I agree! The entire world got it wrong based on what Bush told us.

"That tar pit is safe to swim in. I have proof."

"Thank you. Hey, wait, we're stuck! It's not safe to swim in at all!"

"My information was incorrect. But you can't hold me responsible for the fact that you believed me."

"You're right! It's all our fault, since we all believed you. We all got it wrong, not you."

That's like saying that I oppose you jumping from a 50 story building, but IF YOU DO, I hope you survive the landing. Yes, I hope no more troops die at the hands of Bush's incompetence if he's stupid enough to send them (and he is that stupid), and I know you do too!

But my real hope is that we stop listening to you people who have been wrong and that we start listening to the people who have been right and that the troops aren't sent off that 50 story building in the first place.

There are rumblings in the press now that Congress might revoke the war authority. God willing.



You support torture. I'm just saying that I hope none of the troops are subjected to the kind of torture that you support as a matter of legitimate policy, especially if they have valuable information and are tortured because YOU THINK THAT'S OKAY.

I'm always surprised to hear that anyone actually advocates the torture of American soldiers -- and it's even more surprising that those same people probably have a the giant 'Support Our Troops' bumper sticker on the back of their Chevy -- mind boggling cognitive dissonance...

It amazing how you people think you're right when you don't even know what would've happened if we wouldn't have attacked Iraq. We could be in a worse situation.

Don't be fucking assholes.

I think most people assume if we hadn't "attacked" Iraq that Iraq would be exactly where it was 5 yrs ago...maybe a bit of a mess, maybe with an evil man leading it, but yknow, without all the American death/war stuff. :O :O :O

Soldiers join the military to go to war. They know what the risks are.

If we wouldn't have attacked Iraq maybe they would be fine... or maybe we could've had another 9/11.

I haven't heard anyone mention 9/11 in months and months (aside from the crappy films about it), but I thought that the people behind 9/11 were not from Iraq. Weren't they like, Siberian or something?

I never said they were behind it...

I don't get it then. Why would they run planes into our buildings just years after another country had done it (what a rip off - Siberia should sue!)? For that matter, why aren't we worried about all the other countries that have airports and box cutters? I'm so confused. :O :o

Maybe we should have attacked Lichenstein instead. I'll bet they would have been easier to beat, and after all they had just as much to do with 9/11 as Iraq did. Ooh, or how about Andorra? Yeah, we could beat some Andorran butts!

Yeah and next people are going to be marrying sheep too...

What the hell is wrong with you people?

I thought America was slightly educated...

You are crazy. If Saddam was still alive, and Bush had half a brain, HE WOULD BE OUR BIGGEST ALLY IN THE REGION. Do you seriously think Hussein wanted anything to do with Bin Laden? Osama would have cut Hussein's throat. If we would have left Saddam in power, we could practically have him fight our war with Iran for us. Iraq will go down as the biggest foreign policy blunder in American history.

Yep, if there is one thing we need more of in the Middle East, it's countries with nonreligious governments, not more run by crazy muslim fanatics. A strong leader who can keep the religious nuts in line helps stability in the region.

Oh wait, that's what we had before Bush had him killed.

That is the stupidest rationale for invading a country that had nothing to do with any hostility toward the US that I think I've ever heard. And I'm comparing you to Bush, so that's pretty fucking stupid.

I remember when Pinochet died not so long ago, one right-wing commentator lamented his death, saying that "Iraq needs its own Pinochet."

You know what? Iraq HAD its own Pinochet. We overthrew him and killed him.

Right-wingers are retards.

Wow... I never thought I'd see the day where people SUPPORTED Hussein...

Armageddon is upon us indeed.

And I never said going to war was the right thing. But were in it... and there's nothing we can do about it until 2009, so please, just shut the hell up until then.

What are you, like 13? Sometimes in life you have to take the lesser of two evils. Saddam Hussein was a blessing to the USA and we killed him.

Nobody had a problem with killing Saddam until AFTER he was killed.

There are few people on this board as wrong and out of touch with reality as you are. PLENTY of people predicted that the mishandling of Saddam's execution would lead to a backlash - which it did.

And no one supports or supported Hussein just because they opposed the war. That's right-wing propaganda, and apparently you are EASILY brainwashed by it - which isn't much of a surprise given some of your insanely stupid comments in this thread.



Ah, the freedom loving conservatives.

As much as you'd like people who disagree with you and your boy Bush to shut up and go away, it's not going to happen. First of all, it's now about 65% of the country. Second, there IS something we can do about it and hopefully the leadership of the Congress will listen.

How did this thread turn into the Saddam fan club?

If you equate opposition of this war to being a fan of Saddam then you're completely void of any intellectual honesty, capacity for rational thought, or ethical sensibility.

Those look like all pro-Saddam statements to me

It's funny how if you disagree with Beeble or agree with Bush you're automatically stupid.

What logic you all have.

I'm actually GLAD I don't agree with you all. You're all the sheep going with the hip thing to do. I'm expressing my opinions and everyone else is being an asshole.

If agreeing with you guys means I'm right but I'm an asshole... then I'd rather disagree with you any day of the week.

The world is full of bad guys; we can't get rid of them all. If that were the case, we'd be at war with China and about 60% of the world, so we deal with the ones that are a threat to us, because we have limited resources.

Instead of going after someone we should have -- bin Laden -- we've been distracted by a war against someone who, in the scheme of things, was actually probably better left alone.