Howard Dean and saddam...

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: nick1985
i find it humourus that dean was so elated at the capture of saddam, yet if you think about it, if dean had been our president this whole time saddam would have never been captured and thousands of iraqi civilians would still be murdered.

And? You going somewhere with this? Bush didn't sell this as a humanitarian war and nationbuilding adventure.

He sure didn't because if he had he wouldn't have gotten the support of the American Public to go ahead with it!

Last I heard it was about American civilians, and the WMD's Saddam was going to launch at us in 45 minutes. Now it's about Iraqi Civilians.

I think if it was free or a few billions, I would rather have Saddam dead, but to commit the most resources to the least threat is a waste of taxpayer money and soldiers' lives.

The 45 minutes was a lie told by the British Government, not ours

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: nick1985
i find it humourus that dean was so elated at the capture of saddam, yet if you think about it, if dean had been our president this whole time saddam would have never been captured and thousands of iraqi civilians would still be murdered.

And? You going somewhere with this? Bush didn't sell this as a humanitarian war and nationbuilding adventure.

He sure didn't because if he had he wouldn't have gotten the support of the American Public to go ahead with it!

Last I heard it was about American civilians, and the WMD's Saddam was going to launch at us in 45 minutes. Now it's about Iraqi Civilians.

I think if it was free or a few billions, I would rather have Saddam dead, but to commit the most resources to the least threat is a waste of taxpayer money and soldiers' lives.

The 45 minutes was a lie told by the British Government, not ours

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: nick1985
i find it humourus that dean was so elated at the capture of saddam, yet if you think about it, if dean had been our president this whole time saddam would have never been captured and thousands of iraqi civilians would still be murdered.

Lovely how now that we cannot find WMD and the threat of terror attacks on US soil hasn't been diminished, and hundreds (thousands?) of soldiers and civilians are being killed, the reasons for attacking Iraq have suddenly shifted to "liberating" the Iraqi people out of the goodness of our hearts.

The "noble lie" eh?

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: nick1985
i find it humourus that dean was so elated at the capture of saddam, yet if you think about it, if dean had been our president this whole time saddam would have never been captured and thousands of iraqi civilians would still be murdered.

Then again Osama Bin Laden might have been captured and Al Qaeda along with the Taliban could have been utterly destroyed.

we are still looking for that asshole. he cant hide forever, i think that was proven with his butt buddy saddam.

Saddam and Bin Laden were never butt buddies. In fact, Bin Laden hated Hussein for his socialist, secular government. The fact that you think that these two men were connected in any way just proves how ignorant you are on the subject.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: nick1985
i also found it funny in deans speech earlier today he said "the capture of saddam does not make America safer" i was like "how the EFF doesnt it?" it cetainetley cant hurt american securty.. anywho, i think the liberation of iraq does make america more secure. with that crazy idiot removed there is no longer a threat of WMD in iraq, or even worse, iraq selling WMD's to terrorists.

question--

loss of life is greater in the long run if....

a) we never invaded iraq

b) we do what we did and invade iraq



a few hundred soldiers and some civilians is a SMALL sacrifice for the savior of countless hundreds of thousands in the long run IMO.

It doesn't make America any safer because Saddam wasn't a threat to us. He had no WMD, he had no ties to Al Qaeda. The terrorists he was funding were the suicide bombers in Palestine, just like the governments of almost every other Arab country who fund those suicide bombers. Of course it makes Iraqis and the region safer, and Dean clearly stated that.

On your question about loss of life, its hard to qualify that. Yes its easy for you to say 400 American lives + 300 foreign troop lives + 5000 Iraq civilian lives is less then 20000 Iraqi civilian lives. But playing the numbers game doesn't give solace to those American families whose sons died half a world away. Do you know any American soldiers that are currently in Iraq or were killed or maimed from fighting? We shouldn't be so quick to accept deaths of our soldiers. By starting a war, you are committing your troops to die, as well as the lives of innocent civilians. We as Americans are all directly responsible for every single death our invasion and occupation causes...

