[Kevin]

Originally posted by Shortfuse
Saudi Arabia are harboring some of those terrorist as well as the Syrians (who were reponsbile for the bombing that Libya got blamed for), let's nto forget Egypt or Yemen.

I answered you. I said I'm totally against ALL OF THE OCCUPATION. There was NO JUSTIFICATION other than SPECULATION. But to clear it up for you, we can't leave now. My point is that we should've never been there in the first place. Trust me, if people got that tired of a type of rule it'd got changed. THEN and ONLY THEN would I be for American involvment. But you can't incite a revolution against a government and that is basically what we're NOW (now that there are no WMD) are doing.

I have no idea (due to your grammar) what the hell you are trying to say in that last sentence. Because you capitalized a word, I guess you think it's important. Please proof your replies before posting.

So you're totally against the occupation, but you're against withdrawal as well? Dude, you're beginning to sound like Senator Kerry.

Choose a side, A or B. You're either for or against. If a certain candidate could get that through his skull, he'd have a 10-point lead right now.

Personally, I couldn't argue much with it (although i don't agree) if that was OUR MAIN REASON FOR BEING THERE. But it wasn't. WMDs were our reason. those soldiers died believing that they were getting rid of a guy who possess WMD and were going to use them. Not to free the Iraqis and not because we believe he'll HAVE them.

No, the panel gave pretty concrete proof that he did plan on manufacturing these things. Again, which is better, having to deal with this man when he actually had his WMD's or nipping the problem in the bud beforehand? Again, A or B.

Nobody said Iraqis are used to having a dictator. But what works for the United States doesn't work for Great Britain or Saudi Arabia. What works for Scotland, WON'T work for the United States. Can't run a Run and SHoot offense if you only have one guy who can catch a football.

So what you're saying is that the Iraqi people aren't capable of having a democracy because they're too dumb, they like being tortured, they lack the skills, etc.? Running a government is in no way similar to playing football. For one thing, Iraq doesn't have the 85 scholarship limitation thing, a salary cap or any of that stuff.

On the other hand, they do have one of the most highly educated electorates in the region. That is one thing that Saddam knew he needed -- smart people that knew stuff. Now, those smart people are the ones leading the rebuilding of their country. They plan on having real democratic elections shortly. Specifically, why do you not think they are capable of living under a representative government? Your football analogy just ain't analogous enough.

As far as gassing Irainians, it's funny Americans are so against but have no answer to the fact that the American government was actually shaking hands with Saddam while he was doing it. But I guess it help eliminate that pesky Iranian problem huh? Saddam is just as much threat to the United States as Howard's University football team is to the New England Patroits

Once again, just admit Bush was wrong.

So you're going back to our foriegn policy 30 years saying that we were friends with him and therefore, now he's not a threat. No, he just had people caught a few years ago trying to assasinate or President, no biggie.

I'll tell you another person we were wrong to shake hands with 30 years ago who I guess by your logic is also not a threat -- Osama Bin Ladin.

Based on the evidence presented to him (and Kerry), they both made the decision to go to war. It was made on faulty information. So, Bush, Kerry and Edwards were all equally wrong.

Maybe Kerry less equally because he voted for the 87 billion before he voted against it.