we don't like north korea cause they're communist. am i correct?

so we're not friends with them cause they're not like us.

cause we're a free and equal country, and anyone who's not like us is wrong.

that's why we like western europe so much. they're like us. it's like a little clique in the worldly high school.

we're the popular chick.

YESSS!!!!

Our ways of doing things are COMPLETELY opposite. Which causes for the bad relations. Ugh.

..yes?

that would mean we are wrong. we were hostile towards them first.

Did you know you can fit enough of chemical weapons inside of a uhaul truck to kill everyone in any major city in america?

Who said we are hostile to them first? I never said that.


and yes i did know about the whole Uhaul truck thing.

No, but they sure will suck up the 75% of their funding they receive from the United States.

Funny how they haven't used any of that on Darfur.

Even funnier how you people whine about the Sudan when it's not the United States' fault for the lack of action.

This is just a funny, funny forum.

exactly. we treat nuclear countries with respect. if iraq said "we have nukes (cue CNN footage of rocket launchers) and said "we will nuke isreal and any other US ally within our missle range if you attack us", do you really think we would have invaded them?

if any country threatens to detonate a nuclear bomb in response to our invasion (or liberation, if you want); would we go there?

no, we wouldn't.

being nuclear is like being in an exclusive club where the members promise not to hurt each other.


ehhh- about iraq. i think bush used the WMD card too early, before he had enough verification.

yes, saddam was a bad 'president'. but we should have done something about it in the first persain gulf war. and now we're sorta cleaning up. If we weren't already at war, and bush proposed that, i'd be all for it.

anyways; North Korea is a logical target. that fact that we don't attack them makes me wonder if there are any hidden reasons behind the iraqi war- they're both about the same threat to us...

YOU CANT attack north korea.. attacking north korea is like attacking China.... are you insane??!?!?!? Saddam had them and was working on getting more. We thwarted his efforts and thus saved the day. It was not too early. Quit assuming you know all of the facts just because you watch cnn every once in awhile. Stuff that you see on the news is only the tip of the ice berg when it comes to international events.

how about YOU quit assuming YOU know all the facts? are you inside the white house? were you there while deliberation was going on? how in the world do YOU know everything?

and why can't we attack north korea?..

If Saddam had them, why haven't we found them?

Keep in mind that they couldn't've been hidden that well; Cheney and Powell often touted the "great intelligence" they had regarding Iraq's WMD's!

Alright this is getting pretty hopeless mipadi.

Who said North Korea was attacking China? I just thought they didn't like eachother.

Saddam moved them into Syria. That is what I think and that is what I am going to CONTINUE to think. You can go along with your damn liberal THEY WERENT THERE ways, but there are other good things coming out of this War/Liberation. The Iraqi people are going to have a free life, something they dont know cause that damn bastard would kill them in the masses. They are going to have a democracy, like us.

Besides, the damn media can't get anything straight.

That's why we have to make sure they don't get atomic weapons. Israel took this into their own hands when they bombed Osiraq. They were criticized, but they set back Iraq's nuclear program many years. I see what we're doing is pretty similar. It's being criticized, but it was the right thing to do to keep us and our allies safe.

Why attack North Korea? Diplomatic solutions have yet to be exhausted, there is no need to rush into something that could cost thousands of lives.

North Korea is allies with China, the communists stick together. They have a common enemy. Starting a war with china would cost millions of lives.

You cant find them if they're in a country you need to get more permission to search.

I don't believe that ousting Saddam was worth sacrificing American lives--we don't have the resources to take out every dictator--but in the end, it's a moot point; Bush went in there with the reason being that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction--a reason that is not only wrong, as we have found out now, but it appears that Bush lied about, and manufactured evidence about.

You can cite all these theories involving Syria, or continue believing that the weapons just haven't been found yet; but numerous analysts and committees have concluded that there are no weapons of mass destruction. Numerous reports also suggest that the claims that Saddam had them, or were trying to get them, were fabricated to strengthen the reason for going to war.

