The Un

[TheKwas]

Because the first thing you want to do to a hornet's nest is stir it up!

[juanpe]

So you think invading Iraq was the proper response to the threat of terrorism? How about Syria, Jordan, etc, etc, etc,? Do you feel they all need to be invaded now too?

If all these countries are a threat of international terrorism for the rest of the world, then the USA should also be invaded because Bush is the biggest terrorist ever and their nuclear weapons are ALSO a threat for the rest of the planet

[mikebutt]

So you think invading Iraq was the proper response to the threat of terrorism? How about Syria, Jordan, etc, etc, etc,? Do you feel they all need to be invaded now too?

If all these countries are a threat of international terrorism for the rest of the world, then the USA should also be invaded because Bush is the biggest terrorist ever and their nuclear weapons are ALSO a threat for the rest of the planet

Also lets not forget that the CIA under Carter and Reagan actually trained and financed the Mujahideen initially.

[calm2chaos]

So you think invading Iraq was the proper response to the threat of terrorism? How about Syria, Jordan, etc, etc, etc,? Do you feel they all need to be invaded now too?

There are most definetly other countries out there that are even bigger supporters of terrorist then Iraq or saddam. And yes they do need to be dealt with. But the resources to do this on 6 different would be staggering and impossible to cordinate. Hell one is proving to be a pain in the ass PC war.

 

If all these countries are a threat of international terrorism for the rest of the world, then the USA should also be invaded because Bush is the biggest terrorist ever and their nuclear weapons are ALSO a threat for the rest of the planet

 

Unlike france that does pretty much nothing. O yeah except for oppose things so they wouldn't lose money or a few other little details. Sitting on the sidelines allowing everybody else to do the work isn't nobel it's cowardice.

 

You weren't booing us when we pulled your asses out of the fire a while back.

 

You need to find someone with the stones to invade us first. And since we know that isn't going to happen we will just have to see how the world plays out. If you want something more, then become more active. Don't sit in the background and complain, do something.

 

By the way doesn't france have nukes? So the next country that knocks on there door and says boo gets themselves a full blown arsenal. NICE

 

By the way, should we just cower and hidefrom the terrorist if they come after us? I mean some countries do that. Always a good idea to run in the corner when someones mean to you. Wonder who that was?

Edited July 18, 2005 by calm2chaos

[sancco]

If I was one of the many thousands of civilians that lived in Iraq and had my house bombed by the US, killing most of my family, I'd probably think that the US were terroists. It's all perception.

[juanpe]

Unlike france that does pretty much nothing. O yeah except for oppose things so they wouldn't lose money or a few other little details. Sitting on the sidelines allowing everybody else to do the work isn't nobel it's cowardice.

 

You weren't booing us when we pulled your asses out of the fire a while back.

 

You need to find someone with the stones to invade us first. And since we know that isn't going to happen we will just have to see how the world plays out. If you want something more, then become more active. Don't sit in the background and complain, do something.

 

By the way doesn't france have nukes? So the next country that knocks on there door and says boo gets themselves a full blown arsenal. NICE

 

By the way, should we just cower and hidefrom the terrorist if they come after us? I mean some countries do that. Always a good idea to run in the corner when someones mean to you. Wonder who that was?

as you may imagine (but, of course, you can't because you dont know me), your words don't offend me at all... you don't even know how much active I am with respect to social issues (other people from the NF who know me a bit better know it)... if you bothered to read more of my posts here, you would see that I'm not just "complaining and doing nothing"... you are not living in Madrid and you dont know what I'm actually doing in order to fight against unjustice behaviors

 

curiously, the horror which is taking place in Iraq has not been caused by people who care about others... curiously, that horror has come from the unfair desire of power and money from the Bush administration... and curiously, that desire of power and arrogance comes from an american administration...

 

it is curious to read how you find France (and I suppose extended to the rest of Europe) so hypocritical for fear to "lose money" when many of the US actions in international politics is just to keep that power and not lose money (and, just in case you think that, I'm not defending France's or European international politics, not even my own country's international politics)

 

changes in the world always come from ordinary citizens, which is something that the UN lacks of: real ordinary citizens who know the problems and concerns of humanity

[calm2chaos]

Unlike france that does pretty much nothing. O yeah except for oppose things so they wouldn't lose money or a few other little details. Sitting on the sidelines allowing everybody else to do the work isn't nobel it's cowardice.

