^well then make suggestions, block trade if you have to, use other methods instead of going to war. war is not a valid method of input into how to run the government, but actually, I think you make a good point, I think that if we're going to give any kind of aid to a country, we should be able to make certain demands, such as improving human rights laws before aid is given. However, I completely disagree with the way that the US went about it. For one, while hussein was a horrible dictator, it's difficult to say that RIGHT NOW, the people of iraq are better off without him. Hopefully in the years to come (because I do believe it will take many years) the situation will get better, but I'm not all that optimistic. One possibility is that the US will put off returning rule to an iraqi government until a leader presents himself that will be sympathetic to the US and is willing to let foreign investment into the country. Maybe they will attempt to get the iraqi citizens to support him, or simply prop him up and hope there isn't a huge riot that runs him from the country and presents a fundamentalist islamicist leader (which is what a lot of iraqis want right now). But then again, no one really has any idea how it will turn out, but no matter what, I think that the war was a huge mistake, and resulted in a lot more negative effects than positive ones. The removal of a brutal dictatorship is not enough to outhweigh the millions who have died, not to mention the complete unrest in iraq's political and economical system, that will take decades to fully recover from. Having said that, the middle east is now thoroughly F***ed up.

I believe you were the one blaming us for being unfair to the Cuban people for the trade blocks we put on them because of Communism in an earlier thread.

not sure, I could have been, but communism and the mass murder of millions of Kurds aren't quite the same thing, but i see where you're coming from. it has to be a pretty desperate situation (like the one in iraq) to justify a trade blockade. if the US had done that I would have nothing to say against it. however, in my opinion, war is the most difficult action to justify, there are just so many devastating effects that you really have to weigh your options before dediding, and make sure that war is THE ONLY option. And I think the US government simply skipped that step.

War definatley was not the only option in that scenario.

Heres Ur Pro Bush Boy!!!
 

OK people first of all i would like to start off by saying im pro bush, yeh thats right p-r-o--b-u-s-h i say it like that because most of u seem to have hearing problems or are just plain stupid, the problem with u guys is because all you do is listen to the press, ur all to thick too think on your own (which im not surprised considering ur American), im a big supporter in the Iraq campaign, i dont care what u have too say the fact is Saddam Hussien and his evil sons had to be stopped at what ever cost, if anything we shouldve invaded the country years ago.
have any of u taken the time to look at the good things that George Bush Jr has done?
or are u all too arogant too look at both sides of the argument.
ive researched the bad and the good about ur president and i think he is what us auzzies like to call- a fair dinkum champion.


Im goin to leave it at that, ive got more, but i want to find out how long it takes for someone to respond to this thread.




Cheers....
:band:

Do your really one of the stupiest people I have seen. You really disappoint me, especially since your a foreigner. ESPECIALLY because you are an AUZZIE. Good thing ur not a German, because Germany and France are the only intelligent countries it seems in Europe, well Spain joined the group too. You dont listen to the media or press. Wow, where do u get your information then? Conspiracy websites? Everything is media, media means anything that informs through audio, visual or other means of communications. I guess u didnt know that since English isnt ur first language, well its not mine either, but I guess that just means your not informed, oh well. Seriously dude, go read a book or something, this is hurting my brain. Many people in the US dont like Bush any more and you, a foreigner, like him. JESUS ****ING CHRIST, I am out of here. This is lame we already explained all this in previous posts that you were to lazy to read. I even said I wasnt American. Go read before u post. Anyways, I got to go work, cant wait to see the november elections results, bye.

