Somebody said that Iraq didn't have the materials or shtuffs for weapons or something like that, how did he gas Iran then? [thats an actual question, cos he did gas Iran, but how did he if he didn't have the sufficient materials].

Also, another point that states that Iraq didn't have WoMD - America or the UK wouldn't have invaded if he did. Because one push of a button and thats [place random UK/USA place here] blown to Rabbitville...

I don't think WE should do anything. I think that WE should stop coming out with anything other than the facts.

What WE should do, is give Saddam to Iraq and let them deal with him. It was none of our business in the first place, therefore we shouldn't be going and sticking our noses in any further.

What Saddam Hussien does is totally up to him. We could have a laugh suggesting that he sue Bush, but really I doubt Bush will care for the legal system after breaking international law like he did - the same one he is so convinced that he is "above".

I personally think that Saddam thinks somebody in his own legal system will break him out of jail, and that he will be able to escape. I find it very unlikely that he is so self centered he won't even kill himself and evade whatever punishment the Iraqi's have in mind.

If america really wants to cut terrorism off from its lifeline of weapons, then Bush will need to buy all of Korea's weapons, then have them dismantled. Because Korea is one of the most major world threats. All it is interested in is money, and it's selling weapons to anyone who has the money to pay for them.

A few years back Our amazingly intellectual governments sold him various stuff that goes boom.

if we had, we would have one it.

Hobo, its so true. I bet we sold them that gas on purpose as an excuse to attack him.

The way i see it. After 9/11, GB had to get somebody he couldnt find Bin Laden, so he thought. "Lets get Saddam" so they went in. Technically Saddam wasnt doing anything when they attacked. AND they went in without permission from NATO.

I totally agree, I have my own thoughts on how things would probably played out different, but thats another story.

I've heard nearly every hard believed rumor, every theory, and every assumption there is about Bush in this thread. Hes only interested in money, there aren't any WoMD, Bush will get reelected, Bush thinks he is above everyone, Bush is power hungry and wants his name in books, etc...

You know what? How about we do some other assuming. Lets assume that our governments know more than we know about Saddam's WoMD. Eh? Why don't we just think for a minute that maybe, MAYBE that we really DID go to war to help the Iraqi people? That maybe Bush doesn't lie awake at night, with a smug look on his face, happy over the fact he ****ed a nation to make himself known? Lets put sit in our thinking chair, like in Blue's Clues.

Surely, if Bush is as self centered as people seem to think he is, he watches the news, reads the paper, and knows that half the world thinks hes a dumbass. Do you people realize how god damned stereotypical your being? NEWS FLASH! Bush isn't a typical, uneducated, hideously arrogant high school bully. All people do nowadays is look and see what he does, and warps it into some sort of anti Bush thing. Anyone who can think would know if they were digging themself into a deeper hole. Bush knows that half the world hates him. So then, why is he feeding more firewood into the stereotypical, magical know-it-alls in the world? Could it POSSIBLY be because he wants to finish what he started, and set things right?

I don't necessarily think its good that people are dying everyday. The masses of naive, stereotyping sheep piss me off almost as much though. Go figure. Think of the world from a perspective other than "I'm right, Bush is your typical corrupted movie politician."

Geez.

Awwww, but he fits the role of a typical movie politian so well :p

I'm not part of the sheep herd, I have my own opinions, and it so happens they clash with what Bush thinks. Saddam was bad, but it's not America's job to be the police of Earth.

They should dedicate more money to things that are needed. Same with my Government (but American has so much more money to spend :p).

Alcar...

Yes. You and half the world have your own unique opinions, making you unique people with the same ideas, but not a mass of sheep;)

I think pete summed up my own feelings on this quite well. Sure we liberated the Iraqi people, freed them from opression, thats all well and good. But not everyone over in Iraq is in love with the American forces. Most of the time the news stations wont broadcast the other things that are happening when the cameras are turned off.

