soldiers still dying if our inititives are completed?
Oil?
If so, we, as a nation, have all been sucker punched.

<IMG SRC=http://www.myimgs.com/data/sickboy4755/corleone.jpg>

AIM: BorneTooLoose or Sickboy4755

"All I Have In This World, Are My Balls and My Word, and I Don't Break 'em for Nobody."

[Ndugu]

so u want to abandon millions of poor people and leave them to be killed and tortured by sadaam loyalists

That's it Billy get the hell out of here!

[HBox]

I was against the war too, but pulling out now is foolish. We can't just be going around destroying countries and then abadoning them. That would turn Iraq into a terrorist bees nest. Why we went in there is irrelevant now. We have to make the best of it and, hopefully, Iraq will be a stable, functioning country.

If you think this war was a mistake, the only thing you can do is hold those who pushed it accountable in November.

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

[Heavy]

We're there because we promised that the people would be free and better off after the war. We always knew the hard part would be the door to door warfare, and thats what we're still doing. The war isnt over.

http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=JohneeWadd
A proportionate amount of props are equally distributed to my nigga's Fluff, Alexxis, CanOfSoup15, WWFallon and Katylina
HORDE KING FOREVER!!!
ORACLE NEVER!!!

[Borne Too Loose]

so u want to abandon millions of poor people and leave them to be killed and tortured by sadaam loyalists

of course not. i don't think we should have done it to begin with. but by stating, what are we doing? killing the saddam loyalists? what exactly are our troops doign to rebuild: escorting top names around.
if a civilization wanted to be out from under hussein so badly (and thats the way it appears) they are the majority. let them stand up to the loyalists.
The hardest part is done.
I don't want to see anyone suffer. but were getting fucked around. were being lied to, and decieved every day about why we are still there.
im not saying a full withdrawal, but why are there so many troops still there?

<IMG SRC=http://www.myimgs.com/data/sickboy4755/corleone.jpg>

AIM: BorneTooLoose or Sickboy4755

"All I Have In This World, Are My Balls and My Word, and I Don't Break 'em for Nobody."

[Ndugu]

If you think this war was a mistake, the only thing you can do is hold those who pushed it accountable in November.


so we can vote out cia intelligence officials now

That's it Billy get the hell out of here!

[Se7en]

If you think this war was a mistake, the only thing you can do is hold those who pushed it accountable in November.


so we can vote out cia intelligence officials now


I think I like you.

but by stating, what are we doing? killing the saddam loyalists? what exactly are our troops doign to rebuild: escorting top names around.

Americans are doing 101 things and more every day to bring Iraq out of the metaphorical (and in some instances, literal) dark ages, but you don't hear anything about that in the news because what sells more papers? Discussing how we helped rebuild a school the other day, or talking about the terrorist attacks in the relatively small portions of the country we haven't brought under our control?

if a civilization wanted to be out from under hussein so badly (and thats the way it appears) they are the majority. let them stand up to the loyalists.

Ah, I see.

Let's leave a general population, most of whom do not have any formal military training, to fend for themselves against groups of former Saddam military soldiers and cells of (likely) battle-hardened foreign terrorists.

GREAT IDEA. Let's get on it RIGHT NOW.

The hardest part is done.
I don't want to see anyone suffer.

I don't think anyone here does either, but pulling out now would have far, far WORSE repercussions than staying put.

but were getting fucked around. were being lied to, and decieved every day about why we are still there.

Um, proof?

Hell, not even the greatest of Bush's detractors have ever provided any shred of evidence that anyone in the administration knew our intelligence was as royally fucked up as it was.

Hell, there isn't one single intelligence agency in the WORLD that ever said Saddam had NO weapons of mass destruction.

<center><img border="0" src="http://se7enrfnet.homestead.com/files/bigosmelt.jpg" width="300" height="125">
<br>
<br>
<marquee behavior=alternate bgcolor="#FFFFFF">CAST IN THE NAME OF GOD, YE NOT GUILTY</marquee> </font>
</center>

[HBox]

so we can vote out cia intelligence officials now

The same CIA officials were there while Clinton was in office. They weren't the ones pushing for this war.

