Mad Dog Wrote:I think that by the removal of Saddam Hussein known mass murderer and two bit tyrant plus well documented pain in the ass of the United States of America was absolutely the right decision. Having actually learned lessons from WWI and WWII it is much better to kill the snake while it is small than to wait until it too big to deal with easily.

At the beginning of the first Gulf War, Iraq was actually a medium sized snake quite capable of dealing the United States extensive damage, had our political leaders had been weak minded or if military strength had been lacking.

If there is anything that men such as Hitler and Stalin and other Tyrants and Want to Be's should have taught us is that if these men take power or land or neighboring country's, were we too sit on our hands and pretend there is no danger, nobody is safe. and that nobody includes YOU.

And as far as the paranoia over Communism we had a VERY good reason too be paranoid. You see The Soviet Union vowed too destroy America AND had th capability too do it. In the 70's I distinctly remember looking too the sky almost every day to try to get a glimpse of ICBMs that could have been launched our way. Yes we were scarred, we all were. I also remember Iran taking all those American hostages, and we STILL owe those guys.

Apparently you have forgotten that those who are relatively week can do great damage too the United States with a few well placed planes or bombs. And it is the sworn job of the US Military to protect us as a country and you specifically too the best of their ability from those threats. Don't tell me that they are not fighting to protect YOUR freedom.

scooterfanatic Wrote:I





But a soldier in the Iraq War, or from Desert Storm, or from Vietnam, their fighting wasn't to protect our freedom. In Iraq they're fighting to preserve freedom for the Iraqis. During Desert Storm, they were fighting for Kuwait's interests, not ours. Vietnam was no threat to us, either, but paranoia over the spread of communism launched us into that conflict as well.

ratrad Wrote:

Mad Dog Wrote:I think that by the removal of Saddam Hussein known mass murderer and two bit tyrant plus well documented pain in the ass of the United States of America was absolutely the right decision. Having actually learned lessons from WWI and WWII it is much better to kill the snake while it is small than to wait until it too big to deal with easily.

At the beginning of the first Gulf War, Iraq was actually a medium sized snake quite capable of dealing the United States extensive damage, had our political leaders had been weak minded or if military strength had been lacking.

If there is anything that men such as Hitler and Stalin and other Tyrants and Want to Be's should have taught us is that if these men take power or land or neighboring country's, were we too sit on our hands and pretend there is no danger, nobody is safe. and that nobody includes YOU.

And as far as the paranoia over Communism we had a VERY good reason too be paranoid. You see The Soviet Union vowed too destroy America AND had th capability too do it. In the 70's I distinctly remember looking too the sky almost every day to try to get a glimpse of ICBMs that could have been launched our way. Yes we were scarred, we all were. I also remember Iran taking all those American hostages, and we STILL owe those guys.

Apparently you have forgotten that those who are relatively week can do great damage too the United States with a few well placed planes or bombs. And it is the sworn job of the US Military to protect us as a country and you specifically too the best of their ability from those threats. Don't tell me that they are not fighting to protect YOUR freedom.

Wow. While I don't really agree with everything Scooterfanatic says, you might be the most naive person on this board. Really. Do you actually believe EVERYTHING that the politicians say? I mean come on.

scooterfanatic Wrote:I know this is going to get me quite a few flames, and possibly even banned from the board (I hope not), but I'm saying this because this is what my opinion is, this is the proper board for this sort of thing, not because I just want to make people upset.

I've noticed that when someone meets a soldier (or contacts him or her on a message board), he or she always thanks the soldier for protecting our freedom. The person saying this may even disagree with the Iraq War.

I find that interesting. Here we are in a war of aggression against a nation that was repeatedly proven not to be a threat to us in any way. There were not WMDs, there was no "imminent threat," and there were no terrorist strongholds, period.

So how can a soldier in Iraq be "protecting our freedom" when our freedom wasn't in any danger to begin with? In fact, because of the war and 9/11, the government has justified the removal of our freedoms. The Iraq War has literally resulted in less freedom than before. Now, that's not the fault of the soldiers, but to say that they protected our freedom when it was in no danger, and the action that they took part in ended up being the justification for less freedom seems a bit deluded to me.

