[Tripper]

Originally Posted by rdeyes

so the iraqi people were in better shape with saddam in power ? is that you are saying tripper ?

Absofuckinglutely. Back then it was a COUNTRY. Not a fucking warzone with daily carbombings, limited power/water/healthcare. Not to mention all the junk and the shit that gets left behind in a war.

The type of government and it's leader that they had before the invasion is irrelevant whether it was good or not. The fact is they were a functioning country with citizens that commuted to society. Now the country isn't even a country. It barely has a government.

You would be far more safer in Iraq the country as opposed to Iraq the warzone. I can't believe you are even arguing this.

Originally Posted by rdeyes

the afghani people were in better shape with the taliban in power ? is that what you are saying tripper ?

This is a bit different - I excluded this for that reason.....But you only need to compare the amount of innocent deaths from the war, to the amount of innocent deaths under the taliban government to get a clear idea. This area is more unstable than it was under the taliban.

Originally Posted by rdeyes

saddam used chemical weapons on his own people , invaded kuwait , brutally enforced his rule by murdering people that didnt agree with him, gave his sadistic sons power who in turn murdered and raped people at will. i say the iraqi are alot better without saddam in power

Yes, that aspect (Sadaam out of power) is a good thing. Overall though - the people aren't better off as a result of the war.

Originally Posted by rdeyes

the taliban well thats a story that we all know about, opressed women , enforced the most strictest form of islam ever known to man, harbored a known terrorist that is responisble for the death of 3,000 or more innocent people , i say the afghani people are much better off without the taliban in power.

.....3,000 dead over a longer period of time is alot better than 3,700 civilian deaths from American bombs. Afgahnistan is slightly different, seeing as there was more of a valid reason for invasion. Doesn't change the fact that the country is unstable and fucked. People keep on attempting to assasinate whatever puppet leader the Americans put in.

Originally Posted by rdeyes

North Korea , well thats another well known story that kim il jung starves his people while he lives like a king, what good could possibly come from him having any type of nuclear weapons. the US offered to give the north korean people 60 tons of food in exchange for him giving up his nuclear weapon program , but once again he laughed at that.

What good could possibly come from the U.S having any type of nuclear weapons?? For fucks sake. We have more reason to trust Kim Jong than we do Bush. The war in Iraq was started under false pretenses. What's stopping Bush from nuking North Korea under false pretenses? The U.S is the only country that has ever nuked anyone, so we know they're capable of it. Jong hasn't even started a war, unlike Bush, who in a single term - Started two wars, and is currently working on his third. rolleyes:

Originally Posted by rdeyes

Iran is lead by a religous zealot that wants to see israel destroyed , i say the world let israel handle this one on their own, they arent in fact trying to build a nuclear bomb even though buttocks posted a article which is nothing short of a lie , they already have nuclear weapons.

How do you know? Are you CIA? Even then, I wouldn't trust your judgement. (....WMDs). Can't you see a pattern forming with the way Bush conducts his foreign policy? "Hey! Middle eastern country - Our excellent intelligence proves you have some kind of weapon of mass destruction - Get rid of it or we will invade you. Not gonna get rid of it? Ok here we come!...........Oops. Turns out we were wrong. Oh well, too late."

You talk alot of shit about other countries doing this and doing that, but none of them top starting a war. Bush is indirectly responsible for causing more deaths than all of these dictators combined.