IF SADDAM HAD USABLE NUKES, WHY THE HELL DIDN'T HE USE THEM?

come on, in fhte first gulf war he used chem. missles on isreal in retaliation. if he had nukes, why didn't he use them this time?

he may have been trying to get nuke, but for sure he didn't have working ones yet.




diplomatic solutions are quickly running out. what i see is a double standard- one for nuclear countries, and one for non nuclear countries.

i love this quote:
"there is no need to rush into something that could cost thousands of lives."

hmm... what was rushed into... that's costing thousands of lives... hmm... let's see... give you a hint, it begins with an iraqi and ends with a war.

therefore; there was no need to rush into the iraqi war.

lemme see.

There are so many people who wanted this, the whole WMD thing to be wrong anyways, that sure, if they have a name and can get their voice out somehow, they're going to do it.

Downing Street Memo
Sunday Times (London)
DowningStreetMemo.com
Wikipedia
CNN.com
InformatingClearingHouse.com

Hussein Attempts to Buy Yellow Cake Uranium (False)
Time.com
"Iraq Evidence Wrong"
BBC

I can supply more, if you like.

why won't you guys give up on the fact that there were and are no WMDs and that our administration made a mistake?

bush said HIMSELF that he made a mistake. he told ALL OF AMERICA that there are no WMDs and there were no WMDs in iraq. HE SAID the intelligence he used was wrong. if he can admit he made a mistake as grandeur as that, why can't you admit he did?

I can admit that at the time of attack, Iraq had no WMD's.

But, I've posted this link three times, and it contains 50+ pages of hard photos that clearly show Saddam utilized chemical weapons (i.e., poisoning a village's water supply) in the past.

Too the if they launched the neqs at allied countries, yes we would have. We would have rolled in just like we did. When Iraq or a country does that, its scare tactics. The USSR threatened to launch neqs if we infiltrated there boarders, and well that never happened now did it.

Sadam was not a 'president' he was a dictator, what ever HE said happened. Mass murders, attacks on friendly countries. Sadam was FAR from a 'president'.

And the deal with Korea is there massive military, we would be in another WWII battle if we went into Korea.
"being nuclear is like being in an exclusive club where the members promise not to hurt each other." My ass, for example - USSR (Russia) and China, they would and still could take out this country if they wanted too. Cold War for example. One command and we would have been in a nuclear war.

Here is a satellite picture of Cuba a Soviet allied forces during the days of the Cold War.

Yellow means a bomb is there. on a flat bed truck most likely trying to hide from sat pics but well it didn't work now did it.

I just wont. I want real actual proof.



Proof. Weapons. That could be used as wmd's. He did.


There are/were reports of trucks upon trucks entering Syria. Ohh, well, I highly doubt it was food going into hiding.



I don't need 8 more links over the exact same thing. One is ok.

he had them in the past. he was ordered to disarm. he did.

prove he had them when we invaded iraq, not that he had them beofre. because that's what the american public was lead to believe- that saddam huesssien had WMDs and was trying to restart his nuclear program. we know he had them before, that's fact.




scare tactics. nice one there... we would not have if iraq threatened nuclear war. there's no way.

and saddam could have said; we've burried a nuke somewhere. if you invade us, we'll let you win. then we'll blow up the whole goddamn country, because i'm an evil dictator like that.




he was a 'president'. he wasn't a president, he was a 'president'. get the difference? no? you don't?

let me explain; in technecality, he is the president, the people of iraq "voted" for him.

don't call him a dictator; because he wasn't that. a tyrant, sure. but not a dictator. a dictator and tyrant are differnet.




so the US will only attack countries with signigicantly smaller militaries. right. or course we aren't scared. of course bush is being very macho, and not at all a pansy, when he doens't attack NK because of thier oh so big military.




alright, when did we ever invade (with troops) a country with nuclear weapons? exactly.






what was the point of that? i see nukes there. but i don't see a nuclear country... i see cuba. with soviet nukes. not a soviet island with soviet nukes.

Um...you know that we never infiltrated the USSR's borders in a real military action, right?