Now, in the general sense, during wars against foes that were a very real threat to us (like Hitler and Japan in WWII), the soldiers did protect our freedom. We needed them and we need them today to protect our freedom against legitimate threats to our sovreignty.

But a soldier in the Iraq War, or from Desert Storm, or from Vietnam, their fighting wasn't to protect our freedom. In Iraq they're fighting to preserve freedom for the Iraqis. During Desert Storm, they were fighting for Kuwait's interests, not ours. Vietnam was no threat to us, either, but paranoia over the spread of communism launched us into that conflict as well.

Yet people fall all over themselves to praise our troops for doing something they didn't do. I'm not going to pretend I know the reasons each person has for signing up for the armed services, and I'm not saying all the soldiers are bushies or corporate neocons or anything like that. I certainly respect them because their job is hazardous, but I'm not going to pretend that they're doing anything for me in this particular conflict.

flyersfantn Wrote:

scooterfanatic Wrote:I know this is going to get me quite a few flames, and possibly even banned from the board (I hope not), but I'm saying this because this is what my opinion is, this is the proper board for this sort of thing, not because I just want to make people upset.

I've noticed that when someone meets a soldier (or contacts him or her on a message board), he or she always thanks the soldier for protecting our freedom. The person saying this may even disagree with the Iraq War.

I find that interesting. Here we are in a war of aggression against a nation that was repeatedly proven not to be a threat to us in any way. There were not WMDs, there was no "imminent threat," and there were no terrorist strongholds, period.

So how can a soldier in Iraq be "protecting our freedom" when our freedom wasn't in any danger to begin with? In fact, because of the war and 9/11, the government has justified the removal of our freedoms. The Iraq War has literally resulted in less freedom than before. Now, that's not the fault of the soldiers, but to say that they protected our freedom when it was in no danger, and the action that they took part in ended up being the justification for less freedom seems a bit deluded to me.

Now, in the general sense, during wars against foes that were a very real threat to us (like Hitler and Japan in WWII), the soldiers did protect our freedom. We needed them and we need them today to protect our freedom against legitimate threats to our sovreignty.

But a soldier in the Iraq War, or from Desert Storm, or from Vietnam, their fighting wasn't to protect our freedom. In Iraq they're fighting to preserve freedom for the Iraqis. During Desert Storm, they were fighting for Kuwait's interests, not ours. Vietnam was no threat to us, either, but paranoia over the spread of communism launched us into that conflict as well.

Yet people fall all over themselves to praise our troops for doing something they didn't do. I'm not going to pretend I know the reasons each person has for signing up for the armed services, and I'm not saying all the soldiers are bushies or corporate neocons or anything like that. I certainly respect them because their job is hazardous, but I'm not going to pretend that they're doing anything for me in this particular conflict.

We are doing something for you. whether you agree with it or not is a different story, the fact is that now, the US soldiers in Iaq and Afghanistan make a much better target for terrorists than your fat ass does while you sit in your grandma's basement playing hours upon hours of World of Warcraft.

And not protecting your freedom? there is still and ongoing war in Afghanistan you know...and what kicked that off? how easily you a-holes forget 9/11.

I served in the Army for 4 years, and on behalf of armed servicemen all over the country:

Jo Wrote:what the eff? first paragraph you say "I am not saying that soldiers do not protect our freedom in general..."

then you say "I want to reiterate that the soldiers fighting in Iraq are not protecting my freedom."

i just woke up so my brain isn't 100% but i think you don't know what you're talking about.

scooterfanatic Wrote:They didn't find a uranium stockpile, Sadaam wasn't supporting terrorists (his state was secular, he was hated by the Islamic republics surrounding him), and he wasn't causing "instability" in the region. Quit getting your information from Fox News.

Peachs Wrote:first off, you sir, are a flippin idiot. Just how many friends do you have, really...

Do you know any soldiers? Have you talked to any that are in Iraq or have been in Iraq? Do you know what really goes on over there??

Do you even know why we went into Iraq in the first place?? Do you have any idea what Bushs' motives entailed?

We went into Iraq because we THOUGHT we were in imminent danger due to the presence of WMD's. Now, even though there were none, that was the underlying reason. If we didn't act first and investigate after, with WMD threats, the earth would most likely be in a state of obliteration already.