 

[kylebisme]

i tend to think it is more "well informed" by the media and the adminstation in this case, MonstaThrilla.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY


Who is overlooking inconsistencies? There is alot more of the Dean stuff to be posted...shall I begin a topic for them all? Shall we start with his signature support for Biden-Lugar? Hmmm....

CkG

i'm sorry, what inconsistencies are you reffering to and what does Biden-Lugar have to do with Dean's commentary on Saddam?

Umm did Dean not say "Iraq was not a threat to us". Seems to me that WMDs possessed by a dictator who has expressly stated his hatred for the US - most certainly is a threat. Did he not support terrorists?(answer carefully) For anyone to say Saddam was not a threat because he was way over there and couldn't hit us is asinine. Al Qaeda has shown that one doesn't have to be physically close to cause great harm. Saddam could have easily done similar. But anyway - back to Dean's consistancy problems...

Have you read the Biden-Lugar proposal? I suggest you do. Then ask yourself how he could have supported that and then still say he never supported this "illegal Unilateral war".
"The objection that I have... the greatest objection is for the folks that voted for it and then went to Iowa and California and pretended they are against the war. That doesn't wash. We're not going to elect a president of the United States but nominating somebody who says one thing and does something else, and appears to be willing to say whatever it takes to become president."-Howie Dean

So Howie - how do you spin your support for Biden-Lugar? How could you have supported that(which allowed for "unilateral" intervention in Iraq) and then pretend you are against the war?

Hmmmm .... yes ...overlooking inconsistencies.

CkG

Edit - holy leftist convergence Batman!:Q

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: nick1985
i find it humourus that dean was so elated at the capture of saddam, yet if you think about it, if dean had been our president this whole time saddam would have never been captured and thousands of iraqi civilians would still be murdered.

Then again Osama Bin Laden might have been captured and Al Qaeda along with the Taliban could have been utterly destroyed.

we are still looking for that asshole. he cant hide forever, i think that was proven with his butt buddy saddam.

There is no proof that they're even friends, let alone the curious variety you've mentioned.

a few hundred soldiers and some civilians is a SMALL sacrifice for the savior of countless hundreds of thousands in the long run IMO.

a. Were any of the dead soldiers related to you?

b. What has Saddamm ever done to you? Don't say terrorism, unless you're an Israeli, that's never been supported by substantial evidence.

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY


Who is overlooking inconsistencies? There is alot more of the Dean stuff to be posted...shall I begin a topic for them all? Shall we start with his signature support for Biden-Lugar? Hmmm....

CkG

i'm sorry, what inconsistencies are you reffering to and what does Biden-Lugar have to do with Dean's commentary on Saddam?

Umm did Dean not say "Iraq was not a threat to us". Seems to me that WMDs possessed by a dictator who has expressly stated his hatred for the US - most certainly is a threat. Did he not support terrorists?(answer carefully) For anyone to say Saddam was not a threat because he was way over there and couldn't hit us is asinine. Al Qaeda has shown that one doesn't have to be physically close to cause great harm. Saddam could have easily done similar. But anyway - back to Dean's consistancy problems...

The Soviets had weapons of mass destruction and a hatred for the US, yet it didn't take an invasion to keep us from living in a parking lot.

 

[JackStorm]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: nick1985
i find it humourus that dean was so elated at the capture of saddam, yet if you think about it, if dean had been our president this whole time saddam would have never been captured and thousands of iraqi civilians would still be murdered.

Then again Osama Bin Laden might have been captured and Al Qaeda along with the Taliban could have been utterly destroyed.

we are still looking for that asshole. he cant hide forever, i think that was proven with his butt buddy saddam.

Saddam and Bin Laden were never butt buddies. In fact, Bin Laden hated Hussein for his socialist, secular government. The fact that you think that these two men were connected in any way just proves how ignorant you are on the subject.

You are correct. In Bin laden's eyes and in his own words, Hussein and the baath party were nothing but renegates and infidels.

