Bush comment...

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by we3luvdisney
Awwwwww, to be young again. Look at the time line. Saddam is an evil man --- he gassed his own people, gassed Iran, invaded Kuwait, ignored the UN resolutions, tortured and killed his own people, etc. Do you actually believe that this man would have seen the light and given up his bad ways?



You seem to have a understanding of this situation. Please tell me why we went to war? As for me, we went to war because of Saddam's refusal to follow resolution 1441. President Bush even made this reference in his speech on 03/06/03.



This is a whole new debate. I'm willing to discuss these issue, but on a new thread.



Nope, you're not wrong. Kuwait is liberated and they were not attacked again. My point was that Saddam is not an individual to be trusted.



IMO --- yes, they are in Iraq. As for Osama --- he's either in Iraq, Afganistan, Pakistan or another country in the region.

Time line? By your own admission all of those things were in the past. Or did we go to war because he invaded Kuwait?

They issues are one and the same.

Ahhh... So now we attacked Iraq because Saddam "couldn't be trusted!" Hmmm... I really don't "trust" many world leaders. Time for more war! Let's roll!

 

[faithinkarma]

Ummmmmm, weren't you a child back then?

You keep using this same argument over and over and over again. Tell me, do you believe that when you act so condescending, that you give the illusion that you are far enough above someone to be able to look down on them? Or do you think perhaps it might make you look like someone who is too immature to resist the urge to repeatedly ( ad nauseum ) take cheap shots?

Your arguments might have more validity if you could avoid prefacing them with such snide remarks.

 

[we3luvdisney]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
Time line? By your own admission all of those things were in the past. Or did we go to war because he invaded Kuwait?

They issues are one and the same.

Ahhh... So now we attacked Iraq because Saddam "couldn't be trusted!" Hmmm... I really don't "trust" many world leaders. Time for more war! Let's roll!

Yes, these were in the past, but it shows what type of man Saddam is. Are you that ignorant to believe Saddam will change his ways? What would you suggest? Allow him to continue to rape, torture and murder his own people while you continue to live a guilt-free life?

Yes, these issues may be the same, but I will only debate the Bush/Iraq issue. If you would like to start a debate thread concerning the other issues I'll be glad to join the debate to continue your history education.

Nope, one of the reasons we went to war with Iraq is because:

"... we have arrived at an important moment in confronting the threat posed to our nation and to peace by Saddam Hussein and his weapons of terror. In New York tomorrow, the United Nations Security Council will receive an update from the chief weapons inspector. The world needs him to answer a single question: Has the Iraqi regime fully and unconditionally disarmed, as required by Resolution 1441, or has it not?"

 

[faithinkarma]

Are you that ignorant

I'll be glad to join the debate to continue your history education

You just cannot help yourself can you? It is stuff like this that led to the DB being closed. Please cut it out !

 

[we3luvdisney]

Originally posted by faithinkarma
You keep using this same argument over and over and over again. Tell me, do you believe that when you act so condescending, that you give the illusion that you are far enough above someone to be able to look down on them? Or do you think perhaps it might make you look like someone who is too immature to resist the urge to repeatedly ( ad nauseum ) take cheap shots?

Your arguments might have more validity if you could avoid prefacing them with such snide remarks.

I'm not being condescending. He was a tween during the start of the 1st Gulf War. I'm sure he was more concerned about zits and getting a date than worrying about world issues.

My arguments stand with true merit. I quote facts, while others give their opinion.

 

[we3luvdisney]

Originally posted by faithinkarma
You just cannot help yourself can you? It is stuff like this that led to the DB being closed. Please cut it out !

According to Webster:

Ignorant - 1. having little or no knowledge; unlearned. 2. unaware; uninformed.

I did not make a personal attack. As for the history lesson, some people need to be educated on the facts. I've given the opportunity to read various links and references, which are ignored. When one wants to debate issues they need to have the background and historical knowledge for these debates. As stated earlier, some people were children during Saddam's reign and need to have a history lesson of his dirty deeds.