I dont think we had enough solid evidence to start the war with Iraq. Nor do I feel comfortable with our country just going off with a simple coalition of mainly the U.S. and Great Britain.

I guess simply what Im trying to say, is why not use all that money that we keep pumping into new wars, into further security in the U.S., and trying to get out of our largest National Debt ever. Then after we are secured, and our country is getting back on track, move onto peace keeping/military campaigns.

Why the hell shouldn't america police the world? They've got power and technology I say they should use it to help people. Policing the world doesn't nessacerily mean oppressing the world.

So many people beleive what they hear in the headlines because they like to be alternative, and against the system. They litterally gobble up everything Rage Against The Machine tells them.

Now how do you suppose a dumbass would get to become president of the united states? It takes quite alot to become president in case you hadn't noticed! If bush wanted to be re-elected the next time round he wouldn't have gone to war at all. But I strongly suspect he doesn't care about votes.

The truth is, he is most likely already rich. Why would he want more money? Surely america doesn't need more money! And the cost of going to war would more than cancel out any profit they made out of it.

Possibly. But it'd only stand a chance if the President was female.

Alcar...

If it was a women, that would be bad. We'd start and finish a new war once a month...

i wouldnt be able to sleep at night knowing that. Sure they have a big army with good weapons, but they dont use it properly. Eg. The second nuke dropped on Japan was not needed, but they had to see if it would work.

I think that countries should be mates, world peace ect ect. But one country should not police the world. We should elect a cabinet of people, one from every continent to rule the world. That way, wars wouldnt dare start, as the enemy would litteraly have the whole world coming down on them.

Does anyone have any games where you beat up sadam or bin ladin? I think you should post 'em here just to rub it in...:D :D :D

When me and my bestfriend rule the world it'll be fun in a bucket...

Blah, blah, Majic. Sure, there are a lot of people out there on the "I hate Bush" bandwagon, but there are also a lot of people dislike him because... oh gee, I don't know... he isn't a very good president. :D And correct me if I'm wrong Majic, but didn't you agree with some of the anti-Bush statements expressed in this thread at one time or another? I mean, it's cool that you're trying to have an open mind and everything, but... erm... look, even I don't know what I'm trying to insinuate here. I'm just going to move on...

And I don't think he goes to sleep with a big smirk on his face, either. He's doing his job. He isn't doing it very well, but he is doing it. So yes, people do need to stop thinking that he concocts little schemes in his Fortress of Oppression miles below the Earth's crust. :D

"Mwuhahaha! I wonder how I can screw up the world NOW!!! Bwuha! Ha ha! Boy, I'm evil."

But Jesus tap-dancing Christ, f*ck some of you. Just because a select few of us dislike Bush's policies, it doesn't mean we're doing so to be "cool" or "alternative." It means that we just disagree with Bush's policies. That's it. It's the anti-anti-Bush people that are doing the stereotyping here.

Anywho, my point is that it's OK to be skeptical. It's the basis of American freedom. We have the right to disagree with current government practices. What was the reason we went to Iraq? WoMD. Have we found any WoMD? No. What happened when we didn't find any? We used Saddam as a scapegoat.

I feel that my views are perfectly justified. Like I've said before, if WoMD are found, then I'm going to take it like a man and admit that I'm wrong. Until that happens, I have the right to say that all this Iraq business is nothing but poorly executed farce.

Well, I might have to disagree about the second atomic bomb. In the first place, they probably could have not been used, but the second bomb was actually dropped because Japan still was not surrendering after the first one. I admit, we should have probably given them more time, but they refused to give their conditional surrender.

Anyways, I kind of like your idea about a bunch of world leaders who would be elected to govern the world.

EXACTLY. God, I may just kiss you now, SeaRex.

Just because we don't like Bush doesn't mean we're trying to fit in, be cool, or follow any so called "trends". Hell, if any of us were that concerned with fitting in, we probably wouldn't be constantly talking on a video game message board.

