I've reached a conclusion on war. Update: Conclusion not reached

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: przero
And what would you have thought of Hitler?

How can you possibly compare Hitler to Hussein? Hitler had a huge military, and was a direct threat to Europe. He was actively taking over land. What is Hussein doing? Maybe building weapons of mass destruction, which aren't even that mass. So what do we do? Attack, giving him reason to use the alleged weapons, and angering half the world?

If the rest of the planet agrees that Saddam should be removed and Iraq disarmed, then let's do it. But going in guns blazing, like some Rambo movie is not the way to create lasting peace. It's a great way to create a world more dangerous that it was before.

LOL You are a dumb @ss.
Hussein invaded Kuiate.
When Hussein did he had the 4th largest military in the world.
We kicked his @ss out; then found his WMDs.
Now he's rebuilding.

Do you see a cycle here or are you too fing stupid. this is the caliber of the anti-war people

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: przero
And what would you have thought of Hitler?

How can you possibly compare Hitler to Hussein? Hitler had a huge military, and was a direct threat to Europe. He was actively taking over land. What is Hussein doing? Maybe building weapons of mass destruction, which aren't even that mass. So what do we do? Attack, giving him reason to use the alleged weapons, and angering half the world?

If the rest of the planet agrees that Saddam should be removed and Iraq disarmed, then let's do it. But going in guns blazing, like some Rambo movie is not the way to create lasting peace. It's a great way to create a world more dangerous that it was before.

So after 12 years of inspections, what course of action do you recomend to disarm Saddam?

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: falconx80
i agree, i feel no threat from saddam.

I feel more threatented by N Korea.

I feel threatened by both
[Edit] I also feel threatened by Al Qaeda...I don't know why people seem to think we can't handle more than one threat at a time

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: przero
And what would you have thought of Hitler?

How can you possibly compare Hitler to Hussein? Hitler had a huge military, and was a direct threat to Europe. He was actively taking over land. What is Hussein doing? Maybe building weapons of mass destruction, which aren't even that mass. So what do we do? Attack, giving him reason to use the alleged weapons, and angering half the world?

If the rest of the planet agrees that Saddam should be removed and Iraq disarmed, then let's do it. But going in guns blazing, like some Rambo movie is not the way to create lasting peace. It's a great way to create a world more dangerous that it was before.

So after 12 years of inspections, what course of action do you recomend to disarm Saddam?

Poisin his Viagra

 

[themightyplatypus]

Then dont. If you dont support one now, how about a few years down the road when you and your family are gassed or nuked dead due to a terrorist who got his WOMD from Saddams regime for a few items he couldnt get due to UN embargos?

This is an absolute crock of sh!t. Osama called for all muslims to support Iraq in a war with the US. But also called for the destruction of Husseins infidel regime. Do you really think Hussein is going to give wmd to Al Quaeda? When in turn they'll be used against him? Come on people he's not that stupid.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: themightyplatypus

Then dont. If you dont support one now, how about a few years down the road when you and your family are gassed or nuked dead due to a terrorist who got his WOMD from Saddams regime for a few items he couldnt get due to UN embargos?

This is an absolute crock of sh!t. Osama called for all muslims to support Iraq in a war with the US. But also called for the destruction of Husseins infidel regime. Do you really think Hussein is going to give wmd to Al Quaeda? When in turn they'll be used against him? Come on people he's not that stupid.

Is al-Qa'ida the only terrorist organzation in the world that would like to attack the US?

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: przero
And what would you have thought of Hitler?

How can you possibly compare Hitler to Hussein? Hitler had a huge military, and was a direct threat to Europe. He was actively taking over land. What is Hussein doing? Maybe building weapons of mass destruction, which aren't even that mass. So what do we do? Attack, giving him reason to use the alleged weapons, and angering half the world?

