Staredit Network

Have you never heard about the "Patriot Act" and it's infringements over civil liberties? Especially with the latest fuss about it, in order to extend it's timeline ('cause it was about to expire).
The only plausible reason I came up for that to happen is not seeing the news (that, or acting ignorant on it's potential abuses).



According to the U.N. inspections, a simple n' round no would suffice. But since your 'wuvable' Bush didn't even expected the U.N. resolution the U.S. passed (aka 1441) shortly before and the resuming of those said inpections (early 2003) mentioned in the document to produce any results before storming in late March '03, I'd say hidden agenda/something else fishy is about.



Never heard of the Guantanamo and the abuses practiced there (running over the Geneva convention n' the PoW's status)? Even before the news that BBC showed, we already knew that something wrong was about so why pulling such b**ls**t over it?

And since Kerry didn't prove himself in Office (contrary to the messes Bush did so far), I'd strongly prefer him to be there than Bush.



In case you didn't know, htis is the general concept of Prisoners of War, according tho the Geneva convention, not the excuse some members of the U.S. admin' try to shove everybody else's @**es on a constant basis. Or are the democratic principles to be only held in high regard on international affairs, when it fits the picture (read, the U.S. interests)?

Get your knowledge of facts straight 1st, or at least before stating such crap along the lines you've just presented. But whom am I kidding? We've had a similar debate in past times and you could't even admit (that you were mistaken at the time) or reply to my remarks n' proofs then, so why repent now?



Torture isn't solely physical. It can be mental as well. So the humilliation inflicted upon prisoners at Guantanamo can be considered a mild form of torture too.



You must've missed the BBC news documentary upon that matter (Guantanamo n' PoW's not getting their rights respected)... and it was aired about 4-5 months ago. I suggest you to look for it.



In case you didn't know the ones that cuased the 9/11th were from Al-Quaeda who's HQ at the time was in Afghanistan, not Iraq. How I love folks that ignore (real) history n' keep coming back with attitude... *Shudders*



Which f**king reason Hitler had to do the Holocaust!?! And Saddam to kill own civilians just because they belongued to other etnic tribes!?! Both those I seriously wonder... You're not looking good from my behalf, kiddo.
Just not to mention that you're seriously lacking to support your claims about the supposed demonic worshipping and Babel tower rebuilding Saddam did.



Gibberish, plain gibberish. Bin Laden wasn't there at the time of the 9/11th n' still isn't proved he ever was in Iraq, nor Iraq had anything to do with the 9/11th.




After this 'wonderful' statement, I'll bet that most of the other SEN'ners know what I'll ask for... proofs of Bin laden getting traced into Iraq. *Sighs n' expects evidences*



Which WMD's!?! There weren't none. Only a few SCUD's and even those didn't have the range to hit Europe how much for the U.S.
You dissappointed me (if you're the same guy that hangs out at BF, that is), since was expecting a tad more of a reliable source(s) for your grounds, other than the UN resolution 1441 text's.



Please get a tad more concrete over here, since that line can used with lots of other meanings. If that was about the Iraqui SCUD's range, think again.



Is that so, so if the EU considered Bush an "evil man", then it's all fine n' dandy to invade the U.S.? Get your excuse concepts a tad more tweaking before showing'em to the public, please.

Whine all about you want, but WMD's can be both: nuclear or biological weaponry. SCUD's are solely one of the means possible for transportation. And, as I already showed above, the iraqui versions of the thing were no threat to Europe n' even less to the States. Don't mix WMD's for the missiles (SCUD's in this case) that may carry'em.

And what's with the Kerry fuss thing brought back all over the sudden? Bush has already proven to be a bad President, imho, so why not give a chance to others such as Kerry tried in the latest elections?

And not all the media is bad/evil/whatever rocks your boat. That's just an excuse 'cause most of the times, the media is showing the mistakes/bad moves the U.S. admin' did/does and that doesn't look good when looked by others. If it's the truth, deal with it. Just don't go into denial stage because of it. And also don't assume that we don't further investigate upon it, since (at least) I actually did/do.



Did the SCUD's were mentioned in the earlier Desert Storm's surrender agreement? I don't think so.

The SCUDS were illegal, and they had them. No more needs to be said.



Generally speaking, it is best to be grammatically correct when having an argument. I don't understand that statement at all.

your meaning of illigal is a few scud missles. these few missles give us the right to invade iraq, capture the ruler, occupy it for several years, and build a new government? there are several differnt countries that have illigal weapons my friend. but out of them all we had to choose iraq.

Terrorists don't get rights. They don't wear uniforms. The only rights we give tham are:

Food
Water
Shelter
Protection (From outsides or each other)

The big G-convention doesn't apply.

Execute the lot..

We choose the one with the most potential to use them. Iraq was the strongest country in the middle east pre kuwait.



Officer: Ok since we did find Crack cocaine on you you are going to have to go to jail

Sie_Sayoka: But officer, it was less than 1 gram!! That shouldn't be enough for you to handcuff me, bring me to jail, put me through the whole legal system, and then have to pay a fine after more time in jail!! All over less than one gram of crack? There are several other people near me who have crack on them my friend!! But you choose me.