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

[mdr55]

Because we got to support the McDonald's that opened up there a few months ago.

But seriously, what good would pulling out now accomplish??

What I find funny is that the Army says there about 1 year away from catching Bin Laden. What do you think the chances are that they SOMEHOW catch him before the election?

(Place YOUR AD here) Call now!

[Ndugu]

TextThe same CIA officials were there while Clinton was in office. They weren't the ones pushing for this war.


they were telling him, dont u remember when he bombed the aspirin factory


That's it Billy get the hell out of here!

[Heavy]

The hardest part is done


The hardest part is going on right now. Beating thier army was easy as shit. And the military cant rebuild on any large scale. They dont have the experience, time, security or equipment to do any real rebuilding. That happens after ALL this shit is over and some lucky fucker gets the contract.

http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=JohneeWadd
A proportionate amount of props are equally distributed to my nigga's Fluff, Alexxis, CanOfSoup15, WWFallon and Katylina
HORDE KING FOREVER!!!
ORACLE NEVER!!!

[TheMojoPin]

Leaving now would be the biggest mistake.

That said, this war was never sold, for an INSTANT, as some great mission of liberty for the Iraqi people. It was sold, very explicitly and frequently, that Iraq (Specifically Saddam and co.) were a threat to US, and that's why they had to go down NOW. So knock off the wishy-washy, "oh, don't YOU want to free these people?" It's as bullshit and diversionary as, "oh, what, you don't support the troops?"

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[HBox]

they were telling him, dont u remember when he bombed the aspirin factory

That was when we bombed Sudan and Afghanistan. And furthermore, invasion is a lot different from the bombing runs we occasionally used during the Clinton admistration, which, I might add, seems to have worked in keeping Iraq free of WMDs.

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

[MattyBronx]

I'd love for us to be out of there ASAP, but there's no way to pull out any time soon. Their leadership is nearly nonexistent. And their military & police forces are so sorry that me & the fellas from around the block could go in there in the afternoon and own the place before Seinfeld comes on.

Whether you were for or against us going in there in the first place, "W" has us in a spot where we've got to stick around for a long time.

Yeah, I'm taking a good look at all the other presidential candidates...


<IMG SRC="http://mysite.verizon.net/vze71h4v/Storage/MattyBronx24.png">

[furie]

Leaving before Iraq has been stabalized, even partialized, would be worst than invading in the first place.
I do think that we need to leave as soon as elections in Iraq are completed.


<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/zencow.gif">

[Potsie]

We're there because we promised that the people would be free and better off after the war. We always knew the hard part would be the door to door warfare, and thats what we're still doing. The war isnt over.


Wadd, I do agree with you. But a major part of our continuing presence is also the same reason why we stayed in Vietnam until 1975; the administration does not want this war to lose the support of U.S. citizens. If we pull out now that David Kay admitted to "bad intelligence," this country would be out to lynch the Bush administration.

I'm half-retarded...on my mother's side

[sr71blackbird]

