Stratovarius Community

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/w ... ries.shtml

or
http://tinyurl.com/552gf/

This is possibly bad news. I am personally worried because my son is eighteen, and is a prime target for being drafted. Maybe the war will be over by the designated date&no one will be drafted, hopefully! But, I'm not the only worried parent, and the thought of potentially sending your child off to war is gutwretching.

We will just have to wait&see, I guess.
Bush promised that he would not start up the draft--let's see if he keeps it.

I only had time to read the first one, and this is what I think.
I don't intend for this to become a flamewar, sorry if anything I say is a little harsh.

I think its mainly propoganda written by a liberal journalist to try to make Bush look bad. I mean, he says Bush is threatening to launch a war against Iran, North Korea, and Syria. And he uses these wars as a part of the argument. Any intellegent American who isn't trying to lie to make a point knows that there is no way US will attack all three (if any) of these countries in the next 4 years.

But it would be convenient for him to assume that we will have these wars, and therefore that we will need new soldiers, for the argument which he is trying to make. I also read down on the first link, and this website has also published another article (scroll down) that says that the United States is planning to attack Iran in June. This is absurd. Open your eyes people, this is propaganda!

The only thing I have to say is just wait&see!
btw, I figured you were a conservative!

I don't know if it will happen, but if it does, I'm learning Finnish and moving to Finland.

fifthtea_sausage wrote:I think its mainly propoganda written by a liberal journalist to try to make Bush look bad.

Despite the sincere efforts of the vast left-wing conspiracy, Bush doesn't really need their help in the looking bad department.

It's unlikely there'll be a draft. For one, Canada's population would dramatically increase overnight if that was the case...also, perhaps it would be wise to finish the two other wars before hopping on another one.

Lucid Faia wrote:I don't know if it will happen, but if it does, I'm learning Finnish and moving to Finland.

And I'm with u in the same plane, regardless of my Finnish.

NO DRAFT, NO WAY!

Well, WW1&W2 showed that we could be at war with more than one country at a time&since the countries mentioned in this article are nations that are smaller, logically USA might could pull it off. It all depends on how hellbent Bush is in finding excuses to invade these countries.

And, I think if it were a draft there definitely would be a mass exodus of guys 18-26 from this country, because the wars Bush has gotten USA into are rather senseless.

Seriously, I hope you skeptics are right--I really do. I just thought this issue would generate more interest--but, maybe its good that it does not......living in a "fantasy" world does have its advantages, I guess! :

fortunately its quite on its downfall here, financial reasons i assume. I didnt have to do any service.

I served 2 years in the Cyprus army as national service.

I can tell you, i learnt a lot during those 2 years. I really matured and grew up and learnt to appreciate everything I have a lot more.

Seeing what the social situation is in America (and the UK for that matter) I don't think it would be a bad idea at all.

Lucid Faia wrote:I don't know if it will happen, but if it does, I'm learning Finnish and moving to Finland.

Try learning Swedish instead, you'll manage with that in Finland, Sweden, Norway and Denmark.

The whole topic of Bush being evil seems a little weird to me.
Sure, he may not be the preferable candidate for most of you, but isn't 'evil' a strong word? I think most people here already agree that taking out the Taliban in Afghanistan after 9/11 was a justified thing to do. The only controversial military action he took was invading Iraq. This he justified because of the British intelligence we got, the knowledge that he had attempted (I mean Saddam) to invade Kuwait in the past, and that he had used biological weapons killing hundreds/thousands against the kurds, and because US could not afford to take any more chances after 9/11. Now, whether you agree with these motives or not, can't at least some of you see at least a faint sign of reason behind all of this that would justify doing this? And even if you don't agree, can't you see why someone else might agree? Because I don't think that invading one country under fairly justified (or somewhat justified, however you look at it) motives is fair reason to call someone who pass spent the last 4 years serving his country night and day 'evil.'

If the draft is reinstated for the Iraq war, I guarentee there will be like 10 assassination attempts on our president. I think he may know it too.