Officer: Yeah, right....




Come on, that would be a totally valid excuse. If I ever get caught up in something like that, I'll just use your defense. [/sarcasm]

what you seem to be forgetting is that there are heavy losses of lives in iraq. not only for our soldiers but for many innocent civilians as well. Bush is responsible for the loss of those lives because of the potential use of the missiles.

if saddam would use those missles he would probolly use it against iran. he wouldnt dare attack kuwait again. it would not effect us in any way if another war broke out through iran and iraq.

He would use them on his own people, just to see if they still work...

No. You are dead wrong. The soldiers of the United States of America were killed by Terrorists and Saddam's regime. Our president thinks about our safety above all else. If he sees Iraq as a danger to the US and the world, I'm going to support him.

Saddam might not attack Kuwait again. But, he sure could harbor terrorists to get back at the US and dodge immeadiate blame.

Saddam is an evil man. He gassed and killed the kurds; they were is own people. If there is that kind of person who is willing to kill even his own countymen, and has a lot of power, it is safe to say he should not have that power.

@Loss of lives- Yes there have been both civilian and military deaths. Yes they are still happening. But to leave Iraq now? Before we are finished? That would make all those previous deaths for nothing.

@Use of missiles- How could you say that Iraq would use missile against Iran? He used them on us before he used them on Iran. Just the fact that he had them makes him even more dangerous than he was before. By letting him have them, where would he have gone next? He would have gotten worse and worse, and we would not have known. Well, until he used them to create havoc.

Bush did what he said he would, and he is justified in his actions. If he didn't get elected, Iraq qould have fermented into something terrible, somewhere where the people can't even vote. I don't see how you can be so hateful and mean to our Presdient, our leader, the one who is protecting you whether or not you support him.
Why don't you try backing him up and supporting him instead of dragging him down?



EDIT:

Just so you know, even the troops support him. The info I got in this post: http://www.staredit.net/index.php?showtopi...t=40&p=408317&#

was actually written by one of the soldiers over in Iraq at this moment.

yeah you just said it...

these people would of never been killed if we hadnt of invaded iraq.

any country has the potential to hide terrorists

he shouldnt but he did have that power. i feel the same way about bush.

what would you rather have? deaths in vain or the ability to save lives.

saddam couldnt use the missiles to attack the US. it doesnt have the range. saddam was the same person before we invade the second time. bush had no reason to invade iraq.

the reason why i dont support bush is that he is leading this country downhill. in the future decades america will have to spend a lot of money and effort into recovering from what bush has done.

some troops support him some dont. just like you and me. i know a lot of troops that hate bush.

By doing this we are saving 200 million american lives....

And Iraq could sell their SCUDS to terrorists. Thats one reason for threat.

what im trying to get at is that the invasion was totally uneccessary and bush had no reason to actually invade iraq. what he should of done was investigate it furthur maybe with photographic evidence. them comfront saddam and force him to give up his weapons.

How about:

Officer: Ok since we did find Crack cocaine on you you are going to have to go to jail. Were the only ones allowed to have them!

Sie_Sayoka: But officer, you have a ton of crack yourself! There are also a ton of other countries to choose from, yet you chose me! Is it because I have a ton of cash?


Officer: Uhh...No, just go in the cell!

-_- why do i have the be the druggie here?

thx kellimus

Simple reason. Because that's your choice.

Just liek it's millions of lazy Americans choice to vote for Bush time and time again, even after they complain about his style, his ethics, his intellengence. And his ability to defend himself from the onslaught of viscious pretzels.

I simply voted for No Comment. For several reasons:

1) I don't know WHAT he is doing.
2) Why did people vote for him if he is going to do something so much people dislike?

because people believe that voting for your own belief(democrat/republican) is smart. also bush probolly rigged the voting.

Yes, if you don't like a President blame him for rigging the election!

im just saying its possible.

Anything is possible, and I do believe he rigged the first election.

But the reason people voted him back in was because Kerry was an idiot, and changed his views to often (Which is not entirely bad because it's good that you can have someone that will try to chang efor the people, and not for their wealthy buddies -_-)

But statistics show, that everyone's views on Bush are going downhill.

It's to bad that they had to elect him another term to see his complete stupidity (But he is a genious)

Its surprising to me people still approve... He is easily the worst President the United States has ever had. He went to war because Saddam and Iraq had nuclear capabilities and really all we found evidence of was a couple of metal tubes burried under the sand.
Instead of making the world safer, the US stirred up terrorists, the US killed many in the war, and probably more than Saddam was ever going to kill anytime before he died.

i was just worndering...when is the next poll?

To yenku:

Nixon


Pretty close match to me.

If we hadn't taken Saddam out, his brutal sons would have jumped in after he died and continued the killing spree. You basically said that the we did more damage than help. Thats BS.

Anyway, if we didn't stir up terrorism untill Iraq, then how do you explain 9/11?