Intresting,: Iraq, EU and Kerry/Bush MATURE MEMBERS ONLY!

[-Carnifex-]

While I agree that UBL needs his head cracked, I do not agree that we have simply given up on him for Iraq. We still maintain a sizeable element in Afghanistan and Pakistan along the entire border area where he's suspected to be hiding. The biggest issue with that is the Pakistani tribes that hold that land as sacred. Do we just say, hell with you guys, we're going in?

I would but that's just me.

Were there some mistakes made in Iraq? Possibly, but I think that was more at the Command level rather than at the Administration level.

Personally Fallujah would have ceased to exist after they killed the 4 civilian contractors.

Instead of dipping into the strategic oil reserves, we ought to be drilling for oil and building new refineries here. We have planty of our own areas to do so. We also should be putting more of an emphasis on alternative sources for cars.

True, but I would like to see more emphasis on UBL; I haven't lately.

There were mistakes made on every level of the war.

Unfortunately, we do not have the luxury of murder, therefore we cannot simple destroy Fallujah.

I agree, except that I believe we should be doing both, $50 [sic] is far too much for oil.

[FactsOfLife]

True, but I would like to see more emphasis on UBL; I haven't lately.

There were mistakes made on every level of the war.

Unfortunately, we do not have the luxury of murder, therefore we cannot simple destroy Fallujah.

I agree, except that I believe we should be doing both, $50 [sic] is far too much for oil.

You haven't seen it, or has the media simply chosen to ignore any coverage of it?

I don't agree that there were mistakes made at every level. I see a tremendous amount of negative coverage being given in the face of a lot of very good things happening in Iraq. The liberal media's agenda cannot be overstated here.

Give Fallujah 24 hours notice. Hand over, or point out the bad guys. IF that is insufficient, give them 24 hours to leave and we go house to house. It has to pacified. It can NOT be left as is for the Zarqawis to hide out in.

[aaron_mag]

Dudes!!!!

You guys are still giving the same old tired lines? The lack of weapons of mass destruction and lack of links to September 11th are all just poor press coverage?

Ha, ha, ha, ha...

Guys..get your head out of the...sand. This has been a GOOD thing for the Iraqi people. No doubt about it. But we went in there to keep America safe. We went in there to remove weapons of mass destruction. We went in there in reaction to 9/11. Of course we found none of these things.

Meanwhile in Afghanistan, where Bin Laden was last seen, we have few troops..

[oldsoldier]

In afghanistan, we have lots of troops. Dont forget, we primarliy are hunting over there...it is no a restabilization campaign, as it is in Iraq. Therefore, we can get away with using alot less than we have there. Also, we work jointly wqith the Pakistanis, the muji, and the locals. it isnt a large scale campaign becuase it doesnt need to be.

[Koosh]

So now what...

Iraq was presented as a clear threat to the United States... We have no love for Saddam, and using the information we had, we went in there...

Good, bad, it happened, now we have to deal with it...

So after we finish with Iraq (However long we might be there), where next? We've removed one brutal and terrible dictator, are we going to remove the rest too? Are we going to march into Africa, and start dealing with the TERRIBLE human rights violations there? I have no facts or figures in front of me, but what about the Rwanda genocides 10 years ago, and the civil wars still going on? Bush sidestepped the UN to remove Saddam, will he make the same effort in Africa?

Of course not... but why?

[taylor492]

Probably because Rwanda doesnt pose a threat to the US like Iraq did. People like to use that argument too much...

[FactsOfLife]

Dudes!!!!

You guys are still giving the same old tired lines? The lack of weapons of mass destruction and lack of links to September 11th are all just poor press coverage?

Ha, ha, ha, ha...

Guys..get your head out of the...sand. This has been a GOOD thing for the Iraqi people. No doubt about it. But we went in there to keep America safe. We went in there to remove weapons of mass destruction. We went in there in reaction to 9/11. Of course we found none of these things.

Meanwhile in Afghanistan, where Bin Laden was last seen, we have few troops..

AM are you willing to right now guarantee me that there are ZERO WMD's in Iraq?

[1stdeadeye]

Dudes!!!!

Guys..get your head out of the...sand. This has been a GOOD thing for the Iraqi people. No doubt about it. But we went in there to keep America safe. We went in there to remove weapons of mass destruction. We went in there in reaction to 9/11. Of course we found none of these things.

WRONG my friend!!! We have found a number of VERIFIED chemical warfare artillary shells. So their very presence proves that some were/are there! So !!

[-Carnifex-]

You haven't seen it, or has the media simply chosen to ignore any coverage of it?

I don't agree that there were mistakes made at every level. I see a tremendous amount of negative coverage being given in the face of a lot of very good things happening in Iraq. The liberal media's agenda cannot be overstated here.

Give Fallujah 24 hours notice. Hand over, or point out the bad guys. IF that is insufficient, give them 24 hours to leave and we go house to house. It has to pacified. It can NOT be left as is for the Zarqawis to hide out in.

I haven't even seen things on Fox News, not to mention the Liberal Media argument is overplayed and exaggerated.

That's feasible, except for the high rate of civilian / American casualties we'll encounter, not to mention how many families will be terrorized and possibly become anti-American (assuming they aren't already.).

[-Carnifex-]

WRONG my friend!!! We have found a number of VERIFIED chemical warfare artillary shells. So their very presence proves that some were/are there! So !!

Haha, and yet a higher up in the coalition said that these do not signify WMDs.

[-Carnifex-]

So now what...

Iraq was presented as a clear threat to the United States... We have no love for Saddam, and using the information we had, we went in there...

Good, bad, it happened, now we have to deal with it...

So after we finish with Iraq (However long we might be there), where next? We've removed one brutal and terrible dictator, are we going to remove the rest too? Are we going to march into Africa, and start dealing with the TERRIBLE human rights violations there? I have no facts or figures in front of me, but what about the Rwanda genocides 10 years ago, and the civil wars still going on? Bush sidestepped the UN to remove Saddam, will he make the same effort in Africa?

Of course not... but why?

The problem is that Saddam really wasn't that much of a threat, at least compared to some other dictators / rulers.

[Miscue]

The problem is that Saddam really wasn't that much of a threat, at least compared to some other dictators / rulers.

Isn't that what was said about Hitler?

How is he not much of a threat? He's a nice guy, loves America, and lacks the resources to harm the US?

If Saddam was presented with a button - and by pushing this button it would harm the US. Do you think he would do it?

What was stopping him? And do you think he would announce to the world, "Yup, it was me!" or would he do it in secret if possible?

Based on his nature, do you trust him?

[-Carnifex-]

Isn't that what was said about Hitler?

How is he not much of a threat? He's a nice guy, loves America, and lacks the resources to harm the US?

If Saddam was presented with a button - and by pushing this button it would harm the US. Do you think he would do it?

What was stopping him? And do you think he would announce to the world, "Yup, it was me!" or would he do it in secret if possible?

Based on his nature, do you trust him?

When did I said he was a nice guy, liked America, or that I trusted him? For a mod you sure lack reading ability.

He wasn't a threat because he didn't have the means.

How many leaders in the world would choose to destroy the US if possible? A lot of them.

What was stopping him? Aside from his inability to harm us? How about reprocussions that be brought. Face it, if Saddam had the means he would have done something.

[GT]

Face it, if Saddam had the means he would have done something.

So do we wait until the missles head our way?

[-Carnifex-]

So do we wait until the missles head our way?

What missles?