If the rest of the planet agrees that Saddam should be removed and Iraq disarmed, then let's do it. But going in guns blazing, like some Rambo movie is not the way to create lasting peace. It's a great way to create a world more dangerous that it was before.

LOL You are a dumb @ss.
Hussein invaded Kuiate.
When Hussein did he had the 4th largest military in the world.
We kicked his @ss out; then found his WMDs.
Now he's rebuilding.

Do you see a cycle here or are you too fing stupid. this is the caliber of the anti-war people

Hello? Umm.. we dealt with that problem. It happened. That doesn't mean you can compare Hitler's situation with Saddam's. When there's a problem, you deal with it appropriately. You don't go comparing it to other problems, based on the history of the current problem. We didn't get rid of Saddam when he was Hitler, so we have to get rid of him when he's a pale shadow of his former self, and risk the safety of the world?

Are tenuous comparisons all you can come up with in support for war?


Why not compare Bush to Hitler? They both use patriotism, xenophobia, fear, and economics to get what they want. And that happens to be war.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis
It's unecessary at this point in time. I cannot, in good conscience, support an unecessary war, no matter how much fake evidence Bush comes up with, especially when this unecessary war moves us closer to a nuclear holocaust (North Korea). That is all.

Edit: I'm not saying I don't believe Iraq has "weapons of mass destruction". I'm saying that I don't believe disarming a country is reason to potentially destroy the world. Stretched connections between terrorism and future usage of "WMD" by terrorists that prey on the fear of Americans are not reasons for a war.

Be careful, according to some of the posts I have read on the forum questioning Bush's policies is the same as being anti-American and a traitor.

 

[mrCide]

i could of swore saddam thought we didnt care about kuwait and thats why he invaded

 

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: przero
And what would you have thought of Hitler?

How can you possibly compare Hitler to Hussein? Hitler had a huge military, and was a direct threat to Europe. He was actively taking over land. What is Hussein doing? Maybe building weapons of mass destruction, which aren't even that mass. So what do we do? Attack, giving him reason to use the alleged weapons, and angering half the world?

If the rest of the planet agrees that Saddam should be removed and Iraq disarmed, then let's do it. But going in guns blazing, like some Rambo movie is not the way to create lasting peace. It's a great way to create a world more dangerous that it was before.

LOL You are a dumb @ss.
Hussein invaded Kuiate.
When Hussein did he had the 4th largest military in the world.
We kicked his @ss out; then found his WMDs.
Now he's rebuilding.

Do you see a cycle here or are you too fing stupid. this is the caliber of the anti-war people

Hello? Umm.. we dealt with that problem. It happened. That doesn't mean you can compare Hitler's situation with Saddam's. When there's a problem, you deal with it appropriately. You don't go comparing it to other problems, based on the history of the current problem. We didn't get rid of Saddam when he was Hitler, so we have to get rid of him when he's a pale shadow of his former self, and risk the safety of the world?

Are tenuous comparisons all you can come up with in support for war?

Your the one who said they had nothing in common and i proved you wrong and your last comment even brought up a new simularity.
So what you're saying we shouldn't have killed hitler we should have let him go right. Realize hitler was mamed pretty bad when the assassination attempt failed. His generals called him a shell of his former self. Also by that time his army was not strong and would lose. So according to you we should have let hitler go.

Risk the safty of the world--again you call saddam a threat indirectly. What are you on that makes you so stupid.
You don't go comparing it to other problems--you're right its too hard to compare saddam of the 90s to saddam now (its not like they are same person

)
Umm.. we dealt with that problem--why is there still breath in his lungs then.
When there's a problem, you deal with it appropriately--thats why we need to get him out.

Whats your answer to the crisis? the 18th un resolution, 12 MORE years of inspections, wait untill he is a threat again?

 

[b0mbrman]

What does the fact that Saddam Hussein is a bad man have to do with war?

