Go Kerry. Go away, Bush.

[ChR0NiC]

Yeah, I do. He could sell them to a terrorist organization, and they could use it here.

Here's what I think we should do. Every country which doesn't actively pursue terrorists even after we request it, we give them an ultimatum along the lines of: we will TOTALLY DESTROY the city of Baghdad in 3 weeks, at 6:00. Either pursue terrorists, or start getting all your civilians out.

In this way, if innocent people die, it isn't really the country's fault, and it also destroys infrastructure.

Finally some logical thinking and good ideas provided. I am getting sick and tired of hearing about hostages being taken and tortured and held for ransome and the worst beheaded.

[Hazard]

The problem is that Kerry policies will only bolster terrorism. If you give into their demands and pull out of the middle east, what message is that to the enemies of the United States? That we'll give in as long as we have a liberal President? Just out of curiosity, who do you think the terrorists support for President? The Republican Bush who is willing to take the fight to their doorstep and smash them and their supporters, while cutting off their funding and rooting out their conspirators, or the Democrat Kerry who wants to pull out troops, run away from conflict, and "initiate talks" with those animals, and disarm and downsize military spending?

Bush's foreign policy will create many, many more terrorists than it removes. Violence begets only violence. The way to deal with terrorists is to talk - not to the terrorists, but to the states that support them or turn a blind eye to their activities. Invading other countries with overwhelming force and killing (intentionally or otherwise) thousands of civilians in the process will only ever create even more anti-american, anti-western sentiment... surely that's obvious?

Bush's short-sighted unilateralism has even created anti-american sentiment in the US's european allies, in NATO... Given that, it's hard to imagine the level of hatred that must exist in nations where the US military has killed thousands of people. A 'war on terrorism' is a silly concept, akin to a 'war on drugs'.. Trying to fight small bands of terrorists with a huge army only plays into their hands.

And I disagree. I believe that it is the job of all those who love freedom to root out and destroy all terrorists and anyone and everyone who supports them.

[Negotiable]

Do you honestly think Saddam, even if he_did_ have wmd, could ever use them against the USA?

Yeah, I do. He could sell them to a terrorist organization, and they could use it here.

Here's what I think we should do. Every country which doesn't actively pursue terrorists even after we request it, we give them an ultimatum along the lines of: we will TOTALLY DESTROY the city of Baghdad in 3 weeks, at 6:00. Either pursue terrorists, or start getting all your civilians out.

In this way, if innocent people die, it isn't really the country's fault, and it also destroys infrastructure.

Yes, he'll go after terrorists after he destroys the Weapons he had already destroyed, and that he had said, many times, that he had already destroyed.  Do you really think that he could have said _anything_ short of "take my oil" to change the situation he was in?  When you have somebody in charge with something to gain, like Bush, he's going to do his best to use his position to his advantage.  If making oil more easily accessable makes money for him, his family, and his Vice President (which it does), then obviously he's going to come up with an excuse for it.

I really don't understand the connection bewteen Saddam and Al Quida -- Saddam killed people for being religious, and Al Quida is a religious group.  I couldn't see Saddam helping them.

[hismajesty]

They're fake Muslims duh! (Al Quada) The Muslim religion is supposed to peaceful, what they are doing is anything but peaceful. Even some of Muslim church leader things over there said that they aren't real Muslims or something like that.

[Kp]

Yes, he'll go after terrorists after he destroys the Weapons he had already destroyed, and that he had said, many times, that he had already destroyed.  Do you really think that he could have said _anything_ short of "take my oil" to change the situation he was in?  When you have somebody in charge with something to gain, like Bush, he's going to do his best to use his position to his advantage.  If making oil more easily accessable makes money for him, his family, and his Vice President (which it does), then obviously he's going to come up with an excuse for it.

I really don't understand the connection bewteen Saddam and Al Quida -- Saddam killed people for being religious, and Al Quida is a religious group.  I couldn't see Saddam helping them.

Ah, the joys of a conspiracy theorist.  From some of the news items I've seen lately, many different independent entities told the U.S. govt. that Iraq had weapons.  Offhand: the Egyption president personally conveyed the message to Franks, Putin told Bush, CIA told Whitehouse, etc.  I could dig up a full list if you really care.  So, with all your friends / allies / subordinates telling you the same thing and citing different people, would you believe them?  If you did, what would you do?

Saddam connection: again, you apparently haven't been following the news too closely.  Aside from the obvious terrorist connection of Saddam giving money to families of Palestinian suicide bombers, there's the report of a mid- (high-?  don't recall) level operative from al Queda who was injured in Afghanistan, treated in an Iraqi hospital (in Baghdad, iirc!), and yet nowhere to be found when U.S. forces got there.  Saddam's Iraq wasn't exactly a pinnacle of free travel, so I'll leave it to you to speculate on how this guy got into and back out of Iraq if Saddam's govt. didn't give at least tacit approval.

[Stealth]

I really don't care what Saddam did/didn't do. It's pretty obvious he was a bad man. He killed a countless amount of his own people, and he did have the power to create biological weapons. He tried to kill Bush's father, which in my opinion is enough to capture him (trying to kill a commander in chief.) I was just glad he was removed from power, regardless of the reason.

Haha.  Bush has killed countless of his own people (as governor of Texas, he had tons of people executed), he has the power to create biological weapons.  And his father tried to kill Saddam.  

