Dichotomy.

[Forever_frost]

Makes a large difference to me. Invasion we lose troops, attack our flyboys get to have some fun. IMO our troops need to be here not getting shot at overseas so Haliburton and others can make money.

Then why are we still in Iraq and AFghanistan. And also in Libya, Egypt, and massing in Jordan ready to move into Syria? Surely Obama is against giving money to Haliburton, whom he gave no compete contracts to

[talisman]

And? Big fat hairy deal. Every country has chemical weapons, so what?

Do me a favor and keep your stupid ass ramblings out of my fucking threads. Jesus Christ.

[4eyedwillie]

If he had, we'd not have been in Iraq as long as we have been. If he had actually reacted after the first World Trade Center bombing, we'd not be in the position we are in. And remember when Clinton had Bin Laden repeatedly and let him go?

We had NO business being there in the first place. Yep should have sent special forces after him to start with. I've said this before and might have to say it again.

[Forever_frost]

And? Big fat hairy deal. Every country has chemical weapons, so what?

Saddam actually used his. Repeatedly on his own people.

[4eyedwillie]

Then why are we still in Iraq and AFghanistan. And also in Libya, Egypt, and massing in Jordan ready to move into Syria? Surely Obama is against giving money to Haliburton, whom he gave no compete contracts to

You mean bushie gave to them?

[4eyedwillie]

Saddam actually used his. Repeatedly on his own people.

And? Others have to.

[4eyedwillie]

Do me a favor and keep your stupid ass ramblings out of my fucking threads. Jesus Christ.

Stupid because I'm not like the rest of the sheeple in here?

[Baron Von Crowder]

you arent very bright, are you?

There were sanctions implimented after Iraq invaded Kuwait, BECAUSE Iraq used chemical weapons on Iran, on the entire population. They agreed that they wouldnt possess them. You do know that they did, and people in Iran are still dealing with those effects, right?

[talisman]

Stupid because I'm not like the rest of the sheeple in here?

This is you:

Someone says something negative about Obama.

You ignore it their point.

You say something negative about Bush and play the "well he did..." card.

If you've got such a hard on for Bush then start a thread about it, but quit devolving every other one on this site into the same stupid ass argument. Provide a counterpoint of what you think Obama HAS done right by.

This is how intelligent people conduct debates. Unintelligent people try to deflect the topic and shift focus so that they don't have to provide counter points. This is what almost every single post you make is. Drivel.

Is that clear enough for you?

[4eyedwillie]

you arent very bright, are you?

There were sanctions implimented after Iraq invaded Kuwait, BECAUSE Iraq used chemical weapons on Iran, on the entire population. They agreed that they wouldnt possess them. You do know that they did, and people in Iran are still dealing with those effects, right?

Yep so what still not a reason to invade and get how many people killed? Our invasion did a HELL of alot more damage than the WMD's did.

[4eyedwillie]

This is you:

Someone says something negative about Obama.

You ignore it their point.

You say something negative about Bush and play the "well he did..." card.

If you've got such a hard on for Bush then start a thread about it, but quit devolving every other one on this site into the same stupid ass argument. Provide a counterpoint of what you think Obama HAS done right by.

This is how intelligent people conduct debates. Unintelligent people try to deflect the topic and shift focus so that they don't have to provide counter points. This is what almost every single post you make is. Drivel.

Is that clear enough for you?

Debates are only good if there is a chance of swaying one side or the others opinion. There is ZERO chance of that in here so I'm not even going to try.

[BradM]

Yep so what still not a reason to invade and get how many people killed? Our invasion did a HELL of alot more damage than the WMD's did.

So let them keep using wmd's? Is that your point?

[Baron Von Crowder]

Yep so what still not a reason to invade and get how many people killed? Our invasion did a HELL of alot more damage than the WMD's did.

You really need to do some research before you spout off missinformation.

Aftermath
Iran–Iraq War was extremely costly in lives and material, the deadliest war ever fought between developing countries. Both countries were devastated by the effect of the war. It cost Iran an estimated 1 million casualties, killed or wounded, and Iranians continue to suffer and die as a consequence of Iraq's use of chemical weapons. Iraqi casualties are estimated at 250,000–500,000 killed or wounded. Thousands of civilians died on both sides in air raids and ballistic missile attacks.

The financial loss was also enormous, at the time exceeding US$600 billion for each country ($1.2 trillion in total). But shortly after the war it turned out that the economic cost of war is more profound and long-lasting than the estimates right after the war suggested. Economic development was stalled and oil exports disrupted. These economic woes were of a more serious nature for Iraq that had to incur huge debts during the war as compared to the very small debt of Iran, as Iranians had used bloodier but economically cheaper tactics during the war, in effect substituting soldiers' lives for lack of financial funding during their defense. This put Saddam in a difficult position, particularly with his war-time allies, as by then Iraq was under more than $130 billion of international debt, excluding the interest in an after war economy with a slowed GDP growth. A large portion of this debt was loaned by Paris Club amounting to $21 billion, 85% of which had originated from seven countries of Japan, Russia, France, Germany, United States, Italy and United Kingdom. But the largest portion of $130 billion debt was to Iraq's former Arab backers of the war including the $67 billion loaned by Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE and Jordan

[BradM]

Debates are only good if there is a chance of swaying one side or the others opinion. There is ZERO chance of that in here so I'm not even going to try.

Haha, he just "Whatever"'d you Eric.

[talisman]

Debates are only good if there is a chance of swaying one side or the others opinion. There is ZERO chance of that in here so I'm not even going to try.

Then why bother responding? You realize that just because a majority of people think one way doesn't always make them sheep, correct? Sometimes it's because they are right. By your train of logic you are a sheep if you voted for Obama in 2008 because he won. Everything you post sounds like a desperate grab for attention from someone who has little to no real world experience. How old are you?