"Brilliant idea - reward Saddam's cronies, the religious lunatics and the Al Qaeda beheading terrorists."
It's not rewarding anyone. Many folks in Iraq don't want us there anymore. This includes the ones that were very grateful for us for relieving them of Sadam.
The point is that what we're doing is what encourages the weak minded to resort to terrorism. We're doing nothing but feeding the flames at this point.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
"I said he's doing the right thing now by taking a brutal, bloodthirsty dictator out of power."
A few points just to add to the discussion:
1) ...but did bush do it in the right manner/framing?
2) note that Sadam has been in jail for quite a while now.
3) Note that we still do business daily with plenty of evil dictatorships
4) This war has benefitted few folks. It got rid of Sadam for the Iraqis. They're happy about that. But we haven't given them much else except continued war up to this point. It has benefited a few gigantic contractors with close ties to Cheney and Bush. It hasn't benefited US citizens at all. We're now in massive debt again.
A few points just to add to the discussion:
1) ...but did bush do it in the right manner/framing?
2) note that Sadam has been in jail for quite a while now.
3) Note that we still do business daily with plenty of evil dictatorships
4) This war has benefitted few folks. It got rid of Sadam for the Iraqis. They're happy about that. But we haven't given them much else except continued war up to this point. It has benefited a few gigantic contractors with close ties to Cheney and Bush. It hasn't benefited US citizens at all. We're now in massive debt again.
In otherwords, I guess I'm just very very tired of the 'but Sadam was evil' as a blanket forgiveness for Bush's entire presidency. Far Righties tend to debate on a level assuming their opponents are actually for Sadam. It's hard to debate someone when they're not even on the same plane. (And that isn't directed to anyone in particular...just to the world at large...)
I said it's going to be a long fuckin' thread.
Was I offending anyone?
How can I be offended by wisdomless youth that is still wet behind the ears. When you hit thirty maybe you will wise up and become Republican.
So I take it as you're one of those very wise people who think that the money that we pay for taxes should go towards killing more people including our own.
You have indeed prooved yourself to be very wise.
joey- I agree with you.
I'm 38. And if I talk to my parents about Bush and his 'lack of honesty' or that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, they give me the same old thing you hear from everyone. "Well he (Saddam) was a evil man. He was just biding his time to get to the US." First of all he didn't have WOMD. He didn't have the people with the know-how to make them. Another fact: Bin Laden HATES Saddam. Therefore, those two did not collaborate in any way shape or form. So the blanket statement is void right there. Yes he was a bad guy. Killing massive amounts of people is never a good thing. He is an evil guy. That in and of itself does not give the right to the heavy hand of the US and a few so called allies, to go and take him out. If thats the case, lets got get the Koreans and the Chinese while we're at it. And heck, just for laughs, why not Isreal and Palestine too. Maybe they are next on Bush's list. Who knows. The facts are, that Bush and his 'team' with help of the Brits and the 'Coallition of the Willing', doctored information, lied about information, used information that was in some cases 10 years old, to scare the American people (those who can't think for themselves) into a frenzy. Then he (they) go against what the WORLD and the Weapons Inspectors had to say, and did it anyway. Taht is pure arrogance. Now that the US is in there, he has no plan on getting out. He went in there and without thinking of that. Thinking it would be a cake walk. Vietnam anyone? This sickens me. What is even more baffling is that here are many poor fools out there that still want this guy back as a leader, as a contact with all the other countries in the world, and someone who is there to help solve problems. Oh wait. He sends an inept Colin Powel to Iraq to help things. My 10 year old daughter could do more good that that embarassment.
My parents think of me as a fool. But I'm beginning to wonder if they are. And anyone else who doesn't see what is plainly right in front of thier face.
I'm 38. And if I talk to my parents about Bush and his 'lack of honesty' or that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, they give me the same old thing you hear from everyone. "Well he (Saddam) was a evil man. He was just biding his time to get to the US." First of all he didn't have WOMD. He didn't have the people with the know-how to make them. Another fact: Bin Laden HATES Saddam. Therefore, those two did not collaborate in any way shape or form. So the blanket statement is void right there. Yes he was a bad guy. Killing massive amounts of people is never a good thing. He is an evil guy. That in and of itself does not give the right to the heavy hand of the US and a few so called allies, to go and take him out. If thats the case, lets got get the Koreans and the Chinese while we're at it. And heck, just for laughs, why not Isreal and Palestine too. Maybe they are next on Bush's list. Who knows. The facts are, that Bush and his 'team' with help of the Brits and the 'Coallition of the Willing', doctored information, lied about information, used information that was in some cases 10 years old, to scare the American people (those who can't think for themselves) into a frenzy. Then he (they) go against what the WORLD and the Weapons Inspectors had to say, and did it anyway. Taht is pure arrogance. Now that the US is in there, he has no plan on getting out. He went in there and without thinking of that. Thinking it would be a cake walk. Vietnam anyone? This sickens me. What is even more baffling is that here are many poor fools out there that still want this guy back as a leader, as a contact with all the other countries in the world, and someone who is there to help solve problems. Oh wait. He sends an inept Colin Powel to Iraq to help things. My 10 year old daughter could do more good that that embarassment.
