Staredit Network

Who cares about the difference between terror and terrorism

Its a war just discuss over without any tregard to whos right or wrong

That is why it is called a discussion!

Not if its right or wrong

Just discuss!

With your logic, you are saying, "Who cares if out president lies and deceives us!" Would you really want to be pulled around by your nutsack, go ahead and keep that idolology inside your mind. Because I do not like that idea, and either does most of america.

A discussion is to inform people, and to discuss facts. Not fabrications.

No one has told me how he has lied. 3 different sources, (MI-6, Russian, CIA) all told him there was a good chance Iraq has WMDs. I mean if you are lead to believe something thats not a lie.

Its not a lie if you are lead to believe it true. Lieing is when you know you are telling an untruthful statement.

War on Terrorism: Good cause, but unfortunately we might never win.

Iraq: I really don't know. I do believe that we needed to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

It still suprises me how many people think the US went to Iraq because of 911, 911 only gave them a chance. Fighting Iraq wasn't to defend against any sort of attack on the US but to protect it's allies. Its amazing how a little bit of media frenzy can confuse so many people.

BTW I voted should never have gone.

*Coughs* Um, say what? Allies? What allies? We have allies?

Britian, Israel, etc..

The Coalition at the start of the war, no longer exists. We have some "allies" now, but compared to the Coalition, we have very littly.

I think Bush should have wiated for the UN to make a decision before going into Iraq

If he did, then we would have a bunch of other countries in there with us

I think we need to just get this thing over

But, It won't be easy!

in fact, i think it will get harder & harder with every day ! ...until something serious happens, like mass demonstrations, some big terracts, or the new president will do something (let's hope).

I didn't say they went to Iraq because of 9/11. I said they went to Iraq because they're power-hungry imperalists, just not in those terms. Do you think there would have been nearly as much support for the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions (and subsequent conflicts) if there had been no 9/11?

Here's an idea: Read about the Project for the New American Century, everything is in there.

How has invading the middle east made us more powerful? Or power hungry. If you ask me, we are -2,000 soldiers now.

We arent power hungary we just wanted to take Saddam out of power.

But after we alreay did that, We decided to stay in longer, but if we left now we would create a civil war over there.

That is the last thing we want.

It was all propoganda

What was all propoganda?

Yes I agree with that.

Whether or not Bush had gone to war with Iraq, the people would be angry. Most of it is the people's fault, after all, Bush was almost pressured into going there. Had he not gone to war, chances are, many people would get frustrated and say stuff like, "You're going to let terrorists get away with the lives lost in 9/11?" and similar questions and begin to harass the government. Not only within the country would there be problems, but the U.S. would probably be seen as a country that could be attacked again and again without any retaliation. Though, at this point, I just want the troops over there to finish up.

And for all those people out there who say, "It's pointless, there are no WMDs in Iraq," guess what, Iraq contains: 10 nuclear power plants (enough to make a nuclear weapon), about 29 chemical production facilities (intended for chemical warfare), and 18 biological warfare sites (3 of which have been destroyed). Who here has actually looked up information on Iraq? People usually just get sucked right into what the media tells them. The media only tells the more interesting news, the stuff that grabs our attention, like government failure. Just do a quick search on the internet for "Weapons of Mass Destruction", "Iraqi warfare", "WMDs in Iraq", etc. You may be surprised with what you may find.

Bush should've went in the middle east, got Osama or as many terrorists as he could find within one year, and got out
his fault was that he stayed there way too long, just like in Africa

Heh, yea don't believe everything the media tells you, especially if you only watch one newstation. Most newstations are controlled by liberals/anti-bush people. One exception is Fox.

Even Fox hardly has conservative/pro-Bush news.

Yeah, and that makes me wonder, in debates, why some people are always like "Yeah you probably watch Fox news"

And Im like, whats wrong with that channel?

It's biased.

How though? no one has yet to show me proof. I watch the NEWS part of fox news. Not the shows that take the news and interpret it (O'Rielly factor, hes annoying).

the news part is fine.

Plus techniqually all channels are bias

I don't think he should have ever gone. How did removing Suddam from power to remove terrorism?

Terrorism isn't something you can beat. Its just something you can neutralize and going to war isn't going to accomplish that.

Whats there to finish up anyway? The bloodshed is going to continue and it would be immensly hard to try to control it. Besides, we only have jurasdiction in Iraq, we can't do jack about what the other countries are doing.