For starters, I can tell that english isn’t you’re native language because yours is terrible. Shadowsniper needs to take a step back and instead of trying to be apart of a cool minority by hating whoever the protestors hate, a little research never hurts. You have no idea how bias the media is, the truth is that a story against the american campaign will sell better than a story about how much america has done for the people of iraq or how honourable george w. bush really is. Eg. Since President Bush declared an end to major combat on May 1:
 The first battalion of the new Iraqi Army has graduated and is on active
duty (~60,000 Iraqis providing security to citizens).
 Nearly all of Iraq's 400 courts are functioning.
 The Iraqi judiciary is fully independent.
 Power generation hit 4,518 megawatts (Oct), exceeding prewar output.
 All 22 Universities & 43 technical institutes/colleges are open
 Nearly all primary and secondary schools are open.
 Coalition has "rehabbed" 1,500+ schools (500 ahead of schedule).
 Teachers earn from 12-25 times their former salaries.
 All 240 hospitals and more than 1200 clinics are open.
 Doctors salaries are at least 8 times what they were under Saddam.
 Pharmaceutical distribution has gone from almost zero to 12,000 tons.
 Coalition has helped administer 22 million+ vaccinations to children.
 Coalition has cleared 14,000+km of Iraq's 27,000km of weed-choked canals
which now irrigate tens of thousands of farms. This project has created
100,000+ jobs for Iraqi men & women.
 Coalition has restored over 3/4 of prewar telephone services and 2/3+ of
potable water production.
 4,900+ full-service telephone connections (~50,000 by year-end).
 Commerce is expanding rapidly (bicycles, satellite dishes, cars, trucks,
etc) in all major cities and towns.
 95% of all prewar bank customers have service and first-time customers are
opening accounts daily.
 Iraqi banks are making loans to finance businesses.
 The central bank is fully independent.
 Iraq has one of the world's most growth-oriented investment and banking
laws.
 Iraq has a single, unified currency for the first time in 15 years.
 Satellite TV dishes are legal.
 Foreign journalists are not on "10-day visas" paying mandatory fees to the
Ministry of Information for minders. There is no such Ministry.
 There are 170+ newspapers.
 Foreign journalists (and everyone else) are free to come and go.
 A nation that had not one single element ? legislative, judicial or
executive ? of a representative government, now does.
 In Baghdad alone, residents have selected 88 advisory councils.
 Baghdad's democratic transfer of power (1st in 35 years); city council
elected its new chairman.
 Iraqi Chambers of commerce, businesses, schools and professional
organizations are electing their leaders all over the country.
 25 ministers, selected by the most representative governing body in Iraq's
history, run the day-to-day business of government.
 The Iraqi gov't regularly participates in international events.
 Since July the Iraqi gov't has been represented in 24+ international
meetings, including UN General Assembly, the Arab League, the World Bank,
IMF and the Islamic Conference Summit.
 The Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced that it is reopening 30+ Iraqi
embassies worldwide.
 Shia religious festivals (all but banned) are no longer illegal.
 For the first time in 35 years, in Karbala, thousands of Shiites celebrate
the pilgrimage of the 12th Imam.
 The Coalition has completed 13,000+ reconstruction projects, large and
small, as part of a strategic plan for the reconstruction of Iraq.
 Uday and Queasy are dead, and no longer feeding Iraqis to the zoo lions,
raping the young daughters of local leaders to force cooperation, torturing
Iraq's soccer players for losing games, or murdering critics.
 Children aren't imprisoned or murdered when their parents disagree with the
government.
 Political opponents aren't imprisoned, tortured, executed, maimed, or
forced to watch their families die for disagreeing with Saddam.
 Millions of long-suffering Iraqis no longer live in perpetual terror.
 As a side effect, in neighboring countries, (1) Saudis will hold municipal
elections, (2) Qatar is reforming education to give more choices to
parents, (3) Jordan is accelerating market economic reforms, (4) The Nobel
Peace Prize was awarded (first time) to an Iranian (Muslim woman) who
speaks out for human rights/democracy & peace.
 Saddam is gone.
 Iraq is free.

“Little or none of this information has been published by the Press Corps that prides itself on bringing you all the news that's important. Iraq, under US lead control, has come further in six months than Germany did in seven years or Japan did in nine years following WWII.
Military deaths from fanatic Nazi's and Japanese numbered in the thousands and continued for over three years after WWII victory was declared. It took the US over four months to clear away the twin tower debris, let alone attempt to build something else in its place.

Now, take into account that many people in our government and media continue to claim on a daily basis on national TV that this conflict has been a failure. Taking everything into consideration, even the unfortunate loss of our sons and daughters in this conflict, do you think any other country in the world could have accomplished as much as the United States and its coalition partners have in so short a period of time?”
Karl Nielson LT, CHC, USNR 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) Chaplain

Atta boy 'iamAlejo'
 

Ok, i dont have much to say unless im asked, but after reading all six pages of this Thread, i would have to say 'iamAlejo' has thoroughly slaughtered 'sharky' and all those who appose him.
I think invading Iraq was one of the best moves the U.S of A has ever done, if anything, America sould've done it long ago.
No matter what argument u come up with, the fact is, is that Saddam Hussien and his sons had to be stopped at ANY COST.



And by the way 'Sharky' i think u should get a new pic.



