Look how much money has usa spend on iraq war

[Indy]

I belive he was looking for an alternate, more safer and faster way, of getting to India (aswell as proving that the earth was round). And it wasn't for gold either, they had been dealing with India for spices for quite some time before that.

That was the first time he came. He made 4 more journies back here, because he found gold. that is a fact, not an opinion.

[cyanide]

the atrocities being commited in iraq are similar to the atrocities columbus commited when coming over from spain in 1492. he came over with an army to spread christianity, and in order to do that he almost wiped out an entire race of people. the real reason columbus came over here was for gold.

bush is doing the same thing except replace christianity with democracy, and gold with oil, and bush's desire to spread united states interest in the middle east.

That's exactly what writer Howard Dunn talked about yesterday on the Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Edit: Howard Zinn (I have no clue why I said Dunn lol)

And as for GloveGuy's post, I agree with the fact that terror cannot be stopped. If America's going to try to repress terrorism, out of that repression, a new terrorist is born.. so it's a vicious cycle.

[kevC]

Where the hell is Benji?

[Riot]

Here is just my 2 cents-

We aren't going to war with Iraq, we are going to war with Iraqi's government. Why? Because we feel it is our duty as the most powerful country and richest country in the world to step in and not let the world destory us, or more importantly, the whole world. As bad as it sounds, it's true. Also, we are apart of the United Nations and being a part of the United Nations we are suppose to take force to governments who commit war crimes. Saddam was murdering MILLIONS of innocent civilians (HIS OWN PEOPLE!) a friggin year! That is a war crime.

Why invade Iraq? Because we are trying to make the middle-east a better place. It's not like we are ignoring North Korea, we are having talks with them and stuff. It's just not getting the attention because we aren't forcing any miltary action on them (atleast now). It's not like we are just leaving them alone, we are trying to get them to disarm their nuclear program.

Let me ask you this, you want to clean an area out of hatred, suffering and terrorism what do you do? You go after the biggest, baddest one. Iraq is a major player in the middle-east. If we put a democracy in Iraq think about what that would do to the middle-east as whole. Also, after 9/11 we can no longer afford to sit back and wait. We didn't take miltary action in WW2 until Pearl Harbor and we didn't start the war on terror until 9/11. George Bush realizes that America can't afford another attack, that would just be awful (of course). So put the terrorists on the defensive side and fight the war overseas rather than fighting war in our own backyard. As bad as that sounds it's his job to keep us safe and he is doing a good job doing it, in my opininon.

Like I said, I put no price on freedom. There are a lot of people who don't have it. Everyone deserves freedom. And you guys are talking about innocents lives being killed. Yes, maybe they will die but think of the GENERATIONS that will finally live in a democracy and in freedom that their parents and grandparents couldn't do. Because America stepped in and fought for a country that was defensless against their own government. It was a sad scene, we felt we had to get involved. And I'm glad we did.

We didn't forget about Bin Laden, we have millions of troops overseas. But I bet Bin Laden is hiding in Pakistan or something, I bet he isn't in Afghanistan anymore.

[cyanide]

Here is just my 2 cents-

We aren't going to war with Iraq, we are going to war with Iraqi's government. Why? Because we feel it is our duty as the most powerful country and richest country in the world to step in and not let the world destory us, or more importantly, the whole world. As bad as it sounds, it's true. Also, we are apart of the United Nations and being a part of the United Nations we are suppose to take force to governments who commit war crimes. Saddam was murdering MILLIONS of innocent civilians (HIS OWN PEOPLE!) a friggin year! That is a war crime.

Not to let the world destroy America? Um, Iraq didn't do anything to America. North Korea's a bigger threat. And please, "Saddam was murdering millions of innocent civilians a year" ? Please give one source to that, because I don't believe that is true at all. And war crimes, I think the US should focus their attention more to the genocide in Rwanda, the crisis in the Congo, instead of all the media hype about Iraq.

Why invade Iraq? Because we are trying to make the middle-east a better place. It's not like we are ignoring North Korea, we are having talks with them and stuff. It's just not getting the attention because we aren't forcing any miltary action on them (atleast now). It's not like we are just leaving them alone, we are trying to get them to disarm their nuclear program.