Well, he could be a bad man all he wants but as soon as he's a bad man with a powerful war machine (like Hitler for example) or a bad man with dangerous weapons (like...uh...Saddam Hussein for example) then you gotta be a little more scared

Think about what war is. It isn't just going there and taking Saddam out. War is hell, if you don't mind the cliche, and since we waited until 2003, this war could escalate into something no one on this forum can possibly imagine.

Yes, and waiting till 2006 will make it much better I suppose

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: przero
And what would you have thought of Hitler?

How can you possibly compare Hitler to Hussein? Hitler had a huge military, and was a direct threat to Europe. He was actively taking over land. What is Hussein doing? Maybe building weapons of mass destruction, which aren't even that mass. So what do we do? Attack, giving him reason to use the alleged weapons, and angering half the world?

If the rest of the planet agrees that Saddam should be removed and Iraq disarmed, then let's do it. But going in guns blazing, like some Rambo movie is not the way to create lasting peace. It's a great way to create a world more dangerous that it was before.

LOL You are a dumb @ss.
Hussein invaded Kuiate.
When Hussein did he had the 4th largest military in the world.
We kicked his @ss out; then found his WMDs.
Now he's rebuilding.

Do you see a cycle here or are you too fing stupid. this is the caliber of the anti-war people

Hello? Umm.. we dealt with that problem. It happened. That doesn't mean you can compare Hitler's situation with Saddam's. When there's a problem, you deal with it appropriately. You don't go comparing it to other problems, based on the history of the current problem. We didn't get rid of Saddam when he was Hitler, so we have to get rid of him when he's a pale shadow of his former self, and risk the safety of the world?

Are tenuous comparisons all you can come up with in support for war?

Your the one who said they had nothing in common and i proved you wrong and your last comment even brought up a new simularity.
So what you're saying we shouldn't have killed hitler we should have let him go right. Realize hitler was mamed pretty bad when the assassination attempt failed. His generals called him a shell of his former self. Also by that time his army was not strong and would lose. So according to you we should have let hitler go.

Risk the safty of the world--again you call saddam a threat indirectly. What are you on that makes you so stupid.

Whats your answer to the crisis? the 18th un resolution, 12 MORE years of inspections, wait untill he is a threat again?

There are two threats. Is that so damn hard to see?
Threat 1: Saddam.
Threat 2: The effects of attacking Iraq without worldwide support.

Which is worse?

Obviously it would have been better to not have Saddam there in the first place. He should have been removed. But he wasn't. We have to deal with that fact logically, not say "Time to finish my daddy's job."

 

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: przero
And what would you have thought of Hitler?

How can you possibly compare Hitler to Hussein? Hitler had a huge military, and was a direct threat to Europe. He was actively taking over land. What is Hussein doing? Maybe building weapons of mass destruction, which aren't even that mass. So what do we do? Attack, giving him reason to use the alleged weapons, and angering half the world?

If the rest of the planet agrees that Saddam should be removed and Iraq disarmed, then let's do it. But going in guns blazing, like some Rambo movie is not the way to create lasting peace. It's a great way to create a world more dangerous that it was before.

LOL You are a dumb @ss.
Hussein invaded Kuiate.
When Hussein did he had the 4th largest military in the world.
We kicked his @ss out; then found his WMDs.
Now he's rebuilding.

Do you see a cycle here or are you too fing stupid. this is the caliber of the anti-war people

Hello? Umm.. we dealt with that problem. It happened. That doesn't mean you can compare Hitler's situation with Saddam's. When there's a problem, you deal with it appropriately. You don't go comparing it to other problems, based on the history of the current problem. We didn't get rid of Saddam when he was Hitler, so we have to get rid of him when he's a pale shadow of his former self, and risk the safety of the world?

Are tenuous comparisons all you can come up with in support for war?

Your the one who said they had nothing in common and i proved you wrong and your last comment even brought up a new simularity.
So what you're saying we shouldn't have killed hitler we should have let him go right. Realize hitler was mamed pretty bad when the assassination attempt failed. His generals called him a shell of his former self. Also by that time his army was not strong and would lose. So according to you we should have let hitler go.

