Dr.Worthless

I knew the question would come off condesending, but it really was an honest question. What about ongoing security, I was aware they contributed to the forces in Afghanistan.

Yeah, considering one of Kerry's running points is our economy is the worst it has been in centuries, this has to be true! Man, I sure am glad that this war brought us back to the booming economy of the 90's!!

Well.. The only problem with the above statement is there's no proof of your claims against bush, where as there's a paper trail to follow on the oil-for-food scandal. If it comes out that the real reason the UN didn't follow the US lead is because they wanted their pockets lined with dirty money from Saddam, the UN is going to go under.

You caught me with my pants down, I admitedly have 0 experience with any news media outside of the US. (Well, I do keep up with aussie news..) I was speaking from a sort of quasi-experience with the US news media, and how what the media says (from both sides) dictates how about % of the populus feel, I suspect Europe is not any different, and i'm sure there's not a shortage of "bush-bashers" and/or "US bashers" in Europe.

Sorry, I should have said "and/or terrorism". The point being the UN and Europe failed to take an interest in Iraq and its citizens until the US removed him from power. Then all of a sudden Europe wants to be come interested in world politics... Heh, well obviously you know what I mean by biased, you stated what media you felt was biased in the very next sentence. Obviously not with terrorism either.. even though its plauged european countries for centuries..

Holy -*BAD WORD*-, let me take a second to recover from the spin i just encountered, I'm feeling rather sick. Oil for Food Here's what I was refering too.. particularly Last paragraph KEY WORDS. "OTHER FRENCH RECIPIENTS NAMED IN THE IRAQI DO-*BAD WORD*-ENTS INCLUDE INTERIOR MINSTER.. FORMER UN AB!@#$%^&*ADOR.. ETC." You're an intelligent guy vile, do your research before you let your anti-americanism kick in. You're going to see alot of names come out of these recent findings.. and you're going to find out the real reason France spearheaded the opposition to Iraqi invasion.. because they had their hands in the honey pot.

Correct, it is a loss of rights, but the US as a nation has the right to protect itself. Sorry if you feel your rights are being violated, we're having to put up with it here in the US too. I'd rather have a bunch of drunk canadians upset about the US spying on them than an islamic fundamentalist crossing into the US from canada with the intent of terrorism. Terribly sorry you feel this way, and I appologize for saying you're overly paranoid. Let me ask, what measures has the canadian government taken to ensure its safety from terrorism, and vicariously the protection of its close ally to the south?

Heh, whats sad bacchus is your paranoia.. I doubt the US will be sending you to syria for torture anytime soon. If you don't have any ties to terrorists you wouldn't have anything to worry about.

Information is starting to come out about how corrupt the operation was. Bribes abounded and the majority of the cash went into Saddam's hands instead of food in the peoples mouths. The last 2 years of the program they allowed Saddam to draft the "shopping list" himself, if that gives you any clues as to what the program really did.

The real reason they do is because of all the horse-*BAD WORD*- shoveled into their brains on a daily basis by their biased media. (that is if you want the truth about it...) Oh wait, I forgot being foreign automatically puts you in the "more intelligent than the average US citizen" catagory... Let me ask you this... why didn't Europe have an opinion about Saddam and terrorism before the US acted... Europe has been dealing with this threat for centuries, what steps have you all taken to reduce or eliminate the problem? Thats right, the correct answer is none. Dr.Worthless -- Who's really tired of Euro's opinions, 99% of which didn't have one until someone gave it to them.

Everything except $1 double cheeseburgers is a joke to Moore...

Same old song and dance. I haven't heard anything new from the kerry camp since July. Why haven't I? Because Kerry has nothing else to run on except "hey the guy thats in currently has messed up alot, and im your only alternative"

Heh, good question. I agree that it was a collosal screw up (even though I do believe saddam had wmd's, i know many disagree.) and I don't know who should be accountable for the faulty intelligence. I do know that the president isn't, his responsibility is to read the intelligence and act on it, he has an obligation to do so. Again, using "Hindsight" being key in your above statement, its always 20/20. Read up on the oil for food program, it'll explain a big reason why many members of the UN were against us going into Iraq no matter what.

