Excellent post, Quiet Chaos.

But knowing the conservative republicans around here, They're going to take one look at that democatic webpage link and pick you apart saying you give into "liberal propaganda".

Don't let it get to you, You've made your point loud and clear and I utterly agree.

Originally posted by Quiet Chaos

---

Our country was practiclly split down the middle and all we got out of the war was a monument with 300,000 thousand names of soldiers who died in the pointless wars. If you ask me, this war is essentially a repeat of that disastor.

---

I agree with this. This is how I feel about everything going on in Iraq.

Originally posted by Jin

---

Excellent post, Quiet Chaos.

But knowing the conservative republicans around here, They're going to take one look at that democatic webpage link and pick you apart saying you give into "liberal propaganda".

Don't let it get to you, You've made your point loud and clear and I utterly agree.

---

Yeah, I hesitated on that one for that very reason but I went along with it anyways. I mostly tried to pick things that wouldn't stand out as something like that, though.

Yea, im hosting a new reality TV show, its called Survivor : liberal addition. Basically the TV show revolves around how long 10 liberals can survive in a country ruled by Suddam. We have taken them to a remote location in the desert. We set up 3 tents for them to live in and they are given bread and water every other day to eat. Then we throw Suddam in the mix with a small troop of terrorists with guns, food, and all the shelter they will ever need. And then we see how long the liberals can last with Suddam.

Since Suddam is such a nice guy all you liberals say, and he doesn't affect us at all, you liberals should give it a try.

Quiet Chaos, No worries. You made a good post none the less.

You even brought up some good points even I didn't think of bringing up.

As for being in Iraq, it was actually a pretty nice place to live before this war.

Skyline, I am still at a loss to see how you and the rest of the Far Right turn "Saddam had no WMD's or ties to bin Laden and the war was handled incorrectly" into "Saddam is a great guy, I want to move to Iraq". It is a well known fact that Saddam Hussein was by no stretch of the imagination a good or even sane leader. Change was needed. The point we are trying to make ever since the war began was that it was carried out under false pretences and was a strategic failure.

Well to be fair, Bush isn't a fair or sane leader either.

Doesn't mean we need bombs dropped on all of us now does it?

I would've been FAR more likely to take a visit to Iraq before the war than I would now.

It is a tie draw now!
That's cool though that the board is splint evenly on this, I love it.

Well if he was such a nice guy and didn't commit any crimes why was he found hiding out? If he did nothing wrong there is no reason he had to go into hiding..

When a war is being waged on your country unjustly and the president of the country bombing the s*** out of your country has said he is going to find you and kill you, after that countrie's forces have allready killed your sons..

You're not going to hand yourself in.

SKYLINE I'M GOING TO SAY THIS SLOWLY SO YOU CAN UNDERSTAND IT. I...am...not...saying...he...didn't...commit...crimes...or...atrocities..., I...am...saying...it...was...carried...out...under...false...pretences...and
...was...a...strategic...failure.

President George H. W. Bush said it best in his memoirs as to why he never sent U.S. troops into Iraq during Gulf War I.

"Trying to eliminate Saddam .. would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible ... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq ...there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."

Whoops, guess nobody told Georgie Junior.

Very good point Nasus, And another thing people quickly over-look is, How come we STILL don't have Osama?

We've completely lost focus on someone we KNOW has caused harm to americans, while we have someone who had no hand in it behind bars and are still bombing the f*** out of his country...

Sad.

First it isn't his country. Its the liberated people of Iraq's country. Second we are bombing the s*** out of people who are trying to kill us.

John, Kindly tell that to the literally thousands of civillians who have been killed in this war.

Innocent people are killed in EVERY WAR. Not just this one. Millions and millions were killed in WWII. I dont see your point here.

In that war we had a real enemy, a real cause, a REAL war.

This one is just killing civillians, We should've never taken our eye off Osama.

Saddam opposed NO threat to us.

Not according to many intelligance angencies, not only here in the US, but also overseas.

Like I've said, If that is so true, Why have all the leading people who rushed this war now saying, "Ooops! There was no connection afterall!"

Don't forget Poland.

Dekker's not fat.

Originally posted by QueenOfTheGypsies

---

Don't forget Poland.

Dekker's not fat.

---

huh?