View Full Version : poll about the war in iraq
GeorgiaMiddie2
07-30-2004, 12:04 AM
just out of curiosity
and, if you dont mind, you can show your individual answers by posting...
1. i support bush
yes 2. i dont support bush
3. i do not have a family member/close friend who is or will soon be in iraq
yes 4. i do have a family member/close friend who is or will soon be in iraq
5. i, or my parents, make over $200,000 a year
yes 6. i, or my parents, do not make over $200,000 a year
HdGLaxWarrior
07-30-2004, 08:08 AM
1) Yes, I support Bush, see sig.
2) Yes, I do have a relative in Iraq.
3) My parents make under $200,000
Thrillhouse
07-30-2004, 08:11 AM
What exactly are you trying to find out with this poll?
I support Bush, I have a family member in Iraq, (and another one is going soon) and I make less then $200,000.
spenny
07-30-2004, 09:45 AM
Ga middy subscribes to the demcratic theory of class warfare where all the rich people support bush, refuse to fight in wars, leaving the less affluent to fight their wars for them.
i find this hillarious since the democratic ticket is made up of multi-multi millionaires and men who marry multi-multi millionaire women.
check this out: john kerry for all his personal wealth, gives to almost NO charities. he wants to take more of my hard earned money, but he wont part with any of the money he was born with or married into.
BTlaxripper
07-30-2004, 10:09 AM
i support bush
i do not have a close friend/relative who will soon be in Iraq
I, or My parents make over $200,000 a year
TheKOB
07-30-2004, 10:20 AM
Originally posted by HdGLaxWarrior
1) Yes, I support Bush, see sig.
2) Yes, I do have a relative in Iraq.
3) My parents make under $200,000
what a shame, another great theory disrupted by hard brutal facts.
ditto (to HdGLaxWarrior's post)...actually, my cousin...or cousin in law's...unit is getting transfered back to germany pretty soon. He just saw his newborn son for the first time pretty recently. That little kid sucks...everything, thumbs, etc. Also, it's strange how a baby can output more (through diapers and drool) than it inputs. Anyways, it's strange, the media (overall) would have you believe that all the iraqis don't want us there. Strange thing is, they do. The people that don't want us there are the insurgents, who aren't really from iraq.
Also, can any of you dems out there find a problem w/ the muslim forces being deployed to supplament US troops? Even that jerk Joe Biden (congressman from DE) grudgingly admitted it was a good idea. I don't see how John Kerry can say he'd be a better wartime president, because he served (and then protested against) Vietnam. A bunch of the stuff he said has no basis and just plain didn't add up.
GeorgiaMiddie2
07-30-2004, 10:38 AM
Originally posted by spenny
Ga middy subscribes to the demcratic theory of class warfare where all the rich people support bush, refuse to fight in wars, leaving the less affluent to fight their wars for them.
i find this hillarious since the democratic ticket is made up of multi-multi millionaires and men who marry multi-multi millionaire women.
check this out: john kerry for all his personal wealth, gives to almost NO charities. he wants to take more of my hard earned money, but he wont part with any of the money he was born with or married into.
you'd be slightly wrong there spenny... i do support the theory that the republicans tend to cater to the corporations and wealthier ppl in america. i do realize that the majority of the democratic ticket is rich beyond my wildest dreams, but so is every politician running for office... you need to money to run a campaign and i realize that gov't jobs dont exactly pay too shabby either. but, the democratic party tends to cater more towards the middle class american and tend to appreciate federal entitelment, welfare, social security, etc.
secondly, i never once have ever said that no democrats want to go to war. nor, have i ever said that republicans want to go to war so much. i think republicans are more easily convinced to go to war, while democrats tend to want to stay out of out unless it's absolutely our last possible option.
as for kerry, america needs your hard earned money bc bush has taken a balanced budget and turned it into the biggest defecit in american history with his tax cuts that the wealthy love so much, which i will now have to pay for since i will be transitioning into starting on my own over the next 5 years. the republicans like to say that democrats just tax and spend... that may be true, but it's better than what the republicans do, which is just spend and then leave america in a mess financially. and i realize kerry's a wealthy man and all, but he's also hurting himself then by taking away these tax cuts for the wealthy.
as for the poll, im not trying to prove anything... im just kinda curious as to what everyone's responses are.