Yes, make the middle east a better place by invading, destroying buildings and murdering innocent civilans no better than what Saddam did, plant some US buildings and corporations, get the oil, then let the neighboring countries send their own suicide bombers down to Iraq and watch terrorism continue wave after wave. Well, it's good they're doing something about North Korea, but really, what was the motive of attacking Iraq? It was so apparant that Bush wanted to invade Iraq, and he even said so before he became president (http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/200 ... 024.htm?1c).

Let me ask you this, you want to clean an area out of hatred, suffering and terrorism what do you do? You go after the biggest, baddest one. Iraq is a major player in the middle-east. If we put a democracy in Iraq think about what that would do to the middle-east as whole. Also, after 9/11 we can no longer afford to sit back and wait. We didn't take miltary action in WW2 until Pearl Harbor and we didn't start the war on terror until 9/11. George Bush realizes that America can't afford another attack, that would just be awful (of course). So put the terrorists on the defensive side and fight the war overseas rather than fighting war in our own backyard. As bad as that sounds it's his job to keep us safe and he is doing a good job doing it, in my opininon.

You can't stop terrorism, no matter how hard you try, a new terrorist is always born. And as for democracy, there will never be a true democracy, (Just read America: The Book by Jon Stewart). And Iraq is gonna be a battleground for years to come. The smartest move was to invest some of that $100 billion investment and build better homeland security rather than attack a nation that has virtually no threat against American soil or have proof of launching an attack against the US. And you know, that 9/11 attack still has nothing to do with Iraq... which leads you to bring up bin Laden later on

Like I said, I put no price on freedom. There are a lot of people who don't have it. Everyone deserves freedom. And you guys are talking about innocents lives being killed. Yes, maybe they will die but think of the GENERATIONS that will finally live in a democracy and in freedom that their parents and grandparents couldn't do. Because America stepped in and fought for a country that was defensless against their own government. It was a sad scene, we felt we had to get involved. And I'm glad we did.

Freedom in future generations might not mean as much as the constant fear that they have to live under now that Iraq is a hotbed for terrorist attacks and resistance movements. And you know what, why didn't they do a thing in the last 20 years? Sure, they can thank the US for toppling Saddam, but are they really making things better? We have to factor in many things, including economy, military, education, etc. It's not easy rebuilding a country out of a pile of rubble in the middle of a killing zone.

We didn't forget about Bin Laden, we have millions of troops overseas. But I bet Bin Laden is hiding in Pakistan or something, I bet he isn't in Afghanistan anymore.

Millions of troops overseas? Exaggeration maybe? Like I said before, Bush doesn't care as much about bin Laden as Iraq, and he said it himself. So instead of attacking Iraq, why didn't the US try harder to find bin Laden? I find it ironic that they're able to veer off in its course and capture Saddam before bin Laden, who was on everybody's mind in 9/11.

[Riot]

Not millions, but we have troops in places you wouldn't think. We have troops in Africa and in South America (drug wars) and in Asia and in England. We have a lot of troops everywhere. And always have (ever since the cold war)

We are working hard on talking with Korea and other nations, I'm sure of it. It's just what would get more attention? Invading Iraq or just disscussions with North Korea?

We didn't forget about Bin Laden, we are still searching. But it's harder to find Bin Laden who could be literally anywhere. We knew where Saddam was going to be (in Iraq). So he was easier to find.

Maybe Saddam didn't have anything to do with 9/11 but there are terrorists in his country. I remember watching videos of terrorists training to make pipe bombs and how to smuggle things through metal dectors. Now, that isn't a "direct" threat to America...right?

We can't beat terrorism but after September 11th, you have to try. You can't just sit there and let them get more funding and let them get stronger and stronger. That would be plain stupid. I think you have to fight them. Of course the war won't be over for years...we all know that.

http://www.lesjones.com/posts/000973.shtml

[Andreas Dahl]

Maybe Saddam didn't have anything to do with 9/11 but there are terrorists in his country.

He did not have anything to do with it and there has not been any profs of terrorists in Irak...

But it's harder to find Bin Laden who could be literally anywhere. We knew where Saddam was going to be (in Iraq). So he was easier to find.

