Originally posted by: Alistar7
we cannot find Saddam, he is unaccounted for, therefore, he does not exist.....
No, you got it backwards. The fact that he is unaccounted for is proof of his existence.
Originally posted by: Alistar7
we cannot find Saddam, he is unaccounted for, therefore, he does not exist.....
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: Alistar7
we cannot find Saddam, he is unaccounted for, therefore, he does not exist.....
No, you got it backwards. The fact that he is unaccounted for is proof of his existence.
Originally posted by: ConclamoLudus
I thought I saw Hussein at Wal-Mart the other day. He was buying duct tape, plastic sheeting, some antacids, and a weapon of mass destruction.
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: Alistar7
we cannot find Saddam, he is unaccounted for, therefore, he does not exist.....
No, you got it backwards. The fact that he is unaccounted for is proof of his existence.
i can buy that, especially when his existence was a known entity and there has been no proof otherwise, seems rather logical, yet when you aplly this to known WMD for some reason it no longer makes sense to some...
Originally posted by: Alistar7
no, i dont care anymore, would like to know what the hell happened to them, but I never had a big problem believing Saddam had them and have seen nothing to suggest he did not........
Originally posted by: mugsywwiii
Originally posted by: Alistar7
no, i dont care anymore, would like to know what the hell happened to them, but I never had a big problem believing Saddam had them and have seen nothing to suggest he did not........
The fact that neither the UN weapons inspectors nor the US Military could find them suggests that they may have been destroyed well before the war.
Originally posted by: HJD1
Originally posted by: mugsywwiii
Originally posted by: Alistar7
no, i dont care anymore, would like to know what the hell happened to them, but I never had a big problem believing Saddam had them and have seen nothing to suggest he did not........
The fact that neither the UN weapons inspectors nor the US Military could find them suggests that they may have been destroyed well before the war.
Well... ain't found them yet! If they had them and they were not destroyed and are not in Iraq the logical conclusion would be that they are somewhere else.... that somewhere else means to me somewhere that Saddam felt could or would further his ideology or philosophy. Perhaps even a bribe to secure his safety.. the WMD, however, must be accounted for factually. Otherwise they scare me. Why we cut back on the search is a puzzle to me. Maybe we know where they are and are planning our next invasion?
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: HJD1
Originally posted by: mugsywwiii
Originally posted by: Alistar7
no, i dont care anymore, would like to know what the hell happened to them, but I never had a big problem believing Saddam had them and have seen nothing to suggest he did not........
The fact that neither the UN weapons inspectors nor the US Military could find them suggests that they may have been destroyed well before the war.
Well... ain't found them yet! If they had them and they were not destroyed and are not in Iraq the logical conclusion would be that they are somewhere else.... that somewhere else means to me somewhere that Saddam felt could or would further his ideology or philosophy. Perhaps even a bribe to secure his safety.. the WMD, however, must be accounted for factually. Otherwise they scare me. Why we cut back on the search is a puzzle to me. Maybe we know where they are and are planning our next invasion?
Last time i heard one group was being redeployed and another was being sent in. This did not sound like a slowdown in the search. Yes i would prefer to know where the weapons went or at least what happened to them. THen I would like to know why our intel has been so bad over the years(not just this admin)
Originally posted by: Crazyfool
Saddam supported terrorist suicide bombers in Israel. Paid millions to their families. This is not even a contested issue. I don't care what reason they used to sell you on taking that guy out.
Besides, when they do find these "WMD", all you Saddam lovers/Bush haters will say it was planted so there can be no real answer to satisfy you people anyway. Tell me I'm wrong.
Originally posted by: Nitemare
I posted a thread like this similar a month or so ago. I don't care if they have it as well. I think having a liberated Iraq free of Saddam's tyrannical rule is reason enough....but then again I give a sh!t about innocent Iraqi's who used to get slaughtered daily...
Originally posted by: DZip
Crazyfool:
It looks like once again a question is answered by short sighted, narrow-minded people that don't like what America stands for. The only thing that will make them happy is to discredit President Bush and have America look bad. This president has made most Americans feel good about taking out a threat to free loving people around the world. If 100 Iraqi's are glad about U.S. intervention to destroy Saddam and 1 terrorist Muslim rebel hates America for giving Iraqis freedom to choose their destiny, the news reports cover the 1. These rebels that are attacking American soldiers are hoping they can muster support for America to withdraw and turn the power over to these militant Muslim groups. A new government should be tolerant of all religious groups; these religious groups do not show tolerance to other religious groups. They kill innocent people and claim it?s God's will. My God loves everyone, their God does not.
