Quote Originally Posted by bluefinger View Post
Hmm... but the link between Al Qaeda and Saddam was so tenuous that such an assumption of that potential would have made Iran a much more valid target than Iraq. Hell, Pakistan has enough problems with extremists and the government has nukes, so again, no invasion or troop deployment in that direction.
Pakistan is an ally, and Musharoff does not have Hussein's record. Major difference. They also, like Iran, did not violate a ceasefire with us on several terrorism grounds for twelve years and never engaged in WMD terrorism.

Quote Originally Posted by bluefinger View Post
You kill people willing to die for their extremist belief, but the ones who actually inspire and spread extremist rhetoric remain at large. Putting this in terms of gardening, you are simply cutting the weeds from the stem and not dealing with the root.
Saddam Hussein does not remain at large. His government does not remain in existence. Khallid Sheik Muhammed does not remain at large. The majority of Al Qaeda's leadership does not remain at large. The scum in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib do not remain at large. The Taliban does not remain in power in Afghanistan. May I ask what you are talking about?

Quote Originally Posted by bluefinger View Post
Again, I only mentioned one thing. To be honest, there are many reasons I think the US chose Iraq and not other places, not just to remove one dictator from his decadent palace. Reasons would include: Oil, Pressure to keep Defence Contractors happy (look up statistics for the number of people contracted in security firms for Iraq), Permanent Troop Presence in Iraq for applying direct pressure to neighbouring states, etc.
What about the reasons I named?

Quote Originally Posted by bluefinger View Post
I simply doubt the sincerity of the US Administration. I don't think they've been completely honest with the rest of us, and I also point the blame at Tony Blair for being such a suck-up to Bush (Even us brits are to blame). Plus, at the moment, we are having our own scandals which are rocking our own government left to right.
I don't understand why you don't think the reasons I have listed are serious concerns.

Quote Originally Posted by dragonoverlord View Post
The USa comes in on less then legitmiate reasons and over throws the country and puts takns and soldiers in the streets and they break into peoples h ouses and walk all over people and IRaqis dont like that shit. Promises of "democracy" wont stop people from not liking being walked on like that they will fight.
Less than legitimate reasons? Invoking the stated consequence of noncompliance with a ceasefire is legitimate. Taking down an enemy terrorist government with a history of WMD terrorism is legitimate. Acting on WMD intelligence (regerding a terrorist government) from five other governments, people in the U.N., and your own CIA, Senate (Democrats included), and previous presidential administration (Clinton and Gore) is legitimate. Setting up shop to kill or capture tens of thousands of nutty terrorists is legitimate. Liberating a country from a horribly oppressive, international terrorist, genocidal dictatorship is legitimate. Most of the innocents do not have their houses broken into. If it happens, it is a mistake. We took down a terrible government and put up a far better one. The terrorists we are fighting there come from all over the Middle East, and they are opposing democracy. It is the only plausible explanation. They know that all they would have to get us to leave is stop fighting us. But they are not doing that. Are they? I would love for you to explain that. If they want us to leave, why do they not do what would get us to leave? Why do they instead do exactly what gets us to stay? I have asked that question about a hundred times now. Do you have an answer?

Quote Originally Posted by Scatterbrain View Post
And certainly no gun would help either.
It depends on how fast the victim is with a gun. A taser, on the other hand, would be worthless.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=1a8goWjZGdo