GeorgiaMiddie2
07-30-2004, 10:42 AM
Originally posted by TheKOB
I don't see how John Kerry can say he'd be a better wartime president, because he served (and then protested against) Vietnam. A bunch of the stuff he said has no basis and just plain didn't add up.
thats right... he protested bc after being there, he realized that the war was wrong, that america should not have been there... that we were wasting american lives... that we no no good reason for being there... gee, sounds like a war i've heard of recently...
TheKOB
07-30-2004, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by GeorgiaMiddie2
you'd be slightly wrong there spenny... i do support the theory that the republicans tend to cater to the corporations and wealthier ppl in america. i do realize that the majority of the democratic ticket is rich beyond my wildest dreams, but so is every politician running for office... you need to money to run a campaign and i realize that gov't jobs dont exactly pay too shabby either. but, the democratic party tends to cater more towards the middle class american and tend to appreciate federal entitelment, welfare, social security, etc.
These aren't programs for the middle class. These are programs for the lower class. Also, rich people already pay the majority in taxes (top 5% pay the majority of the taxes). It seems like just because they're rich, they apparently owe more than their fair share. Just because they're better off, why should they be punished for their hard work? Also, define rich. I think there's a lot more millionares out there than you'd think. Also, don't be holding out hope to get some money from SS, no matter who the president is...
Originally posted by GeorgiaMiddie2
secondly, i never once have ever said that no democrats want to go to war. nor, have i ever said that republicans want to go to war so much. i think republicans are more easily convinced to go to war, while democrats tend to want to stay out of out unless it's absolutely our last possible option.
This is just another bias. Kerry said he didn't want to go to when we wanted to, just when we had to. Did we "have" to go to war against the Taliban? They weren't exactly threatening with world domination, were they? But we "wanted" to. If you think we entered Iraq on a whim, think again. Kerry voted to go into Iraq with the same intellegance in hand as Bush, and then votes against more money going to fund them....and then he has the nerve to talk about how he was in the military, and fools around with all this saluting "reporting for duty" crap, and fails to mention how he protested against Vietnam. At least he convienently forgets stuff (cou<CLINTON>gh), at most he's a liar and a fraud.
Originally posted by GeorgiaMiddie2
as for kerry, america needs your hard earned money bc bush has taken a balanced budget and turned it into the biggest defecit in american history with his tax cuts that the wealthy love so much, which i will now have to pay for since i will be transitioning into starting on my own over the next 5 years. the republicans like to say that democrats just tax and spend... that may be true, but it's better than what the republicans do, which is just spend and then leave america in a mess financially. and i realize kerry's a wealthy man and all, but he's also hurting himself then by taking away these tax cuts for the wealthy.
The reason Clinton could balance the budget was because he had republicans right before him. Then he screwed it all up with all these different programs and handed it off to Bush. Also, do you suggest instead that he cut taxes for the poor? The poor don't pay any/much taxes....I myself got a $500 refund at the end of the year...and I'm single making above 20,000 a year. Taxes are hardly killing people. And be grateful for the wealthy...without them, we wouldn't have funding for the government. Republicans are for a smaller government, Democrats are for bigger with more programs. Also, Kerry himself said he'd spend a bunch of money on the military, and then his proposed VP threw out all these tax cuts that they're going to do...and they're going to do this to an apparently terribly unbalanced budget?
Perhaps the reason the budget is so unbalanced is because some unexpected costs came up....like, oh...I don't know...that little thing over in the middle east, post-9/11.
Check out Kerry and Edwards' speeches...seems like you're describing them more than the current administration.
TheKOB
07-30-2004, 11:03 AM
Originally posted by GeorgiaMiddie2
thats right... he protested bc after being there, he realized that the war was wrong, that america should not have been there... that we were wasting american lives... that we no no good reason for being there... gee, sounds like a war i've heard of recently...
Yeah, I think I've heard of it too....prior to popular belief, Iraq ain't Vietnam, and even if it were...Kerry should've learned a lesson from Vietnam I and not voted for Vietnam II
Thrillhouse
07-30-2004, 11:12 AM
Originally posted by GeorgiaMiddie2
thats right... he protested bc after being there, he realized that the war was wrong, that america should not have been there... that we were wasting american lives... that we no no good reason for being there... gee, sounds like a war i've heard of recently...