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: DZip
Crazyfool:
It looks like once again a question is answered by short sighted, narrow-minded people that don't like what America stands for. The only thing that will make them happy is to discredit President Bush and have America look bad. This president has made most Americans feel good about taking out a threat to free loving people around the world. If 100 Iraqi's are glad about U.S. intervention to destroy Saddam and 1 terrorist Muslim rebel hates America for giving Iraqis freedom to choose their destiny, the news reports cover the 1. These rebels that are attacking American soldiers are hoping they can muster support for America to withdraw and turn the power over to these militant Muslim groups. A new government should be tolerant of all religious groups; these religious groups do not show tolerance to other religious groups. They kill innocent people and claim it?s God's will. My God loves everyone, their God does not.
What do you propose? Another "crusade" since only your God is worthwhile?
You people will have the entire planet looking like Israel and Palestine before you're through. Religious zealots - every one with God on their side. I wonder what God thinks of all of this?
Originally posted by: DaiShan
Originally posted by: Nitemare
I posted a thread like this similar a month or so ago. I don't care if they have it as well. I think having a liberated Iraq free of Saddam's tyrannical rule is reason enough....but then again I give a sh!t about innocent Iraqi's who used to get slaughtered daily...
After my last post I really don't feel like going into an exorbitant ammount of detail on yours, however, I will make a few casual points. First, since when is America supposed to decide which forms of government are legitimate and which need to be dissolved to "liberate" their people? I don't think you are familiar with the min/max theorem, but basicallly what it says is that if you use one extreme to justify an action, you must use the other extreme to justify it's antithesis, so here goes: What if say North Korea decided to "liberate" America from the oppression of democracy in favor of a more "liberal" dictatorship in which people don't have to worry about making tough decisions as the government does it for them? Sounds great, we were justified in forcing our views on others, just as the North Koreans will be justified in a similar aggression. There, that was fairly straightforward, I certainly don't think you should have any trouble grasping that.
Originally posted by: Syringer
Originally posted by: DaiShan
After my last post I really don't feel like going into an exorbitant ammount of detail on yours, however, I will make a few casual points. First, since when is America supposed to decide which forms of government are legitimate and which need to be dissolved to "liberate" their people? I don't think you are familiar with the min/max theorem, but basicallly what it says is that if you use one extreme to justify an action, you must use the other extreme to justify it's antithesis, so here goes: What if say North Korea decided to "liberate" America from the oppression of democracy in favor of a more "liberal" dictatorship in which people don't have to worry about making tough decisions as the government does it for them? Sounds great, we were justified in forcing our views on others, just as the North Koreans will be justified in a similar aggression. There, that was fairly straightforward, I certainly don't think you should have any trouble grasping that.
Wow, of all the bad analogies I've encountered in my life, this certainly is up there.
a) If you are trying to argue that Iraqis were somehow enjoying being under a dictatorship, or at the very worst did not want to be free of the tyrant that is Saddam, then I suggest you actually go live in such conditions and just come back and tell me that you don't wish for someone to change things.
b) America currently is the arguably the most prosperous and successful country to ever grace this earth. You'd think we'd be doing something right.
c) In Iraq on the other hand, people starve on a regular basis, a very small amount of children, and an even lower amount of women have any sort of hope at a life that even Americans would consider poverty. It is a given that pretty much any sort of change to this situation would be considered an improvement. It'd be like having to wait for a hostage or kidnapped child to cry for help before trying to free them..
Originally posted by: Syringer
Originally posted by: DaiShan
Originally posted by: Nitemare
I posted a thread like this similar a month or so ago. I don't care if they have it as well. I think having a liberated Iraq free of Saddam's tyrannical rule is reason enough....but then again I give a sh!t about innocent Iraqi's who used to get slaughtered daily...
After my last post I really don't feel like going into an exorbitant ammount of detail on yours, however, I will make a few casual points. First, since when is America supposed to decide which forms of government are legitimate and which need to be dissolved to "liberate" their people? I don't think you are familiar with the min/max theorem, but basicallly what it says is that if you use one extreme to justify an action, you must use the other extreme to justify it's antithesis, so here goes: What if say North Korea decided to "liberate" America from the oppression of democracy in favor of a more "liberal" dictatorship in which people don't have to worry about making tough decisions as the government does it for them? Sounds great, we were justified in forcing our views on others, just as the North Koreans will be justified in a similar aggression. There, that was fairly straightforward, I certainly don't think you should have any trouble grasping that.