Bin Laden was in Afghanistan, although they didn't find him. By now he could be anywhere, although back then when he was in Afghanistan they had an area that isn't much larger than Iraq at all (650' km² vs. 450' kb²) to find a person that was a much larger threat to USA than Saddam was.

Not millions, but we have troops in places you wouldn't think. We have troops in Africa and in South America (drug wars) and in Asia and in England. We have a lot of troops everywhere. And always have (ever since the cold war)

And why is it like that? And what a coincidence that almost all of them are all located right near to almost every large oil-findings in the world...

[Riot]

I love it how much hate America gets.

We try to liberate a country from an evil dicator and people bash us. That has to be a first.

[Matt]

you make it seem so simple

[cyanide]

I love it how much hate America gets.

We try to liberate a country from an evil dicator and people bash us. That has to be a first.

Well, that apparently shows that the US did something wrong that didn't make a lot of people too happy. I would think that it is the arrogance, lies, and terrible rationale by the US government in handling their situation of the invasion.

[Riot]

you make it seem so simple

Duh, of course it isn't simple. No miltary action or political action is simple.

[cyanide]

Duh, of course it isn't simple. No miltary action or political action is simple.

Then that kind of nullifies your statement, "We try to liberate a country from an evil dicator and people bash us. That has to be a first."

[Riot]

What I meant was we are trying to liberate a country...people were suffering in their own government and we come over and get bashed on. I just don't understand.

[Riot]

Just do whatever it takes to keep the fighting over there and not over here.

Thats some cold stuff.... tsk tsk tsk

I just saw this. WOW. You are right. I'd rather have terrorists planning and getting more funding and more training then us actually doing nothing.

I'm not saying I want other people to die. All I am saying is I don't want another 9/11.

[cyanide]

I just saw this. WOW. You are right. I'd rather have terrorists planning and getting more funding and more training then us actually doing nothing.

I'm not saying I want other people to die. All I am saying is I don't want another 9/11.

You're right, that 148 billion dollars should go to a more rational cause in preventing another terrorist attack and at least try to cripple terrorist organizations. But hey, that 148 billion all went to Iraq, which doesn't make much sense in terms of 9/11. The only sense that I can think about the war in Iraq is that there's another motive behind it. Oil, anyone?

[Matthew]

Riot don't bother dude, it's like talking to a brick wall..

[Riot]

I'm starting to understand that.

If America doesn't do anything to Iraq people would say "Oh, Iraq is suffering..is America too good to help Iraq?" and shit like that.

Oh well, Bush is our president for 4 more years and I'm a happy dude.

[Jackal]

Why do you think I don't bother anymore? It's a no win situation. They want US out of Iraq but had US done that right after the war these very people would be screaming "they took away Saddam and left them in a state of chaos with no government". Now that they are actually trying to implement a democratic politics system it's not good enough.

Stay there, you get complaints, get out, you get complaints. Bah.

[Riot]

I'm starting to understand that too Jackal. You can't win with everyone.

[_marsal]

Riot, Jackal...did you watch the Fahrenheit 9/11?..if yes, please look at Bush (and his (re)actions) and tell me you want this man to lead your country for another 4 years..if not, go check it out.

but if you did, then i really don't get it how can you say the things you said...

[Riot]

Nice, judge your politics on an amazingly biased man named Michael Moore.

[Jackal]

My post wasn't about Bush as a leader, my post was about staying/withdrawing from Iraq. They are two different subjects. You are talking about one thing that and I'm talking about another.

[iKe7in]

Nice, judge your politics on an amazingly biased man named Michael Moore.

How exactly do you see him as biased? Everything he said he backed up with facts.

[cyanide]

Nice, judge your politics on an amazingly biased man named Michael Moore.

How exactly do you see him as biased? Everything he said he backed up with facts.

Well, Michael Moore is very liberal, and he's able to twist a bit of truths by showing what he wants to show, but it still doesn't change the fact that Moore was able to provide the proof shown that opens up a lot of interesting things that not many people know about. I personally find Bowling for Columbine a much better movie.

[Indy]

cyanide, howard zinn is his name actually.

im not even going to get in to this discussion though because i could go on for days about the differences between the us invading iraq, and whether or not the us should have intervened in rwanda in the 90's.

all of the united states presidents have a history of being imperialist and colonialist. the country was built on the foundation of lies and greed, and it continues down that road.