So, yeah, just look at SeaRex's post and imagine my name on it instead of his, and you've basically got my opinion on all this.

I'm sure they surrendered beforehand and America still dropped it. It wasn't the fact they bombed them either, it was the fact they bombed civilians...

SeaRex summed up my feeling on the situation as well. I'm not trying to fit into the Bush-disliking for fun.....I just don't like the guy. To tell ya the truth, I didn't like Gore either, so my thoughts aren't mainstream blah blah, trying to fit into everyone elses views blah blah. In fact, the media projects a "we love Bush" feeling all the time, so I'm glad I can have my own thoughts.

-oddguy:fuzcool:

She would not :p

Don't be daft, the majority of women don't strive for greed. Whereas the majority of men do, and Mr.Bush is a perfect example.

Don't be naive. You want fairness, and no greed? Get a woman. I LOVE the fact that New Zealand has a female as the Prime Minister. Go NZ!

Alcar...

Yeah Peter, but the New Zealand PM looks like a transsexual who doesn't pass.

As for 'WMD', George Bush today said this:


"So what's the difference?"

"If he were to acquire weapons, he would be the danger," the president said. "A gathering threat, after 9-11, is a threat that needed to be dealt with."


So basically, he's admitting that Saddam doesn't have any weapons. The thing is, he lied by using the excuse that Saddam has weapons as a motive for war, a motive that has since been shown to be unfounded.

I don't think the Pres is evil, he's just really inept.

CG's ramblins
 

AHEM... forgive me for contradicting the FORUM FOUNDER (who I have not seen before) but... that is a claim relating to events before the war made with facts from after the war.

For example, Bush starts the war on Iraq saying that Saddam had WoMD. Ok, now that has since been proven to be incorrect. Saddam DIDN'T have WoMD. However, if you notice, I used the words "since been proven". When the war started, nobody said there were no WoMD. Only after the war did we KNOW that there were no WoMD. So could it be possible that Bush started the war either because his information was incorrect (but he thought it was correct and therefore felt so very very very sure of his accusations?

And how do we know for SURE that he lied to the world? Maybe he was so confident that he was right that he made his statements to the world.

Now all of that makes it sound like I'm supporting bush. Honestly though, I really dislike him. He is inept as you said, he is stupid, and he is above all wrong... plus, he isn't man enough to admit he was wrong. Now a leader who can stand up and admit to the world that he was completely wrong is a leader worthy of praise.

Re: CG's ramblins
 

Good show, Canned Gabbiar.:fuzwink: I totally agree. Yeah, I think Bush is a loser as well, but if he does turn up those WMD's, then I'll take back the mean stuff I said about him and be Man to admit I was wrong.......but I'm not holding my breath. You do bring forward an interesting point......what if Bush thought his info about WMD's was accuarte and that he wasn't planning on lying to everyone for war? Hmmmmm, I wonder.

*ponders*

-oddguy:fuzcool:

Re: CG's ramblins
 

Sort of like the United Nations? Except America doesn't listen to them... Which leads to my next comment.

The United Nations had not yet found any, and were still searching, which is when Bush said, 'Nope, not listening to you, *cough*we need oil*cough*, we're going to war.'

**** you, I won't do what you tell me. :p

Yadda yadda yadda yeah yeah yeah, ok wow you're all so intelligent. No, no Saddam wasn't a ****ing scapegoat you dimwit, Saddam was the reason that we went to war.

And yes, yes you are being "alternative" just to fit in and look cool, because that's what you Rage Against The Machine loving kiddies like to do. Saddam was a terrorist, he had to be eliminated. Whether he had weapons or not, he was still a nasty person. Get used to it.

We CAN and WILL beat terrorism, and no thumbsucking trend****ing teenager with a bad attitude is going to tell me or the rest of the intelligent world that a Tyrant and Terrorist shouldn't've been taken from power. That sort of person doesn't deserve to be on the face of this earth, let alone in the good books of some unrealistic "peace protester".