 

You weren't booing us when we pulled your asses out of the fire a while back.

 

You need to find someone with the stones to invade us first. And since we know that isn't going to happen we will just have to see how the world plays out. If you want something more, then become more active. Don't sit in the background and complain, do something.

 

By the way doesn't france have nukes? So the next country that knocks on there door and says boo gets themselves a full blown arsenal. NICE

 

By the way, should we just cower and hidefrom the terrorist if they come after us? I mean some countries do that. Always a good idea to run in the corner when someones mean to you. Wonder who that was?

as you may imagine (but, of course, you can't because you dont know me), your words don't offend me at all... you don't even know how much active I am with respect to social issues (other people from the NF who know me a bit better know it)... if you bothered to read more of my posts here, you would see that I'm not just "complaining and doing nothing"... you are not living in Madrid and you dont know what I'm actually doing in order to fight against unjustice behaviors

 

curiously, the horror which is taking place in Iraq has not been caused by people who care about others... curiously, that horror has come from the unfair desire of power and money from the Bush administration... and curiously, that desire of power and arrogance comes from an american administration...

 

it is curious to read how you find France (and I suppose extended to the rest of Europe) so hypocritical for fear to "lose money" when many of the US actions in international politics is just to keep that power and not lose money (and, just in case you think that, I'm not defending France's or European international politics, not even my own country's international politics)

 

changes in the world always come from ordinary citizens, which is something that the UN lacks of: real ordinary citizens who know the problems and concerns of humanity

Let me start off by saying I didn't mean you specifically but as a more general sense. I don't know you so I don't personally have any idea on what your motive is.

 

Secondly the horror in Iraq is being caused by terrorist and nobody else. The dead ad dying are there because they are detonating explosives in crowded streets and groups of children. You can shine this anyway you want. But the facts are the facts. And the facts show people are dying at the hands of terrorist in Iraq. Us soldiers are not at war with the civilian population, unlike the (insurgents) or better known as terrorist. Lets place the blame correctly and stop making excuses for those that are TARGETING the innocent.

 

france had contracts and loans with iraq. all of which would be down the tubes if the invasion took place. Not to mention some very very shady trading with sadam going on. All of which comes into jeapordy when the US attacks. This goes also I believe for Germany and Russia. They did not abstain from this because it was wrong or was unjust. They stayed out because it was gong to cost them money and credibility. France did not stay out of the war because it was wrong the stayed out because there was nothing in it specifically for france. Hel I have talked to people frem france and they have told me the same thing. "Unless thereis something in it for us why should we go". And in the end they will profit without spilling a drop. Freedom isn't free, some people just like to buy on credit.

 

The UN is what it is. It willnever be more and never be what it was hoped. It's a large humanitarian organization that can't get it's shit straight. If your looking for protection or force or a presence you can't look at the UN. It just doesn't have the teeth to make you thinkm it might bite

[ecnarf]

Buddy, don't even pretend for a second that France and the anti-war countries were the only ones in the world with their hands in the Iraqi cookie jar.

 

Furthermore, don't fool yourself into thinking that all the death in Iraq is because of the "terrorists". The U.S. issued an open invitation to them. Unless you hadn't been paying attention to the news before March 2003, Iraq had never once suffered a suicide bombing attack before the U.S. invasion. Now look at them. And don't even try to tell me that no attacks took place because of the fascist government, I'm not that stupid.

 

Yes, Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator - but there are many more dictators in the world who are considerably worse than he could ever have hoped to be. The Iraqi quality of life has deteriorated since the invasion, no matter what way you look at it. You can't avoid that.

 

And on top of that, since you complain so much about us hippies sitting around and complaining and not taking any action, how about you go to the U.S. and join the military and asked to be deployed to Iraq? That'd be showing us - you actually taking action for something you believe in and putting your ass on the line for it.

 

EDIT: What the hell do you mean when you say that France will profit from the war? Unless I'm missing something, American companies are getting all the major contracts from the military for reconstruction. You want to explain to me what you're talking about?

Edited July 19, 2005 by ecnarf

[juanpe]

Buddy, don't even pretend for a second that France and the anti-war countries were the only ones in the world with their hands in the Iraqi cookie jar.

