Kilmer17 Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 Originally posted by KevinthePRF Some day I'm going to learn to stop giving you abstract examples. You never seem to grasp them. Okay, I think what you were attempting to do was say that a bomb found in Iraq might not have been Saddams. And then used an example of how the same could apply to the situation you provided. You failed. And here's why. 1- Saddam controlled his country with an iron fist. ANy munitions there were his. The same cannot be applied to your scenario because A- it doesnt involve a dictatorship B- it doesnt involve chemicals that are extremely hard to produce by civilians. I also find it interesting that you would make such an argument in the first place since your sides contention is that Bush is responsible for such things as Abu Graib and Gitmo. So it shopuld follow that you DO think a bomb would be Bush's responsibility. But at least we've established that there were banned substances found in Iraq after all. Now we apparently need to establish that they were the result of Saddams regime and not someone elses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 Great link BTW, it only proves the extent Saddam went to hid his weapons programs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonsofwashington Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 Originally posted by Bufford seriously, smoke....fire....etc...etc. we should totally go after this guy also. He had NO idea what he was getting into! He was right there....shaking his hand! Could of knocked him off right then and saved us all some tired typing fingers. I can't look at that photo and not think that our administration behaves ONLY according to their agenda. What a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 Do we need to find the picture of Churchill, FDR and Stalin together to prove this point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 I don't remember invading the USSR for a full scale war. I bet if we did....that picture would of been tight. Then again,the whole Nazi thing created some strange bedfellows for a time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonsofwashington Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 I'm not stopping you. I have a question. Why is it that American thinks the whole world either should be or is just like they are? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 At the time, Saddam was the lesser of two evils. Much like Stalin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 It seems to me that many on the left are still intent on laying all of the the blame for the lack of WMD's on the Bush Administration. Even when much of the intelligence used was gathered during the Clinton Administration. That's not to say I blame Clinton either. I'm not sure I blame anybody, because I'm still not convinced that WMD's WEREN'T in Iraq prior to the invasion. If you were Saddam, why would you want America's military to find justification for their invasion in Iraq, when you could make them look like fools in front of the whole world? With that said, their were many other reasons for our invasion of Iraq, the WMD's were just a part of the big picture. The big picture is Saddam is out of power, and our grand-children will be safer for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonsofwashington Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 Evil as defined by the United States. Not defined by the world or even god for that matter. Big difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 Originally posted by sonsofwashington I'm not stopping you. I have a question. Why is it that American thinks the whole world either should be or is just like they are? Many people in the world, don't have the choice whether they want to be like us or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinthePRF Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 Can we please stop comparing the Iraqi war to WWII. Apples and oranges. Hitler had taken over most of Europe, Japan directly attacked us. I can't compare Iraq to either scenario. A close scenario would of been the Gulf War, which I personally supported as Saddam at the time had an army capable of invasion in the Middle East. Which at the time I believe it was 4th largest or something like that. This time around he had like the 40th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 And wouldnt it have been better if we had invaded Germany and taken out Hitler BEFORE he invaded all of Europe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonsofwashington Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 Originally posted by Painkiller The big picture is Saddam is out of power, and our grand-children will be safer for it. How can you prove that? Really, how can you sit there and tell me that the future actually took a turn for the better because before this war we were headed for disaster. How do you really know. I don't think you can. No one can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted January 28, 2005 Author Share Posted January 28, 2005 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Do we need to find the picture of Churchill, FDR and Stalin together to prove this point? No but you can try and dig up ones of Grandaddy Bush doing business with the Nazis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 I agree Kilmer. Why did we let him slide for so long, before we did something about him. You'd think we had learned our lessen from WW II. Well, some of us did anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 So was FDR. What's your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinthePRF Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 Originally posted by Kilmer17 And wouldnt it have been better if we had invaded Germany and taken out Hitler BEFORE he invaded all of Europe? If we knew is purpose was invasion sure. Did we prove Saddam had any purpose of invasion or attack? Or the means for that matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 I think the fact that he actually DID invade 2 other countries and attacked a 3rd should be proof enough. But Im curious what proof you would require? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted January 28, 2005 Author Share Posted January 28, 2005 Originally posted by Painkiller The big picture is Saddam is out of power, and our grand-children will be safer for it. Actually no, you are completely wrong, as the big picture is not set in stone yet. War Orphans make easy impressionable terrorist recruits. We won't know the big picture for about AT LEAST 20 years from now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinthePRF Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 Originally posted by sonsofwashington How can you prove that? Really, how can you sit there and tell me that the future actually took a turn for the better because before this war we were headed for disaster. How do you really know. I don't think you can. No one can. Agreed, it will be years before we find out if all this really did any good once whatever government in Iraq is well established. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 Originally posted by sonsofwashington How can you prove that? Really, how can you sit there and tell me that the future actually took a turn for the better because before this war we were headed for disaster. How do you really know. I don't think you can. No one can. Lets see...on one hand you have Saddam. Saddam was a terrrorist to his own people. Invaded other countries. Killled Iraqis by the 1000's with chemical weapons. Etc. Etc. On the other hand you have a budding Democracy, where the Iraqi people for the first time in decades are deciding who their leaders will be. A constitution will be written. The Iraqi people will decide who their leaders are. Which one do you think is safer? Or are you a pessimist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinthePRF Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 Originally posted by Kilmer17 I think the fact that he actually DID invade 2 other countries and attacked a 3rd should be proof enough. But Im curious what proof you would require? Are we talking about the Gulf War now? See above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 Originally posted by Painkiller Lets see...on one hand you have Saddam. Saddam was a terrrorist to his own people. Invaded other countries. Killled Iraqis by the 1000's with chemical weapons. Etc. Etc. On the other hand you have a budding Democracy, where the Iraqi people for the first time in decades are deciding who their leaders will be. A constitution will be written. The Iraqi people will decide who their leaders are. Which one do you think is safer? Or are you a pessimist? bookmark your post. If you're right...then that would be awesome....and you'd be very very right. If Civil War breaks out.........then we can come back to the topic of "safer". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 So you think he changed his ways? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted January 28, 2005 Author Share Posted January 28, 2005 Originally posted by Painkiller Lets see...on one hand you have Saddam. Saddam was a terrrorist to his own people. Invaded other countries. Killled Iraqis by the 1000's with chemical weapons. Etc. Etc. Oh you must be referring to the Kurds that George Bush's dad promised U.S. military support if they started an uprise against Saddam, then promptly turned his back on them and left them to get slaughtered by the weapons Rumsfield and the like sold to Saddam. Gee, why do the Iraqis have any reason not to trust our government? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.