George Bush, or any other president, doesn't run america. He has people who do it for him. He mostly authorises actions, promotes himself in other countries, and tries to arrange solutions to national and international issues. America doesn't need more oil, America doesn't need more money, America needs popularity with the eastern world to prevent attacks altogether.

What you are suggesting is that we should've left Saddam alone so that he could kill hundreds of thousands more innocent Iraqi's. Wow great idea, seriously, you should run for president.

I don't know how many times I should type out "oh my god what a moron" to sum up the feeling here, but if I did decide to waste that much space it'd probably end up on macro.

The only complaint you have is that you were lied to, and that Britain and the US didn't get UN approval. Do you honestly think that is a very caring view? Do you really give a piss about "The system" if you are prepared to go against it to picket the whitehouse? You are all a bunch of contradictory peace hippies that think they're making a difference to world peace by allowing an evil dictator to carry on killing hundreds of thousands (which is essentially what you are trying to do by the way).

Who gives a shit for UN approval? Who cares about what they tell you? Saddam is gone now, and the world is a safer place. Really if you had any idea of what Saddam had done to his people you wouldn't be against the war.

No, Saddam WASN'T the reason we went to war. We went to disarm supposed WoMD and didn't find any.

Am I the only one that remembers the "countdown to disarm?" If our intentions were only to liberate Iraq, we wouldn't have given Saddam a f*cking timelimit to disarm his "Weapons of Mass Destruction." We would have just gone in, kicked his ass, and left. Instead, we (Why am I even using the word "we?" Aren't you "from" Russia?) waited. We waited for him to disarm weapons that he didn't have. Then, when Saddam refused to disarm the (so far) non-existant weapons, we swooped in and "liberated" the Iraqis. After all, with our seemingly infinite supply of oil and money, it would just look terrible if we were wrong for once.
You summed it up perfectly: "oh my god what a moron." First, I don't even listen to Rage Against The Machine. Second, you're a little stereotyping nazi bitch. Oh my yes... I disagree with Bush's policies... therefore I must be following a trend! It only makes sense to discriminate EVERY SINGLE anti-Bush person into a neat little shrink-wrapped package! And if they disagree with what I think, I can just denounce them as dimwits who are merely trying to pass off as intellectuals! After all, if they don't support Bush, they can't be right.

Shove it up your ass, Hitler.
Did I ever say that he wasn't a nasty person? No. Did I ever say that he didn't deserve to be removed from power? No. All I said was that America went into Iraq for the wrong reason, and then acted rashly to save its reputation.

Christ. For someone who "doesn't" live in America, spends most of his time working on his computers/web cams, and playing an online game, you sure do know a lot about us.

It's obvious that no real progress is going to be made in this topic. You're not going to change my mind, and I'm not going to change your's. So after your usual holier-than-thou rebuttal, I'm not going to bother responding. Go on, fire away. No one will care. Arguing over the net is just like the Special Olympics, anyway. Even if you win, you're still retarded.

Thank you for that Searex, you've put what i was thinking into words, without me doing anything about it.

All I know is that I am not following rage against the machine...I have never even heard of that.

And Jacob I do agree, I dont think the killing of all those civilians in Hiroshima, or Nagasaki was needed.

Although when Japan attacked pearl harbor, I dont think it was right slaughtering our Navy in their sleep either. Plus we werent really involved in the war at the time, they brought us in with that attack, and in the end it did come back to haunt Japan, in a very very horrible way.

I do disagree with some of Bush's policies. And granted, I was a bit overreactive. Truly though, some of teh stuff I've heard about this is just so... paranoid. Ugh. Think of it like Area 51. Nutcases discredit the people who actually DO research and find information on it, instead of throwing wild theories of paranoia.

And god damnit, I STILL think Sadam looks like the hobo I saw a few days ago. hes got the same hair/beard and such.