Bush isn't evil. Every president in the history of the United States wanted the best for their country. But they all have their own ideas about what's best for the USA, and some of them feel so strongly about those ideas that they will lie and cheat in order to see them through, like Richard Nixon.

If anything, Bush just needs a reality check. Someone needs to remind him that he is not above the law.

BULLSHIT!!!

If all this crap about reinstating the draft is because there's very little people in the army, that's pure fucking bullshit. There is NO WAY they can reinstate the draft. It has to go through a lot of obstacles in order to be reinstated. There's more to this than what this site says.

Haha. Clinton was above the law, wasn't he. Lying in the court and not spending a day in jail. No liberal complained then. But what has Bush done, and how is he "above the law"?

i doubt it will be reinstated and i seriously doubtr that the US will attack another country any time soon, we just cant afford it. The economy is already gone to hell and is only worsened by having standing armies in Afganistan and Iraq there is no way we could do it.
Besides with NATO involement in the training of Iraqi security we should be able to get out of there sooner....hopefully....

fifthtea_sausage wrote:The whole topic of Bush being evil seems a little weird to me.
Sure, he may not be the preferable candidate for most of you, but isn't 'evil' a strong word?

Well, you're actually the first to use the word 'evil' in this particular topic.

I think most people here already agree that taking out the Taliban in Afghanistan after 9/11 was a justified thing to do.

It seemed like a good idea at the time, yes. The problem is that he botched it. The only part of Afghanistan that the "democratically elected" Karzai actually controls is Kabul. The rest of the country is still controlled by the same warlords that controlled their small areas of the country before and under Taliban rule. Not to mention Bin Ladin still remains at large. If our attention hadn't been diverted by another war in a nearby country, things could've been decidedly different...

The only controversial military action he took was invading Iraq. This he justified because of the British intelligence we got

That's only partially true. But assuming he acted only on the basis of British intelligence (nevermind that the American intelligence community was split on the issue, to say the least), wouldn't it be his job to be damn sure it was legit before acting on it? It was revealed not long after the war (it may have been during the war, even) that the British intelligence was flawed (one particular document was actually a copy of a student's essay, for example), would it have hurt to wait a few weeks to get confirmation?

the knowledge that he had attempted (I mean Saddam) to invade Kuwait in the past

Saddam Hussein was evil, but he wasn't an idiot. He knew what the consequences would be if he tried some stupid shit again.

and that he had used biological weapons killing hundreds/thousands against the kurds

This is a peculiar statement, because most of Saddam's atrocities took place prior to the first Gulf war, during Reagan's reign, and back then it wasn't a problem. Indeed, there's a very famous picture of Donald Rumsfeld (the current Secretary of Defense) shaking hands with Saddam Hussein from the early 80s (Rumsfeld being Reagan's special envoy to the Middle East at the time).
Also peculiar because Turkey, a close US ally, hasn't exactly been angels when it comes to their Kurdish minority, yet somehow that is not a problem.

and because US could not afford to take any more chances after 9/11.

This is another peculiar statement. The US took a HUGE risk by invading Iraq, especially given that they apparently didn't have any detailed plans on what do after the war was won! If the US couldn't afford to take any chances, you would think they'd make sure to have planned for the postwar occupation. And then there's the whole issue of faulty intelligence...

Now, whether you agree with these motives or not, can't at least some of you see at least a faint sign of reason behind all of this that would justify doing this?

Bush had a very good reason to go into Iraq: to depose a brutal tyrant with a horrible track record when it comes to human rights. And indeed, that's what the Bush camp now claims to be the main reason for going into Iraq into the first place, now that those ever elusive WMDs just refuse to show up. But again, Saddam had been in power for over 20 years, much of the 80s without US objection, when pretty much the same people were in power as are now. Where was the outrage then? And, if violation of human rights is indeed (all of a sudden) so intolerable, why isn't anything being done in Africa, especially in the current hotspot, Sudan?
I see reasons that would justify going into Iraq, but I don't see the Bush administration as reasonable. Their "self-defense" or "pre-emptive strike" arguments do not hold, and their "spreading freedom and democracy around the world" argument does not hold either, precisely because nothing is happening in Sudan and because the Bush administration has more or less forgotten about Afghanistan.