 

[faithinkarma]

Well what if I prefaced every post addressed to you with something along the lines of..."well..you are from the south, so allow me to enlighten you about XYZ"....would that not be condescending? Not to mention the fact that not being around when somethiing happened does not mean you do not know about it. My son is 26 and I would have no qualms about him holding his own in any political debate about past events.

However you may think it sounds, it sounds rude and I am just simply asking you to stop. Not because I don't agree with you. I would be even more upset if someone I always agreed with did the same thing.

If your arguments are so good, then I urge you to let them stand on their own without the comments directed towards others.

My arguments stand with true merit. I quote facts, while others give their opinion.

If you cannot understand that this sentence sounds like " I am smart enough to know what the true facts are and you are not" then there is no point in continuing this.

 

[we3luvdisney]

Originally posted by faithinkarma
Well what if I prefaced every post addressed to you with something along the lines of..."well..you are from the south, so allow me to enlighten you about XYZ"....would that not be condescending? Not to mention the fact that not being around when somethiing happened does not mean you do not know about it. My son is 26 and I would have no qualms about him holding his own in any political debate about past events.

However you may think it sounds, it sounds rude and I am just simply asking you to stop. Not because I don't agree with you. I would be even more upset if someone I always agreed with did the same thing.

If your arguments are so good, then I urge you to let them stand on their own without the comments directed towards others.

If you cannot understand that this sentence sounds like " I am smart enough to know what the true facts are and you are not" then there is no point in continuing this.

I live in the south, but lived throughout the United States. Sure, go ahead and elighten me on XYZ. I'm not the type of person that gets upset. I would not think its condescending if you have facts to back up your statement.

I'm happy that you feel your son could handle a debate concerning the past. I'm sure your son would use facts, not just his opinion. And I'm sure he would not use a picture of a greyhound dog "doing his business" to make a point. For some reason that post was removed from this thread. Did you have the opportunity to see it before it was removed?

So, we did find WMDs?

Ooops! Oh well, it's only a war!

I guess he may have missed the memo where Saddam had warheads that exceeded the limit imposed by the UN.

I'll try and refrain myself in the future. I just hope individuals that want to debate the topics use facts and historical references instead of relying on their opinions.

 

[we3luvdisney]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
Ahhh... So now we attacked Iraq because Saddam "couldn't be trusted!"

Here is a little tidbit, concerning Saddam:

There are countless reports of human rights violations under Saddam Hussien, who rejected international appeals to station independent human rights watchers inside the country.

Rights organizations have documented government-approved executions, acts of torture and rape during the decades since Saddam came to power until his fall in April, 2003.

The violations were massive and systematic and included horrendous acts of mass killings and executions.

Saddam imposed severe penalties, including amputation, branding and the death penalty for criminal offenses such as theft, corruption, currency speculation and military desertion.

And immediately after his downfall, Iraqis unearthed scores of mass graves across the country and in one near the southern city of Hilla more than 15,000 bodies of mainly women and children were found.

"I hope there will be no more mass graves to find. Iraqis have had enough of the oppression and atrocities of the former regime which are perhaps unlike anything that has happened in the world," Turki said.

The Link

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles


Interesting. Very interesting.

yes, very.

Why do you believe a Pakistani ISI official over an unnamed WH aid?

The only reference to convention in that article is this:

"But according to this ISI official, a White House aide told ul-Haq last spring that "it would be best if the arrest or killing of [any] HVT were announced on twenty-six, twenty-seven, or twenty-eight July"--the first three days of the Democratic National Convention in Boston. "

So what are they going to do, capture him and hold him until then? Do they have him now? What's the scoop?

I thought you guys believed that WE already had OBL and were waiting until just before the elections to tell everybody.

It's quite sad that you distrust this administration so much that you'd believe a Pakistan ISI official on something so ludicrous.

 

[peachgirl]

It's quite sad that you distrust this administration so much that you'd believe a Pakistan ISI official on something so ludicrous.

What's even sadder is that this administration has lied so much that we're forced to distrust them.

