Can we all admit........

[jtk4]

well the problem i see is that our number 1 concern should be protecting the us. Like i said beofre over 200 billion was spent in iraq. We left afghanistan instead of finishing the job. If we used a quarter of this money and half the troops we would have been able to make sure osama was caught. If he was there, which according to inte is like 99%

Now the problem Bush has is this, if we stayed the course in ahghanistan and was still hunting bin laden, public opinion of him would not be good. Even though he would be doing the right thing. because this was an election year, he knew he had to show something of a victory. That would be Iraq, even though it is as far from a victory, he can show he captured saddam. This is how it will be potrayed. He knew that he might not get osama before the election, he knew that if he did not he probably would not get elected. Going after saddam was as much politcal as it was to secure the middle east and make us safer.

Either way the money should of been spent to secure us, saddam posed no immediate threat, where the 4000 illeagle immigrants that pour into this country everyday do. (not all of them just the chance of some being terrorists) Our ports are a joke, our police are not trained well enough, and bush has cut funding to the police.

[italia23]

well the problem i see is that our number 1 concern should be protecting the us. Like i said beofre over 200 billion was spent in iraq. We left afghanistan instead of finishing the job. If we used a quarter of this money and half the troops we would have been able to make sure osama was caught. If he was there, which according to inte is like 99%

Now the problem Bush has is this, if we stayed the course in ahghanistan and was still hunting bin laden, public opinion of him would not be good. Even though he would be doing the right thing. because this was an election year, he knew he had to show something of a victory. That would be Iraq, even though it is as far from a victory, he can show he captured saddam. This is how it will be potrayed. He knew that he might not get osama before the election, he knew that if he did not he probably would not get elected. Going after saddam was as much politcal as it was to secure the middle east and make us safer.

Either way the money should of been spent to secure us, saddam posed no immediate threat, where the 4000 illeagle immigrants that pour into this country everyday do. (not all of them just the chance of some being terrorists) Our ports are a joke, our police are not trained well enough, and bush has cut funding to the police.

I agree, getting Osama is more important than anything else. However, I don't agree with you when you say we left Afghanistan to invade Iraq. We never left Afghanistan. Would we have had a better chance to get him if we had more manpower? Of course. I'm not going to dispute that. But as I stated earlier, I think Saddam was most definitely a threat. And from the very beginning, the President made it clear that the war on terror would take place on MANY fronts. You can't tell me that the Iraqi government had no connection to terrorism. The 9/11 Commission found that Iraqi officials held meetings with al-Qaeda higher-ups. Now, the Commission also found that Iraq never allowed them to set up in Iraq, however, terror groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and al-Aqsa have all been found to have ties with Iraq. Saddam Hussein had the equipment, the funding, and the balls to produce and use WMD. He was a threat. Saddam Hussein, himself, was a weapon of mass destruction.

I think that invading Iraq as a political move is a ridiculous theory. Bush's approval rating was around 80% and he knew that a war with Iraq would bring dissent.

[mfiorellino]

What I'm curious about is something that no one's addressed yet. In January Iraq is due to have their first democratic election. What will Bush do if the Iraqi people elect a hardcore anti-American fundamentalist leader? Do we invade again? Or do just stand back and let another maniac rule?

So yes I do agree that invading Iraq was not a good idea.

[jtk4]

his approaval was WAS 80 %

if by now he did not capture osama what do you think it would be?

[bigpoppanils]

What will Bush do if the Iraqi people elect a hardcore anti-American fundamentalist leader? Do we invade again?

the neo-cons will scream that an election was rigged, and the uS will overthrow it.

[kramadas]

that going into iraq was a bad idea now. Enough with the bullshit.

The reason why we are all going to die is simple, instead of us working together as a country to actually defend ourselves all we do is fight amogst ourselves. What we lack is a president o canidate who can cross the lines and unify us. We lack good leadership, from both sides.

I agree!

[kramadas]

should have just assassinated hussein- and used heavy artillery on strategic targets- never put us men on the ground there....there is a large % of muslims who want all us " infidels" dead- and do not value any other life form unless its an islamo-fascist...

Or maybe, there's a large percentage of muslims who want a foreign invading power the fuck out of their country.

[kramadas]

What I'm curious about is something that no one's addressed yet. In January Iraq is due to have their first democratic election. What will Bush do if the Iraqi people elect a hardcore anti-American fundamentalist leader? Do we invade again? Or do just stand back and let another maniac rule?

So yes I do agree that invading Iraq was not a good idea.

That is a good question. Personally I don't think the Iraqis will get a chance to elect someone liket hat in the first election - it simply will not be allowed. BUt possibly after that.

[mursa]

..

.... this foreign policy stance of FORCE FEEDING DEMOCRACY can definetly backfire on the US .

[kramadas]

..

.... this foreign policy stance of FORCE FEEDING DEMOCRACY can definetly backfire on the US .

shhh...can't say that here otherwise you'll be a terrorist loving, American-hating, rag-head loving, tree-hugging liberal!!!

[jtk4]

there will not be an election.

there has not even been one in afghanistan, we will see next month.

If the US does not like the guy who will win the elction, he will not be able to run. Will be labeled as terrorist or what not. The us does not want iraq to turn into what happened in Iran.

[kramadas]

there will not be an election.

there has not even been one in afghanistan, we will see next month.

If the US does not like the guy who will win the elction, he will not be able to run. Will be labeled as terrorist or what not. The us does not want iraq to turn into what happened in Iran.

In the short run they might be able to control it, but ultimately, if the people want a fundamentalist or religous govt in power, it'll happen.

[jtk4]

see the problem is knowing if the people want that or are being forced into that. Threatened and that shit.

[kramadas]

see the problem is knowing if the people want that or are being forced into that. Threatened and that shit.

That is the problem, but unfortunately, in the end does it matter? Muslims are very very protective when it comes their religion...they would rather see a religious government than one seen to be appointed by a foreign (non-Muslim) power. Its almost like a frat boy mentality...I know he's bad, but he's one of us, so we're going to stand by him, sort of thing.

One thing I can say though - its about time more Muslim clerics started speaking out against this violence. Arab leaders have, but its time the clerics did too.

[tvercetti]

In the short run they might be able to control it, but ultimately, if the people want a fundamentalist or religous govt in power, it'll happen.

I think this fear is misguided. The majority of people do not want an oppressive islamic regime. Those that do are extremists- called so for a reason- they represent an extreme point of view aka a minority. A truly open, free, and democratic election (without the fear instilled by these extremists upon voters) will result in the majority winning and electing ldeaership that has islamic values (ntohign wrong or scary about that) but does not choose to impose them so strictly on the electorate (or the rest of the world). my .02.

[igloo]

One thing I can say though - its about time more Muslim clerics started speaking out against this violence. Arab leaders have, but its time the clerics did too.

Raver...about time

[babbo]

..

.... this foreign policy stance of FORCE FEEDING DEMOCRACY can definetly backfire on the US .

i agree...who gives a fuck how they live within their own borders..its when they threaten murder &terror,-and harbor terrorists/murderes- and when terror and murder is carried out.. you take them out..when someone publicly states they want you dead-whether its againts israel, the usa, russia, spain, italy- doenst matter who the terror is against-or thereatened against- take em out..plain and simple--otherwise- within their own borders- i dont give a fuck what they do..now

let me ask a question now..when a disaster strikes within a foreign country- aflood, earthquake etc- should the usa and israel send aid, $$$ to that country- or should they just stand by and say... let the local people work it out on their own..why help them at all??? what is your answer to that question???