 

Furthermore, don't fool yourself into thinking that all the death in Iraq is because of the "terrorists". The U.S. issued an open invitation to them. Unless you hadn't been paying attention to the news before March 2003, Iraq had never once suffered a suicide bombing attack before the U.S. invasion. Now look at them. And don't even try to tell me that no attacks took place because of the fascist government, I'm not that stupid.

 

Yes, Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator - but there are many more dictators in the world who are considerably worse than he could ever have hoped to be. The Iraqi quality of life has deteriorated since the invasion, no matter what way you look at it. You can't avoid that.

 

And on top of that, since you complain so much about us hippies sitting around and complaining and not taking any action, how about you go to the U.S. and join the military and asked to be deployed to Iraq? That'd be showing us - you actually taking action for something you believe in and putting your ass on the line for it.

 

EDIT: What the hell do you mean when you say that France will profit from the war? Unless I'm missing something, American companies are getting all the major contracts from the military for reconstruction. You want to explain to me what you're talking about?

couldn't have said it better myself (taking into account that English is not my native language and i wouldn't have probably be able to really express my opinion in another language)...

 

thanx for "explaining" somehow exactly (also) my point of view...

[mikebutt]

There are most definetly other countries out there that are even bigger supporters of terrorist then Iraq or saddam. And yes they do need to be dealt with. But the resources to do this on 6 different would be staggering and impossible to cordinate. Hell one is proving to be a pain in the ass PC war.

 

So there are still plenty of countries for terrorists to operate out of. Terrorists are pretty mobile. I don't have time to go verify this, but I'm pretty sure most of the terrorists in Iraq right now are from other countries. And you seem to feel that invading all of them is impossible. Then wouldn't you agree that invading Iraq was an ineffective half-measure?

Edited July 20, 2005 by mikebutt

[calm2chaos]

Buddy, don't even pretend for a second that France and the anti-war countries were the only ones in the world with their hands in the Iraqi cookie jar. 

 

Furthermore, don't fool yourself into thinking that all the death in Iraq is because of the "terrorists".  The U.S. issued an open invitation to them.  Unless you hadn't been paying attention to the news before March 2003, Iraq had never once suffered a suicide bombing attack before the U.S. invasion.  Now look at them.  And don't even try to tell me that no attacks took place because of the fascist government, I'm not that stupid. 

 

Yes, Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator - but there are many more dictators in the world who are considerably worse than he could ever have hoped to be.  The Iraqi quality of life has deteriorated since the invasion, no matter what way you look at it.  You can't avoid that.

 

And on top of that, since you complain so much about us hippies sitting around and complaining and not taking any action, how about you go to the U.S. and join the military and asked to be deployed to Iraq?  That'd be showing us - you actually taking action for something you believe in and putting your ass on the line for it.

 

EDIT: What the hell do you mean when you say that France will profit from the war?  Unless I'm missing something, American companies are getting all the major contracts from the military for reconstruction.  You want to explain to me what you're talking about?

First off lets get something straight. I am not your fucking buddy or your friend.

 

Secondly I served 4 years in the military, so please do not assume you know me or what I have done.

 

Thirdly I never EVER said that they were the only ones in the cookie jar. But they were the loudest when it came time. And they had the most to lose financialy.

 

Next, the terrorist that were being trained and supoorted within Iraq before the invasion are now targeting it's population. Don't fool YOURSELF in thinking that american soldiers are killing these people. You can say or do whatever you want. But the facts are just that, FACTS. And these people are dying at the hands of murdering terrorist who have no problems with killing innocent women and children. they are following a doctrine that says murdering anyone that is not muslim is ok. They make no distinction between military and civilian. An infidel is an infidel and anything or anybody is worth the price to kill them.

 

As far as the other dictators go. I never said this is, or was the only place there was a problem. But the fat is we can't fight 5 or 6 different wars at once. it's tough enough we have to fight this like a politicaly correct video game. This isn't going to be a quick process and we were never told it was. But with a few of the major players out on the sidelines as usual. It's gong to take time.

 

Lastly, how bout reading the post before you shoot your mouth off. I don't believe I ever said france would profit from the war. The war cost france money. THAT was the reason they were opposed.

 

 

 

So there are still plenty of countries for terrorists to operate out of. Terrorists are pretty mobile. I don't have time to go verify this, but I'm pretty sure most of the terrorists in Iraq right now are from other countries. And you seem to feel that invading all of them is impossible. Then wouldn't you agree that invading Iraq was an ineffective half-measure?

