"Iraq will be democratic!" - Bush

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: MC

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Are we really going to hold them to different standards than we hold ourselves?

No, but doesn't Iraqi people should decide for themselves?

Good gawd, the irony of this is astounding! How can a people decide for themselves unless they have a democratic process to do so?

Yes, these fools would love for the US to leave now so the Baath party to retake power....

 

[Alistar7]

We are already out of the decison loop... pay attention or you will mis it, lol.

 

[Clauzii]

Originally posted by: Amused

Good gawd, the irony of this is astounding! How can a people decide for themselves unless they have a democratic process to do so?

Maybe that democratic process is somewhere in the agenda by the Bush administration.

(At least, I wouln´t go out and start a war using BILLIONS of $$ without anything in return, besides
´freeing´ a country - would be real stupid otherwise?)

 

[MC]

Originally posted by: Amused

Good gawd, the irony of this is astounding! How can a people decide for themselves unless they have a democratic process to do so?

Wow, having other country's leader telling you what to do SURE is democratic smart-ass.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: MC

Originally posted by: Amused

Good gawd, the irony of this is astounding! How can a people decide for themselves unless they have a democratic process to do so?

Wow, having other country's leader telling you what to do SURE is democratic smart-ass.

Wow, having a dictator oppress you sure is too.

Tell me, how much choice did the Iraqis have prior to us deposing Saddam?

 

[Clauzii]

All the ´big´ men are already ready at the table getting their share of the Oh-so-new Iraq.

Is there anyone who thinks that the 27 mio. Iraqis are being asked how, where and when???
Didn´t think so..

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Clauzii
All the ´big´ men are already ready at the table getting their share of the Oh-so-new Iraq.

Is there anyone who thinks that the 27 mio. Iraqis are being asked how, where and when???
Didn´t think so..

They will be when elections are started.

Do you think they were better off under Saddam?

 

[Clauzii]

No - definately NOT!!

But my concern is the way the whole mombojumbo was done.....

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Clauzii
No - definately NOT!!

But my concern is the way the whole mombojumbo was done.....

How would you have done it?

Remember, we'd been trying it the diplomatic way for 12 years.

Tell me, do you think Japan and Germany are better off than they were before 1940?

 

[jjones]

Originally posted by: Amused

How would you have done it?

Gee, Amused, don't you know if we hold hands and sing Kumbaya while thinking good thoughts all the bad men will go away.

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Clauzii
No - definately NOT!!

But my concern is the way the whole mombojumbo was done.....

How would you have done it?

Remember, we'd been trying it the diplomatic way for 12 years.

Tell me, do you think Japan and Germany are better off than they were before 1940?

Remember what this war is all about? It's about the WMD's, not about liberating Irak...

A pre-emptive strike because Irak might have WMD's which they might sell to someone else who might use them against the US... THAT is what this war is all about...

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Clauzii
No - definately NOT!!

But my concern is the way the whole mombojumbo was done.....

How would you have done it?

Remember, we'd been trying it the diplomatic way for 12 years.

Tell me, do you think Japan and Germany are better off than they were before 1940?

Remember what this war is all about? It's about the WMD's, not about liberating Irak...

A pre-emptive strike because Irak might have WMD's which they might sell to someone else who might use them against the US... THAT is what this war is all about...

No, the war is about the total disregard for the disarmament clause in the ceasefire signed by Saddam 12 years ago after he lost a war of aggression. I remember a little European country that was under the same kind of treaty back in 1933... and no one did anything about it until it was too late.

We have solid historical precedence to show what happens when you appease people like Saddam. Snap, your own country suffered terribly under Hitler because of this very same unwillingness to act.

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Clauzii
No - definately NOT!!

But my concern is the way the whole mombojumbo was done.....

How would you have done it?

Remember, we'd been trying it the diplomatic way for 12 years.

Tell me, do you think Japan and Germany are better off than they were before 1940?

Remember what this war is all about? It's about the WMD's, not about liberating Irak...

A pre-emptive strike because Irak might have WMD's which they might sell to someone else who might use them against the US... THAT is what this war is all about...

