Irack

[GommeInc]

What a loser, fighting a war just for oil.

[Concentric]

It was britan and america espaly thogh, as it craeted teh friend ship between bush and tont blare.



True. but now bush is makeing the same sort if abuses of human rights as sadam hosain, just as bad in some cases, yet if america was inaded, i bet they would stiull fight for it freedom even if they were fighting for americans.
Gorge bush attackd irack becuse of teh oil fileds, as tehy had nothing to do with 9/11 and they wernt habporing terrists, athogh after teh irck war they now are.
If america inveded to help teh human rights, there are contrys on the boarders of america with things just as bad, there not being invaded thogh?
If it was becuse they thoght they had wepons of mass destrution? north cariea does jave wepons of mass destrution, yet there not being indvaded.

so in my opinon there are alot of hiddem motive sin this war, if you consider gorege bush senior (gorge 2 bush's father) failed in his war on teh same contry? is this revenge? is it becuse of teh oil?.

Also why does amerca when russia invade, stop them by craeting things like teh taliban etc (bin larden was trained by the CIA)
But whe america inavde there magicly on the side of good, and if russia helped them they woild be accused of funing terrists, even thogh funding terrist is exsactly what america did?

I would agree with you apart from your first and last points.
September 11th didn't bring the US and Britain together in a 'special relationship', Blair decided to $uck up to the Americans by saying we would help, when there was absolutely no need for us to. Britain had not been attacked, and even so, as you rightly said, Iraq has far more terrorists in it now than it did do.
On your last point, whether the US paid terrorists in the past or not, that isn't the point, the point is now they don't and that is what we are bothered about.

[Genifer]

Didn't bush say their were 'weapons of mass destruction'

Were their really? Forgive me for being slow, but I never really saw them talking about that on the news.

[Ciaran]

Why dont we just unite officially and be called the nation of united morons
Honestly we arnt getting anywhere in this world with weapons of mass destruction and wars whats it going to acomplish? nevermind this world is too corrupt

[GommeInc]

Therw werent any weapons as Iraq isnt the country containing them!!!

[Butcher11]

Didn't bush say their were 'weapons of mass destruction'

Were their really? Forgive me for being slow, but I never really saw them talking about that on the news.

3 years ago, when Saddam wouldn't let UN weapons inspectors into Iraq to look at the WMD, we knew there were then, and what reason do we have to believe he decided to destroy them voluntarily? And the numerous people saying the US needed oil, right now, we have numerous surplus reserves in he continental US, and also Alaska which has not be opened at all. I notice almost everyone against the war is british, but remember you as a member of the Security Council(something with the 5 top nations in the UN) has a duty to keep the world safe, and if you were controlled by saddam Hussein and led a life of fear of torture and death, wouldn't you want a country to liberate you? Plus, if oil was so important, why Afghanistan?

[Mined]

First or all its Iraq

[Mined]

Secondly we should just kill the killers and rescuse those who need rescuing its SIMPLE

[Mined]

People should

[Mined]

Oops clikced reply
** People should just leave others alone and get on with there lives **