I have a feeling that our going there was for more than just a suspician that Iraq had WMD's, and I would like us out of there asap, however, we will be lambasted for anything we do because we are hated. If we leave right now and the situation degrades, we will be blamed. If we stay and try and stabilize it and troops die in the process, we are blamed. Its a lose/lose situation, and our payback for our effots will be a plentiful supply of oil, which, wether you like it or not, you all need and will bitch about if the price of it and its byproducts goes up. For the president to make such a decision, there has to be some motivation. Wether that motivation is a personal enrichment on his part, for being an oil man, or for his enrichment in the polls if his actions results in us getting cheap gas and oil, we still benefit. If we get a solid strong presence in the mideast by occupying Iraq, it's because our mere presence there adds stability to the region. If we like it or not that we have a dependency on oil, its immaterial, because it lubricates the machine of our commerce in one way or another. If you want to blast Bush for doing it, realise that his decision had a risk to him as a president and a candidate and Im sure he had to weigh public opinion against the worlds outcry and he took that risk with the intention of bettering our own position and welfare in mind. Iraq will be a better place when all is said and done, her people not living under a tyrant, oil and gas will be cheaper for everyone, and we will have helped make it happen. Argue all you want about if Bush doing this to make himself look good or questioning his intelligence regarding taking advice from advisers that advised him of the existance of unfound WMD's, we will still be better off down the road that our current actions are helping to pave. I dont want to see our guys getting killed either. I think if Iraq had tried to invade and occupy us, that their casualties would be far higher than our 500 or so losses, but thats beside the point. We are there and we aught to make the most of it and accept that all this pain is for a greater good down the road, for us and our kids as well as Iraq and the countrys around it. We cant leave now.

<center>
http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/sr71.gif </center>


<center><B>My Thanks to ADF for the sig-pic!</B></center>

<center><B><strike>Bandwidth Hound</strike></B></center>

<marquee behavior=alternate><font size=1>( o Y o )</marquee>

[curtoid]

There were three points that sold the Iraq war - stockpiles and stockpiles of WMDs, Saddam was a direct threat to the United States and Saddam was involved, somehow, in 9/11.

None of this seems true, which is horrible, as it could take years now to repair the damage to US credibility. A lot of people at the time both here and abroad (especially abroad) disagreed (and protested) with the idea that Saddam was a threat, and they questioned this administration's motives for going in.

As wild accusations about Oil, and the idea of US Imperialism, especially with relation to the sleazy Project for the New American Century which telegraphed their (Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz's) intentions to invade Iraq 3 years before 9/11/1, the administration tried to shift the reason to the invasion as "liberating" Iraq and creating a new Democracy in the Middle East that everyone would be so impressed by, they will want some of that for themselves.

Of course, this would not be a true democracy - as we're seeing now, the fundamentalists in Iraq (whom Saddam loathed and feared almost as much as the United States & Israel) would win the majority, and then before you can say "Not Without My Mullah," Iraq would resemble a less stable Iran.

Along the road to War, and then into war, the media fell in line and reported what the government wanted them to report - and I believe seriously damaging their credibility as well.

We were fed stories (and we still are) about how horrible it was in Iraq for everyone. While it was true that life in Iraq was not great, this was not Afghanistan; they had museums, and concerts, and a thriving art community. Since Iraq was to be a secular state, women had rights they don't have in Iran or Saudi Arabia; they were doctors, teachers, professors and government officials.

And during the entire embargo, when we were told half a million Iraqi's (mostly children) died because of the sanctions over the course of ten years, the truth was none of them was from starvation - it was mostly from illness, and outbreaks and diseases they couldn't treat because they couldn't get medicine. Saddam was an evil man - he is more than likely worse than Hitler - but, as best as he could, he made sure food got to the people.

And now that he's gone, we love to pat ourselves on the back that the people of Iraq are better off without him, but the truth you will never, ever, ever hear, is that many there are much worse now than before - and I'm not even talking about the 10,000 civilians killed during the war, or the hundred of thousands injured and mutilated.

This aspect wasn't told because we have to make sure and paint Saddam as a ravenous, mad dog creature that needed to be taken care of. Instead of painting with broad, wide strokes, we should have either been honest about the motivations going in there - get rid of Saddam; we don't like him; we do have proof that he murdered 500,000 of his own people in Southern Iraq after the first Gulf War and that's all we need; we made a promise to those people that we're a little late on, but we're going to take care of business - or saw that containing him was working; that, if he did have WMDs, that they were, at this point, mostly being held for defensive posturing against the US and Israel; that he knew if he were to ever strike out, there would be no more Baghdad; that we work on getting inspectors back in there, and get the entire world behind us - it would have taken a lot of patience and a lot of time, but it would have been worth it.