Cheers,

typical you...lol i agree tho. man thats alot of money.....food for everyone for 5 years.....wow.......
:band:

Speaking as an outsider from American politics, I'd just like to ask those who supported Bush's actions in Iraq if they think that American soldiers should be sent into the numerous other areas in the world where there are huge human rights issues. Zimbabwe and North Korea for two. North Korea is a proven owner of weapons of mass destruction, the so-called smoking gun, and have been openly hostile to the outside world for close to 50 years, all the while the population of their country is brainwashed and indoctrinated into a culture of hatred against the Americans that Al-Qaeda could only dream of, yet Bush chose to invade Iraq. I have my own personal opinions on why he chose Iraq (black liquid and lots of it) but what do his supporters think of the reasons Bush proposed for the invasion?

No weapons of mass destruction have been found, and as I said earlier, human rights violations are going on all over the world.

Reply
 

OK, Picture yourself as the President of the United States of America, living in a "Post September 11 World."
This means you can no longer wait too take the first punch, because the people delivering the first punch will kill innocent civillians, not in their "1's" or "10's" but in the "1000's" or "1000,000's".
The enemy has said that anyone who does not suuport their extremist views must convert or die.
Ur intelligent services tell you that Saddam posses weapons of mass destruction, the UN agrees but does not know how many he has left. 12 years of UN sanctions have not stopped him. The Director of the CIA tells you 'quote' "Slam Dunk" that Saddam has Weapons of Mass Destruction.
You know that Saddam Hussien has used them against his own people, and would not hesitate too sell them too terrorists.
You are the president and you must decide what to do.....





Too this day America has not directly profited from Iraqi oil, no one has been able to prove otherwise.

Zimbabwe and North Korea are horrible regimes, the UN must act first, but it has not, unlike the case in Iraq. (you cannot compare Iraq and North Korea/ Zimbabwe, this is like comparing apples and oranges)

If America invaded North Korea, they would be unable to pevent North Korea from destroying South Korea.
The president of Zimbabwe is evil, but no where near as bad as Saddam.



Thats all for now.

why do always get the urge to post in political threads.....i'm gonna keep this short
In all of your arguments, there are regimes who are better examples of all the reasons for why the US went to war with iraq.

Anti-american sentiment among the general public with no attempt by the government to supress it: Saudi Arabia is a much bigger threat to the US in that respect

WMD: North Korea (and yes I read your explanation, and I'm not seeing where you're coming from. If the US invaded North Korea I'm pretty sure that the military in North Korea would momentarily turn their attention away from south Korea to the US military who would be carpet-bombing their country.)

Humam rights violations: There have been so many instances in the past where the US sat and did nothing. Take Rwanda for instance. The government was commiting genocide while the US did nothing, so why iraq, why now?

I realize that you're probably never going to agree with me, just as I'm never going to agree with you. I'm merely responding to this thread to keep the debate going, because I think it's great that we're actually debating the subject. It when people never questions their own beliefs that they get into a pattern of blind faith and obedience, which is (in my opinion) the worst form of ignorance on any matter of importance.

Again, speaking as an outsider, the USA has gained a reputation now for outward aggression against other nations, which is only going to fuel the anti-Western feeling that the extremist groups rely on to bolster support.

The excuses for invading Iraq were at best flimsy, at worst downright lies. There is no proven link between Saddam Hussein and the atrocity of 9/11, and as has been mentioend before, the majority of the protagonists of that act were funded by Saudi Arabians. Bin Laden is a Saudi Arabian. Bush's links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda just don't make sense.

It's a real shame that the USA comes off so badly in this war, because I've been to the US numerous times, and I love the place, the people, the atmosphere, but many millions of people will never be able to understand that the current government's actions do not represent the will of a great number of people. (Although Bush's awful economic policies did mean I got tons of cheap records over there last time I was there :) which I'm not complaining about.)

^ thank's for pointing out something that hopefully not many people overlook, that the government doesn't reflect the views and apsirations of the general public. I've been to many other countries around the world, including the middle east, though not recently, but I do have many friends who are living in and around Saudi Arabia. All of them have said that for the most part, the majority of Saudi's that they encounter do not have warm feelings towards the american governemtn, or their own government, but they realize that the people in power do not reflect the general public. And yes, I have stated that Saudi Arabia is home to some of the most anti-american sentiments, and I still stand by that. However, the people voicing these sentiments, and worse, acting on them, are in the minority, unfortunately, it is from them that we hear the most. Just like people in that part of the world hear more of Bush declaring war against the "evil-doers" and the terrorists than the citizens of the US, we in North America only hear the opinions of the terrorists, and only see the actions of the fanatics. What we don't see is an entire country of suffering people, who's main concern is simply how to get through another day with an oppressive, corrupt regime controling every aspect of their daily lives.