 

So if you can't stop everything all at once it's not worth doing. Thank god you didn't have anything to say about WWI and WWII.

 

I find it more amazing that muslims are not disevowing themselves of these people that are killing there children. Instead they stand quitely making easy targets. That may very well be why.

 

Personaly I would love to see my soldiers out of Iraq. My opinion is that these people are not worth my soldiers blood. They refuse to fight for themselves or help the fight for them.

 

By the way if you have a solution to all these problems in the ME please educate me. I'm sure talking and resolutions and sanctions would work. O wait no they don't.

Edited July 20, 2005 by calm2chaos

[ecnarf]

First off lets get something straight. I am not your fucking buddy or your friend.

 

I didn't imply that. It is a phrase commonly used by people of my culture. Not everything means the same in your world.

 

Secondly I served 4 years in the military, so please do not assume you know me or what I have done.

 

Well, good for you. Really.

 

Thirdly I never EVER said that they were the only ones in the cookie jar. But they were the loudest when it came time. And they had the most to lose financialy.

 

So? What's your point? Are you faulting a country for keeping their economic interests at heart?

 

Despite the fact that no country with any sense of morals would do business with any dictator, every country still does it. In this case, it was France doing business with this particular country and had their hands in the cookie jar. When it comes to other countries, the U.S. has had its hands in that cookie jar with arms trades and wielding tons of political influence. If the situation were reversed, and France wanted to invade Saddam on bogus intelligence and the U.S. stood to lose a whole lot of money, would there be something wrong with the U.S. protecting its interests?

 

Furthermore, do keep in mind that the majority of the entire European continent, in terms of population, opposed the war. Regular people are oblivious to what contracts its government has with what countries. The fact remains that, economic interests or not, the French government was representing the opinion of the majority of its population. Likewise, the U.S., economic interests or not, invaded Iraq on the support of the majority of its population, even if it was for the wrong reasons. Yet people all over the world accuse the U.S. of invading Iraq for the oil, something which pro-war advocates deny.

 

So I find that just a little bit odd. France can be accused of opposing the war for economic benefits (even though the French people opposed it), but the U.S. can't be accused of invading for economic benefit. Oh well.

 

Next, the terrorist that were being trained and supoorted within Iraq before the invasion are now targeting it's population. Don't fool YOURSELF in thinking that american soldiers are killing these people. You can say or do whatever you want. But the facts are just that, FACTS. And these people are dying at the hands of murdering terrorist who have no problems with killing innocent women and children. they are following a doctrine that says murdering anyone that is not muslim is ok. They make no distinction between military and civilian. An infidel is an infidel and anything or anybody is worth the price to kill them.

 

No dice. The majority of insurgents are foreign born, coming in from other countries in the middle east, Saudi Arabia in particular.

 

Secondly, the home-grown insurgents certainly weren't terrorists that were being trained within Iraq. They're people that have been driven to extremism from extreme circumstances. Studies have been done showing that the majority of Iraqi civilian deaths were at the hands of the U.S. military, usually through poorly-aimed aimed missiles.

 

You're right in saying that these people have no scruples. But how the hell do you think they came to murder people on a daily basis? Through the U.S. invading this country. Believe it or not, but this situation wouldn't be happening had the U.S. not invaded Iraq.

 

As far as the other dictators go. I never said this is, or was the only place there was a problem. But the fat is we can't fight 5 or 6 different wars at once. it's tough enough we have to fight this like a politicaly correct video game. This isn't going to be a quick process and we were never told it was. But with a few of the major players out on the sidelines  as usual. It's gong to take time.

 

The problem is that you can't fight "terrorism" by invading countries. That breeds terrorism. Distinctions have to be made between terrorist organizations and a political entity. There are states that support terrorism, such as Sudan, which was previously a safe haven for Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden. But that doesn't mean you can invade that country and somehow reduce the strength of various Al-Qaeda cells. Remember when London's subway was bombed? That wasn't planned by Osama Bin Laden, it was planned by a group of homegrown Muslim extremists with spiritual ties to Al Qaeda, which kind of defeats the whole theory that hunting down Al Qaeda's leaders will reduce terrorism. Unless, of course, you could explain to me how it is, in fact, working.

 

if you can't stop everything all at once it's not worth doing. Thank god you didn't have anything to say about WWI and WWII.

 

Shows how much you know. The fact that you think that WWI was a remotely worthwhile war really reveals your ignorance regarding world history.