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by peachgirl
What's even sadder is that this administration has lied so much that we're forced to distrust them.

Do you mean accused of lying or actual lies? If you believe that the admistration has lied, and you used the term "so many", how many is "so many"?

So who do you believe? A Pakistani gov't official or your own gov't?

If you answer the Pakistani gov't, you must also believe that this administration would be so stupid to try and coordinate a capture or kill of OBL (or HVT) during the Dem's convention. Wouldn't that send up an even brighter and higher red flag that this report?

 

[MJames41]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
And if eliminating "security threats" (of which Iraq was not one to the United States) then why did w erroneously shift attention from the real individuals behind the September 11th attacks to invade Iraq?

And exactly how many billions have you spent on intelligence like the Russians and the Germans, just 2 of the intelligence agencies besides our own who said that Hussein was a security threat to the US?

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Originally posted by MJames41
And exactly how many billions have you spent on intelligence like the Russians and the Germans, just 2 of the intelligence agencies besides our own who said that Hussein was a security threat to the US?

If this is so, then why have they come out with all of the recent news about how it was wrong for us to invade Iraq?

Apparantly 50% of England wants Tony Blair to step down for his role in the decision to invade also.

What do you think of the recent news reports surrounding these issues?

 

[faithinkarma]

apparently it no loger mattters who was wrong and how wrong they were. Bush has gone on television and said that he did not care that the information was wrong. he is glad he went to war, and he would do it again. Now that, to me, is truly scary.

 

[MJames41]

Originally posted by faithinkarma
We can debate whether or not we should have gone to war forever, but the bottom line is, we went because we were given false information. And as the committee said quite clearly, had they known the truth, they would not have voted for the war. Is it unreasonable to expect that if people are to die for a cause, they should at least be told what the cause was....truthfully?

I can agree with your point, but I point out - it wasn't just our intelligence service that said that he had them. It was also the UN, the Russians, the Germans, Great Britain, Israel, Syria, Libya, Iran, ... At one point, everyone believed the world was flat. Does this mean that they were lieing to the people? No, they really believed the world was flat - they were mistaken. The lie is when the Democratic leadership make it a policy to call it a lie, even though it was fine when Clinton was president.

And, for the record, I still believe there were WMD's, just not found yet.

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Originally posted by faithinkarma
apparently it no loger mattters who was wrong and how wrong they were. Bush has gone on television and said that he did not care that the information was wrong. he is glad he went to war, and he would do it again. Now that, to me, is truly scary.

FIK, I keep wondering if the people who believe we should still have invaded Iraq, are watching the current news reports? Am I just interpreting this stuff differently? Or I can't figure out what gives...here???

 

[MJames41]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
So, Al Queida is in Iraq? That's why we have more troops/money there? Ah, must have missed that one too. Osama, is he in Iraq too?

Please then, tell us who is there. Or is it your claim that they are "common Iraqi's rising up against the US" - then why is most of their target women and children of Iraq, as well as the Iraqi police or Iraqi politicians. If they are not there, why are they taking so much credit for the attacks? Or is that another Republican conspiracy?

You hate Bush, fine, we get that. You don't help your cause when you make comments like this however.

 

[MJames41]

Originally posted by minniepumpernickel
FIK, I keep wondering if the people who believe we should still have invaded Iraq, are watching the current news reports? Am I just interpreting this stuff differently? Or I can't figure out what gives...here???

So, does this mean that if you have all of your friends telling you that someone who hates you has got a gun and is going after you, the police tell you that this person is coming after you but they refuse to do anything, even your enemies are telling you that this person is coming after you, you should do nothing?

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Originally posted by MJames41
So, does this mean that if you have all of your friends telling you that someone who hates you has got a gun and is going after you, the police tell you that this person is coming after you but they refuse to do anything, even your enemies are telling you that this person is coming after you, you should do nothing?

Your analogy is kind of scary. If I did something to someone before they did something to me, just to prevent them from doing something, I would go to jail. It's like vigilante justice. I couldn't take the law into my own hands, unless it was self defense.