My parents think of me as a fool. But I'm beginning to wonder if they are. And anyone else who doesn't see what is plainly right in front of thier face.
Sure stick your head in the sand and hope the problem goes away. It did not work with Hitler - why should it work now?
Iraq invaded another country, instituted genocide on the Kurds, and never complied with the UN resolutions to return to the world community.
How does China and North Korea compare to Iraq? and I suppose Israel should ignore the suicide bombers?
Iraq invaded another country, instituted genocide on the Kurds, and never complied with the UN resolutions to return to the world community.
How does China and North Korea compare to Iraq? and I suppose Israel should ignore the suicide bombers?
"Like you don't throw a hissy fit every time someone disagrees with your views. I've seen it - dare anyone say something that compromises your point of you, you fly off the handle!"
That's about as truthful and accurate as most of your comments. If someone is spreading lies or is being deliberately racist or abusive (for example) then they deserve some dog's abuse in return. After all, I can't punch Harvey's stupid face in for insulting my family so some verbal abuse is totally in order. It seems to be the only language he understands. However, Mr Jingles simply disagreed with you and you couldn't deal with it. You starting a thread that you knew would attract dissenting points of view but when you got them you started flaming right away. So you're fair game for poking some fun at. After all, you're the Max Cleland joker aren't you? Or is it suddenly "different" when you're the target?
It's true though that I called Harvey 300 pounds of shite in a 200 pound bag - or something along those lines. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to air that one again.
That's about as truthful and accurate as most of your comments. If someone is spreading lies or is being deliberately racist or abusive (for example) then they deserve some dog's abuse in return. After all, I can't punch Harvey's stupid face in for insulting my family so some verbal abuse is totally in order. It seems to be the only language he understands. However, Mr Jingles simply disagreed with you and you couldn't deal with it. You starting a thread that you knew would attract dissenting points of view but when you got them you started flaming right away. So you're fair game for poking some fun at. After all, you're the Max Cleland joker aren't you? Or is it suddenly "different" when you're the target?
It's true though that I called Harvey 300 pounds of shite in a 200 pound bag - or something along those lines. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to air that one again.
"Sure stick your head in the sand and hope the problem goes away. It did not work with Hitler - why should it work now?"
Didn't we already have this discussion, Bull? You're one of those folks who's not even on the same plane. It's not an issue of whether sadam was good or bad.
"Iraq invaded another country"
As did we.
"instituted genocide on the Kurds"
Hmm...many native american's would say that sounds familiar.
"and never complied with the UN resolutions to return to the world community"
I wonder if the US has never complied with UN resolutions...hmm...
"How does China and North Korea compare to Iraq?"
North Korea is run by a tyrant that abuses his citizens. Oh...he most likely DOES have WMDs as well. Of course, he has no oil.
Again, you're making a silly argument. You are saying that 'saddam was a very very very bad man' and using that as oversimplified justification for the things Bush has done.
There are so many evil dictators on the planet. We've heled our fair share get into power even. That Sadam was 'evil' is simply not a valid argument to justify the way that Bush has done things these past four years.
"and I suppose Israel should ignore the suicide bombers?"
Ah, yes, the outrageous completely irrelevant 'and I suppose' comment.
Perhaps Israel and Palestine should actually come to an agreement. Obviously, their petty back and forth killing of each other hasn't really gotten them too far, now has it? Sound familiar?
Didn't we already have this discussion, Bull? You're one of those folks who's not even on the same plane. It's not an issue of whether sadam was good or bad.
"Iraq invaded another country"
As did we.
"instituted genocide on the Kurds"
Hmm...many native american's would say that sounds familiar.
"and never complied with the UN resolutions to return to the world community"
I wonder if the US has never complied with UN resolutions...hmm...
"How does China and North Korea compare to Iraq?"
North Korea is run by a tyrant that abuses his citizens. Oh...he most likely DOES have WMDs as well. Of course, he has no oil.
Again, you're making a silly argument. You are saying that 'saddam was a very very very bad man' and using that as oversimplified justification for the things Bush has done.
