Originally Posted by DeadlyVision

I did a research on the net alot of lives has been lost, They estimate it over 1000 trooops and even more iraqies being killed.


I ask for what? Bush said, "Iraq has Weapons Of Mass Destruction!" After an further investigation they found No weapons at all.


Bush, Motivated troops by showin them 9-11 pictures, And as a soldier u have to fight for whats right.

Bush Administration could not answer any questions about the war! Why is that?


I found out that america went to war to protect the credibilty of United Nations. And not the protect the people of america.

Bush also said, "Al Qeyda is linked to iraq (saddam) Well They captured saddam, what changed i ask? And after long period of the war Bush said," Iraq is not linked to al qeyda".......confusing aint it.


And did america really went to "Free Iraq" as they said or to dehuminize them and abuse them in prisons (Every1 seen the pics of the abuse)


Whats your view on this. Did you even know Why America went to war?..........Did you kno that Oil was the biggest reason for the war and not terrorism.

..........................

Originally Posted by Shadows edge

Lil-trip: You seem to be confused into thinking that

(a) Clinton was "weak" on terrorism and Bush is "strong" on it or some such bullshit

(b) That Iraq has jack shit to do with terrorism against the US or al-queda.

(c) That the US is now safer than it was before we invaded

Turn off the Fox "news" my man.

Originally Posted by Kryogenix

if Kerry became president
theres a chance that the terrorism will stop
'the terrorist want Bush dead, not the average American

Originally Posted by Lil-trip

lol...

There is no adminstration that is "Weak..' on terrorism, however if you wanna go off the Fox station n hit up a variety of news websites following what could have been done to prevent the war, they have several documents handed specifically to Clinton through his Security advisor stating Al qaida threats "Before..' the attack in 93, it was ignored along with his "Second.." term as president, about not enhancing the security due to the fact that it was a "Serious..' threat until after..

Along with before the election, they asked for funding to be put forth in those areas but it wasnt considered the Top..."Priority..'

No. You are just wrong. Stop putting words in quotation marks, it makes no sense. And Clinton had several documents on Al Queda, and specifically set meeting to inform Bush's cabinet on the threat from Al Queda. Why the fuck do you think he was firing missiles and what not? Back up your points, instead of just talking bullshit.

B.) Iraq wasnt the key area on the war in terrorism, n if you think im completly oblvious on the whole Oil aspect of it, you need to pick up another history book n skip the Binge cycle cus that was n aspect of well...but they needed to start where the attack came from, along with where it is "Spreading..' from..

Again, no. If they wanted to stop the attack where it "came from" they would arrest the CIA members who set up Osama in power in the first place because of the big bad commis in Afghanistan, the ones who gave weapons to Saddam and put im in power, etc

C.) Going to war doesnt make anythign safer, n if you re-read n if you want i can get a printed document for your blind ass to read over the Brail i said no one wants to lose casualities, but sometiems pushin things forward is what is needed for the future..

Of course sometimes war is necessary. But unless you show that it is actually necessary, you are just spouting bullshit.

So a typical reply "Fox..' news, shows how unaware you are of shit, n a simple re-reading over the post is just to answer the question, no one wants to go to war, n it is obviousley gonna make it more open for attacks Especially since get this dumbass, Osama was offering Britian one of the major countries to be supportin the war, to leave along with taking in various prisoners, same with Italy, HOSTAGES arnt safe n it arose more n he is offering money for the murder of High UN (UNITED NATIONS: thought thatd help) officials..

This makes no sense.

So now there are head bonuses bein put on officials, offering the murder within the united states and sorroundin countries, i think im more aware you need to get off the Google refreshn n skip past the top headlines n read over yo shit before you make another ass comment like that, cus not only did it not make sense but...all your comments where addressed in the first post, you jus sound like another dickridin bitch n if i was to compare it to a sport, don start watchin the "Winning..' team jus cus its leadin in scores, get the bare facts lol fuckin idiot...

Dickriding bitch? This isn't a rap battle. Stop talking about "facts" when you have yet to present one. Stop talking about google, stop talking about headlines, stop talking about refresh. Learn something, make an actual argument.

Originally Posted by Lil-trip

The terrorist threat to our nation did not emerge on Sept. 11, 2001. Long before that day radical freedom-hating terrorists declared war on America and on the civilized world. The attack on the marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983, the hijacking of the Achille Lauro in 1985, the rise of Al Qaeda and the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, the attacks on American installations in Saudi Arabia in 1995 and 1996, the East Africa bombings of 1998, the attack on the U.S.S. Cole in 2000. These and other atrocities were part of a sustained, systematic campaign to spread devastation and chaos and to murder innocent Americans.

Of course the terrorist threat did not emerge on 9/11. This is why I am disappointed with Bush, the CIA, the FBI and to some extent Clinton for not doing more to prevent 9/11. There was a huge breakdown. And yes, these attacks were there to terrorize Americans. However, that doesn't really adress the real heart of the issue, which is why these actions are so popular with so many Arabs, and why they continue to have such funding and support. You see the problem is, we give people like Osama and Saddam power, and use them as pawns to fight communists in order to spread "freedom" and "democracy" (read: in order to take power away from the USSR). Then we abandon said countries, and they obviously get mad, and start using some of the weapons we gave them on each other and on us. Then we act surprised.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/08/p...3320d4a&ei=5070

Jus opened up the browser n put n National security, NY times popped up along wit many, n right in some of the first openin statements, thought you wanted the background info since you skipped history 101, dumbass...

You could at least quote somethin relevent from the article, and show how it makes your point.