Instead of diverting military resources away from those that really attacked us in 2001, we work on Saddam using as much diplomatic and multi-national leverage as we have, and we work them to the satisfation of all of our allies.

Is the world better without Saddam? Sure. The world is also better without Bob Hope. Still doesn't mean that either was going to drop mustard gas on Wall Street.

Are we safer now? NO!

During that march into war, much was made about the fact that we found suits to protect the Iraqi soldiers from

[FUNKMAN]

i know, i say let Israel take over Iraq, that should calm things down...

at this point it seems that any political party that takes leadership "that we agree with' will be blown up within a month. theres gonna be alot of dead 'US friendly' politicians...

They are gonna have to go door-to-door to weedout/extract these murdering bastards and take their arms away and arrest them...

<img src="http://64.177.177.182/katylina/funkmansig.jpg">
i got sig'd about two weeks ago by the sweetest Kat...

[TheMojoPin]

If we like it or not that we have a dependency on oil, its immaterial, because it lubricates the machine of our commerce in one way or another. If you want to blast Bush for doing it, realise that his decision had a risk to him as a president and a candidate and Im sure he had to weigh public opinion against the worlds outcry and he took that risk with the intention of bettering our own position and welfare in mind. Iraq will be a better place when all is said and done, her people not living under a tyrant, oil and gas will be cheaper for everyone, and we will have helped make it happen. Argue all you want about if Bush doing this to make himself look good or questioning his intelligence regarding taking advice from advisers that advised him of the existance of unfound WMD's, we will still be better off down the road that our current actions are helping to pave. I dont want to see our guys getting killed either. I think if Iraq had tried to invade and occupy us, that their casualties would be far higher than our 500 or so losses, but thats beside the point. We are there and we aught to make the most of it and accept that all this pain is for a greater good down the road, for us and our kids as well as Iraq and the countrys around it. We cant leave now.

WOW!

Wait...what?

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[keithy_19]

What I find funny is that the Army says there about 1 year away from catching Bin Laden. What do you think the chances are that they SOMEHOW catch him before the election?

And? I know what your getting at, but does that matter? If we got him who cares?

And we're still in Iraq to secure the oil for America silly. Geez, didn't you get the white house memo?

http://64.177.177.182/katylina/electricsexsig.jpg
Much thanks to Katylina

[A.J.]

Just as he nonchalantly governed over record setting number of executions in Texas during his watch there

The Texas Constitution grants Governors limited powers.
Unlike governors in many states, the Texas Governor cannot independently issue a pardon or sentence commutation. In death penalty cases, the governor can issue a 1-time thirty-day reprieve. He or she can also make recommendations to the 18-member Board of Pardons and Paroles and can either approve or reject the board's recommendations on pardons or sentence reductions. (http://texaspolitics.lamc.utexas.edu/html/exec/0700.html)

From the moment he took office, GW Bush has governed as if he had a mandate from the American people, when in reality he didn't even have as many votes as Vice President Al Gore.


So did Clinton have a "mandate" even though he never got more than 50% of the vote?

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">
A Skidmark production.

Red Sox Nation

This message was edited by AJinDC on 1-31-04 @ 1:49 PM

[furie]

So did Clinton have a "mandate" even though he never got more than 50% of the vote?


ZING!


<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/zencow.gif">

[TheMojoPin]

Clinton acted like he was king pimp of the world, nevermind any "mandate"...whatta chode.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[JerryTaker]

I think if Iraq had tried to invade and occupy us, that their casualties would be far higher than our 500 or so losses, but thats beside the point.


You really, honestly believe this? A military "invasion" would have been stamped out like a burning post-it in a metal can


So did Clinton have a "mandate" even though he never got more than 50% of the vote?


He didn't say "Majority," he said "More Votes" Clinton still had More Votes than Bush Sr.

And as far as making things better for Iraqis? give Iraq to the Iraqi's? I'm sorry but the hell with them. Give America back to the Americans. and working Americans, not the idle rich.

