Originally Posted by Hard-Driver";p=&quot

So let me get this strait. We should invade Iraq because of terror links to the PLO and the Palistinean cause. Because these are the ONLY terror links that Iraq ahs been shown to have. Yet at the same time you claim that the IRA is different because "The IRA hasn't sworn itself to defeat or exterminate America nor has it taken any action against Americans" Both the IRA and PLO are local terrorist organizations with specific causes.

That is called talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Originally Posted by Hard-Driver";p=&quot

My point that BEFORE killing thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of people. Thousands of whom are innocent woman and children. Killing hundreds and hundreds of Americans. Shouldn't there be an HONEST explaination. I will agree that Iraq is better off. I will agree that a democratic Iraq is a good thing. (if it happens). But when the President went before congress, when he gave the State of teh Union, when Powell went before the UN, the speach was not that we need to help the Iraqi people. The speach was that they are a threat to give WOMD to terrorists that will use them to kill Americans. That is WHY we went to war supposidly. The more evidence that comes out, the more that we realize that the intelligence to support those type of statements was sketchy, and filled with disclaimers and caveats and downright unreliable. Then in hindsight as we look at it it turns out to be most likely be wrong and that there was NO threat of Iraq giving WOMD to terrorists for many reasons. First they look like they probably didn't even have any. And if they did, they had no link to terrorist groups who wanted to attack America.

So people can talk about support for Palistinean bombers, or liberation or any other revisionist justification they like. The TRUTH is that we went to war without proper justification. There are many who love to thump their chest about our power and watch the smart bombs kill with glee. But war is not supposed to be based on personal grudges, or unsubstanciated claims. It is solely justified to contain a threat to us or our allies.

Afganistan was a war on terror. It was a just and appropriate response to 9/11. Finding and killing terrorists is a justified response. When the armed preditor plane takes out a car full of terrorists that is justified. But Iraq was not justified and has taken almost all of the resources that should be being used to find and kill terrorists and instead sucked them into a black hole costing lives and money but providing no benefit to America.

That is wrong. And this wrong is not a oops, it will cost a few million dollars. This is a wrong that is costing hundreds of American children a parent. It is killing without justification. (also known as murder) It is also costing billions. (another lie when it was said that it would not cost anything)

My point is whatever the revisionist spin. The war was presented without sufficent cause. And as such, this President should be held accoutable. I personally think he should go to jail. At least be impeached. Certainly not elected again.

Originally Posted by maze51";p=&quot

...and most of the left's truth is that you all hate Bush more than Saddam, and you are absolutely venomous in your conclusions. The first thing was he had 17 UN resolutions giving the United States the power to take aggressive action on multilateral scale. Secondly, this would have never, ever occurred if Saddam had just been open enough to let the inspectors do their job without his shenanigans. Thirdly, he had 2 years prior to our invasion, to move or sell any or all the weapons he wanted to. The naiveté that I hear from people on this forum just blows my mind. You have such compassion (as you should) for those that are being killed by the hand of the United States including our own soldiers, but no compassion when you see with your own eyes the horrible annihilation of millions of innocent people at the hands of these despots, that want nothing more than to destroy all life as we know it. Is there something about these terrorists that you find the least bit of kindness for? This is a war against everything humanly sacred, our freedom, our democracy, and our basic human rights. These are not people we are fighting, they are the lowest form of parasitic scum on the planet earth. It is high time for all of us to come together and fight this global jihad. The hammer has already fallen, this war has started, make no mistake about that. You can point to every little nuance of political hyperbole on this wars justification, but all you will be doing is aiding the enemy. Yes wars are horrible, I myself fought in Viet Nam, and it was ugly. There is no turning back now, we must move forward and eradicate this vermin from the earth, or it (I used the word 'it' on purpose because the word 'they' would infer they were human) will surely destroy us.

Originally Posted by SporkLord";p=&quot

He just saved me alot of time clarifying my argument.

Whether Iraq had any "real" and proven connections with Al-Qaeda, now, by invading and occupying Iraq, there are connections for sure now.

...how would you fight this war?

But tell me, who are the ever elusive "vermin" you are waging war against? There is no single country that houses all of "them" in the world that by invading, and slaughtering (I think that word would be rather appropriate) "them" could in one single stroke solve the war. Who is next on the "hit-list of terror"? Care to divulge that information? Or will any country named by the head of state suffice?

This is starting to remind of the crusades, when similar arguments of destroying sub-human scum for the sake of humanity were being spewed out from the Vatican. Truly any just cause behind this ill-named war is lost when common sense is abandoned and we resort to fervor and supremacist arguments.