And even if you don't agree, can't you see why someone else might agree?

I'm not sure how that's relevant really. At least to me it seems most people base their opinion about the war on whether they think Bush sucks or rules, alternatively on whether the USA sucks or rules.

Because I don't think that invading one country under fairly justified (or somewhat justified, however you look at it) motives is fair reason to call someone who pass spent the last 4 years serving his country night and day 'evil.'

I for one have never thought of Bush as evil. That's a very simplistic world view. Not to mention it's giving Bush way too much credit
But I don't know how anyone could consider Bush to be a good president. 9/11 happened on his watch. One of the biggest intelligence failures in American history happened during his presidency. No matter how the Republicans try to spin it, there's one irrefutable fact: On September 11 2001, George W. Bush was the president of the United States. I don't know about you guys, but that's not exactly the thing I'd like to have on my resume.
"Spending day and night serving his country" is an overstatement to say the least, given that he's the president with the highest number of days on vacation.
In terms of the economy, he's nothing short of lousy. Budgets ballooning out of control, more and more jobs going overseas, and then we have this privatizing Social Security project that is going to cost bucketloads of money to solve a problem that doesn't really exist.
And don't get me started on his environment policies. Or the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages.
Is Bush the worst US president in history? That I don't know, but he certainly can't be among the top 20 best US presidents.

Haha. Clinton was above the law, wasn't he. Lying in the court and not spending a day in jail. No liberal complained then. But what has Bush done, and how is he "above the law"?

I don't think you were paying attention. When it all of a sudden it became incredibly important to invade Iraq (what is it with you guys and Iraq?) after his little scandal was revealed, I for one didn't think much of him, nor did anyone I know. Heck, even America's enemy number one, Michael Moore, supported Ralph Nader over Al Gore because he was so pissed with Clinton.

Now, as for what Bush has done, I'd consider selling the war on false pretense to be pretty damning. Either he lied or he said what he thought to be the truth, in which case his judgement is poor to say the least.
Apart from that, your current Attorney General condones torture and bypassing the Geneva convention, as proved by memos either authored or authorized by himself during his tenure on a lesser position in the justice department. Bush is well aware of his Attorney General's stance and nominated him nevertheless. That would qualify as "thinking of himself as above the law". Then there's the whole "Bypassing the UN to attack a country for violating a UN resolution" thingy that seems a bit backwards.

Also, does Clinton's wrongdoings somehow excuse Bush's ineptness and mistakes? Additionally, does this mean George HW Bush puking on the Japanese excuse Clinton for sticking things in places he shouldn't have? How far back does this work, is it really all George Washington's fault?

Veripalttu wrote:Try learning Swedish instead, you'll manage with that in Finland, Sweden, Norway and Denmark.

That's a nice thought, but it's not exactly true is it? There are only a few regions in Finland where Swedish is actually a viable option. And then typically only around the Swedish embassy or consulate in that particular city.

Well, if radical islam extremists take over some country and make it a fascist dictatorship, then perhaps USA will have second thoughts defending those guys.

Really, who dares argue that Iraq is better off without Saddam? The only controversial concept is whether us invading them was worth it for us. And I personally would rather be safe than sorry, especially if the country in question has some fascist dictator in power.

NordicStorm wrote: a lot of stuff

Don´t try to confuse these people with the facts!! Facts are complicated and many Amercians are like spoiled children. There is no use in continuing this discussion. Just repeat after me: Iraq evil, North Korea evil, Iran evil, Bush good.

Just a reminder.

http://www.stratovarius.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5958

NordicStorm wrote:

Veripalttu wrote:Try learning Swedish instead, you'll manage with that in Finland, Sweden, Norway and Denmark.

That's a nice thought, but it's not exactly true is it? There are only a few regions in Finland where Swedish is actually a viable option. And then typically only around the Swedish embassy or consulate in that particular city.

True, but there are very few cites where no one understands a single word in English. So if people don't understand Swedish, there is always English as a second option. Last weekend I went to Lapua and surprisingly, I survived with Swedish.