How can he be proud of what he did there is the war was wrong?
Go Bush
No family-people my family knows have died, and a neighbor is headed over.
Under 200 grand.
Okay, we all know I fight hard for Bush. I grew up in uber-liberal Vermont, and now I live in super-conservative Utah. That's a twist. But the economy doesn't change by what the president says or does. It's its own roller coaster. The exception was the crash of the late '20's, but that was the investors own darn fault. So, there's that.
YOU CAN'T PIN EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENS ON THE PRESIDENT. Look at it this way. Who has all the real power? We, the people, in a sense. But, in another sense, it's congress, because they don't always do what we want. Like Orrin Hatch, or that dirty Vermont Senator that jumped ship. Some are in it for money, and will change their mind if more dollars will head their way. But they have all the real power. Which is good. So, I don't pin stuff on Clinton either. The president has a lot of influence, and can make stuff happen. Bush did his best to help our economy, but maybe it wasn't the best way. Still, in Vermont, with IBM laying off thousands, we knew people all around us who were suffering. (In reality, if Dean and Vermont law hadn't been so quirky and nasty, that wouldn't have happened.) So, that tax rebate helped a lot of people out that needed it badly.
Why should the rich pay a higher amout of taxes? Because they earned it? It's not fair. I'm not a wealthy man myself, being age 16, but I plan to be. And I don't want to pay boatloads of taxes just because I'm rich. It isn't fair. But the rich pay a ton of taxes regardless, and the government gets a lot of mone from it. Personally, I think it should be a percentage, for everyone, and rebates for those who can't live on their wages alone.
I'm hugely against stem cell research. A lot of it is a religious thing, but that's another reason Kerry is so bad to me. That's why I like Bush. Same with same-sex marriage. (Rocky Anderson, mayor of Salt Lake City is driving me crazy with this.) They shouldn't be able to adopt, have the same rights, or anything. They should have the same individual rights, but not the same rights as a couple. Marriage is, and always has been, between a man and a woman. Why is that changing? Another reason I like Bush. (And Vermont was the first state to allow Civil Unions- another reason to get out of there. And the governor of Massachusets? We are of the same religion. And he is TICKED OFF.) So, another reason why I'm so up for Bush. Because I watched some of Kerry's speech. It disgusted me.
laxstar003
07-30-2004, 11:21 AM
1) i support bush
2) i do have a family member/close friend who is or will soon be in iraq- it's not official, but my dad's a colonel in the army at the pentagon & its a definite possibility
3) i, or my parents, make over $200,000 a year
GeorgiaMiddie2
07-30-2004, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by TheKOB
and then he has the nerve to talk about how he was in the military, and fools around with all this saluting "reporting for duty" crap, and fails to mention how he protested against Vietnam. At least he convienently forgets stuff (cou<CLINTON>gh), at most he's a liar and a fraud.
1. he forgot to mention he protested? a fourth of his biographical video they showed was how he protested and spoke out against the war in washington.
2. kerry is a liar and a fraud? what about the man who immediately got into the "champagne unit" thorugh his daddy when there was actually a 2 year waiting list to get into that unit, and then went awol for a year? if kerry is a liar and a fraud at best in your eyes, then i cant see how bush is even that.
TheKOB
07-30-2004, 11:41 AM
you know exactly what I mean....at this point it seems like you're just playing dumb.
he disgraced his country and his military record by lying to congress during his protesting years. he admitted that. and now he comes back and says he'll be a better wartime leader than bush? get real. it doesn't add up.
spenny
07-30-2004, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by GeorgiaMiddie2
you'd be slightly wrong there spenny... i do support the theory that the republicans tend to cater to the corporations and wealthier ppl in america. i do realize that the majority of the democratic ticket is rich beyond my wildest dreams, but so is every politician running for office... you need to money to run a campaign and i realize that gov't jobs dont exactly pay too shabby either. but, the democratic party tends to cater more towards the middle class american and tend to appreciate federal entitelment, welfare, social security, etc.
