The shoe bomber was English, muslim (converted) and very very ugly.

Iraq had Alqueda terroist training camps, INSIDE IRAQ. They hade old Boeing 747 that they used to train in hijacking, in Iraq.How is that not having anything to do with 9/11?

Also, the head ring leader involded with 9/11 had a meeting 1 week before 9/11 with a top Iraqi official. In Belguim or something like. Again, how does Iraq not have anything to do with 9/11?

Well that's the first thing i hear about that, got any (credible) source about that?

And don't say 'the Bush administration'.

Not. Very. Credible. About as much as the Time-travel dude.

^ Yuppz that was me again.

I did, back when this was more of a hot topic but the links dont work anymore. O well.

Well they had "proof" as well that there were weapons of mass destruction, that didn't turn out to be real profe as well. Did some searching, and recent reports all talk of 'no evidence of link al qaida/iraq). Like http://www.msnbc.msn.com/Default.aspx?id=3909150&p1=0 for example.

[size=7]

	Arathorn wrote: Oh come on, did you really think he should step down for that -------? That affair was the start of my republican hate, what a bunch of sore morons that they have to find something like that to bash him instead of taking on Clinton about his policies.

I dont think the matter was too serious. After all he is still a human. However i agree he should have been removed because he is a central figure for representation.

	J]Please stop using patriotism and 9/11 as the stick to whip every dog that walks in your way. Saddam has NOTHING to do with 9/11, there is no connection with Bin Laden and there are NO weapons of mass destruction or chemical or biological stuff in iraq. It's about oil. Sure saddam is a bad guy, but the world is full of bad guys. I don't see Bush invading Saudi-Arabia, nevertheless here we do have evidence that they supported Osama..[/quote] I am pro-invasion. I dont care about the reasons given by the US. I dont even care if they want all of the oil in the middle-east. All i have acknowledged is that they seem to have done the world a good deed. They have removed an apparently repressive and tyrannical political leader which seems fair enough to me. I wuold like to see the US next go for Iran. So Eleven, re-enlist your ass! [quote="Arathorn wrote: apart from that, I don't understand why people like the Brazilians and Polish have their picture and fingerprint taken when they arrive in the US. Are they possible terrorists? Have you ever even heard of a Brazilian muslim?

Thats just political idiocy.[/size]

EDIT: What the fack is up with my post!!"!??

Yeah, what the fuck have you done with your post?

i dont know. i cant see any bold tags or anything.

VIRUS!

The matter isnt serious? The man lied under oath and he was president of the United States.



Amen. I dont care if we ever find WMD. And I dont care if the UN or France or who ever else dont agree with us. This falls under the "who cares what other people think" thinking.

I think the main reason why France was against the war because TotalFina Elf had just signed a oil deal of some millions worth with the Iraqi government, not worht a damn now.

Nonwithstanding other economic and idealistic reasons (both from US and France and who have you) i stand by the point that

a)the US blatantly lied about their reasons for attacking. Like i said, in se i don't have any problems with the war, but a charade like this is pretty stupid. Now, in his state of the union Bush more or less admitted that it was a big phoney reason, but that there were "components and plans to start producing WMD". Like someone said in the newspaper today: "A mighty vague argument. With a reasoning like that you could justify an attack on Vatican City, there's bound to be some material there that could be used in producing some kinda bomb." I find the Bush administration lying about WMD in Iraq way worse than clinton lying about his blowjob. If it happened under oath or not doesn't matter, that's a formality anyways. Like anyone these days tells the truth cos they have to swear on the bible lol. I'd be more inclined to tell the truth if it were "hustler" than the bible methinks, bible gives me too many wrong ideas. So: Bush lies about a war which costs many ppl's lives, among which americans/Clinton lies about blowjob which costs no lives and suffering except to his wife.


b)"war doesn't prevent war. It only creates more war. And if we didn't at least learn that from the past, i don't know who or what will ever teach us."

Errol Morris (movie director)

By that quote i just wanna say that the current approach of the US is gonna backfire on no one else but theirselves in the end. And that the apparent belief that democracy can be "planted" in a country is a major delusion. Since there's a few ex-servicemen around here: you should know that every kind of occupation in history with the idea of planting a new government has miserably failed. Besides, Iraq, Syria, Iran and whatnot do not have a similar state structure as we do which makes it ten times harder to rebuild everything. The megalomaniac plan to civilize the middle-east is just totally bonkers and will only lead to móre terrorist threats. (that does not mean that the thought of improving the world isn't nice)
Ever wonder what would happens if the US later on loses some of its power? Think that everyone else will forget about "pre-emptive strikes"? I think not. The fact that it was done now on false grounds will open up all kinds of possibilities for less well-meaning nations to attack, for whatever reason.

India: "look, pakistan has a nuke that can hit us right in the face, let's take them out!" is pre-emptive strike too. And for a REAL reason.

As much as getting rid of Saddam is obviously ok, Iraq happened to be the most secular and structured state in the middle-east before the war, kinda passes by the point of fighting terrorism methinks. There was never any link proven between Saddam and Al quada; moreover, Saddam (especially in the first half of his rule) has always been a big enemy of muslim fundamentalists. Do you really believe he could have built out such a (in M-E terms) well-structured nation and stay in power for so long if he tolerated that kinda ppl to flourish?

Correction. Peace can only be achieved after there is a victor. If Isreal and Palastin went to war right now someone will come out winning and after that their will be peace. Look how long this sarade between them has gone on and has their been any peace? No. The only way peace will come out of a situation like that is after 1 side defeats the other.

Did the US civial war make more war? No, it brought peace after the north won.
Did war with England bring more war for America? No, It brought peace after the US won.
Did going to World War 2 create more war? No,it created peace.

I must agree with 11b...war doesn't necessarily create more war. War has accomplished much more than peace ever has.

In fact, one may argue peace causes war. Anyone recall Hitler's invasion of Poland? Or the opinion that he should be left alone and he'd stop? If Belgium hadn't been so nice to Hitler, WWII would've never happened.

Anyway, I see no problem with the war in Iraq. I think Hussein was a bastard who deserves to be shot. The reasons may not have been right, but the end result was.

But how much of the world would've been pissed if our reasoning for going to war was "Because Saddam is a bitch" rather than WMD? Call it diplomatic untruth.