Mike111

I think Bush is a lot smarter than you give him credtit for. Set aside he went to a top US school, he has his wits about him - he may not be glamorous like clinton which everyone seems to vote on (how the fuck did Arnie get gov of Cali???? - yes he is in the bush camp!) - not generalising anyone here at all - so lets not take that the wrong way. Bush really cant bea dumbass, maybe he has incompetent people below him who fuck things up, btu to be leader of a top party would take some doing would it not?

Well im relatively new so please forgive me if i missed out on that, but agreed, it is a minor vietnam atm. But im sure the US military are by far smart enough to not make the mistake of going in thinking it woul dbe like that - obviosely things have changed and it is near enough like that, but would they really want to go in and suffer this INTENTIONALLY? i doubt it. They probably thought it would be ok. But as we can see, it isn;t. agreed on that.

good point, but , sorry i mean before Iraq - instead of Iraq. maybe it Was because the president was more moderate and not wanting to blow ISrael off the map.

Wine in general is horrible!!! maybe ive not developed the mature taste for wine yet, ill stick with lager!!

Ahh so what you are saying (not putting words into your mouth, forgive me if im wrong) ius that they picked on saddam cause he was a easy target (bad resources) and not an ally, and potentially an able target - committed genocide so can "remove him for better". But if that is the case, why not go for Iran, they have oil and more of an immediate excuse - nuclear weapons!

never denied it was - was probably just as an important factor as other, but not "the defining" one. If that makes sense, (i never normally do)

Good question... .... erm.... Well saddam trained terrorists, al quaeda which we know despises the West. Theres one threat. Moreover, maybe there is a hidden factor to - this is a hunch but 1991 we helped kuwait right, well they gave us oil (i think) and this we benefited - saddam , being so radical , could invade or do harm to a country vital to our own national interest - thus if he became too much foa liability to coutnries with whom it suits us to get no with then maybe it was time to go. Maybe by picking an easy target such as him it might deterr other countries (althogh that hasn't worked, agreed). There are a few reasons , but are open to discussion/.

Without meaning to be rude or stubborn, where is the proof? Ok there are a lot of oil reserves in Iraq, and it would seme absurd to argue that that wasn't the cae i agree.... but.... why do it then? what not attack 5 years before if oil was such a big thing? Maybe cos of a new president?

Im sure oil isn't the main factor, might be an important one, but one of many. What about national security?

LOL no!!! I meant his orginal post, oops lol that sounded weird!!! "He put his acknig butt well "lol. Sorry I meant his original arguments, very well put together IMHO.

Very well put.

"why send them" because it is a necessary sacrificc IMHO in order to contain the terrorist threat -although half the war is probably covert and political, this is a way of stopping funding from a source, and a chance tro eliminate any supporters of the terrorists who are prepared to fight for them. The terrorist are cowards- they have to use bombs and boobie traps - thats why they are so hard to find - a guy dressed as a civilian in a busy place is hard to see. even if it means napalming thm to hell, so be it. The reasons there are probably more casualties ? terorists use bombers and are cowards. If on in a head on fight with the allies, they wouldn't stand a chance of inflicting many casulaties as has been demonstrated. Personally, i hope the fuckers rot in hell for they have done, and I would hope every oppurtunity is used to go and remove them for good. Although removing it is impossible i guess, containing it is managable. Just about.

I suppor the war less and think it was a wrong idea to go for Iraq, (syria or Iran are just as fair game) in hindsight, as ive said rpeviousely before. But i still support the war - Bush stood up to the terrorisrts and didnt cave in. I respect that, Moreover, and this is a selfish thing agreed, if we have to fight the terrorists, i rather it be done there than say on the US or Uk homesoil. As saddam supported terrorists and funded them, then well his time has come then IMHO. The Fundamentalistg side of Islam is causing problems now, not the moderate side, thats fine, but the view of despising the west is damaging. And personally I would liked to see it stamped for good, and harshly done with it. If terrorists in Iraq, cant see that, then let them dieinstead of blowing us up. Regards to troops, it is extremely trajic that any civilian or troop is killed, and the losses are horrendous. Bush obviosely believes it is necessary sacrifice. myself, ill keep that to myself. Don't wanna casue trouble as it is such a sensitive issue.

shite that would be a fast aircraft! Wouldn't mind a ride in that

cool pics

Same!! well, they are putting them up now!!

More aircraft ; range i guess. not 10 islanders , but say 2 otters, let410, pac750, skyvan etc Higher alti than 11k for sure!! Free rig hire!!! erm weather controller But hey - what weve got is wicked at the Dz, so this aint complianing at all!!!

ive learnt loads in here - cultural stuff, viewpoints of certain groups. Any its a bit of fun. Nothing in here is likely to remove the US president or change the world, but still can serve as an interesting discussion place.

ill second that!

well naturally...in a job like that... ... you need a bit of fun!!!

actually it is more the french who need help in winning world wars!!!

neither would I

nah... youre rich in enough!!! maybe you should GIVE US MORE money!!!! that sounds better

Thanks... ill bear that in mind