Dude, u some good points there, but just too let u know, there is absolutly no way America would 'carpet bomb' anybody, considering they now use 'precision' targeting, they could 'carpet bomb' but the last time they did that was in Vietnam.

Good point man, but perhaps they've started a trend now and will continue to help other countries from now on, they had to start sometime.

I agree, atta girl jibber!!! (sorry i cant remember if u were a boy or a girl, but i think i can recall a previous thread where u stated u were a chick :) )

Anyways catch ya later mate



P.S I posted some facts on the Bush confilict on another thread called "Bush Debate" ....i think thats it, anyways i couldnt be bothered to put it on this thread, so please take the time to visit that thread

Hmmm...where to start, where to start. I'll start with North Korea. Bush has already labeled North Korea as a member of the "axis of evil" with Iraq and Iran. I truly believe that we WOULD be in North Korea now if 1. We weren't already in Iraq and 2.North Korea wasn't so close to China. China isn't to fond of us getting to close to them, especially since we know they hate their Communist Government. Example=Korean War. I truly think that all you people that say oil is a reason are just truly trying to find something that isn't there. No WMD have been found, yet weapons that Iraq was not supposed to have based on UN (not US) guidelines HAVE been found. Long Distance Missiles. I also believe Iraq was attacked because there was more of a fear that Hussein could have an easier effect of helping terrorist organizations in the Middle East. Being in the Middle East, I think that Bush was trying to send a message that Terrorism would not be something that happens without a response. Going into Iraq and Afghanistan was almost a joint effort. Both are located close, and that could have posssibly been another reason.

Now onto Zimbabwe. Africa is a 3rd world continent for the love of god, with the exception of a few countries. The fact is that conflict is going on all over Africa, and I'm truly glad we don't get ourselves started in that. With all the money we already send over there, we shouldn't waste our time getting military involved there. I truly see no hope. Maybe that's just me. Basically...Iraq was more of an immediate threat than Zimbabwe, Rwanda, and any other country you want to mention.

The economy is on a 3 year high or so. Is it really doing that bad? Maybe that's why we went to war, get the economy up? Just kidding. Outward aggresion? Sorry, trying to take out a leader who has gassed people in his own country, and has made his country poor as hell because he spends all the money his country gains off oil on his "Palaces" makes us a little aggressive? Well I'm damn proud to be aggressive then. Fuel a fire? That's the whole point, Bush is trying to put the fire out. We've sit back, and let the fire grow and grow, then 9/11 happened. Sitting back wasn't helping, Because Middle Eastern Governments were not doing anything about these Extremist Groups, so we decided to do something. Bush's links between Iraq and Al-Queda don't make sense? You think that every bit of information the government has goes public? Hell no. You think that half of what they have goes public? Hell no. You think that 1/10 of what they have goes public? Guess what? Hell no. The fact is that information was there, and though it may not have been enough for YOU to be happy, it was enough for CONGRESS TO VOTE to go to war...NOT THE PRESIDENT, THE CONGRESS VOTED. Don't give me that Bush pressed them to go to war. It was a large majority that voted to go to war, much more than just the Republicans in Senate. So that's a joke. Bin Laden is Saudi Arabian, but Bin Laden has also been disassociated by his family (if you believe them, I'm not sure I do). He hasn't really associated much with Saudi Arabia, yet I think that's where he's probably hiding. I'm not a fan of Saudi Arabia and their government, yet if we invaded because of their funding...I gurantee that YOU would be the first one on here talking about "a black liquid."

1.2 million jobs have been lost since Bush was elected. The dollar has weakened against the pound, the yen and the euro. Productivity is down. The reason Bush is desperately trying to create jobs now is because of an election in November. Simple as that. He has been the worst president for the US economy in my lifetime.

Of course the US government didn't release all of the information to the public, but it would have to to the UN. The UN voted against going to war. The US and British governments pressed on regardless, basically invalidating the very existence of a United Nations in the same way that Germany and Japan did in the late 1930's. We all know how the 30's ended.