Maybe they didn't have nukes, maybe they weren't ready. Or, maybe they shipped their WMDs to Syria, because they believed they could beat us the conventional way. Using WMDs has dire political consequences. Saddam wanted to beat and embarass the US. Using WMDs against us would mean that we were right. If their forces had beaten us, AND we failed to find WMDs, it does the following:

1) Allows Saddam to continue developing WMDs.
2) Demolishes US credibility
3) Encourages other countries to do the same

And no, we didn't rush into this. Bill Clinton dealt with the same exact thing years before.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/...s/clinton.iraq/

He believed they had WMDs. Are you going to call him a liar? He launched military strikes on Iraq. Are you going to say he put Americans in harm's way for an unjust cause?

How many times has Saddam kicked out UN weapons inspectors? How many times has Saddam tried to pull secret operations? Do you guys remember the Babylon Gun? Or more recently, does Oil for Food ring a bell?

We clearly did not rush into this, nor were our actions without just cause.

Actually we did in one small country known as part of the USSR land, well I guess you would not call it USSR due to the fact that the USSR denied them any relation with there country. I can't recall the exact name but we have a military base there, so when the USSR had it durring the "war" we "infiltrated" there boarders I guess. Odessa was in a small branch of the soviet union that did not want to be part of the soviet union, the soviets had used it from weapons trainings and such. So a British and US fleet took it over 2 years before the cold war and then the USSR declared it free from them before the cold war. That's not really invading there boarders, but after the USSR fell, it became part of Russia again. Plus we never invaded there boarders but we did invade there are space with plenty fire power to take out the whole continent of Asia. I did a paper on it in Middle School. I read it in a book name The Soviet Propaganda Machine. Martin Ebon. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1987



It shows that not only did the USSR have allies close to our home land, that if other countries possessed the need to bomb us that they could have neqs in Mexico or Cuba or maybee ever Canada. Our good old intelligence trys to take out the country itself, Well in this case of Iraq - they could be on other sides of the world. As for Iraq, I dought that they could have moved them in time, but it is possible. Very slim chance, considering that only one country around Iraq that would consider it.



Now why did he not use neqs, they are hard to come upon, plus a country the size of Israel against the force of Iraq, it would not be needed. It would be a waist of needed bombs.

Now on with your quote, in any war there will be a lose of lives. Its expected to happen.

Amen.

Odessa was never a possession of the US or Britain, to my knowledge. It was a part of the Ukraine in the 1920's, which became part of the USSR. It was briefly occupied by the Germans in World War II, but liberated by the Soviets in 1994, who maintained possession until the Ukraine became an independent state following the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991.

I'm also doubtful that the US "did invade their [air] space with plenty of fire power to take out the whole continent of Asia." We had some incursions in their air space, namely a U-2 spy plane piloted by Gary Powers, but I don't think we ever sent bombers or other aircraft into Soviet airspace in numbers large enough to actually do any real damage.

In the specific case of nuclear weapons, there is no way Iraq was a direct threat to America. Iraq's missiles barely have the range and accuracy to hit targets in Israel. Now, granted, Iraq could've posed a threat to American interests, but the suggestion of a direct hit on America is ridiculous.

As for the suggestion of nukes in Mexico or Canada, I'm don't follow what allusion or point you are trying to make.

There were multiple B52 units in the air over the Soviet Union. That's why part of the treaty was to destroy most of the B52 rudiments. They where broke into peaces and cut down the middle so when Russian satellites flew over it would look as if they all where out of commission.

Here is a photo of the B52 bone yard somewhere in Arizona I belive.

you said he had nukes, right? that he had WMDs and just moved them before the war?

and isreal has a very large military. why would it be a waste of needed bombs? isreal is america's ally. nuking them with one nuke would make the US not attack iraq. nuclear detterant thing.






the B52s constantly flew nuclear warheads over canada, ready to fire them if nessissary. they didn't go over the soviet union. they were too big and too slow. they would have been shot down immediatly.