 

I find it more amazing that muslims are not disevowing themselves of these people that are killing there children. Instead they stand quitely making easy targets. That may very well be why.

 

Unless you've had your eyes shut and your ears plugged, you'll see that there are muslims that are denouncing extremists that take it upon themselves to bomb civilians. Christ, even Hamas denounced the London bombings. What does that tell you?

 

Personaly I would love to see my soldiers out of Iraq. My opinion is that these people are not worth my soldiers blood. They refuse to fight for themselves or help the fight for them.

 

Gee, why should the Iraqis help the U.S.? You guys invade them, destroy their infrastructure, kill tens of thousands of people, and now it's up to the IRAQIS to make things better?

 

In what world do you operate?

[Dan #2]

I find it more amazing that muslims are not disevowing themselves of these people that are killing there children. Instead they stand quitely making easy targets. That may very well be why.

When was the last time you spoke with a Muslim?

When was the last time you spoke with an Iraqi Muslim?

"Stand around quietly making easy targets?" Try "making an attempt to live their lives, with some resembelance of normality."

 

Personaly I would love to see my soldiers out of Iraq. My opinion is that these people are not worth my soldiers blood. They refuse to fight for themselves or help the fight for them.

because a darker skinned person with a different culture is a lesser person right?

 

Refuse to fight for themselves? Well what the hell would you do? Wait no. What would an average person do? We don't all keep m16's under our beds, and you're beyond ignorant. Do you think the 'insurgents' are targeting everyone in Iraq? um no. If France were in your country, and had made things worse than ever before, how would you feel when some other of your countrymen, maybe from another state/province, target the French?

 

 

 

What is the ME?

 

I'm sorry if i repeated anything ecnarf said, i was too lazy to read his post.

[ecnarf]

ME is the middle east.

 

You're right on with your argument against Iraqis decrying the insurgency (I was way off with my reading of his statement). Iraqis are being victimized by these people, what good will it do if they "Stop it!" in some form? How would they even say that? You don't expect someone being raped to politely tell their rapist to stop raping them, do you? Even more crazy would be expecting the rapist to stop. It violates (no pun intended) the definition of rape.

[mikebutt]

So if you can't stop everything all at once it's not worth doing. Thank god you didn't have anything to say about WWI and WWII.

 

First of all, you can't compare this to WW1 or WW2. They were 60 and 90 years ago respectively, and they were completely different situations. And second, do you even know what your talking about? WW1 and WW2 were situations were there was a problem. A single (albeit very convoluted war was fought. 4 and 6 years later the problem was solved.

 

Also I'd like to point out that you're backtracking. You already admitted that:

 

the resources to do this on 6 different would be staggering and impossible to cordinate. Hell one is proving to be a pain in the ass PC war.

 

However your above statement seems to indicate that you feel it is necessary to take out ALL the terrorist producing countries of the world. Which by the way, now includes Britain as three of the four London bombers appear to have been homegrown. Iraq was a bullshit way to fight the war on terror, and it was never intended to fight the war on terror.

[Dan #2]

ME is the middle east.

 

You're right on with your argument against Iraqis decrying the insurgency (I was way off with my reading of his statement). Iraqis are being victimized by these people, what good will it do if they "Stop it!" in some form? How would they even say that? You don't expect someone being raped to politely tell their rapist to stop raping them, do you? Even more crazy would be expecting the rapist to stop. It violates (no pun intended) the definition of rape.

if i had a gun, i'd shoot the fool raping me, but i'd rather walk around without fear, not carrying a weapon and risk not killing a rapist.

 

 

 

 

ME, i should have realised.

[juanpe]

calm2chaos, my "buddies" here already answered (pretty well, actually) all your points... I won't add anything else they have already said

 

i would just say that the world you are living in is not the world in which most of us (and most of the rest of human beings on this planet) are living...

[Moonlight_Graham]

Personaly I would love to see my soldiers out of Iraq. My opinion is that these people are not worth my soldiers blood. They refuse to fight for themselves or help the fight for them.

Refuse to fight for themselves? The Iraqi people didn't ask for the U.S. to invade their country and start a war. The U.S. and allies made this mess, so they obviously have the obligation to stay there until its cleaned up.

 

The U.S. will be in Iraq for many, many years

to come unfortunately...until the the Iraqi's can defend themselves or the insurgents/terrorists are defeated, which may be a long time.