As an American citizen are you actually satisfied that your government decides what you are fit to hear? They are supposed to be SERVING you, not the other way round.

The reasons you come up with for invading Iraq I feel are totally justified. Yes, he was a tyrant, yes he was a dispicable human being, yes he was a nasty man. But it's ok for the Zimbabwean regime to do exactly the same things because Africa is a third world continent? If the US wants to be seen as the "policeman of the world" then surely they should be doing something about that?

Where to start....Where to start again? OK...found a spot.

Actually they wouldn't. US is not a big fan of the UN, and even less of a fan of NATO. I doubt they release all the info to UN.

"It's not what your government can do for you, but what you can do for your government." Ever heard of it? JFK, one of the best Presidents we've had. Who are you to say what the government is to do?

Isn't the US often criticized for being the "World Police." Yes we are, yet when we don't help out some third world country than we are the bad guys. It's always are fault. But the fact remains, there is no immediate investment in Zimbabwe. We have constantly been at war with them ever since Desert Storm. The fact is that we are not going to spread out the military too thin at one time. If things settle in Iraq, we might go to Zimbabwe. Who knows? Iraq was more of an immediate threat to the US than Zimbabwe will ever be.

Most of those lost jobs, dollar weakening, etc, happened during the first two years of his Presidency. Do you think that an economy has results in just two years. No, it takes 4 to 6 years for a Presidents laws, etc, to have an impact on the economy. Look at Clinton before we start looking too much at Bush.

alejo, you've stated in many responses that a major justification for going to iraq was the threat of influence on terrorism and a supply of long distance missiles. As well, a corrupt leader who runs his country into the ground and leaves its citizens starving while he builds palace upon palace for himself and his family. From that standpoint, why not go into Saudi Arabia? A larger number of weapons than in iraq, not to mention more destructive weapons. Add that to a leader just as corrupt as hussein (granted without gassing the minorities, and I'm in no way saying that saudi's leader is anywhere near as bad as hussein), add that to a country who harbors more terrorists than any other country in the middle east. but, the bush family is very close to the saudi royal family, not to mention the bin laden family, and not to mention the huge supply of oil that saudi supplies to the US. I'm not saying that the US should have gone to war with saudi arabia instead, or that the facts i just listen are reasons not to go into iraq, it just kind of makes me question how solid the supposed reasons for going to war are.

LOL...You say it like Bush decided it. Don't say "the Bush family was close to the Saudi Royal Family". US Presidents have gotten along with the Saudi Family for a while now. US Presidents have never gotten along with Hussein. Even Clinton bombed Iraq in night raids. I'm saying that Iraq was viewed as more of a threat than those countries you guys have listed, Saudi Arabia included. Also, the United States has been "allies" with Saudi Arabia for a while too. And let me ask you something...If we invaded Saudi Arabia, would you not have a thread complaining about us wasting money invading them and claiming it was all about oil? Because I'm about 99.999999% sure you would.

i specifically said in my post "I'm not syaing that the US should invade Saudi Arabia" I would never say something like that, I'm not stupid, so you misunderstood that part of my reply. My point wasn't that the US should go after all these countries instead of iraq, I'm trying to point out the double standard that the US holds for iraq and other countries. Lots of other countries stockpile weapons, even after the UN has requested a disarmament, but the US decides for some reason to go after Iraq. I'm simply trying to point out the fact that there is grounds to question the motives that Bush has put out. Yes, clinton did order strikes against iraq, however, he had the support of the UN, and his strikes were nowhere near the magnitude of the war at the present time. Just as a side note, before anyone accuses me of following blindly behind clinton's decision soley based on the fact that he was a liberal, that's not the case. I don't think clinton was a perfect president, not by any means, I do believe he was better than bush, but there are faults with every politician. Back to the point, every US president has had good connections and good relations with the saudi royal family, because of the oil business. And of course they've never viewed Saudi Arabia as a threat, because the US administrations (clinton's as well) have always turned a blind eye towards any reports warning of hostility coming towards america out of Saudi Arabia. However, bush's connections to the royal family go much deeper, to a more personal level, the same as Bin Laden's family. Are you forgetting how bush sned the entire Bin Laden family residing in america on private jets back to saudi arabia after saudi arabia? That the first flights out of america after the attacks were the bin laden family on those jets provided by bush? And when you say that no president has ever gotten along with Hussein, you're forgetting the Iran/Iraq war, where the US suppplied Iraq with a huge amount of weapons, and intelligence while turning a blind eye to the human rights violations that Hussein was commiting while in that war.