No, the war is about the total disregard for the disarmament clause in the ceasefire signed by Saddam 12 years ago after he lost a war of aggression. I remember a little European country that was under the same kind of treaty back in 1933... and no one did anything about it until it was too late.

We have solid historical precedence to show what happens when you appease people like Saddam. Snap, your own country suffered terribly under Hitler because of this very same unwillingness to act.

Actually, Sweden was one of the countries that suffered the least from WWII, and yes, it was because of that same unwillingness to act...

This war was about WMD's, whether Saddam had them or not, my statement still stands...

The US went against the UN, the same oranization whose rules they say they enforce... Can you see the irony in that?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Clauzii
No - definately NOT!!

But my concern is the way the whole mombojumbo was done.....

How would you have done it?

Remember, we'd been trying it the diplomatic way for 12 years.

Tell me, do you think Japan and Germany are better off than they were before 1940?

Remember what this war is all about? It's about the WMD's, not about liberating Irak...

A pre-emptive strike because Irak might have WMD's which they might sell to someone else who might use them against the US... THAT is what this war is all about...

No, the war is about the total disregard for the disarmament clause in the ceasefire signed by Saddam 12 years ago after he lost a war of aggression. I remember a little European country that was under the same kind of treaty back in 1933... and no one did anything about it until it was too late.

We have solid historical precedence to show what happens when you appease people like Saddam. Snap, your own country suffered terribly under Hitler because of this very same unwillingness to act.

Actually, Sweden was one of the countries that suffered the least from WWII, and yes, it was because of that same unwillingness to act...

This war was about WMD's, whether Saddam had them or not, my statement still stands...

The US went against the UN, the same oranization whose rules they say they enforce... Can you see the irony in that?

No, not at all. According to 1441 the UN should have attacked Saddam the first time he expelled the weapons inspectors (years ago). This was LONG past due. The fact that the UN partners did not have the courage of their convictions is not ironic. It's a sad repeat of history involving many of the very same countries that allowed Hitler and Germany to take tens of millions of lives.

BTW, I forgot and thought you were from Norway Forgive me?

 

[Gaard]

I think the irony here is that one of the primary reasons for attacking Iraq is that they didn't do what the UN told them to do (resolutions), yet by attacking, we did the same thing.

Not arguing (at this time, anyway) the right or wrong of attacking. Just trying to point out what the irony is. If you say "Oh, if you put it that way, it is ironic" you can still be for the war.

Sometimes I think the prowar feels that they can't agree with anything the antiwar says for fear of somehow stepping out of the lines of being prowar, and vice-versa.

 

[Clauzii]

Originally posted by: jjones

Originally posted by: Amused

How would you have done it?

Gee, Amused, don't you know if we hold hands and sing Kumbaya while thinking good thoughts all the bad men will go away.

How come that some people think it´s ´Hari Krishna´ when we are talking about peace - it´s like they WANT the f...... war instead of ´holding hands´.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Clauzii

Originally posted by: jjones

Originally posted by: Amused

How would you have done it?

Gee, Amused, don't you know if we hold hands and sing Kumbaya while thinking good thoughts all the bad men will go away.

How come that some people think it´s ´Hari Krishna´ when we are talking about peace - it´s like they WANT the f...... war instead of ´holding hands´.

I'd love to hold hands. But it's an impossibility with some people. Do you think holding hands would have stopped Hitler? If not, what makes you think it would have worked with Saddam?

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Clauzii
No - definately NOT!!

But my concern is the way the whole mombojumbo was done.....

How would you have done it?

Remember, we'd been trying it the diplomatic way for 12 years.

Tell me, do you think Japan and Germany are better off than they were before 1940?

Remember what this war is all about? It's about the WMD's, not about liberating Irak...

A pre-emptive strike because Irak might have WMD's which they might sell to someone else who might use them against the US... THAT is what this war is all about...

No, the war is about the total disregard for the disarmament clause in the ceasefire signed by Saddam 12 years ago after he lost a war of aggression. I remember a little European country that was under the same kind of treaty back in 1933... and no one did anything about it until it was too late.

We have solid historical precedence to show what happens when you appease people like Saddam. Snap, your own country suffered terribly under Hitler because of this very same unwillingness to act.