Veripalttu wrote:

NordicStorm wrote:

Veripalttu wrote:Try learning Swedish instead, you'll manage with that in Finland, Sweden, Norway and Denmark.

That's a nice thought, but it's not exactly true is it? There are only a few regions in Finland where Swedish is actually a viable option. And then typically only around the Swedish embassy or consulate in that particular city.

True, but there are very few cites where no one understands a single word in English. So if people don't understand Swedish, there is always English as a second option. Last weekend I went to Lapua and surprisingly, I survived with Swedish.

You cant survive very long in Finland with only speaking Swedish and English. Unless you live in Espoo or Turku.

fifthtea_sausage wrote:Well, if radical islam extremists take over some country and make it a fascist dictatorship, then perhaps USA will have second thoughts defending those guys.

We'll see how the US reacts if the Muslim fundamentalists in Saudi Arabia manages to overthrow their government.

Really, who dares argue that Iraq is better off without Saddam?

Well, that would depend on what will happen to Iraq now. If Iraq turns into an oppressive Islamic theocracy with beheadings and whatnot and persecution of those who do not share the religious beliefs of the rulers, it's not really much of an improvement. Let's hope that does not happen.

The only controversial concept is whether us invading them was worth it for us.

Well, that and the means by which Saddam was overthrown.
What would Iraq be like today if the uprising against Saddam in Iraq following the first Gulf war had received coalition support and thus given a chance of succeeding?
So two years, 200 billion dollars and 1500 coalition casualities later, and given the fact that Saddam had no Al-Qaeda ties and no WMDs, was it worth it?

And I personally would rather be safe than sorry, especially if the country in question has some fascist dictator in power.

Ironically, though, you are now more sorry than safe...

Natas wrote:You cant survive very long in Finland with only speaking Swedish and English. Unless you live in Espoo or Turku.

You would be able to live quite well on Swedish alone in large parts of Ostrobothnia and the Åland Islands, so that's not quite true.

NordicStorm wrote:

Natas wrote:You cant survive very long in Finland with only speaking Swedish and English. Unless you live in Espoo or Turku.

You would be able to live quite well on Swedish alone in large parts of Ostrobothnia and the Åland Islands, so that's not quite true.

Anyways, it always feels quite pathetic to start every conversation with puhutko ruotsia tai englantia. I know, I've done it long enough. Finnish is a beautiful language, but it's also a very difficult language. But I think that everybody that moves here and intends to stay for a longer period should learn it!

We'll see how the US reacts if the Muslim fundamentalists in Saudi Arabia manages to overthrow their government.

It won't happen, at least in the near future. Not while we are there. Since we shook things up over there we have an obligation to protect them at least for a while.

If Iraq turns into an oppressive Islamic theocracy with beheadings and whatnot and persecution of those who do not share the religious beliefs of the rulers, it's not really much of an improvement. Let's hope that does not happen.

Yep, lets hope! But the beauty of a democratic system is, given the system remains intact, those kinds of radicals don't get put in power. But there's always a chance, of course. But you have to put more faith in Iraq!

So two years, 200 billion dollars and 1500 coalition casualities later, and given the fact that Saddam had no Al-Qaeda ties and no WMDs, was it worth it?

About 90,000 people died in the US during the two years that we were at war. From automobile accidents alone. I think that though it is horrible to lose 1500 lives, it isn't as terrible a number as one might think. Time isn't really a resource that we wasted. 200 billion dollars is, of course. But it is fine that we found out Saddam had no WMD's and probably not strong al-qaeda ties, because now we know. We really didn't have much of a choice when Saddam expelled UN weapons inspectors, after all. Its good that we are not unsure now. And while we are at it, we sacrificed some lives on our part to free a nation. I'm really simply not sure why some European countries are so against our war when in reality we suffered the casualties and ultimately did a good thing for the Iraqi people.

Ironically, though, you are now more sorry than safe...

Nope. I'm only sorry for the deaths of the brave soldiers. But I think 1,500 American soldiers' deaths for the freedom of 25,374,691 Iraqi people is a relatively small price to pay.