Also, taking a closer look at the factions fighting against the US and allies in Iraq, I've come to notice atlest 4 factions (or goups of people):

1. Baath party and Saddam loyalists.

2. Home grown resistance which has no love for either Saddam hussein or the US.

3. Al qaeda fighers that came into Iraq after Saddam lost control, who are there to kill of americans and their allies.

4. Random foreign fighters who are entering Iraq just to be able to kill some americans and anyone who helps them.

Now, exept for the first group I mentioned. Non of the other have any love for hussein. And most are there either to kill americans or to fight what they consider occupiers in Iraq. And they will continue to do so even with Hussein gone. Hussein as the US administration officials admited in an interview some time ago, is "irrelivant". Capturing him will only serve as a moral booster for the troops (which they deserve and need, even though I don't agree with the war), aswell as the flag wavers, who think hussein was the root of all evil.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BDawg
The Soviets had weapons of mass destruction and a hatred for the US, yet it didn't take an invasion to keep us from living in a parking lot.

Diversion, but.... they were a threat - no?
The Cold war was a much different situation and our world was a much different place then.

CkG

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: nick1985
i find it humourus that dean was so elated at the capture of saddam, yet if you think about it, if dean had been our president this whole time saddam would have never been captured and thousands of iraqi civilians would still be murdered.

I don't know why. Now the attacks will increase on americans and others since several shut-down-under Saddam groups fearing his return kept quiet. This includes the communists, Shi'ites, and kurds. Ahh maybe I know why.

Saddams capture will shead light on:

-Republican administrations support for Saddam.

-WMD lies from this adminsitration...

-The inside story on why the U.S. turned against it's onetime ally.


Anyway this capture will do little good for Iraq since most if not all Iraqis relise this expedition was about big business carpetbagging US Troops: 'And Still, the Iraqis Hate Us' and Oil. And not about democracy, wmds, freedom lies feed to to media.

As far as murdering civilians we've done that since the war began and continue to today...I guess it's better for you if we kill them than Saddam? We are finding out just how hard it is to keep this fractioned country civil. Death and killing will coontinue to be part of it to restore law and order.

 

[kylebisme]

na CAD, i have read about the Biden-Lugar proposal, but i have not actually read it. from what i do know it seems to me that it was an attempt at compromise, but seeing as how it was never passed i hardly see how it is relevent. i mean if it did pass, and its conditions were ment then Dean would have been supporting the actions of the adminstation; but this is not the case.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
na CAD, i have read about the Biden-Lugar proposal, but i have not actually read it. however, it seems to me that it was an attempt at compromise but seeing as how it was never passed i hardly see how it is relevent.

Right...so just because someone supports something even though it doesn't pass...it's irrelevant

I think stated positions mean alot....especially since they might infact have to indeed make a similar decision someday. Dean IMO is no better than the people he blasts for "pretending" because he too is a pretender, and not just on this issue.

CkG

 

[kylebisme]

i think you missed my edit:

i mean if it did pass, and its conditions were ment then Dean would have been supporting the actions of the adminstation; but this is not the case.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: nick1985
i find it humourus that dean was so elated at the capture of saddam, yet if you think about it, if dean had been our president this whole time saddam would have never been captured and thousands of iraqi civilians would still be murdered.

Then again Osama Bin Laden might have been captured and Al Qaeda along with the Taliban could have been utterly destroyed.

we are still looking for that asshole. he cant hide forever, i think that was proven with his butt buddy saddam.

Yeah but if we hadn't of been distracted by the Dub's "Excellent Adventure" in Iraq we probably would have already captured him.

oh gimme a break. so america can only handle 1 thing at a time?

Unless you think the situation in Afghanistan is favorable, then yes. And if you do, you are ignorant.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
na CAD, i have read about the Biden-Lugar proposal, but i have not actually read it. however, it seems to me that it was an attempt at compromise but seeing as how it was never passed i hardly see how it is relevent.