Actually, Sweden was one of the countries that suffered the least from WWII, and yes, it was because of that same unwillingness to act...

This war was about WMD's, whether Saddam had them or not, my statement still stands...

The US went against the UN, the same oranization whose rules they say they enforce... Can you see the irony in that?

No, not at all. According to 1441 the UN should have attacked Saddam the first time he expelled the weapons inspectors (years ago). This was LONG past due. The fact that the UN partners did not have the courage of their convictions is not ironic. It's a sad repeat of history involving many of the very same countries that allowed Hitler and Germany to take tens of millions of lives.

BTW, I forgot and thought you were from Norway Forgive me?

What i see here is an argument based on long gone history, what are you trying to do with that argument? Invoke godwins law and loose?

What i'm saying here is that nobody reacted at all when it happend several years ago, when someone finally reacted they could have skipped the inspections anyway... if they found anything, attack, if they didn't, attack anyway... The US went against the UN and attacked, the reasons for this war has shifted as the media have covered new stories, one day it's because Saddam has WMD's, one day it is to liberate the people...

Now Irak will be split up in three parts, one controlled by the US, one by the British and one by Poland (that made me laugh, do you know what it's like in Poland? If Irak will be anything like it the Irakis will leave)...

Why on earth were the inspectors even there?

Oh... and sure... heh... i'll forgive you... But then i still don't see your point as Norway fought the Germans...

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Clauzii
No - definately NOT!!

But my concern is the way the whole mombojumbo was done.....

How would you have done it?

Remember, we'd been trying it the diplomatic way for 12 years.

Tell me, do you think Japan and Germany are better off than they were before 1940?

Remember what this war is all about? It's about the WMD's, not about liberating Irak...

A pre-emptive strike because Irak might have WMD's which they might sell to someone else who might use them against the US... THAT is what this war is all about...

No, the war is about the total disregard for the disarmament clause in the ceasefire signed by Saddam 12 years ago after he lost a war of aggression. I remember a little European country that was under the same kind of treaty back in 1933... and no one did anything about it until it was too late.

We have solid historical precedence to show what happens when you appease people like Saddam. Snap, your own country suffered terribly under Hitler because of this very same unwillingness to act.

Actually, Sweden was one of the countries that suffered the least from WWII, and yes, it was because of that same unwillingness to act...

This war was about WMD's, whether Saddam had them or not, my statement still stands...

The US went against the UN, the same oranization whose rules they say they enforce... Can you see the irony in that?

No, not at all. According to 1441 the UN should have attacked Saddam the first time he expelled the weapons inspectors (years ago). This was LONG past due. The fact that the UN partners did not have the courage of their convictions is not ironic. It's a sad repeat of history involving many of the very same countries that allowed Hitler and Germany to take tens of millions of lives.

BTW, I forgot and thought you were from Norway Forgive me?

What i see here is an argument based on long gone history, what are you trying to do with that argument? Invoke godwins law and loose?

What i'm saying here is that nobody reacted at all when it happend several years ago, when someone finally reacted they could have skipped the inspections anyway... if they found anything, attack, if they didn't, attack anyway... The US went against the UN and attacked, the reasons for this war has shifted as the media have covered new stories, one day it's because Saddam has WMD's, one day it is to liberate the people...

Now Irak will be split up in three parts, one controlled by the US, one by the British and one by Poland (that made me laugh, do you know what it's like in Poland? If Irak will be anything like it the Irakis will leave)...

Why on earth were the inspectors even there?

Oh... and sure... heh... i'll forgive you... But then i still don't see your point as Norway fought the Germans...

On the point of WMDs: I'll hide some in California, and expect you to find them in a month. I still strongly suspect there are some... and they were well hidden or moved to Syria.

It's funny how the left is jumping on this. They don't WANT any to be found. It's like they NEED none to be found to vindicate their worldview. NO ONE expected them to be out in the open, Snap. Give it time.

Do you think the US and British sectors will look like the US and UK? Come on, Snap. It's administration, not Epcot.

Yes, Norway fought the Nazis. But they suffered terribly under them once they were occupied. Most occupied countries did.

 

[IGBT]

Still waiting for a real democrat to show up. Everything so far are marxists.