why did you support the war in Iraq in 2003??

Why did you or did you not support the War in Iraq?*thought they were beind 9/11**thought they had Weapons of Mass Destruction etc.heres a funny clip as wellhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpP7b2lUxVE%26feature=related why did you support the war in Iraq in 2003??
where is everyone?why did you support the war in Iraq in 2003??
I thought the same thing I think now



Big mistake if America goes in there



I think now, ''America made a big mistake going in there''



Why...I knew that lying snake Bush would lie to succeed in fulfilling his hidden agenda of taking out Saddam and not 'liberating' the Iraqis.
overthrow dictatorship and free civilans from goverment restriction, of course.
In 2003 I was 9 years old and I don't remember even thinking much about the issue.
saddam needed to go
[QUOTE=''Cloud_Insurance'']saddam needed to go[/QUOTE]People were living better with Saddam then they live now when they got ''freedom''
[QUOTE=''mamkem6''][QUOTE=''Cloud_Insurance'']saddam needed to go[/QUOTE]People were living better with Saddam then they live now when they got ''freedom'' [/QUOTE]



don't start
[QUOTE=''Cloud_Insurance''][QUOTE=''mamkem6''][QUOTE=''Cloud_Insurance'']saddam needed to go[/QUOTE]People were living better with Saddam then they live now when they got ''freedom'' [/QUOTE] don't start[/QUOTE]It is a fact.Saddam did not do anything to you or he wasn't any threat to the USA. He did not have any weapons of mass destruction. USA leadership know that very well. Oil was the reason for invasion.
oil? maybe. but he also tortured ''his'' people 20+ years so he deserved it, the shouldve broadcasted the hanging live...
[QUOTE=''jqh97116'']oil? maybe. but he also tortured ''his'' people 20+ years so he deserved it, the shouldve broadcasted the hanging live...[/QUOTE]So why doesn't America leave already?
[QUOTE=''mamkem6''][QUOTE=''Cloud_Insurance''][QUOTE=''mamkem6''] People were living better with Saddam then they live now when they got ''freedom'' [/QUOTE] don't start[/QUOTE]It is a fact.Saddam did not do anything to you or he wasn't any threat to the USA. He did not have any weapons of mass destruction. USA leadership know that very well. Oil was the reason for invasion. [/QUOTE] No its not. Iraq harbored and trained terrorists. Read up on the subject. If you knew anything about it, you wouldn't respond with it was cause of oil...
[QUOTE=''SpinoRaptor24''][QUOTE=''jqh97116'']oil? maybe. but he also tortured ''his'' people 20+ years so he deserved it, the shouldve broadcasted the hanging live...[/QUOTE]So why doesn't America leave already? [/QUOTE]



