Before this goes any further, I don't take anyone's views that differ from mine personally, nor do I think any less of them for it...so I won't be calling people names or even writing in a generally contemptuous manner.

Originally Posted by: elklanderccThe US uses Depleted Uranium tipped shells in tanks and anti-tank weapons. All the destroyed tanks/vehicles are taken to fenced off places where they just sit. Many Iraqis (sp?) take parts off these tanks and sell them as a living, those people will most likely get cancer and since they don't have good hospitols, they will most likely die. Also, rain will wash the Uranium from the tanks and into the ground which will make its way into the water supply which will effect thousands of people including Iraqi civillians as well as American soldiers.

Heard about that from a documentary that I watched not too long ago...[/QUOTE]
Meh, I don't buy it. It's very name is descriptive of it's nature...depleted uranium. Natural uranium is a common element already found throughout the earth's crust being in rocks, soil, and water. And no special care is needed to mine and transport the ores as it's level of radioactivity is negligible. But from there they can increase the ratios of the radioactive isotopes to higher percentages to make reactor/weapons grade uranium...what's left is the depleted uranium metal. So, natural uranium is perfectly safe and...well...natural...while depleted uranium has even less radioactivity than that. I think people just hear the word uranium and associate it with the enriched form.

Originally Posted by: ren...you probably don't know if Saddam was involved in 9/11. No link has ever been proven, although it seems proof isn't important to you...[/QUOTE]
Involved in 9/11 directly? Perhaps not, but the point was that he was directly involved in terrorism itself, and 9/11 proved the futility of non-action. Iraqi intelligence reports show numerous visits with top members of al-Qaeda. A memo from Saddam himself instructed his intelligence service to support terrorist attacks on U.S. soldiers in Somalia...this was written several months before the Rangers were ambushed in Mogadishu by warlord forces, also with ties to al-Qaeda.
[QUOTE=ren]Allied forces in Iraq as near as I can figure are now fighting a group of people who want them out - they may not actually be terrorists (except as defined by you). If I invaded your country, what would you do? Sit back and let me?

I think this is a big misconception. Ask someone in the military (which I have) who's been there who they're fighting, and most will tell you that it's militias being backed by Syria and Iran, with both actual people and by funding/weapons. In fact, these Iranian sponsors are resorting to going to the outlying villages and openly bribing the unemployed with large sums of money to join the "cause" in some manner. And this "cause" would continue without our presence, as it's ultimate goal is to topple the democratic government...they see it as a threat to their own power.
[QUOTE=ren]Remind me why the UN wouldn't back the war.... oh yeah, it's because it is considered illegal - which is exactly why I asked if Bush should face trial...

The UN overall is a corrupt, useless organization. What exactly have they done well? But if you want to look at "legality", then the war was never officially over from the early 90's. We called a cease fire and imposed sanctions and restrictions, which included the inspections Saddam chose to hinder and eventually refuse...thus breaking the cease fire agreement.