What I am saying is that you would not be happy either way. If we sat at home and didn't do anything, just continued to let our country be bombarded by terrorists, you would not be happy. When terrorists started going after more Eastern Hemisphere countries (like Canada) you would blame the US for not doing anything. We are going out and looking at what is the best for the US. Clinton was a better President than Bush? That's debatable. When the President is supposed to be the idol for all American people and then lies under oath, he's probably not that great. If I had done the same thing he did, I would be in jail. I do not forget the Iran/Iraq war. Ever since the Iraq/Kuwait conflict we have had problems with Hussein. I don't have time to carefully read over, so I slipped up. My bad. Anybody that comes to the White House normally comes on Private Jets. He does that for all kinds of leaders around the world. It's not truly that special.

hey jibber do u know it was actually richard clarke who let the bin laden family fly home, not bush. And do u know why he did it, bcos they were in danger of being assinated bcos they had family connections with bin laden. Not all of bin ladens family are criminals, do u know that ome of them were also interviewed by the FBI before they were allowed to leave. Do u also know that the full extent of husseins human rights violations were not known at the time of the iraq/iran war. The US supported Iraq at that current time bcos he was the lesser of evils. It was important to support him bcos there was a chance that a more evil regime could be demolished.

how can anyone like the first post of this thread complain about the cost of the war! should there be a cost of saving the thousands upon thousands of kids that starve to death each year bcos saddam likes to spend all his money on his military and lavish palaces. Is it too expensive to give the iraqi ppl the freedom of speech that we take for granted every day. Maybe if the rest of the world like France, Germany, Russia etc had any sympathy they would help out in iraq and help prevent all the kidnappings and bombings that are occuring at the moment. The UN have been weak here as they have done nothing since the 1st Gulf war to prevent these people living in a ****hole.

thankyou yellowcard, someone who sees through the bias left media. i am sick of being misinformed about the world. I think France and Germany are stupid, their pride gets in the way of doing any good in this world. So what if they didnt support the war or not, now that it is a militia with car bombs and kidnappings, they should be in there helping out the IRAQI PEOPLE!!!!!!! This is not about if u agree with the war or not any more its about saving lives and making sure the arab world gets introduced to democracy!

atta boy 'strung out rulz'

These terrorist threats and actions you speak of IamAlejo are not solely coming out of Iraq. That is a front put on by the United States to justify its reasons for attacking a country because of its oil reserves. That or the Government of the United States of America is stupider than we thought. Both are equally believable to me.

exactly strung out rules, its time for france and Germany to get involved,

I think u and i are on the same side about a lot of these sorta issues

how has America directly profited by the invasion of iraq??? I dont beleive for a second that it was about oil reserves. America has not taken any oil or profits from it, how can it be about oil when it is spent billions upon billions of dollars to invade iraq. I agree with the terroist threats, they are coming from all around the place, which is why the war on terrorism is a hard war to fight. I think if the war on terrorism is going to be sucessful, we need a more global involvment from europe, russia, china etc

The US gave the UN's team of weapons inspectors the location of twelve sites which they "guaranteed" held weapons of mass destruction. The UN team led by Doctor Blix had searched ten of these sites and found nothing before the Coalition Forces crossed the border and they were forced to leave. Then the US forces searched all twelve locations and found nothing, before changing their original stance of a guarantee of finding actual weapons to a guarantee of finding the programs to build weapons. Again, they found nothing, so they changed their stance again, to that of saying Iraq had the possibility of making weapons of mass destruction. Which everyone knew anyway because it was a British company that sold the blueprints to Saddam waaaaaaaaaay back. Old news. Pakistan, India and Israel all have nuclear weaponry along with anyone on the black market who wants to raid an abandoned Russian submarine in the Siberian wasteland.

JFK. There's an interesting one. He came out with statements like that. He got shot. Says it all really. Look at the current hubbub surrounding Reagan. In death it seems every man's failings are forgotten.

You're right, of course I have no right to say what the US government does, I'm not American, I don't elect them. However, I pay my taxes to the UK government, and for those payments I expect to have a chance to have my say. It seems to me that the American system is more about the population doing as they are told from on high, as opposed to those on high serving the needs of the public in exchange for financial input. It's a 50-50 thing is democracy. The British invented it.