Nope. I'm only sorry for the deaths of the brave soldiers. But I think 1,500 American soldiers' deaths for the freedom of 25,374,691 Iraqi people is a relatively small price to pay.

And 100000 Iraqies, let's not forget about them please.

Anyways if 100000 dead is an OK price to pay for some all those free iraqies to live happily ever after, when are we to expect the USA invasion and help with all those problems in the african countries?? there are people starving to death, which is a bit worse than not being to be able to go to some election. I'm sure a couple of tons of american bombs could help them eat.... ?

But then again there is no FUCKING OIL there, is there.

The only place you hear anything about is Sudan, and guess what -- they have oil. What a strange coincidense!!!!!

fifthtea_sausage wrote:It won't happen, at least in the near future. Not while we are there. Since we shook things up over there we have an obligation to protect them at least for a while.

Well, the Saudi government is quite a set of assholes, so I say let them protect themselves. That said, if indeed the fundamentalist movement grow strong enough to overthrow the Saudi government (and some say they are reaching that point), I don't know what exactly the US could do. Americans fighting battles in the country of Mecca and Medina, that seems like a recipe for disaster...(indeed, some of the toughest battles in Iraq was in "holy cities" such as Najaf.)

Yep, lets hope! But the beauty of a democratic system is, given the system remains intact, those kinds of radicals don't get put in power. But there's always a chance, of course. But you have to put more faith in Iraq!

Well, the biggest winner in the recent election was the guy who refuse to shake hands with women, so I wouldn't bet on anything.

About 90,000 people died in the US during the two years that we were at war. From automobile accidents alone. I think that though it is horrible to lose 1500 lives, it isn't as terrible a number as one might think. Time isn't really a resource that we wasted. 200 billion dollars is, of course.

Well hey, it's your money and your people, spend them as you like.

But it is fine that we found out Saddam had no WMD's and probably not strong al-qaeda ties, because now we know.

"Now we know"? How many more misfires are you guys planning on anyway? You already knew or was in the process of knowing that the intelligence pointing to said weapons was flawed prior to the war, during the war and shortly after the war. "Now we know" doesn't cut it.
A "shot in the dark" approach to fighting the war on terrorism isn't going to work in the long run. Or the short run, for that matter.

We really didn't have much of a choice when Saddam expelled UN weapons inspectors, after all.

What? The UN weapons inspectors were reporting Saddam was cooperating. You didn't have much of a choice because you didn't give yourself much of a choice.

And while we are at it, we sacrificed some lives on our part to free a nation.

Not why you went there, but the end result might be a free Iraq, yes. But if you're going to justify every liberation with "they have WMDs!" it's going to get a bit silly after a while. That is, of course, assuming there will be other liberations on the ongoing quest to spread democracy and freedom around the world.

I'm really simply not sure why some European countries are so against our war when in reality we suffered the casualties and ultimately did a good thing for the Iraqi people.

Well, given previous US shenanigans in Asia and South America, I'd think a bit of skepticism is always in order. Not to mention the work in Afghanistan wasn't finished yet!

It's really economics that are driving both sides in this issue, though.

Nope. I'm only sorry for the deaths of the brave soldiers. But I think 1,500 American soldiers' deaths for the freedom of 25,374,691 Iraqi people is a relatively small price to pay.

I meant "safe" as in "secure". Getting rid of an insane dictator will probably turn out to be a good thing for the Iraqis, but is the US a safer place because of it? Nah, quite the opposite since it has diverted attention and resources from the actual war on terror.
Also, when are you going into Sudan? As it is all of a sudden so intolerable to have dictatorships and tyranny around the world. I mean, in 2002 it was tolerable, apparently. In 2003 it was still tolerable. In 2004 it wasn't tolerable anymore, and then only in Iraq, and only after the US weapons inspectors were saying the same thing the UN weapons inspectors were saying the year before: No WMDs. Forgive me if I find that to be a bit transparent.
And this sudden compassion for the Iraqi people is another peculiar thing. They suffered through 20 years of Saddam Hussein, 12 of those under sanctions that weakened them to the point where it was essentially impossible to overthrow Saddam. Everyone was well aware of this, including several key members of the current administration who served previous administrations, yet nothing was done. I sincerely doubt they've become philanthropists in recent years.