Originally Posted by maze51";p=&quot

...and most of the left's truth is that you all hate Bush more than Saddam, and you are absolutely venomous in your conclusions. The first thing was he had 17 UN resolutions giving the United States the power to take aggressive action on multilateral scale. Secondly, this would have never, ever occurred if Saddam had just been open enough to let the inspectors do their job without his shenanigans. Thirdly, he had 2 years prior to our invasion, to move or sell any or all the weapons he wanted to. The naiveté that I hear from people on this forum just blows my mind. You have such compassion (as you should) for those that are being killed by the hand of the United States including our own soldiers, but no compassion when you see with your own eyes the horrible annihilation of millions of innocent people at the hands of these despots, that want nothing more than to destroy all life as we know it. Is there something about these terrorists that you find the least bit of kindness for? This is a war against everything humanly sacred, our freedom, our democracy, and our basic human rights. These are not people we are fighting, they are the lowest form of parasitic scum on the planet earth. It is high time for all of us to come together and fight this global jihad. The hammer has already fallen, this war has started, make no mistake about that. You can point to every little nuance of political hyperbole on this wars justification, but all you will be doing is aiding the enemy. Yes wars are horrible, I myself fought in Viet Nam, and it was ugly. There is no turning back now, we must move forward and eradicate this vermin from the earth, or it (I used the word 'it' on purpose because the word 'they' would infer they were human) will surely destroy us.

Originally Posted by maze51";p=&quot

...how would you fight this war?

Originally Posted by Hard-Driver";p=&quot

As usual, lots of name calling and claims, but no facts.

Referring to some as naive is name calling? You have got to be kidding.
After reading some of your responses HD, are you pen-pals with Saddam?
(now that is borderline name calling)

17 UN resolutions. Yes, but the UN did NOT sanction unilateral or multilateral action. So the UN wouldn't sanction the war, why should they be used as your justification. YOu see the UN had a different plan that WAS working. That is why the intelligence is showing that the inspections were working.

You mean those silly little missiles Saddam was launching at our planes?
How dare he! But you missed the fact that they have found Al Qaeda training camps in Iraq. They must have been used for paint ball games. Ya Think?

Saddam wouldn't let the inspector do their jobs? NO it is President Bush that would npt let the inspectors do their jobs. UN inspectors had been allowed in and were conducting unfettered inspections wherever they wanted, including Saddams palaces. They were given less than 3 months before they had to flee from our invasion. Their previous work has been shown to have been a major detterent and they were containing Saddams programs without killing thousands.

You may want to check out this web site for the time lines from 1991 to 2002 of inspections and results. You are way off the mark if you think Saddam just opened his doors for inspections.

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/iraq/timeline.htm

2 years prior to invasion to move/sell WOMD. Have you even read the intelligence that has been coming out since the war. Numerous sources say that all the WOMD were destroyed in the mid 90's. There has not been a single intelligence claim or document to show that Saddma actually had WOMD and moved or sold them. But is is much more convienent for you to ingnore the intelligence reports that have been made public and just assume things that justify your support of war without any facts.

It is amusing that intelligence is good now, but it was suppose to be good before and failed us. How do you assess the truth

Annihilation of millions? You can call them them or it wor whatever you want. what you can't do is show that the war in Iraq has stopped a single terrorist act. What you can't do is show a link from Saddam to terrorism against America. What you can';t do is show a link from Saddam to 9/11. Did he kill his own people, yes he did. Like I said, thsi is revisionist history if you are going to claim this was the justification for war prior to us not finding WOMD. This is just grasping at the only legitmate benefit of the war and then trying to expand that as the proper justification. Do you honestly think that if the Bush administration went before the congress and UN adn said that Saddam was a bad guy that ruked his people with fear, murder and torture, taht the congress would have approved $100 Billion and a war that was going to cost hundreds of American lives. They would not have and you know it. That is why I call this grasping at the only good to come form the war as revisionist history. Because it is not sufficient justification on it's own.

So what you are saying is, that stopping hundreds of thousands of deaths by Saddam is not as horrific as the loss (which is minuscule in numbers) that we have incurred since the US invasion.

Niavete. I would call niavete believing everything this President says when none of the facts support his claims. You cna CLAIM and Bush can CLAIM that Iraq was part of the war on terror. But without any evidence of WOMD and without any evidence of link to Al-qeada and such those are just that CLAIMS. Talk is cheap. The FACTS are that much evidence has been gathered that shows the WOMD were destroyed in the mid 90's. The FACTS show that Saddam and Bin Laden did not like each other and would almost certainly not work together.

I see, so you are willing to believe Saddam, but not Bush.

Everyone agrees that we need to fight terrorists and terrorism. The right claims that you are niaeve or stupid or something is you actually want some evidence that there is a link to terrorism before killing well over 10,000 people. I personally think it is stupid and gullible to believe that this administration had such a proven link that they just can't seem to find anymore.