I'm sorry but they did, during the cold war sadly they did. It was on the History Channel when they did a show about the B52 bombers. I mean unless the people from the military where lying, that's always possible. WoW, this website tells all about it http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b-52_hist.htm

Sending a neq to a allied country would not do as much harm as if he invaded it and took it down with bruit force. It would show that he had no last resort but to send in a neq because he does not have the military back bone to invade and defend. In this case a nuclear bomb would be last resort.

They do not have a very large military. As of 2005, the IISS gave an estimate of 125,000 ground troops. However, Israel has a very high quality military. They spend something like 20% of their budget on the military. And their airforce is one of the best in the world. And it's widely believed Israel has nuclear weapons as well. If Iraq were to nuke Israel, Iraq would no longer exist.

The B-52 is a strategic bomber, so if it indeed was used to bomb Russia, it would be used in large numbers with a large number of expected casualties.

no. its not america's place to go deal with matters across the world. especially without the UN's approval. I might be more accepting had we gone with other countries, without America controlling the situation in Iraq. THe military is supposed to protect America, not necessarily anywhere else, especially if they adamantly say that they don't want us there!

So you're saying that we would have to have the UN's approval just to go to the bathroom?

Not ALL iraqi's say they want us out.

Look up coalition of the willing. Several countries have pledged support for the Iraq war.

no....

i said its not our place to go into other countries and try to rebuild their way of life.

even though intelligence says that they threaten ourselves and our allies?

everyone is entitled to their own opinion. america does have some threats. osama bin laden. have we caught him yet? no. because we've concentrated on Saddam Hussein. After 9/11, America needed someone to blame. Saddam Hussein, even though hes an awful person, had nothing to do with 9/11 or the possession and distribution of WMD's. and thats what the whole basis of the war was. whether or not iraq may have been a future threat to america was not the reason we went there.

Damn right i'm entitled to my own opinion. 9/11 was something that we HAD to find out WHO DID IT. If someone killed tons of our fellow countrymen I would want to know who. And they would have to pay.


WE WENT THERE BECAUSE THEY WERE A THREAT TO US! THE BASIS OF THE WAR WAS ABOUT THE WMD'S. Get your facts straight.

The UN is a big, fat pile of corruption, and we should never wait for its approval.

Never.

You forgot Poland!

I really hate to tell you this, but please read the thread. Your comment has already been said and debated. I guess if you really want to, you'd refute those who debated against your comment, but that means you would have to read the thread.

my signature on the petition to impeach bush, and my plans to take part in the sept. 28th march on washington D.C. for the same reason signify that i'm opposed to the war.

i know war is justified somtimes (like if we were to do it with a country that were actually a threat like N. korea), but iraq does not qualify as such a war. i don't feel safer with saddam out of power. i feel more indangered that this war will only inspire more terrorists to attack within the borders of the country.



intellegence now known to be false. i don't know about you or the president, but when i make a mistake, i clean it up and kiss ass so whoever is effected by the mistake doesn't, say, bomb my twin towers.



said the optspoken conservative. hehehe

Normally I'd take offense to such an ignorant comment, but it's just that -- ignorant.

You seem to be one of those morons that lumps conservatives into one big group and uses the fact that they're conservative against anything they might have to say.

The correct thing to do would be to ask for reasons why I feel the UN is useless, because believe me, I would have bombarded you.

Way to be open minded, pal. And here I thought that's what your political party fought for: open-mindedness.

I'm starting to dislike this forum more, and more everyday.

:[ no no no, you like it, tres beaucoup !

i did say that it was basis of the war. at least we agree on something. but enough from me.

one thing undeniable is that in the begining of the war the bush administration adamently claimed that saddam was restarting his chemical and nuclear programs and that was the reason for the war. And, later, they changed the reason for the war to the fact that saddam was a ruthless dictator who needed to be toppled.

And then somewhere in there they changed the reason to Saddam Hussein's alleged (but incorrect) link to al-Quaida and 9/11.

which means the original reason was wrong, and they knew it then, so they came up with a new reason.

the motives, i can guess at.