There are so many evil dictators on the planet. We've heled our fair share get into power even. That Sadam was 'evil' is simply not a valid argument to justify the way that Bush has done things these past four years.
"and I suppose Israel should ignore the suicide bombers?"
Ah, yes, the outrageous completely irrelevant 'and I suppose' comment.
Perhaps Israel and Palestine should actually come to an agreement. Obviously, their petty back and forth killing of each other hasn't really gotten them too far, now has it? Sound familiar?
ah, hell...I'm getting rude. Sorry about that, bull. I'm just getting frustrated with the whole lack of debate in the US these days...
*sigh*
*sigh*
Is there a dictator from these past 20 years worse than Saddam? Saddam deserved what he got. If there was dictator that was more invasion worthy - please tell me. I suppose ten years of the US sticking their heads in the sand for Saddam - hoping he would go away was not long enough?
Whenever you discuss the (illegal!!) war in Iraq you get the answer: but Saddam was removed. So what - may I ask?
Are the people in Iraq better off now that terror rules the streets of their cities? Are they better off when the soldiers who torture prisoners and keep them in jail without a charge, with no lawyers, no possibility to defend themselves are Americans? Are they better off when their houses are bombed each night, when their cities are a battle field, when they have no electricity, no water, no food, no medication?
Two days ago Rumsfeld (who is still in office although his army broke all international laws - how can that happen?) said it would be okay when the elections are only held in US controlled areas - it would be better than no elections at all. Is that the idea of democracy the US has in mind for the Iraq - let only people vote who vote for OUR side?
Terror has not decreased since the US invaded Iraq - it has increased. The world is not safer, it's less safe - ask the people in Madrid. The US will pull out of Iraq sooner or later, they cannot win that war, we all know that and it was predicted from day 1. All they get is that the Al-Quaida and other groups won millions of supporters in the Middle East - thank you very much, Mr. Bush.
Are the people in Iraq better off now that terror rules the streets of their cities? Are they better off when the soldiers who torture prisoners and keep them in jail without a charge, with no lawyers, no possibility to defend themselves are Americans? Are they better off when their houses are bombed each night, when their cities are a battle field, when they have no electricity, no water, no food, no medication?
Two days ago Rumsfeld (who is still in office although his army broke all international laws - how can that happen?) said it would be okay when the elections are only held in US controlled areas - it would be better than no elections at all. Is that the idea of democracy the US has in mind for the Iraq - let only people vote who vote for OUR side?
Terror has not decreased since the US invaded Iraq - it has increased. The world is not safer, it's less safe - ask the people in Madrid. The US will pull out of Iraq sooner or later, they cannot win that war, we all know that and it was predicted from day 1. All they get is that the Al-Quaida and other groups won millions of supporters in the Middle East - thank you very much, Mr. Bush.
"Is there a dictator from these past 20 years worse than Saddam?"
There has been and are plenty of bad dictatorial-led countries. I don't think you can easily gauge the 'worst' of the bunch very easily.
"Saddam deserved what he got"
Who's saying he didn't?
"If there was dictator that was more invasion worthy - please tell me."
Again, we shouldn't be invading any country. Do you need to invade a country to overthrow a single leader? Are there other methods?
"I suppose ten years of the US sticking their heads in the sand for Saddam - hoping he would go away was not long enough? "
We stuck our head in the sand for much longer than that. As we did with afghanistan, and many of toue countries we do business with daily. Don't ignore the rest of the world just because you personally find Sadam the worst out there. It's a clever distraction.
I'm with YourValentine on this.
Bull, you're oversimplifying the entire situation. You keep saying 'but sadam was really really bad' and ignore the more complex issues surrounding it. Sadam was bad. He's gone. What now? How do we justify the methods for going in in the first place. How do we justify the increasing terrorism that's now taking place INSIDE of Iraq. How do we justified the continued US loss of soldiers. How do we justify the exhorbitant price tag that WE--as americans--are going to have to pay?
In another thread, you pointed out how you despise the 'waste of money' that 'ambulance chasers' place on our system. You seem to be against price protection of domestic goods. Yet you seem find for Bush to give one sole company...a company ran by Cheney, an uncontested contract for billions of dollars of our money to overthrow one single person. I can't understand how people are OK with that.
There has been and are plenty of bad dictatorial-led countries. I don't think you can easily gauge the 'worst' of the bunch very easily.
"Saddam deserved what he got"
Who's saying he didn't?
"If there was dictator that was more invasion worthy - please tell me."
Again, we shouldn't be invading any country. Do you need to invade a country to overthrow a single leader? Are there other methods?