I understand that the "shoot first, ask questions later" stance isn't the best stance to take, but honestly, wouldn't you rather be safe than dead?

The reason we stayed in Iraq was largely due to the fact that President Bush wanted to undermine Saddam's abilities to acquire the means to wage war against the U.S. This would include the opportunity to harbor and support Al-Qaeda forces. Who, as we all know, were behind the 9/11 attacks. Are you going to say that soldiers aren't protecting us by looking for Osama, that we're in Afghainistan for no reason as well?

seriously, I could argue this subject forever, having been enlisted and active duty, I believe that any soldier even the ones pushing paper behind desks, are indeed defending our country.

kaboobie92 Wrote:

scooterfanatic Wrote:They didn't find a uranium stockpile, Sadaam wasn't supporting terrorists (his state was secular, he was hated by the Islamic republics surrounding him), and he wasn't causing "instability" in the region. Quit getting your information from Fox News.

And quit getting your news from far left. There was a uranium stockpile that was found. Wake up.

scooterfanatic Wrote:

kaboobie92 Wrote:And quit getting your news from far left. There was a uranium stockpile that was found. Wake up.

Ok fine, I'll conceded that point. But, keep in mind it was yellowcake uranium, which is used in the preparation for nuclear power plants. None of it was enriched. There was no evidence Sadaam was pursuing a nuclear weapons program. And no, "he was a bad man" is not evidence of the contrary.

Admin Wrote:Iraq wasn't a threat.

The same country led by Saddam Hussein who used chemical weapons on his own people.

The same guy who allegedly used chemical weapons on American soldiers in 1991.

The same guy who continually thumbed his nose at the cease fire agreement.

The same guy who denied UN inspectors access for a long enough time period that could allow any WMD to be shipped/stored.

The same guy who, when the United States invaded Afghanistan, began posturing himself as if he had or was on the verge of creating WMD.

That guy right?

But no, Iraq wasn't a threat.

"[T]here was plenty of evidence that Saddam had nuclear weapons, by the way. That is not in dispute. There is plenty of evidence of that."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Nov. 7. 2005

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." S
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep.
- Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003


Nope, Iraq wasn't a threat.

wienerpoopie Wrote:

Peachs Wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

scooterfanatic Wrote:They didn't find a uranium stockpile, Sadaam wasn't supporting terrorists (his state was secular, he was hated by the Islamic republics surrounding him), and he wasn't causing "instability" in the region. Quit getting your information from Fox News.

Mad Dog Wrote:

ratrad Wrote:Wow. While I don't really agree with everything Scooterfanatic says, you might be the most naive person on this board. Really. Do you actually believe EVERYTHING that the politicians say? I mean come on.

Apparantly your a blind idiot with no life experience

scooterfanatic Wrote:So Biff, your "proof" is a bunch of quotes from congresspeople who were fed all their information from the Bush administration?

All that proves is that a lot of people THOUGHT he had WMDs, not that he actually had them at the time.

dingdongyo Wrote:why am i saying anything in a thread like this? this can only lead to bad things...

i think the whole pro-everything-that-has-to-do-with-a-soldier trend has a lot to do with not repeating what happened to soldiers returning from vietnam (if that's the right one... i think), who were totally disrespected and disgraced by americans for doing their job.

anybody who serves honorably deserves to get his or her ass kissed. which is the current trend: strangers shake their hands, they're instantly popular wherever they go, and they can basically get themselves laid at the drop of a dime. no issues with any of that, except maybe a little jealousy, but hey, good for you men and women.

at the same time, there seems to be a kneejerk negative reaction when soldiers in general aren't getting their asses kissed, as if people automatically read it as an insult. although, there are several instances above where that didn't happen. those people deserve their own props, too.

Fistor Wrote:

Admin Wrote:Did you completely overlook the part about Hussein posturing himself as if they had WMD when the U.S. invaded Afghanistan?

That's convenient.

But is "posturing" enough justification to start a war?

Admin Wrote:

Fistor Wrote:But is "posturing" enough justification to start a war?

Given his track record I say "yes".