Another theory suggests that it wasn't Al-Qaeda at all, but in reality a group of monkeys tired of being oppressed...

Again, the intelligence at the time of invasion was that there was ties to Saddam and Al-Qaeda. Its all there, its the same intelligence that congress saw and approve action on. AFTER the fact, ( 1 year later) Further enquirey to the intelligence has raised questions. At the time the intelligence was "proof" and not just to Bush, but to Congress (and Kerry) also. Vile the problem is all of you are going off of hindsight. Yes, there are questions that need to be answered, the president CANNOT give you any of them. The president does not acquire Intelligence, he only acts on it. Based on the Intelligence given to him, he acted. Whats so hard to understand about that? 1+ years later different intelligence comes out questioning the original intel, and now the president has to explain himself? The president DOES NOT draft intelligence, FBI/CIA and other organizations do that..

Hey, I didn't give anyone permission to print my picture, wtf!?

Fox news and some other organizations are starting to explore possibilities that things arent being entirely financed by Bin Laden.. more to come I'm sure. I'm not argueing the premise that Saddam had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks. Even if he did support al-qaeda, he wouldn't do anything that could potentially be traced back to him, he's a whacko but he isn't stupid. And please don't tell me you're saying "All the Hijackers were saudi's, so obviously Saudi arabia is to blame..." Its a global economy out there, I could be a member of al-qaeda.. fly to France and detonate a truck bomb at the base of the eiffel tower. That doesn't make it the US's fault. And REGARDLESS of all above, we didn't find out the nationality of said hijackers until the 9/11 report was put out, well in advance of the US invading Iraq. So even if the nationality is -*BAD WORD*-ing proof of Iraqi-lack-of-involvement, we wouldn't have known about it until a few months ago.. in 2004 "Doesn't take a genius"

Again Vile, Hindsight is always 20/20. At the time of declaring war with Iraq, Intelligence showed that there was a connection. The 9/11 commission wasn't even setup then.. Yes, you can say that the INTELLIGENCE was flawed, but you cannot blame the President for following Said intelligence that wasn't "proven" to be "wrong" until a year after the fact. Furthermore, Al-Qaeda is not the only terrorist group operating worldwide. Saddam very well could have been affiliated with Other terrorist networks that we don't know about.

So wait, you're trying to sell 2 ideas to me. 1.) Bin Laden wanted to overthrow Saddam's government. 2.) Bin Laden was in contact with Saddam and tried to get him to allow al-qaeda training camps in Iraq, in which he declined. Are you not see'ing the contradiction here? I thought Bin Ladden wanted Saddam gone, why would he be asking him to have training camps in his country? Why would Saddam be in contact with Bin Laden at all, and visa versa? Furthermore, Alot of people make the over generalization that the 9/11 commission said there was no tie between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. In actually, "No credible Evidence" that Saddam collaborated on any ATTACKS on the United States. Supporting these groups with $$ or anything else wouldn't fit under that. Now in all fairness, the report also includes this. (the basis behind the claims I am !@#$%^&*uming) Now, This paragraph has a major major major logical flaw in it. Premise 1.) Osama was hostile towards Hussein's secular government. 2.) He contacted Iraq for Weapons and training camps, in which Iraq never responded. Ok, so this is how I understand this going on, if I'm wrong please correct me. "Hey Saddam, I -*BAD WORD*-ing hate your guts and am looking to replace you and put in our own government, how about giving us some guns and letting us setup camps in your country"