<IMG SRC="http://afs30.njit.edu/~gsm2321/gimliwall.gif">

Nothing we've shared means a thing
Without you close to me
I can't live without you

[curtoid]

Ahhhhh...the old "Clinton Deflection":

So did Clinton have a "mandate" even though he never got more than 50% of the vote?


No, I don't believe he did.

He actually made a number of compromises and worked with both sides. Of course, much of that was when the Republicans took over congress and they were forced to squabble and quibble and work things out - which together, both sides actually did in his second term, after they both shut the government down.

Besides...even if he didn't, how does that explain Bush's behavior??

[KOP]



http://img1.photobucket.com/albums/1003/mikeyboy/KOPsig.jpg
Always respect yerdaddy...thanks for sig!

[MizzleTizzle]

Returning to the original post; I would hope we would continue to look for the WMDs.

Irrespective of the quality of said Intel, just about everyone agrees that Iraq held WMDs. That's the broadest brush possible, admitted.

So, let's fine tooth comb the place, and settle it, and let the chips fall where they may.

Having said that; there are many scenarios of him holding them and getting them out. Who knows?

Well one person does, I think. Saddam Hussein. I'd really like to know what he's had to say about all of this. Seriously.

Many NBCs are a nasty lot, and quite compact in their nastiness. A few hundred kilos of some stuff will wipe out a city nicely. Which makes the question, perhaps, unanswerable ultimately.

So, for the time being, I'd hope we get an answer ASAP; meaning I hope we are acting like the people at the end of It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World and digging everywhere.

As for all the other reasons as to why we are there; I defer. I punt for now. My posts are too long.

---

--

just below the surface of what we might call our ordinary lives lie riches

This message was edited by MizzleTizzle on 1-31-04 @ 6:03 PM

[furie]

I think if Iraq had tried to invade and occupy us, that their casualties would be far higher than our 500 or so losses, but thats beside the point.


that's THE dumbest thing ever written on this board.


<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/zencow.gif">

[A.J.]

Ahhhhh...the old "Clinton Deflection":


Not at all. My point was that "mandates" typically tend to come from landslide election victories (LBJ in '64, Nixon in '72, and Reagan in '84). Clinton won with less than 50% of the vote both times and Bush won the electoral vote, not the popular vote: it wasn't so much how much they won by rather THAT they won.

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">
A Skidmark production.

Red Sox Nation

[sr71blackbird]

You really, honestly believe this?


Yes, I believe that if Iraq tried to invade and occupy us, that they would far more casualties than what we have lost. Are you suggesting that they would have the power to take us over and destroy our government and arrest Bush with fewer than 500+ deaths on their side?

Bear in mind that the subject was about why we are still there.

<center>
http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/sr71.gif </center>


<center><B>My Thanks to ADF for the sig-pic!</B></center>

<center><B><strike>Bandwidth Hound</strike></B></center>

<marquee behavior=alternate><font size=1>( o Y o )</marquee>

[A.J.]

I think if Iraq had tried to invade and occupy us

How is this even possible?

Well, maybe in some sort of "Red Dawn" scenario...

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">
A Skidmark production.

Red Sox Nation

[FUNKMAN]

because of this little hottie...

http://www.popeye-n-olive.com/Olive3.gif

<img src="http://64.177.177.182/katylina/funkmansig.jpg">
i got sig'd about three weeks ago by the sweetest Kat...

[TheMojoPin]

Yes, I believe that if Iraq tried to invade and occupy us, that they would far more casualties than what we have lost. Are you suggesting that they would have the power to take us over and destroy our government and arrest Bush with fewer than 500+ deaths on their side?

What th-?!?

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Doomstone]

Not at all. My point was that "mandates" typically tend to come from landslide election victories (LBJ in '64, Nixon in '72, and Reagan in '84). Clinton won with less than 50% of the vote both times and Bush won the electoral vote, not the popular vote: it wasn't so much how much they won by rather THAT they won.


Clinton didn't invade Iraq.

