'Over there'

[Elcoholic]

Iraq had WMD's. Theres a lot of evidence that Saddam moved them before the invasion, but not enough to prove it. Bush HAS admitted that Saddam had no WMD's and he regrets using that faulty intelligence. Kerry, btw, had access to the same intelligence as Bush and came to the same conclusions. So how is Kerry better?

He had WMD. The US gave them to him. But as Zagatto pointed out, there haven't been any in his hands since 1993. Just read the damn report. I really don't believe Kerry had the same intel. I don't believe there was any real intel. I believe Bush planed to attack Iraq regarless. I think he was planning it before 911. There are alot of people in his own administration who have said so. Kerry is better because he pointed out how Bush didn't keep his word to the senate by not building a large coalition and ussing force as a last option. Which he didn't because the weapon inspectors weren't finished yet. But because the reports of the inspectors were showing they couldn't find any WMD Bush had to hurry before the final report was presented to the UN. I'm actually amazed that the US didn't plant some WMD and said they were Saddams (I know it sounds weird but that's the view people in the world have about Bush).

You can't take all the bad men in the world on at the same time. Yes, I think Saddam was first in line because we rely on that region for oil. Is this wrong? Would you rather we say screw our interests, we're starting with the place that's the least beneficial to us! Once again, the U.N. doesn't care about what's right most the time. They are the ones that are supposed to stick up for those smaller nations when they are being slaughtered, but they don't.

You are living in a dream world if you think the US is going to free all opressed people. You can't even get rid of Castro who is right arround the corner let alone North korea which is the biggest threat to the world.
Is going there for oil wrong? Hell yes. You had no interests there for a reason, they don't want you there.
Do you even know what the UN is? They don't have an army of their own you know.
And if you think your presindent is doing it to free people all over the world than get the fuck out of Iraq and over to Darfur asap.

Calling Bush worse than Saddam is retarded. Saddam acted much like Hitler on a smaller scale. Had he had access to the resources Hiter did, I doubt Saddam would have been any better. I know you didn't say this, but people that do make me angry.

I know but I just want to point out to you that he brought this onto his own. Let me tell you the comparison with Hitler is not so bad. In our eyes Saddam is the Hitler, in the eyes of people in the middle east and asia Bush is. Invading Iraq only enforced these people's beliefs. And now with the US admitting there were no WMD, well you can see faith in Bush is non-existent in those parts of the world and he will not get anywhere with diplomacy there in the comming 4 years.

And to those people that claim there were no ties to Al Qaeda in Iraq, that's not a very intelligent arguement. Hell, there are ties to Al Qaeda here in Fargo ND. The difference is Iraq can do a lot more damage helping Al Qaeda than anyone in Fargo ND.

There are no ties between Saddam and Al-qaida. Period. But you think that the commision is corrupt and you know better.

And don't think the Iraq thing will be over anytime soon. You don't even control all of the country anymore and the attacks still occur daily.

Cidien, you really talk like a Bush propaganda machine. The example I find most obvious is you stating the 911 commision gave a false report. This shows you just won't believe anything that's bad about Bush. I liked that question in the last debate so Cidien, Is there anything that you don't agree with Bush about or are there any mistakes he made in the last four years that you don't like?

(ps, none of this is personal and I still think you are a nice poster, I'm just trying to get insight in how Bush voters think since there are hardly any pro-Bush people in europe)