Wow, of all the bad analogies I've encountered in my life, this certainly is up there.
a) If you are trying to argue that Iraqis were somehow enjoying being under a dictatorship, or at the very worst did not want to be free of the tyrant that is Saddam, then I suggest you actually go live in such conditions and just come back and tell me that you don't wish for someone to change things.
b) America currently is the arguably the most prosperous and successful country to ever grace this earth. You'd think we'd be doing something right.
c) In Iraq on the other hand, people starve on a regular basis, a very small amount of children, and an even lower amount of women have any sort of hope at a life that even Americans would consider poverty. It is a given that pretty much any sort of change to this situation would be considered an improvement. It'd be like having to wait for a hostage or kidnapped child to cry for help before trying to free them..
Originally posted by: DaiShan
In the now deposed dictatorship, the Iraqis were opressed by one of their own, while I would not want to live in such conditions I would certainly prefer home rule to millitary rule by an invading army. These concepts are not difficult.
Originally posted by: Syringer
Originally posted by: DaiShan
In the now deposed dictatorship, the Iraqis were opressed by one of their own, while I would not want to live in such conditions I would certainly prefer home rule to millitary rule by an invading army. These concepts are not difficult.
You'd rather be ruled over by Saddam than to enjoy freedom? Yeah, tell that to the Iraqis
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: Alistar7
we cannot find Saddam, he is unaccounted for, therefore, he does not exist.....
No, you got it backwards. The fact that he is unaccounted for is proof of his existence.
Originally posted by: DaiShan
Originally posted by: Syringer
Originally posted by: DaiShan
Originally posted by: Nitemare
I posted a thread like this similar a month or so ago. I don't care if they have it as well. I think having a liberated Iraq free of Saddam's tyrannical rule is reason enough....but then again I give a sh!t about innocent Iraqi's who used to get slaughtered daily...
After my last post I really don't feel like going into an exorbitant ammount of detail on yours, however, I will make a few casual points. First, since when is America supposed to decide which forms of government are legitimate and which need to be dissolved to "liberate" their people? I don't think you are familiar with the min/max theorem, but basicallly what it says is that if you use one extreme to justify an action, you must use the other extreme to justify it's antithesis, so here goes: What if say North Korea decided to "liberate" America from the oppression of democracy in favor of a more "liberal" dictatorship in which people don't have to worry about making tough decisions as the government does it for them? Sounds great, we were justified in forcing our views on others, just as the North Koreans will be justified in a similar aggression. There, that was fairly straightforward, I certainly don't think you should have any trouble grasping that.
Wow, of all the bad analogies I've encountered in my life, this certainly is up there.
a) If you are trying to argue that Iraqis were somehow enjoying being under a dictatorship, or at the very worst did not want to be free of the tyrant that is Saddam, then I suggest you actually go live in such conditions and just come back and tell me that you don't wish for someone to change things.
b) America currently is the arguably the most prosperous and successful country to ever grace this earth. You'd think we'd be doing something right.
c) In Iraq on the other hand, people starve on a regular basis, a very small amount of children, and an even lower amount of women have any sort of hope at a life that even Americans would consider poverty. It is a given that pretty much any sort of change to this situation would be considered an improvement. It'd be like having to wait for a hostage or kidnapped child to cry for help before trying to free them..
You completely miss the point. You are not even on mark with any of your assumptions. First off, I made no such argument about the iraqi people, I simply stated it is not America's place to decide what type of government another people should have. Period. If you cannot understand this, I point you to my justifying example of North Korea, it is a very simple concept. Secondly, what may work for one nation may not work for another, a nation is contingent completely upon the circumstances surrounding it, would it make sense for America to try to market goods for which it does not at least have a comparitive advantage? No. Period. I won't even delve into the issue of prosperity (given that we are a relatively new nation, read up on ibn kaldouns theory of the cyclical nature of empires) Again your third point just re-iterates your first, so cross apply my argument to this one. In summation basically what I am saying (in oversimplified terms ) is that America nor any other country has the right to enforce what it views as the best form of government upon another people, this is a far more dangerous form of tyranny. In the now deposed dictatorship, the Iraqis were opressed by one of their own, while I would not want to live in such conditions I would certainly prefer home rule to millitary rule by an invading army. These concepts are not difficult.
So if you knew a kid on your block whose parents beat him(black eyes, broken arms gaping wounds) and threatened him you would not intervene because that would not be your place? You would not call the police or CPS?