-------------------------------

<u><b>The Doomstone Fan Club</u>

Se7en
Def Dave In DC
NewYorkDragons80</b>

Now accepting memberships, apply today!

[A.J.]

Clinton didn't invade Iraq.

Right. But he did try to overhaul healthcare. And that hurt him and his party politically.

I wasn't insulting Clinton -- just trying to draw a parallel. KOP talked about mandates and governance. My point was that in Clinton's and Bush's cases, not winning by a large margin didn't stop either from undertaking bold initiatives early on in their administrations.

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">
A Skidmark production.

Red Sox Nation

[HBox]

Yes, I believe that if Iraq tried to invade and occupy us, that they would far more casualties than what we have lost.

MORE GROUNDBREAKING THEORIES!!!!!!!!!!![size=2]

2+2=4!
The sun rises in the East!
The Earth revolves around the THE SUN!!

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

[sleepyeyed_Jynx]

so u want to abandon millions of poor people and leave them to be killed and tortured by sadaam loyalists

You my friend, have been brainwashed by mainstream media. It isn't saddam loyalists that are killing the poor, it's us. And as much as I want our guys back home after the morale hit the toilet and the rising soldier suicide rate, then it'll remove the barrier for the sunis and shi-ites to tear each other to shreds. And yes, it is because of the oil, and the contracts on rebuilding Iraq. Hell, the teams they sent to find the weapons were quietly pulled from the country about a month or two ago. So yes, folks, we have been sucker punched. But then most of you will still back Bush, whatever. I'm no Republican by far, neither am I a Democrat. In fact I hate the whole labeling system as it provides prejudgement of my views to what the specific group is defined to be. Instead of sticking with donkeys and the elephants, I'll just look at things the way they are and see that both these parties are screwing us all over.

<IMG SRC="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/thejynx2.JPG">
Aggrivating the Mod's, one post at a tim

[Ndugu]

sir, are u saying that our men and women in uniform are murdering civilians in iraq, u sir have been brainwashed by the far left radicals like michael moore, don't ever accuse me of being brainwashed, my patriotism lies in the heart, my heart tells me oil or not, wmd or not, that our men and women in uniform are doing a very brave thing, they are helping people become free, and freedom comes at a cost, and this notion about oil, where does it come from, kuwait has more oil then all of iraq, and i do not see barrels of oil coming from iraq

I Keep An M-4 Carbine Under My Pillow

[MizzleTizzle]

Clinton didn't invade Iraq.


Good evening. Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

The inspectors undertook this mission first 7 1/2 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again...



Full Text (http://www.time.com/time/daily/special/iraq/clinton_address.html)

---

--

just below the surface of what we might call our ordinary lives lie riches

This message was edited by MizzleTizzle on 1-31-04 @ 11:22 PM

[Yerdaddy]

Yes, I believe that if Iraq tried to invade and occupy us,
How was Iraq going to invade us without a navy?

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
TEAR THE BITCH APART!

[FUNKMAN]

3 More...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/01/31/sprj.nirq.main/index.html

<img src="http://64.177.177.182/katylina/funkmansig.jpg">
i got sig'd about three weeks ago by the sweetest Kat...

[JerryTaker]

we have been sucker punched.


I prefer the term, "Bushwhacked"

<IMG SRC="http://afs30.njit.edu/~gsm2321/gimliwall.gif">

Nothing we've shared means a thing
Without you close to me
I can't live without you

[Doomstone]

Clinton didn't invade Iraq.


Good evening. Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

The inspectors undertook this mission first 7 1/2 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again...



Full Text (http://www.time.com/time/daily/special/iraq/clinton_address.html)



BIG difference between airstrikes on strategic targets and invasion/occupation.

-------------------------------

<u><b>The Doomstone Fan Club</u>

Se7en
Def Dave In DC
NewYorkDragons80</b>

Now accepting memberships, apply today!