 

As for the U.N., its not perfect. Its a flawed entity, but its much better to exist than not to exist. And i'll agree with you that France are a bunch of bum-holes (at least the gov't is) for even making dealings with Iraq in the first place.

[Dan #2]

And apparently, as i read in some article posted in the 9/11 thread, even the British Gov, an American ally, was paying terrorists to assasinate enemies...

 

Apparently, good, clean government is a rarity.

[calm2chaos]

First off lets get something straight. I am not your fucking buddy or your friend.

 

I didn't imply that. It is a phrase commonly used by people of my culture. Not everything means the same in your world.

 

Secondly I served 4 years in the military, so please do not assume you know me or what I have done.

 

Well, good for you. Really.

 

Thirdly I never EVER said that they were the only ones in the cookie jar. But they were the loudest when it came time. And they had the most to lose financialy.

 

So? What's your point? Are you faulting a country for keeping their economic interests at heart?

 

Despite the fact that no country with any sense of morals would do business with any dictator, every country still does it. In this case, it was France doing business with this particular country and had their hands in the cookie jar. When it comes to other countries, the U.S. has had its hands in that cookie jar with arms trades and wielding tons of political influence. If the situation were reversed, and France wanted to invade Saddam on bogus intelligence and the U.S. stood to lose a whole lot of money, would there be something wrong with the U.S. protecting its interests?

 

Furthermore, do keep in mind that the majority of the entire European continent, in terms of population, opposed the war. Regular people are oblivious to what contracts its government has with what countries. The fact remains that, economic interests or not, the French government was representing the opinion of the majority of its population. Likewise, the U.S., economic interests or not, invaded Iraq on the support of the majority of its population, even if it was for the wrong reasons. Yet people all over the world accuse the U.S. of invading Iraq for the oil, something which pro-war advocates deny.

 

So I find that just a little bit odd. France can be accused of opposing the war for economic benefits (even though the French people opposed it), but the U.S. can't be accused of invading for economic benefit. Oh well.

 

Next, the terrorist that were being trained and supoorted within Iraq before the invasion are now targeting it's population. Don't fool YOURSELF in thinking that american soldiers are killing these people. You can say or do whatever you want. But the facts are just that, FACTS. And these people are dying at the hands of murdering terrorist who have no problems with killing innocent women and children. they are following a doctrine that says murdering anyone that is not muslim is ok. They make no distinction between military and civilian. An infidel is an infidel and anything or anybody is worth the price to kill them.

 

 

 

Secondly, the home-grown insurgents certainly weren't terrorists that were being trained within Iraq. They're people that have been driven to extremism from extreme circumstances. Studies have been done showing that the majority of Iraqi civilian deaths were at the hands of the U.S. military, usually through poorly-aimed aimed missiles.

 

You're right in saying that these people have no scruples. But how the hell do you think they came to murder people on a daily basis? Through the U.S. invading this country. Believe it or not, but this situation wouldn't be happening had the U.S. not invaded Iraq.

 

As far as the other dictators go. I never said this is, or was the only place there was a problem. But the fat is we can't fight 5 or 6 different wars at once. it's tough enough we have to fight this like a politicaly correct video game. This isn't going to be a quick process and we were never told it was. But with a few of the major players out on the sidelines

[supercanuk]

Seemingly the U.S. can do no wrong, and always has the best of intentions ;)

 

I admire somewhat you're loyalty and blind belief in you're country, I guess not all of us when looking at, oh i don

[ecnarf]

WRONG. They opposed the war so there illegal loans would not get defaulted on. Thats the reason don't try to beautify it with humanitarian reasoning, there was none

 

No dice.

[calm2chaos]

WRONG. They opposed the war so there illegal loans would not get defaulted on. Thats the reason don't try to beautify it with humanitarian reasoning, there was none

 

No dice.

[TheKwas]

Just for clearance, most of the Al-Quaida type terrorists hated Suddam for being secular. Only those that wanted money for bombing Israel really liked him.

 

Iraq wasn't much more of a haven than any other country.

[ecnarf]

Calm2chaos, do you have any proof that France acted the way it did because of its economic interests OTHER than the fact that you don't like the French?

 

Canada opposed the war. Why did we oppose the war? Was it because Canada has economic interests in there NOT being a war, or was it because the majority of the Canadian people either opposed the war/ would only support the war with U.N. approval?