GA, I grew up in politics, so dont try to spin me about candidates wealth. also the pay aint great once you realise you have to maintain 2 households, (one in the DC area, with some of the most expensive real estate in the US) and the hours worked by congressmen. (both of these i know first hand)
the democratic party ignores the middle class completley, they are the party of the wealty elite ashamed of what they have and the poor-underclass who needs the govt to survive (i'll also add the liberal principals and programs are designed to keep those people there where they will continue to vote left, rather than move into the middle class where they might start voting differently)
btw, where did welfare reform come from? the republicans in congress and thier contract with america (which bill clinton later adopted into his '96 campaign platform)
spenny
07-30-2004, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by GeorgiaMiddie2
2. kerry is a liar and a fraud? what about the man who immediately got into the "champagne unit" thorugh his daddy when there was actually a 2 year waiting list to get into that unit, and then went awol for a year? if kerry is a liar and a fraud at best in your eyes, then i cant see how bush is even that.
have you seen any of the people bush served with say he is unfit to serve as commander in chief?
have you seen any of kerry's commanders and soldiers he commanded say he is unfit to serve as commander in chief?
go here and find out: http://kerrylied.com/
ps, he got his 2nd purple heart in a action where there was NO ENEMY FIRE.
GeorgiaMiddie2
07-30-2004, 12:22 PM
ok, that sight wasnt very convincing. now, maybe i didnt look far enough into it (and correct me if im wrong), but nowhere on that sight did i see anyone denying that what kerry said when he came home was true. he didnt use his daddy to get him into an excuse for a military unit and he didnt just decide to leave for a year. he came home a decorated veteran and he volunteered himself to fight in vietnam. he experienced war first hand. all his shipmates said they respected him bc even though he captained the ship, he was willing to take a bullet for any of them just as they would for him. you dont get a dozen survivors from his crew standing behind max cleland last night if they dont support kerry and believe in him and feel he would be a good commander in chief.
roughrider
07-30-2004, 12:46 PM
So many of you have said you know someone who is going over to war, and a great deal of you have also said you you support Bush, but why? Under George Bush's administration healthcare for reservists and infantry have been cut. Also we are sending in undertrained, under equipt men to go fight. This not only puts them in danger, but when you have a man next to you who doesnt know what he's doing it puts you in danger. And to Spenny, I also grew up in politics and frankly you have it backwards somewhat. The republican party is backed by some of the richest men in the US. Remember Ken Lay and Enron? THe rich vote republican so they can stay rich (ahem, Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy?) The republican party also has a strong constituency with the poor rural demographic who identify with the moral aspects of the party.
roughrider
07-30-2004, 12:48 PM
I am not saying that there is no middle class support for the republican party, but the way Spenny put it in such general terms was so arogant and so typical of the Right.
spenny
07-30-2004, 12:59 PM
here's a couple, i admit they are hard to find:
"I do not believe John Kerry is fit to be Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces of theUnited States. This is not a political issue. It is a matter of his judgment, truthfulness, reliability, loyalty and trust -- all absolute tenets of command. His biography, 'Tour of Duty,' by Douglas Brinkley, is replete with gross exaggerations, distortions of fact, contradictions and slanderous lies. His contempt for the military and authority is evident by even a most casual review of this biography. He arrived in-country with a strong anti-Vietnam War bias and a self-serving determination to build a foundation for his political future. He was aggressive, but vain and prone to impulsive judgment, often with disregard for specific tactical assignments. He was a 'loose cannon.' In an abbreviated tour of four months and 12 days, and with his specious medals secure, Lt.(jg) Kerry bugged out and began his infamous betrayal of all United States forces in the Vietnam War. That included our soldiers, our marines, our sailors, our coast guardsmen, our airmen, and our POWs. His leadership within the so-called Vietnam Veterans Against the War and testimony before Congress in 1971 charging us with unspeakable atrocities remain an undocumented but nevertheless meticulous stain on the men and women who honorably stayed the course. Senator Kerry is not fit for command."-- Rear Admiral Roy Hoffman, USN (retired), chairman, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth
"While inCamRahn Bay, he trained on several 24-hour indoctrination missions, and one special skimmer operation with my most senior and trusted Lieutenant. The briefing from some members of that crew the morning after revealed that they had not received any enemy fire, and yet Lt.(jg) Kerry informed me of a wound -- he showed me a scratch on his arm and a piece of shrapnel in his hand that appeared to be from one of our own M-79s. It was later reported to me that Lt.(jg) Kerry had fired an M-79, and it had exploded off the adjacent shoreline. I do not recall being advised of any medical treatment, and probably said something like 'Forget it.' He later received a Purple Heart for that scratch, and I have no information as to how or whom.Lt.(jg) Kerry was allowed to return to the good oldUSAafter 4 months and a few days in-country, and then he proceeded to betray his former shipmates, calling them criminals who were committing atrocities. Today we are here to tell you that just the opposite is true. Our rules of engagement were quite strict, and the officers and men of Swift often did not even return fire when they were under fire if there was a possibility that innocent people -- fishermen, in a lot of cases -- might be hurt or injured. The rules and the good intentions of the men increased the possibility that we might take friendly casualties."-- Commander Grant Hibbard, USN (retired)
"My name is Steve Gardner. I served in 1966 and 1967 on my first tour of duty inVietnamon Swift boats, and I did my second tour in '68 and '69, involved with John Kerry in the last 2 1/2 months of my tour. The John Kerry that I know is not the John Kerry that everybody else is portraying. I served alongside him and behind him, five feet away from him in a gun tub, and watched as he made indecisive moves with our boat, put our boats in jeopardy, put our crews in jeopardy... if a man like that can't handle that 6-man crew boat, how can you expect him to be our Commander-in-Chief?"-- Steven Gardner
spenny
07-30-2004, 01:01 PM
Originally posted by roughrider
I am not saying that there is no middle class support for the republican party, but the way Spenny put it in such general terms was so arogant and so typical of the Right.
an ad hominen attack?
ladies and gentlemen, it appears the left once again, has conceded defeat on the issues, and is "going with what they know"
KJGJLAX
07-30-2004, 01:04 PM
umm well what does it matter how much we make or our parents make but i do support bush
TheKOB
07-30-2004, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by roughrider
So many of you have said you know someone who is going over to war, and a great deal of you have also said you you support Bush, but why? Under George Bush's administration healthcare for reservists and infantry have been cut. Also we are sending in undertrained, under equipt men to go fight. This not only puts them in danger, but when you have a man next to you who doesnt know what he's doing it puts you in danger. And to Spenny, I also grew up in politics and frankly you have it backwards somewhat. The republican party is backed by some of the richest men in the US. Remember Ken Lay and Enron? THe rich vote republican so they can stay rich (ahem, Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy?) The republican party also has a strong constituency with the poor rural demographic who identify with the moral aspects of the party.
Perhaps the reason they were undertrained and underequipped is because for years the Democratic party has called much military spending as unnecessary, pork, bloated, etc. Also, didn't john kerry vote against more money to be used in Iraq? Rich people are on both sides, but plese show me your references for "the richest men in the US" backing the republican party. In addition, I find such blanket statements as rich people voting so they can stay rich while the poor identify with the moral aspects. Darn rich people without morals. Republicans have more of a hands off approach to government (ie they don't have a program for everything) so I don't see how that doesn't appeal to the middle class. John Kerry is one of the most liberal (if not the most liberal) person running for president, and that scares the crap outta me. Liberal does not equal military...as long as we see it fit to generalize.
Let's think about who else is a wealthy democrat- oh wait, they are all in Hollywood. Or L.A. Or NYC, making music or movies. Hmmm. Like Gwyneth Paltrow, who moved out of the US to protect her child. What a moron.
TheKOB
07-30-2004, 02:29 PM
what's that kid's name again? Leaf? Tree?
edit: sorry, it was apple. very much normal.
anjang86
07-30-2004, 02:32 PM
ok stop w/ these 15 political threads, just keep it under one thread
Thrillhouse
07-30-2004, 02:33 PM
There was actually an idea to have a special poltical forum for the election, which I think is a great idea.
enjoi
07-30-2004, 03:58 PM
GAMiddie you are officially on my list of:
"People who love suck on Michael Moores Dingleberrys."
Congrats and i hope you enjoy your prize.
senor_k
07-30-2004, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by Thrillhouse
There was actually an idea to have a special poltical forum for the election, which I think is a great idea.
I second that motion. Or at least keep it to one thread.
HdGLaxWarrior
07-30-2004, 04:08 PM
Here's the link to that thread. I hope it becomes a reality...