Even if he does have biological weapons its not like he can use it on anyone at any time. He will be kicked out of office so fast. On the other hand Saddam was a dictator, and does have the power to use it any way he like.

Oh absolutely!  If Saddam tried to _use_ biological weapons, the rest of the world would be screwed!  HOW can a country like the USA stop a small middle-eastern country from destroying them!?  Yup, if Saddam wanted to, he could have destroyed the rest of the world and nobody would have been able to stop him!!
</sarcasm>

Do you honestly think Saddam, even if he_did_ have wmd, could ever use them against the USA?  

You forget that Saddam used nerve gas against his own people. The logical conclusion would be that he had the capability to produce them (duh - he used them once) and he had the cajones to use them (there we go with that whole "duh" thing again), and furthermore, he had the motive to use them (or give them to people who would use them) against the citizens of the United States. (We kicked him out of Kuwait and have been a general pain in his ass for about 12 years now.) Without having access to any sensitive intelligence data at all, making a decision based upon actual events and logical conclusions, there is the justification for nipping Iraq in the bud.

[Arta]

Iraq may not have had any weapons of mass destruction but they were certainly capable of making them and in the hands of Saddam alot of shit can happen =/

No, Iraq was not capable of making them. The UN inspectors did a very thorough job of removing his WMD capability after the first Gulf war. Also, the processes used to make WMD require significant industrialisation which would have been both readily detectable by modern sattelite surveillence, and extremely difficult to accomplish whiles under UN sanctions.

[Arta]

As far as death row, I think it'd be better to make the prisoner rot in prison for life, seems a bit like letting them go free by just killing them.

It costs just as much tax dollars to kill a man that it does to let him rot in jail, only by killing him he's not taking up a cell.

This is also not true. By the time you consider all the costs involved in executing someone: The initial trial, all the appeals, the time spent on death row, and soforth, execution actually costs more than life imprisonment. See this page for more information.

[Arta]

Do you honestly think Saddam, even if he_did_ have wmd, could ever use them against the USA?

Yeah, I do. He could sell them to a terrorist organization, and they could use it here.

Here's what I think we should do. Every country which doesn't actively pursue terrorists even after we request it, we give them an ultimatum along the lines of: we will TOTALLY DESTROY the city of Baghdad in 3 weeks, at 6:00. Either pursue terrorists, or start getting all your civilians out.

In this way, if innocent people die, it isn't really the country's fault, and it also destroys infrastructure.

That's just crazy. If someone were doing that to your country, wouldn't you take up arms to defend yourself and your fellow citizens? I sure as hell would. Do you really want to turn the whole world into rabid haters of the USA? That'd be a great way to do it.

Anyway, back on topic: Reasons why you'd vote for Bush?

[Banana fanna fo fanna]

It'd be Saddam's fault. He knew, he did nothing.

The whole "oil connection" was just a farce pulled out of someone's ass. If you didn't notice, oil prices were lower before we attacked Iraq; we didn't gain anything by it.

[Arta]

It'd be Saddam's fault. He knew, he did nothing.

Nonsense. That's like saying to someone, "Give me your wallet, or I'll shoot you", the person saying no, you shooting them, and then saying it was their fault. That would be nonsense. If you shoot someone, it's your fault.

[quasi-modo]

The war in Iraq was also about the fact that saddam violated our seice fire and was screwing with us for years. It was a last resort. Under clinton we tried that whole support the insurgents, pray for a coup crap, and it did not work at all. This was the last option. The war was more then needed, it was needed years before, but clinton did not want to do it because it was too much of a 'republican thing' because of bush #1.

Bush is a strong leader and he will stick to his dcisions. He is not going to waver like kerry. I do not care about the fact that kerry was in nam, that is fine and dandy, but I care more about his senate track record.

[Arta]

What?!

The war in Iraq was also about the fact that saddam violated our seice fire

When did that happen?

and was screwing with us for years.

By doing what?

It was a last resort.

Why were weapons inspectors pulled out of Iraq before they'd finished their jobs, then?

Under clinton we tried that whole support the insurgents, pray for a coup crap, and it did not work at all.

Howso?

This was the last option. The war was more then needed, it was needed years before, but clinton did not want to do it because it was too much of a 'republican thing' because of bush #1.

Why was it needed? What specific events required it?

Bush is a strong leader and he will stick to his dcisions.

Even when his decisions are wrong, and shown to be so?

He is not going to waver like kerry.

How do we know if Kerry is going to waver? He hasn't had a chance yet!

I do not care about the fact that kerry was in nam, that is fine and dandy, but I care more about his senate track record.

What about his track record in the senate disturbs you?

You remind me of the Bob Dole sketch in Family Guy...

[Hazard]

Iraq may not have had any weapons of mass destruction but they were certainly capable of making them and in the hands of Saddam alot of shit can happen =/

No, Iraq was not capable of making them. The UN inspectors did a very thorough job of removing his WMD capability after the first Gulf war. Also, the processes used to make WMD require significant industrialisation which would have been both readily detectable by modern sattelite surveillence, and extremely difficult to accomplish whiles under UN sanctions.

All I can say is: WRONG. The UN has been unable to deal with Iraq for nearly a decade thanks to our "Lets Bend Over" former President Bill Clinton. In 8 years, I think Iraq would be fully capable of developing a chemical weapons program, and worse.

[Arta]

Present your evidence, please.