\m/ Killer \m/ wrote:And 100000 Iraqies, let's not forget about them please.

I'm not. I consciously omitted them, since 100.000 Iraqis might have died during a normal 2-year period under the sanctions.

I agree with a lot of what you said, NordicStorm. But here continue my two cents.

Americans fighting battles in the country of Mecca and Medina, that seems like a recipe for disaster

I agree, it would be a pain. But I don't think anyone is too eager to mess with the US at this point.

Well, the biggest winner in the recent election was the guy who refuse to shake hands with women, so I wouldn't bet on anything.

I have not heard about this, but I'll take your word for it. But if women as a part of the whole choose to elect a man who disrespects them, then so be it.

Well hey, it's your money and your people, spend them as you like.

Sure, but not everyone has that philosophy. I like that attitude to it though.

A "shot in the dark" approach to fighting the war on terrorism isn't going to work in the long run. Or the short run, for that matter.

Sure, but we need a starting point. And Saddam hates us for sure anyway and was a fascist dictator. Maybe our faulty intelligence assuming there were WMD's was incorrect, but the war is still justified for a different set of reasons.

What? The UN weapons inspectors were reporting Saddam was cooperating. You didn't have much of a choice because you didn't give yourself much of a choice.

I think you should refer to http://www.news10.net/news-special/war/ ... meline.htm for a few facts here.

First, it does say that in 1997, (less recently than I thought so I suppose it is irrelevant), he expelled the UN weapons inspectors.

It also says: "March 17, 2003 - President Bush addresses the nation and warns Saddam Hussein to leave Iraq within 48 hours or face war. "
He chose war.

Furthermore, it says: "December 16, 1998- The U.S. and Britain launch "Operation Desert Fox," a four-day bombing campaign that targets areas where it is believed that Iraq would hide weapons of mass destruction." This was during Clinton's presidency. And he bombed the areas. So it isn't just "bush"'s fault. Though I have heard no complaints about the democratic president Clinton. Hrm...

I meant "safe" as in "secure". Getting rid of an insane dictator will probably turn out to be a good thing for the Iraqis, but is the US a safer place because of it? Nah, quite the opposite since it has diverted attention and resources from the actual war on terror.

Well, I disagree. I think we showed the world that if they piss us off again we'll kick their asses - so they better behave.

Also, when are you going into Sudan? As it is all of a sudden so intolerable to have dictatorships and tyranny around the world.

Would the Europeans let us? We'd be kicked out of the UN or something lol. But really, its a different story. There wasn't even a suspicion that they have WMD's. And they aren't threatening us. Iraq was a threat to us.

And for the love of god, why does everyone use oil as an argument? Does anyone here have legit proof that Bush is taking oil from Iraq? Legitimate, that doesn't mean some random partisan website? They had their election. If it was for the oil we'd just outright say we were taking it and take it out. Would anyone stop us? Probably not.

And this sudden compassion for the Iraqi people is another peculiar thing.

The sudden mass genocide on 9/11 were a peculiar thing too, right?

I'm not. I consciously omitted them, since 100.000 Iraqis might have died during a normal 2-year period under the sanctions.

Exactly.

when are we to expect the USA invasion and help with all those problems in the african countries?? there are people starving to death, which is a bit worse than not being to be able to go to some election.

When they become threatening to us. Why doesn't your country invade them if you are so concerned? Iraq involved our national security, Sudan does not. And FYI, and this applies to all of you: the purpose of invading Iraq was first for us, second for them. We did it for our national security, and gave them freedom on the way.

I am really surprised and annoyed that I am the only one defending my option on this argument. Eh. I am ultimately defending myself, not converting anyone else.

fifthtea_sausage wrote:I agree, it would be a pain. But I don't think anyone is too eager to mess with the US at this point.