Link: http://www.lacrosseforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7734&perpage=10&pagenumber=2
GeorgiaMiddie2
07-30-2004, 10:41 PM
Originally posted by enjoilax
GAMiddie you are officially on my list of:
"People who love suck on Michael Moores Dingleberrys."
Congrats and i hope you enjoy your prize.
ok, whoa, i never got personal with anyone on here... lets keep it that way.. and thanks for the insult even though i think moore is as much of an idiot as the next man. i realize that he is radically liberal and his documentaries mean jack bc they're so loaded with bias. political debates arent supposed to get personal... do this right if you're gonna join in
FredtheCat
07-30-2004, 11:03 PM
Don't support Bush
Have people that are close in Iraq
Under $200,000
Bush is an idiot. The only reason we took down sadamn and are currently suffering casualties in Iraq is because Sadamn tried to assassinate George Bush Sr. Everyone knows there are no serious terrorist threats in Iraq.
Wow. That was the most incorrect thing I've read in awhile.
spenny
08-03-2004, 10:44 AM
wow, axl you shouldnt be in 7th grade you should be running the CIA and the NSA.
this is what i deserve for arguing politics with a bunch of middle schoolers
GeorgiaMiddie2
08-03-2004, 11:47 AM
axl, as much as i hate to do this to a fellow democrat, i think you may be wrong on this one... true, saddam did put a price on sr's head, but for some reason (and it may just be a hunch) i dont think over half of washington would vote to go to iraq because of this. but, no one knows how much a retired president could still have in washington....
We were looking for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, not the Al Quieda, the group held responsable for 9/11. (spelling isnt my strong point). Osama and the Al Quieda terrorists are most likely located in Afghanistan or Iran, which borders Afghanistan. Due to alliances with Iran's enemies, if we were to form an alliance with Iran the others would be disrupted, so going in to look for them ourselves is not an option. Instead we waste our time in Iraq for no good reason.
Ask anyone from a country besides the U.S. You'r brainwashed :(
Originally posted by spenny
wow, axl you shouldnt be in 7th grade you should be running the CIA and the NSA.
this is what i deserve for arguing politics with a bunch of middle schoolers
This is what you deserve? who do you think you are? Just disregard my statement if you belive its false. Or you could prove me wrong. Im not going to just make stuff up so i appear to be smart.
GeorgiaMiddie2
08-03-2004, 08:27 PM
axl, you think we're brainwashed? lemme guess... your dad told you went to Iraq because Saddam put a price on sr's head? he didnt really mean it, pal. ppl say things like that just to say it. we did go bc based on the intelligence, bush thought they had WMD's and he thought saddam had links to Al Qaeda (neither of which were true... Bush just got a little trigger happy and started this pre-emptive war crap). Over half of Congress felt the same way. Countries don't go to war and risk ppl's lives because one leader is holding a grudge against another. you're just hurtin our case by sayin that kinda stuff, pal.
yes, your right it didnt have much of anything to do with it. But like you said the trigger happy thing, it might just be another point that might have made him trigger happy.
"axl, you think we're brainwashed? lemme guess... your dad told you went to Iraq because Saddam put a price on sr's head? he didnt really mean it, pal. ppl say things like that just to say it. " lol that would be funny.
I just think too many people belive we are in Iraq because of terrorists :(
to me it just seems unjustified, thats why i would never vote for Bush.
HdGLaxWarrior
08-03-2004, 09:07 PM
Originally posted by GeorgiaMiddie2
axl, you think we're brainwashed? lemme guess... your dad told you went to Iraq because Saddam put a price on sr's head? he didnt really mean it, pal. ppl say things like that just to say it. we did go bc based on the intelligence, bush thought they had WMD's and he thought saddam had links to Al Qaeda (neither of which were true... Bush just got a little trigger happy and started this pre-emptive war crap). Over half of Congress felt the same way. Countries don't go to war and risk ppl's lives because one leader is holding a grudge against another. you're just hurtin our case by sayin that kinda stuff, pal.
Bush didnt think Iraq had WMD, he was TOLD that. It was an intelligence blunder as most of you guys know. Bush isnt to blame for this mistake. It was a miscommunication.
I'm not suprised that Saddam is compared to Hitler. We wanted to free Iraq, ang give them the same rights that we enjoy and take for granted.