Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Flap...Flap...Flap go the gums.
Yeah - we just decided that since Saddam kills his own people then we should kill them too?
No blood is on our hands except the splatter of Saddam's regime. You people don't have any idea if there was immenent danger to the US or not, but we ALL know there was immenent danger to our ally Isreal and other nations in the region.
And for Pete's sake QUIT TALKING ABOUT A "RUSH TO WAR" If anything we waited too damn long. That SOB had 12 years to own up to his end of the bargain and didn't! We tried many things to get him to comply WITH HIS OWN AGREEMENT!
IMO - Anyone who uses the "rush to war" argument is just plain ignorant.:|
But you are right on one thing - time is/was on our side - history will know that we gave Saddam 12 years to disarm and history will see that we were justified in taking him out.
CkG
My, you're really on a roll. No content, but lots of digs and distortions. Let's take a look at what you wrote:
Flap...Flap...Flap go the gums.
Gratuitous dig
Yeah - we just decided that since Saddam kills his own people then we should kill them too?
Lie - I said nothing of the sort
No blood is on our hands except the splatter of Saddam's regime
Wrong - of course their blood is on our hands, we killed them. The question for debate is whether it was justified.
You people don't have any idea if there was immenent danger to the US or not,
That's wrong too - we have a very good idea based on all sorts of evidence. Iraq obviously did NOT have the massive quantities of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons Bush claimed they had. We may still find small amounts, but they're hardly a significant danger to the country. His military was certainly no danger to us; we proved that in a scant three weeks.
but we ALL know there was immenent danger to our ally Isreal and other nations in the region.
False - we don't
all know this. In fact, there is no reason to believe he posed any
imminent danger to anyone other than his own people. Did he want to become dangerous again? Probably. Would he have eventually posed a danger? Maybe. Was he an
imminent dnager? Get real. You need to look up the word "imminent".
And for Pete's sake QUIT TALKING ABOUT A "RUSH TO WAR" If anything we waited too damn long.
Statement of your opinion - the U.N. and most of the world disagreed.
That SOB had 12 years to own up to his end of the bargain and didn't! We tried many things to get him to comply WITH HIS OWN AGREEMENT!
Speculation. So far, we've found no evidence he was in material non-compliance, with the possible exception of the al Samoud missles which
may have exceeded U.N. range restrictions by a small margin. We had inspectors in the country to determine whether Iraq was in compliance or not, and to bring Iraq into compliance if/where they weren't, but Bush wasn't willing to wait for objective professionals to do their jobs.
IMO - Anyone who uses the "rush to war" argument is just plain ignorant.:|
Another gratuitous dig.
But you are right on one thing - time is/was on our side - history will know that we gave Saddam 12 years to disarm and history will see that we were justified in taking him out.
Your opinion. In my opinion, history will show that Bush was one of the worst presidents in U.S. history, doing untold damage to this country, specifically in the areas of international cooperation, civil rights, and the environment. He has also screwed up the economy, but he's only in the top three or four in that category (so far).