Eh, Muslim fundamentalist terrorists would be dying to mess with you. Literally.

Sure, but we need a starting point. And Saddam hates us for sure anyway and was a fascist dictator. Maybe our faulty intelligence assuming there were WMD's was incorrect, but the war is still justified for a different set of reasons.

You had a starting point: Afghanistan. And you haven't actually finished the work in that country yet.
And given these new reasons justifying the war - what about Sudan?

First, it does say that in 1997, (less recently than I thought so I suppose it is irrelevant), he expelled the UN weapons inspectors.

I'm aware of that yes. I was refering to the recent set of weapons inspectors.

It also says: "March 17, 2003 - President Bush addresses the nation and warns Saddam Hussein to leave Iraq within 48 hours or face war. "
He chose war.

Given that he was actually cooperating with the weapons inspectors, and got another ultimatum despite that, I think he was smart enough to figure out at that point that the US had already made up its mind. Had he actually left, you'd pretty much have to go in anyway to keep the country at least somewhat stable.

Furthermore, it says: "December 16, 1998- The U.S. and Britain launch "Operation Desert Fox," a four-day bombing campaign that targets areas where it is believed that Iraq would hide weapons of mass destruction." This was during Clinton's presidency. And he bombed the areas. So it isn't just "bush"'s fault. Though I have heard no complaints about the democratic president Clinton. Hrm...

I just mentioned Clinton's unhealthy obsession with Iraq a few posts up. Besides, Clinton has been at the very least as criticized as the current president, that's part of the job description. I'm not sure why you deemed the qualifier "Democratic" necessary.
That said, Clinton is not the current president, none of his administration is in the current administration, and he didn't invade Iraq on faulty intelligence.

Well, I disagree. I think we showed the world that if they piss us off again we'll kick their asses - so they better behave.

The problem with that theory is that the definiton of "pissing the US off" seems a bit unclear - Iran isn't pissing you off? North Korea isn't pissing you off? Attacking some country, seemingly arbritrarily, isn't going to put the world on notice.

But really, its a different story. There wasn't even a suspicion that they have WMD's. And they aren't threatening us. Iraq was a threat to us.

Right, so there is no humanitarian aspect to it. Thank you.
Also, Iraq wasn't a threat.

And for the love of god, why does everyone use oil as an argument? Does anyone here have legit proof that Bush is taking oil from Iraq? Legitimate, that doesn't mean some random partisan website? They had their election. If it was for the oil we'd just outright say we were taking it and take it out. Would anyone stop us? Probably not.

I haven't even mentioned oil. But it certainly isn't too big a big leap to come to some sort of conclusion that the oil fields might play a significant part. Indeed, there are even some suggesting that the US seized control of Iraq's oil fields, anticipating the Saudi government falling and a new, more anti-western government cutting off the oil supply.

And this sudden compassion for the Iraqi people is another peculiar thing.

The sudden mass genocide on 9/11 were a peculiar thing too, right?

Right. Not sure what Iraq had to do with 9/11, but nevertheless...

When they become threatening to us. Why doesn't your country invade them if you are so concerned?

Because I have a very limited role in deciding the foreign policy of my country? I just don't understand why the fate of the Iraqi people is more important than the fate of those perishing in the ongoing Sudanese genocide, especially given that Iraq did not pose a threat to the US, there were no WMDs and there were on links to Al-Qaeda.

Iraq involved our national security, Sudan does not.

Well...as it turns out, Iraq had diddly-squat to do with your national security. And the process of realizing that was well under way at the time of the war.

And FYI, and this applies to all of you: the purpose of invading Iraq was first for us, second for them. We did it for our national security, and gave them freedom on the way.

Aah, the grand idea of spreading freedom and democracy reduced to a mere afterthought to bring up when it turns out no other given justification holds.
"We're concerned about the Iraqi people, but only because we think, maybe, perhaps, there's a chance Saddam has nukes. But we're not going to validate the intelligence that makes those claims before we attack. Sudan? Yeah, well, not our problem."
I mean, there's seems to be no logic to it. Unless, of course, the humanitarian aspect isn't actually a factor.