ahhhhhhh geeeeeeezzzzzzzzze we did NOT NEED TO GO INTO IRAK.


sheesh

not then , not like that , and not for the reasons they went on.....


basta

((((( Bl8ant))))
Just a little History..I know no one wants to see it this way..but here are the facts...The Iraqi's (Suddam) invaded Kuwait and started amassing troops on Saudi border..this started the "first" Gulf war. The truth is the "first" Gulf war never ended...there was a truce. Iraq had to abide by certain Un mandates in this "truce" some of which were, respecting the UN mandated "no fly" zone, unfettered inspections of weapon sites, and to sell oil for strictly food and medicine. ANY violations of these truce obligations would constitute a re-engagement of hostilities. It's a fact that his forces shot at British and American pilots enforcing the "UN mandated "no fly" zone, its a fact he used money from oil for food program to build new palaces, weapons and other things, it's a fact he kept UN inspectors from sensitive sites and stalled every chance he could. So technically this war is just a re-engagement of the "first" war and probably should have started 10 years ago instead of 5

Search,

Sadly, I'm talking about America.

Knox..but country did we invade unprovoked? maybe Bosnia, kosovo, Serbia? without any UN mandate, no congressional approval...thats what you must mean

Yes I remember well...we bombed those poor civilians for 78 days straight....for no reason...Clinton said our involement would only last 6 months...but we are STILL there over 10 years later...imagine that

Where do you get that redwine?

What Fanta??

About Bosnia?

Nope, Search, talkin' about the invasion of Iraq. Why did the Bush administration keep changing our reason for invading?
Why did Bush say "We are not, repeat, NOT liberators", while, AT THE SAME TIME, Cheney kept repeating, "We will be greeted as liberators" over and over. It sounds like they couldn't keep their stories straight. I had no problem with the invasion of Afghanistan. That's where Bin Ladin was, and they didn't seem to be in too much of a hurry to give him up.

But about the Iraq thing. Yes, Saddam was a brutal dictator. But believe me, there are far worse ones. As the first Gulf War proved, Iraq couldn't mount a serious threat to us. That didn't change 10 years later. And, if we were so hell-bent on getting the terrorists, need I remind you that 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia--a country with it's own human-rights violations? Why didn't we go there? Iran has always been a bigger, more imminent threat than Iraq--why didn't we go THERE instead of Iraq?

Everyone seems to have taken the "We broke it--we've gotta fix it" attitude towards Iraq. That, in a nutshell, explains why I was against the invasion from day one. Iraq has become a welfare state--and we're signing the welfare checks. And, like all good little welfare recipients, Iraqi citizens, by and large, are in no hurry to take responsibility for themselves. Why is it that we hate giving people here in America welfare, but fall all over ourselves to give it to everyone else? And THAT'S not a Bush exclusive problem. America's been doing this for decades now.

Fanta...are you serious..you don't remember our "Peace Keeping" mission?

well said Knox!!!

I dont remember invading Bosnia redwine!

Now your saying it was a peace keeping mission!
Thats what it was.
A few minutes ago, I could have sworn you said we invaded without provocation!!

Knoxman..first you didn't read post up above you about first gulf war...or if you did..we were spending millions of dollars a year just protecting the no fly zone..over a 12 year period...how much longer should we have done that while getting shot at? Oil for food? billions being funneled to corrupt UN officials, No wonder they didn't care about all the resolutions they made...it was a joke, how long before Saddam used all that money to become another threat to Saudi's, Kuwaiti's, not to mention his own people starving because money was spent on his palaces and military instead of food and medicine.

LMAO Fanta..you call bombing innocent civilians for 78 days a peace mission? Please my friend..what are you talking about now???

BTW Fanta...this also included US ground troops and tanks and all the other war machine products in this Peace Mission

First, it was a NATO operation brought on when the Bosnian Serb Army threatened and attacked UN-designated safe areas.

It started as a bombing campaign that involved aircraft from 15 nations!

When the ground forces went in, they were also multi-national with only 1/3 of them being US!

When they went in they didnt directly engage anyone, but positioned themselves between the two opposeing forces!

Hardly an invasion, and hardly just a US operation!

Search,

Iraq proved to not be a threat to us then. As I said, they didn't get any more formidable in the 10 years since. Why WERE they all of a sudden the biggest threat to us? Any why was money spent such a huge concern to you then since it obviously isn't now? Not to mention the soldiers are getting shot at now. Why is that different than then? You seem to be a lot more tolerant of the same things today that you weren't then.

You take Iraq, Ill handle Bosnia knox!


We will call it a squeeze play!!!!

You know he'll call in reinforcements, Fanta .

But that's OK.

You WILL have to handle them solo for a while. Dinner awaits. Can't debate on an empty belly. I'll be back later to be tagged in, ready fer battle once again .

Cool, I'll get him drunk!!!!