http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,69149,00.html?tw=rss.TEK

Now I would argue we should need these at all (shouldn't be in Iraq), but that's for the Politics section.

Very cool, Jpez.

Perhaps we should move this to Politics...

Excellent idea. Done.

Now that it's here... I don't know if we should have gone or not, but we should NOT pull out of Iraq, it'll only make things worse. There is only 1 capable full-Iraqi battalion in operation, we need to help them get an army first and foremost before anything else (I think we should use Hussein's money though, not ours). The whole country will fall into chaos if we leave before we should

I agree that we can't pull out now that we have removed the old regime because the government we set up (if you can even call it that) couldn't stand up against kuwait let alone all of the various factions that would seize control and create another fundementalist government. I don't really see any solution for Iraq. If we stay there we will be pouring more and more money into that country only to see it all blown up (literally). If we leave, the country will certainly collapse.

My history teacher is quite a character. He is a diehard liberal. He has given us various lectures on this saying that this war was just for Bush to avenge the hit Sadam placed on his father. That class is so funny because all you have to do is mention the war and the rest of the class is spent discussing it. God, I love that class

*cough* Weapons of mass destruction? Oil! *cough*

Yea if only they'd stop blowing it up

What I was trying to say was that the reason we went in Iraq was for oil, not for the so-called "weapons of mass destruction" that strangely never appeared...

Yea, and that's the reason France and Germany opposed it. They had contracts with Iraq oil companies before the war that mysteriously ceased to exist after we came in...

Wait a sec....hmmmm...thinking...
Can't tell if you are agreeing or disagreeing...

The war on Iraq was not for oil or WMD or terrorists, believe me. It's part of an agenda. What that agenda is, nobody knows. Neocon? Religious belief? I don't know.

or to finish little daddy's job

I kind of doubt that...it's foolish and pointless to go to war over a "family feud" as some might call it, and I don't think that's Bush's incentive.

that may be true, oh well. It may not have helped though

I think rivereye has a point there...

Somehow, I doubt it.

think, George Bush went in for Sadam, but backed out at the last second, now George W. Bush is in, and we went after Sadam, sorry, the pattern is there.

@Kerm: I agree
I think George Bush is "dumb" enough to go to war over a family fued.

thank you, I do think so too, oh well, can we really prove it.