must piss you off that clinton did more against terror than Reagan and Bush sr. combined

exactly.

woulda coulda shoulda...

Says you. It would have been done in '90 if Bush sr. hadnt relied on the U.N.

That was all taken care of in 98 fool.

Saddam was a threat because he was close to obtaining nuclear weapons and had chemical weapons. U.S. troops captured a chemical plant if i remember and recovered nuclear technology buried in iraq and its a known fact that saddam hussein had at one point enough anthrax to kill every human on the planet that is reason enough to turn baghdad into a parking lot.

I'm dying to know how saddam was a threat to the US... still haven't figured that out yet....

I "bother" you because it's my right and responsibility as an American to put people in their place when they dont know what they are talking about or attempting to blow smoke up peoples asses.

sunnis and shiites have been killing each other for thousands of years the reason we intervened is because sadaam was a threat to us. P.S. why do u always bother me when i post something? i am trying to have fun here and these arguments are getting tiresome.

Well I believe its safe to assume that if the Iraqi people wanted to live in a democracy then they would be at least making better than a half assed attempt at doing so... the problem with your whole theory is that your analysis of terrorism is far to broad. I dont subscribe to the one mans terrorist is anothermans freedom fighter, however I do believe that all terrorists are oppertunists. They only get their chance every so often. Iraq is a perfect example of a festering hell hole in which Sunnies and Shia Muslims can blow the shit out of each other relatively consequence free. More Iraqis die in a day than Americans die in a few months. Simply because they quit targeting us because they want us to leave this civil war for them to fight. So why not let them, and see who wins?

Your at best disillusioned Hammer... tell me why the intelligence community disagrees with you on your pathetic excuse for an assessment based on 0 training and understanding.

The way i see it we are fighting this war to protect ourselves against iraq who was a potential threat so naturally we crushed them before they could pull another 9/11 if saddaam didnt have nukes he would have by now if Bush hadent invaded. To make things simple we fought against a threat to both ourselves and the world.

And whoa, can everyone just calm down?
Some people on here are just wound way too tight.
Sorry for the double post.

As much as I appreciate your oh-so-extensive knowledge on some things Hydrok (does not include Darfur), this issue still comes down to a matter of disagreements between what others believe. Your "rules" for how revolutions and fighting for independence should be, are centuries old and in my opinion out-dated...much like how traditional war is outdated. (You don't see organized armies meeting each other out in the battlefield anymore do you?)
So, therefore, even though these past revolutions have worked in such a way where other countries do not get involved (which isn't exactly accurate), this does not mean that the same should be applied to Iraw.

The way I see it, there are alot of dimensions to this war. You have three or four major groups of insurgents that do not get along, which has been going on for years. But you are also forgetting that the country was ruled by Saddam, who besides being, vital, was also unusually friendly with terrorist leaders from Al-Quaida and Taliban. Besides being a horrible leader, I would think that this involvement with terrorists puts him under alot of suspicion.

quote:

If the people wanted Saddam overthrown and wanted the US to show up on a stallion to save the day, they would have helped rise up against the terrorists.

Are you actually telling me that the citizens of Iraq wanted to be under the rule of terrorists and a man who kills his own people? Saddam wasn't stupid or hesitant. Anyone he even suspected of being against him was executed. The country was living in fear. Maybe instead of comparing this to the US Revolution, it would be more accurate to compare this situation with another dictatorship. Hitler was most certainly not stopped by his own people. That doesn't mean his people were avid supporters of his.

quote:

As far as Darfur is concerned, apparently the revolution is not strong enough. Revolutions mean nothing if the people don't earn it themselves, because then what do they have to work for? What is at stake if they fail? the US comes riding in to save the day? I think not. If they can't do it, there is a reason they cant, and that reason is that they do not have the necissary support, so they should probably cut their losses and conform or leave.

Au contraire. Whats happening in Darfur is not a revolution, its a genocide. The government has been oppressing its African Muslim citizens for years and for about 4 years have been endorsing an Arab military to wipe them out. They are horribly outnumbered. The deaths have been in the hundreds of thousands and women and children are targeted for rape, mutilation, and ultimately killing. This is a completely different story, but a good example of how a country's people can be killed off by its own government or leaders and what happens when the international community sits back and only talks about it. Its not right what is going on, but they have no choice other than to die fighting or to just die. The rest of the world can sit back and talk about how Sudan is its own country, its problem, but the fact is, people are getting killed because their government is unjust and killing them. Just because they aren't defeating their own government does not mean they should just back down and not fight for their own lives.

You may say its not anyone's business to step in, and maybe thats a valid opinion because its worked out in past history. But the fact is, this is not the same world as it was in the 17, 1800s. There is a huge terrorist power in the world, and they have their place in many different countries and have loyalties and alliances with many different leaders. In this case, high profile terrorist groups are the biggest weapon some countries have and these countries are careful enough to keep much of their information and intentions hidden. As I believe was the case with Iraq. So, even though many people still think that the Iraqis fighting against their own goverment should have kept going on until the end of times, I think that there is also an underlying threat that has been and is still being taken care of: terrorism. If you wanna read all about the plots that have been unfoiled since our "invasion", then you should read the book Shadow Wars. It'll get you thinking about what the world would be like if the terrorists had their way and gained their power.

quote:

Originally posted by Hydrok:
you do a damn good job, hell I'd say you make it look easy

you've just never seen a master do it before!

you do a damn good job, hell I'd say you make it look easy

quote:

Originally posted by Hydrok:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Irregardless

you do like being stupid dont you?

tough job but someones gotta do it.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Irregardless

you do like being stupid dont you?

quote:

Originally posted by Hydrok:
Well judging by the sheer retartedness of the rest of your posts I would say nationalism... but irregardless, taking a bullet for the president has nothing to do with patriotism.

wow your really out to get me arent you? All i was doing in my first post on this topic was anwsering the question so get off my ass about that. well nice to meet you anyway and i dont think irregardless is a word...just letting you know.

Well judging by the sheer retartedness of the rest of your posts I would say nationalism... but irregardless, taking a bullet for the president has nothing to do with patriotism.

quote:

Originally posted by Hydrok:
which really has nothing to do with the discussion please play again some other day.

i know i just want people to know how much of a patriot i am