Where vile, provide me any substancial information that shows Saddam had a hatred for Bin Laden and/or Islamic Fundamentalism. He might have kept it out of his country, as I can see where it would diminish his power, but don't for a second believe that a nutjob like him wouldn't slip $$ under the table to an organization that conducts strikes against the same nations that were attempting to keep him under their thumbs. God knows he had plenty of $$ and plenty of hatred for the west to do something like that, infact it would only make SENSE for him to do something like that. Its essentially the very same thing the US did years ago to GET Saddam in power and Arm Bin Laden to fight the Russians.. So yes, where DO the liberals get the idea that Saddam would have no affiliation with islamic fundamentalism. He tortured his own populus, stole money from them all to build himself elaborate palaces, drive expensive cars, etc. He kills 10's of thousands of them, and sent them to m!@#$%^&* graves. His sons raped women and openly tortured citizens. But Support islamic fundamentalists, god no he'd NEVER do that... HuH, Saddam didn't want any concrete evidence of him supporting other Whackos!? Man.. Imagine that. That must mean he didn't have anything to do with them at all! -*BAD WORD*-, that happens all the time. Me as the leader of an Islamic Fundamentalist group looking for places to setup training camps.. OOOH I know, I'll contact the leader of a country that supposedly has nothing to do with me!! I love to waste my time!! . Why would bin laden go about the trouble of requesting if he didn't think there was a chance Saddam might say yes!?. If Saddam was so obviously against Islamic Fundamentalist, why would Bin Laden be contacting him in the first place?

It comes down to what extent you believe Saddam had connections with the Terrorists. Everyone should know by this point that he openly paid suicide bombers families. I do believe he had further dealings with them past that point, if we'll ever find out the true extent of involvement I don't know, but to me it just makes sense that he would atleast take an active interest in organizations that he could support under-the-table to attack the US/World community. At the very least it would take some heat off of him. Of course, if you are with the liberals and believe that Saddam had absolutly no links to terrorism, I suppose it really does seem ludacris to have removed Saddam from the game.

You missed the point, even Kerry believed the war needed to be done, anyhow... Opinion.. Though I agree it could have been done better. Its going to take far more than a year to completely move the taliban from anywhere, especially the country they originated in. Yep, Iraq has become the focul point of terrorists, I wonder why they would have such a vested interest in a country that they had "no activity nor !@#$%^&*ociation with" While 1000+ US casualties is a bad thing, thats pretty good for 1+ year over there. You know, its funny... I hear 2 different stories on this situation, one from the media, and one from my 4 friends over in Iraq right now. The media has nothing but terrorists strikes and failed plans to report, where as everytime I talk to my friends (all 4 of which are stateside for good in 2 weeks!!!) the only thing they complain about is the 120+ degree heat, being teleported into the dark ages, and how ingrateful the Iraqi people are. (All 4 are stationed in Baghdad, btw). Point is I dont think it's as bad as the liberal media is trying to paint it. Bush kicked the living -*BAD WORD*- out of a far more intelligent Gore 4 years ago in the debates, it should be interesting. I couldn't change your mind on any point of that so I wont even try, but I couldn't be any further from agreeing with that statement.

Not entirely true, Kerry himself gave a rather lengthy speech on the senate floor focused around Saddam, him "using weapons of m!@#$%^&* destruction against his own people" and the US needing to remove him.

You forgot to add the Analogy that every market study showed that said add would surely be an absolute hit.. I really don't think its in contention anymore that things could have been tons better at the begining of this conflict, all that aside consider this. Given the Intelligence that the president was given (which in hindsight might have been faulty, but at the time was credible intel from Multiple sources), any president in the history of the US would have acted upon it. As president he has a OBLIGATION to act on the intelligence, if he hadn't and something happened he would have been empeached in a second. You can't base judgment on hindsight, its always 20/20. Now that we're IN the fight, whats going to be done to make it better. So far the only thing i've heard from Kerry is a withdrawl of troops, (all of them within 4 years), and a good portion of them brought home in 1 year. Furthermore, I've also heard the Kerry camp talk about not having ENOUGH troops on the ground, and attributing it to one of the reasons we failed. So, He wants more troops on the ground, but wants to bring them home. hhmm? Kerry also wants to bring in a UN coalition. Read, he wants France, Germany, Russian, and Chinese help. To find out why those countries didn't help us to begin with, do some research on the oil-for-food program. Kerry really is a class act. He's liberal, and has an "uptown smarter - than - you" at!@#$%^&*ude going on, but he really is ok. The only thing on his ticket that makes me sick is his -*BAD WORD*- of a wife, she's a disgrace. If that -*BAD WORD*- ever called me a "common man" or told me to "shove it" I'd -*BAD WORD*-ing knock her teeth out and gladly do the jail time.