Can't leave the country until its back on its feet...
That's pretty funny. It's kind of wierd. Most people wouldn't want to go to war.
[QUOTE=''Cloud_Insurance''][QUOTE=''SpinoRaptor24''][QUOTE=''jqh97116'']oil? maybe. but he also tortured ''his'' people 20+ years so he deserved it, the shouldve broadcasted the hanging live...[/QUOTE]So why doesn't America leave already? [/QUOTE] Can't leave the country until its back on its feet...[/QUOTE]*cough* oil *cough*
oh please! Nobody wanted to go in order to overthrow 'Saddam Hussein'. It was all about the Nukes. If you wanted to overthrow Saddam hussein you were several years late.The saddam hussein thing was made up when the US government realised ''oh crap... there weren't any nukes after all''  Iraq war was stupid. The end.
[This message was deleted at the request of a moderator or administrator]
[QUOTE=''Cloud_Insurance''][QUOTE=''mamkem6''][QUOTE=''Cloud_Insurance''] don't start[/QUOTE] It is a fact.Saddam did not do anything to you or he wasn't any threat to the USA. He did not have any weapons of mass destruction. USA leadership know that very well. Oil was the reason for invasion. [/QUOTE] No its not. Iraq harbored and trained terrorists. Read up on the subject. If you knew anything about it, you wouldn't respond with it was cause of oil...[/QUOTE]READ UP ON THE SUBJECT: George Bush, speaking in October 2002, said that ''The stated policy of the United States is regime change... However, if Hussein were to meet all the conditions of the United Nations, the conditions that I have described very clearly in terms that everybody can understand, that in itself will signal the regime has changed''. Based on claims from intelligence sources, George Bush stated on March 6, 2003 that he believed that Saddam Hussein was not complying with UN Resolution 1441, which granted Iraq a final opportunity to disarm itself of Weapons of Mass Destruction, certain missile types, and other components and technologies. In September 2002, Tony Blair stated, in an answer to a parliamentary question, that ''Regime change in Iraq would be a wonderful thing. That is not the purpose of our action; our purpose is to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction...''In November of that year, Tony Blair further stated that ''So far as our objective, it is disarmament, not régime change - that is our objective. Now I happen to believe the regime of Saddam is a very brutal and repressive regime, I think it does enormous damage to the Iraqi people... so I have got no doubt Saddam is very bad for Iraq, but on the other hand I have got no doubt either that the purpose of our challenge from the United Nations is disarmament of weapons of mass destruction, it is not regime change.'' At a press conference on January 31, 2003, George Bush again reiterated that the single trigger for the invasion would be Iraq's failure to disarm: ''Saddam Hussein must understand that if he does not disarm, for the sake of peace, we, along with others, will go disarm Saddam Hussein.'' As late as February 25, 2003, it was still the official line that the only cause of invasion would be a failure to disarm. As Tony Blair made clear in a statement to the House of Commons: ''I detest his regime. But even now he can save it by complying with the UN's demand. Even now, we are prepared to go the extra step to achieve disarmament peacefully.'' Additional justifications used at various times included Iraqi violation of UN resolutions, Saddam's repression of Iraqis and Iraqi violations of the 1991 cease-fire The main allegations were that Saddam Hussein was in possession of, or was attempting to produce, weapons of mass destruction; and that he had ties to terrorists, specifically al-Qaeda. Moreover, it has also been alleged by some commentators that, while it never made an explicit connection between Iraq and the September 11 attacks, the Bush Administration did repeatedly insinuate a link, thereby creating a false impression for the American public. For example, The Washington Post has noted that While not explicitly declaring Iraqi culpability in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, administration officials did, at various times, imply a link. In late 2001, Cheney said it was ''pretty well confirmed'' that attack mastermind Mohamed Atta had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official. Later, Cheney called Iraq the ''geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.'' Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland, observed in March 2003 that ''The administration has succeeded in creating a sense that there is some connection [between Sept. 11 and Saddam Hussein]''. This was following a New York Times/CBS poll that showed 45% of Americans believing Saddam Hussein was ''personally involved'' in the September 11 atrocities. As the Christian Science Monitor observed at the time, while ''Sources knowledgeable about US intelligence say there is no evidence that Hussein played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, nor that he has been or is currently aiding Al Qaeda... the White House appears to be encouraging this false impression, as it seeks to maintain American support for a possible war against Iraq and demonstrate seriousness of purpose to Hussein's regime.'' The CSM went on to report that, while polling data collected ''right after Sept. 11, 2001'' showed that only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Saddam Hussein, by January 2003 attitudes ''had been transformed'' with a Knight Ridder poll showing that 44% of Americans believed ''most'' or ''some'' of the September 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens. The BBC has also noted that while President Bush ''never directly accused the former Iraqi leader of having a hand in the attacks on New York and Washington'', he ''repeatedly associated the two in keynote addresses delivered since September 11'', adding that ''Senior members of his administration have similarly conflated the two.'' For instance, the BBC report quotes Colin Powell in February 2003, stating that ''We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September 11, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.'' The same BBC report, from September 2003, also noted the results of a recent opinion poll, which suggested that ''70% of Americans believe the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks.'' Also in September 2003, the Boston Globe reported that ''Vice President Dick Cheney, anxious to defend the White House foreign policy amid ongoing violence in Iraq, stunned intelligence analysts and even members of his own administration this week by failing to dismiss a widely discredited claim: that Saddam Hussein might have played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks.'' A year later, Presidential candidate John Kerry alleged that Cheney was continuing ''to intentionally mislead the American public by drawing a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 in an attempt to make the invasion of Iraq part of the global war on terror.'' Throughout 2002, the Bush administration made clear that removing Saddam Hussein from power in order to restore international peace and security was a major goal. The principal stated justifications for this policy of ''regime change'' were that Iraq's continuing production of weapons of mass destruction and known ties to terrorist organizations, as well as Iraq's continued violations of UN Security Council resolutions, amounted to a threat to the U.S. and the world community. The Bush administration's overall rationale for the invasion of Iraq was presented in detail by Secretary of State Colin Powell to the United Nations Security Council on February 5, 2003; in summary, he stated: ''We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction; he's determined to make more. Given Saddam Hussein's history of aggression... given what we know of his terrorist associations and given his determination to exact revenge on those who oppose him, should we take the risk that he will not some day use these weapons at a time and the place and in the manner of his choosing at a time when the world is in a much weaker position to respond? The United States will not and cannot run that risk to the American people. Leaving Saddam Hussein in possession of weapons of mass destruction for a few more months or years is not an option, not in a post-September 11 world.'' Since the invasion, U.S. and British claims concerning Iraqi weapons programs and links to terrorist organizations have been discredited. While the debate of whether Iraq intended to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons in the future remains open, no WMDs have been found in Iraq since the invasion despite comprehensive inspections lasting more than 18 months. In Cairo, on February 24, 2001, Colin Powell had predicted as much, saying ''He [Saddam Hussein] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours.'' Similarly, assertions of significant operational links between Iraq and al Qaeda have largely been discredited by the intelligence community, and Secretary Powell himself eventually admitted he had no incontrovertible proof. In September 2002, the Bush administration said attempts by Iraq to acquire thousands of high-strength aluminium tubes pointed to a clandestine program to make enriched uranium for nuclear bombs. Indeed, Colin Powell, in his address to the U.N. Security Council just prior to the war, made reference to the aluminium tubes. But a report released by the Institute for Science and International Security in 2002 reported that it was highly unlikely that the tubes could be used to enrich uranium. Powell later admitted he had presented an inaccurate case to the United Nations on Iraqi weapons, based on sourcing that was wrong and in some cases ''deliberately misleading.''       
well people in England some thought there was know need to go to war others thought there was i was on the side of thinking we should go to war like i think the majority supported it how ever it is clear that that isn't the reason we went to war and I'm sorry but anyone who believes we went there to get rid of Saddam is just very simple minded this wars about controlling large reserves of the worlds oil .
[QUOTE=''snakes_codec'']well people in England some thought there was know need to go to war others thought there was i was on the side of thinking we should go to war like i think the majority supported it how ever it is clear that that isn't the reason we went to war and I'm sorry but anyone who believes we went there to get rid of Saddam is just very simple minded this wars about controlling large reserves of the worlds oil .[/QUOTE]Thank you