[sr71blackbird]

Wolfowitz said he retains confidence in American intelligence agencies, despite their apparent mistakes about Iraq's weapons programs. "You need to look into when you got it right, and when you got it wrong," Wolfowitz said. "It's important to understand we could not possibly do what we need to do in the world without intelligence."


Wolfowitz said deposing Saddam was important to bring freedom to the Middle East.


"We have an absolutely important job to do to help the Iraqi people build a free and democratic Iraq," Wolfowitz said. "It's going to be a very important turning point in the war on terrorism. The Middle East has been heading down the wrong road for some years now."


<center>
http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/sr71.gif </center>


<center><B>My Thanks to ADF for the sig-pic!</B></center>

<center><B><strike>Bandwidth Hound</strike></B></center>

<marquee behavior=alternate><font size=1>( o Y o )</marquee>

[ag]

We're still in Iraq becuase our wonderfull Bush adminastration believes there are WMD. Therefore we have to have on average 10 GI's dies a day to find these weapons. I say pull the tropps out, send in the special OPS, and let them find the weapons, instead fo having our troops killed on a dailly basis. I really really hope that one of these days we can find these things and everyone, including myself who doubted Bush will have a change of heart so to speak

<center><IMG SRC="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=anthonypenis">
<marquee>I got the magic stick I know if I can hit once, I can hit twice I hit the baddest chicks Shorty don't believe me, then call me tonight And I'll show you magic -- WHAT! WHAT! Magic, uh-huh, uh-huh, I've got the magic stick</marquee>

[sleepyeyed_Jynx]

sir, are u saying that our men and women in uniform are murdering civilians in iraq, u sir have been brainwashed by the far left radicals like michael moore, don't ever accuse me of being brainwashed, my patriotism lies in the heart, my heart tells me oil or not, wmd or not, that our men and women in uniform are doing a very brave thing, they are helping people become free, and freedom comes at a cost, and this notion about oil, where does it come from, kuwait has more oil then all of iraq, and i do not see barrels of oil coming from iraq

Obviously you didn't follow the death toll among Iraqi citizens and the fact that we've killed more Iraqis than Saddam has in all his years. You know with the bombs dropping, the excsessive force used by our soldiers, that sort of thing. As for the oil, I'll point you in Rumsfeld direction. Do some research and you'll learn about the plans he has with Saddam back in 1983 where they turned an eye while Saddam was killing off a the shi-ites with WMDs, the same group of Iraqis that protested us. When the plans with Saddam and Rumsfeld went sour, we pushed Saddam out of Kuwait as to say, "if we don't get what we want, you don't get what you want." Too much to go into, it's all been covered.

<IMG SRC="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/thejynx2.JPG">
Aggrivating the Mod's, one post at a tim

[sleepyeyed_Jynx]

Ok, I'll get into it. Read this: http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0802-01.htm

<IMG SRC="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/thejynx2.JPG">
Aggrivating the Mod's, one post at a tim

[Ndugu]

im not going to read that because it is a liberal anti bush news site

I Keep An M-4 Carbine Under My Pillow

[high fly]

(straight face) "We are in Iraq to stop the killings that took place back in the 80s."

Plus, we gots a hole buncha permission slips from the U.N. that say it's ok for us to go in there.


"Yes, I said "permission slips".
"Something wrong with that?"



" and they ask me why I drink"
http://64.177.177.182/katylina/highflysig.jpg
Big ups to sex bomb baby Katylina (LHOOQ) for the sig!

[MizzleTizzle]

Obviously you didn't follow the death toll among Iraqi citizens and the fact that we've killed more Iraqis than Saddam has in all his years.

------

Too much to go into, it's all been covered.


Indulge me. Show the data that shows that the US military has killed more civilians then saddam has in 'all his years'.

Data.

---

--

just below the surface of what we might call our ordinary lives lie riches

[high fly]

You might want to pull up a chair there, Mizzle.

" and they ask me why I drink"
http://64.177.177.182/katylina/highflysig.jpg
Big ups to sex bomb baby Katylina (LHOOQ) for the sig!