In my opinion we are seeing the beginnings of the end of the American Empire. Back in 1944 Field Marshal Montgomery noted that a ground war in Asia simply could not be won. The terrain lends itself perfectly to the guerilla combat that Iraqi insurgents have been partaking in ever since the fall of Baghdad, and as the US found out in Vietnam, guerilla warfare is messy, ugly, and simply undefeatable.

The US economy really took its major downturn after 9/11, something Bush had little control over (unless you believe certain reports that he simply ignored the threat whilst concentrating on Iraq, which I must admit don't surprise me) and it has never really recovered. The majority of his policies don't help. Antiquated economic theories which simply can't cope with the sophistication of the modern global economy. The europeans have been having a field day, even the French and German ones, which have had poor times themselves in recent years.

In an interesting aside, which personally I don't believe but I know some of the more fierce activists do, states that an "unwritten law" in US doctrine states that congress will approve military action from any US president with the sole intent of securing oil for US consumption.

The contracts to pump oil from Iraq's deep reserves have all been given to American companies. As soon as (if ever) the American government can guarantee the safety of American workers in Iraq, then these large American corporations will be happily taking all the profits from it, a move that enraged the British government, who clearly had their own plans for spending the money, and allegedly also had companies (British ones, naturally) lined up ready to fly out and start digging.

Without sounding too cold, it's not their problem. Much the same as European politics in the late 1930's wasn't America's problem, so they didn't get involved in World War 2 until they were attacked by Japan. France, Germany and Russia are all suffering from poor economic performance at the moment, and do not need or want the extra cost of maintaining a war effort for American gains on their heavily taxed populations.

America's main allies in the war have been Britain, Spain and Turkey. Istanbul has been bombed by Al-Qaeda, Madrid has been bombed by Al-Qaeda, British forces have thwarted numerous plots to attack London in the past year. The Spanish government that supported the Iraq invasion has been voted out by the people, if there is any justice then next year the British government will be too. I know I shall be casting my vote against Blair for his lies over the past eighteen months.

if iraq is not europes problem, whose is it? the UN? what have they done in iraq since saddams reign to help innocents? howabout zimbabwe? or maybe north korea? or maybe we should leave iraq to nearby countries to help out, how about iran and syria, why dont we leave it to the endless amounts of dictatorships surrounding iraq to take care of the problem. i believe that countries that can make a difference should make a difference. 'the day good men sit idle and do nothing, is the day evil conquers and reigns supremacy'.

by the way, a report just released that out of the 100 billion bush was granted to use in Iraq, only 10 of it has been taken. Just cause the money is granted does not mean it is used. That is where the war cost counter is flawed.

And black gold? Really, too bad im still paying $2/gal. If you think we are getting the oil, I say you are crazy.

And for people who are so concerned about the well being and freedoms of themselves and fellow Americans, I am surprised that you would have rather kept the Iraqi people subjugated.

Because last I checked, when the ruling class is the minority, and rules by force, this is a direct conflict with personal liberty. (Hmm sounds like what apartheid was, can we all at least agree that apartheid was wrong?) So while you smoke your weed and turn up "Pump Up the Valuum" think about how Iraqi women would be beat, raped, and killed by Sadaam's sons. Think about how his olympics athletes would be beat and tortured for bad performance. Don't stop thinking if it hurts. Keep thinking about how Sadaam would round up families and make kids watch their parents get slaughtered. Think about the masses of people gassed, in the thousands.

Yea, what a waste. Cause damn they are not people, they do not need to be saved, they do not need freedom. Why help them? We need to work on our own country so that each family can have an average of 3.8 televisions and 3 cars instead of 3.2 televisions and 2.6 cars. Let's work on those first, then concentrate on the humanity.

All very true. Except I'm only paying $1.87 for a gallon. :D

Over here we pay close to $4 a gallon. I'd love to be able to fill my car up at American prices.

What did you pay before the war? We have a had about an 80 cent increase since we announced our war on Iraq.

Before the war we were paying $4 a gallon. We get shafted on fuel by our government as an incentive to not drive, but to use alternatives, like public transport. Of course, environmental concerns are something else that George W. doesn't give a monkeys about, but that's another story altogether.

Yes, but all the other President's we have had made environment a main concern. [end sarcasm]

He could've at least signed the Kyoto Treaty and then ignored it like the rest of them are going to do. Maybe he thought they were going to forge his signature and start using it to buy porn or something.