Right...so just because someone supports something even though it doesn't pass...it's irrelevant

I think stated positions mean alot....especially since they might infact have to indeed make a similar decision someday. Dean IMO is no better than the people he blasts for "pretending" because he too is a pretender, and not just on this issue.

CkG

Well, for starters, you would be inconsistant by not also criticizing Bush's stances and stated positions during the 2000 election season. His campaign positions and his actions while president don't jibe very well now do they? Or is only when Dean flip-flops that you have a problem and have to post ten threads about it?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: nick1985
i find it humourus that dean was so elated at the capture of saddam, yet if you think about it, if dean had been our president this whole time saddam would have never been captured and thousands of iraqi civilians would still be murdered.

That's a neat trick where you bend space/time and go back into the past to find out what would have happened if . . . You'll have to show me how you do that.

 

[arsbanned]

Dean is in trouble. Well, the whole notion of changing presidents now is in trouble. If they catch Osama all bets are off: Just sit back and accept another 4 for Bush/Cheney. I wonder if we'll see Cheney more in the next admin?

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: nick1985
i find it humourus that dean was so elated at the capture of saddam, yet if you think about it, if dean had been our president this whole time saddam would have never been captured and thousands of iraqi civilians would still be murdered.

That's a neat trick where you bend space/time and go back into the past to find out what would have happened if . . . You'll have to show me how you do that.

Well, it's the same trick as when someone does this, only future time travel is required:

"If Bush remains our president in 2004, we'll turn into the 4th Reich. We'll spiral into a corporate feudal system, which will be followed by a revolution by the internet geeks mad about their MP3's. Oh, and 100 9/11's will happen because we so angered the arab world, because we'll never get OBL".

Lotsa time machines here on AT: P&N.

Edit to make my into a ": P"

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: nick1985
i find it humourus that dean was so elated at the capture of saddam, yet if you think about it, if dean had been our president this whole time saddam would have never been captured and thousands of iraqi civilians would still be murdered.

Now or later the results would have been the same if not easier!

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Well, it's the same trick as when someone does this, only future time travel is required:

"If Bush remains our president in 2004, we'll turn into the 4th Reich. We'll spiral into a corporate feudal system, which will be followed by a revolution by the internet geeks mad about their MP3's. Oh, and 100 9/11's will happen because we so angered the arab world, because we'll never get OBL".

Lotsa time machines here on AT: P&N.

Edit to make my into a ": P"

Nice rant, but you forgot the part about where the southerners rise up and start Civil War II because they can't have their god statues at every convenience store, Wal-Mart and judicial building between Birmingham and Midland, TX.

(Edit: to add a pistol-wink )

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
na CAD, i have read about the Biden-Lugar proposal, but i have not actually read it. however, it seems to me that it was an attempt at compromise but seeing as how it was never passed i hardly see how it is relevent.

Right...so just because someone supports something even though it doesn't pass...it's irrelevant

I think stated positions mean alot....especially since they might infact have to indeed make a similar decision someday. Dean IMO is no better than the people he blasts for "pretending" because he too is a pretender, and not just on this issue.

CkG

Well, for starters, you would be inconsistant by not also criticizing Bush's stances and stated positions during the 2000 election season. His campaign positions and his actions while president don't jibe very well now do they? Or is only when Dean flip-flops that you have a problem and have to post ten threads about it?

Actually they would not, if you are talking about "nation building". If so - look at what he said about Iraq specifically.

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Actually they would not, if you are talking about "nation building". If so - look at what he said about Iraq specifically.

Mmmmm hmmmm. Whatever you say Cad.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
i think you missed my edit:

i mean if it did pass, and its conditions were ment then Dean would have been supporting the actions of the adminstation; but this is not the case.

What he supported is almost exactly like what was eventually passed. The Biden-Lugar proposal would have only been for Iraq specifically instead of "area". So yes - Dean supporting B-L prop which does allow for unilateral action(which we didn't do anyway) without a UNSC resolution or another Congressional vote. Dean is not being genuine in his protrayal of his stances, and this is only one example.

CkG