"I suppose ten years of the US sticking their heads in the sand for Saddam - hoping he would go away was not long enough? "
We stuck our head in the sand for much longer than that. As we did with afghanistan, and many of toue countries we do business with daily. Don't ignore the rest of the world just because you personally find Sadam the worst out there. It's a clever distraction.
I'm with YourValentine on this.
Bull, you're oversimplifying the entire situation. You keep saying 'but sadam was really really bad' and ignore the more complex issues surrounding it. Sadam was bad. He's gone. What now? How do we justify the methods for going in in the first place. How do we justify the increasing terrorism that's now taking place INSIDE of Iraq. How do we justified the continued US loss of soldiers. How do we justify the exhorbitant price tag that WE--as americans--are going to have to pay?
In another thread, you pointed out how you despise the 'waste of money' that 'ambulance chasers' place on our system. You seem to be against price protection of domestic goods. Yet you seem find for Bush to give one sole company...a company ran by Cheney, an uncontested contract for billions of dollars of our money to overthrow one single person. I can't understand how people are OK with that.
intelligent, grown up debate here is impossible
esp. when it comes to Bush... well actually for just about any subject---
it always breaksdown to name calling-country bashing-and personal attacks
esp. when it comes to Bush... well actually for just about any subject---
it always breaksdown to name calling-country bashing-and personal attacks
"Is there a dictator from these past 20 years worse than Saddam?"
There has been and are plenty of bad dictatorial-led countries. I don't think you can easily gauge the 'worst' of the bunch very easily.
"Saddam deserved what he got"
Who's saying he didn't?
"If there was dictator that was more invasion worthy - please tell me."
Again, we shouldn't be invading any country. Do you need to invade a country to overthrow a single leader? Are there other methods?
MDV - Do you have any ideas for other methods? The Baath party is pretty strong.
"I suppose ten years of the US sticking their heads in the sand for Saddam - hoping he would go away was not long enough? "
We stuck our head in the sand for much longer than that. As we did with afghanistan, and many of toue countries we do business with daily. Don't ignore the rest of the world just because you personally find Sadam the worst out there. It's a clever distraction.
I'm with YourValentine on this.
Bull, you're oversimplifying the entire situation. You keep saying 'but sadam was really really bad' and ignore the more complex issues surrounding it. Sadam was bad. He's gone. What now? How do we justify the methods for going in in the first place. How do we justify the increasing terrorism that's now taking place INSIDE of Iraq. How do we justified the continued US loss of soldiers. How do we justify the exhorbitant price tag that WE--as americans--are going to have to pay?
MDV - "We" are resonsible for the actions of terrorists??? Your monday morning quarterbacking appears to advocate immediate withdrawal from Iraq and caving in to the terrorists.
In another thread, you pointed out how you despise the 'waste of money' that 'ambulance chasers' place on our system. You seem to be against price protection of domestic goods. Yet you seem find for Bush to give one sole company...a company ran by Cheney, an uncontested contract for billions of dollars of our money to overthrow one single person. I can't understand how people are OK with that.
MDV - I never said that. I am not fond of Haliburton. But what alternative is there? Kerry and a near immediate cave in (within the next year) to the Baathist, terrorists and religious lunatics? Oh boy rewarding terrorism.
Whenever you discuss the (illegal!!) war in Iraq you get the answer: but Saddam was removed. So what - may I ask?
Are the people in Iraq better off now that terror rules the streets of their cities? Are they better off when the soldiers who torture prisoners and keep them in jail without a charge, with no lawyers, no possibility to defend themselves are Americans? Are they better off when their houses are bombed each night, when their cities are a battle field, when they have no electricity, no water, no food, no medication?
Two days ago Rumsfeld (who is still in office although his army broke all international laws - how can that happen?) said it would be okay when the elections are only held in US controlled areas - it would be better than no elections at all. Is that the idea of democracy the US has in mind for the Iraq - let only people vote who vote for OUR side?
Terror has not decreased since the US invaded Iraq - it has increased. The world is not safer, it's less safe - ask the people in Madrid. The US will pull out of Iraq sooner or later, they cannot win that war, we all know that and it was predicted from day 1. All they get is that the Al-Quaida and other groups won millions of supporters in the Middle East - thank you very much, Mr. Bush.
No Iraq is not better off, but they will not be better off if the US leaves prematurely. The three religious factions will slaughter each other. The turning point appeared to come with the Iraqi prisoner torture fiasco. Suddenly the US appeared just as evil as the Baathists, Shiites and Al Qaeda. But is that really the case? The job still needs to be finished in Iraq - even if the terrorists hide in civilian areas. The terrorists cannot be caved into.
I am not a fan of Rumsfeld (did he authorize the torture - maybe) But elections should still be held if the terrorist areas refuse to participate. They effectively voted not to participate.