Risk the safty of the world--again you call saddam a threat indirectly. What are you on that makes you so stupid.

Whats your answer to the crisis? the 18th un resolution, 12 MORE years of inspections, wait untill he is a threat again?

There are two threats. Is that so damn hard to see?
Threat 1: Saddam.
Threat 2: The effects of attacking Iraq without worldwide support.

Which is worse?

No dont dodge my question, whats your solution about iraq. You answer my question then ill answer yours.

 

[ToBeMe]

From those two choices...................

Threat 1: Saddam

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: przero
And what would you have thought of Hitler?

How can you possibly compare Hitler to Hussein? Hitler had a huge military, and was a direct threat to Europe. He was actively taking over land. What is Hussein doing? Maybe building weapons of mass destruction, which aren't even that mass. So what do we do? Attack, giving him reason to use the alleged weapons, and angering half the world?

If the rest of the planet agrees that Saddam should be removed and Iraq disarmed, then let's do it. But going in guns blazing, like some Rambo movie is not the way to create lasting peace. It's a great way to create a world more dangerous that it was before.

LOL You are a dumb @ss.
Hussein invaded Kuiate.
When Hussein did he had the 4th largest military in the world.
We kicked his @ss out; then found his WMDs.
Now he's rebuilding.

Do you see a cycle here or are you too fing stupid. this is the caliber of the anti-war people

Hello? Umm.. we dealt with that problem. It happened. That doesn't mean you can compare Hitler's situation with Saddam's. When there's a problem, you deal with it appropriately. You don't go comparing it to other problems, based on the history of the current problem. We didn't get rid of Saddam when he was Hitler, so we have to get rid of him when he's a pale shadow of his former self, and risk the safety of the world?

Are tenuous comparisons all you can come up with in support for war?

Your the one who said they had nothing in common and i proved you wrong and your last comment even brought up a new simularity.
So what you're saying we shouldn't have killed hitler we should have let him go right. Realize hitler was mamed pretty bad when the assassination attempt failed. His generals called him a shell of his former self. Also by that time his army was not strong and would lose. So according to you we should have let hitler go.

Risk the safty of the world--again you call saddam a threat indirectly. What are you on that makes you so stupid.

Whats your answer to the crisis? the 18th un resolution, 12 MORE years of inspections, wait untill he is a threat again?

There are two threats. Is that so damn hard to see?
Threat 1: Saddam.
Threat 2: The effects of attacking Iraq without worldwide support.

Which is worse?

Obviously it would have been better to not have Saddam there in the first place. He should have been removed. But he wasn't. We have to deal with that fact logically, not say "Time to finish my daddy's job."

And if the UN had not gotten in the way in 91, He would have been removed from power. It seems the UN wants to keep him there.

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: przero
And what would you have thought of Hitler?

How can you possibly compare Hitler to Hussein? Hitler had a huge military, and was a direct threat to Europe. He was actively taking over land. What is Hussein doing? Maybe building weapons of mass destruction, which aren't even that mass. So what do we do? Attack, giving him reason to use the alleged weapons, and angering half the world?

If the rest of the planet agrees that Saddam should be removed and Iraq disarmed, then let's do it. But going in guns blazing, like some Rambo movie is not the way to create lasting peace. It's a great way to create a world more dangerous that it was before.

LOL You are a dumb @ss.
Hussein invaded Kuiate.
When Hussein did he had the 4th largest military in the world.
We kicked his @ss out; then found his WMDs.
Now he's rebuilding.

Do you see a cycle here or are you too fing stupid. this is the caliber of the anti-war people

Hello? Umm.. we dealt with that problem. It happened. That doesn't mean you can compare Hitler's situation with Saddam's. When there's a problem, you deal with it appropriately. You don't go comparing it to other problems, based on the history of the current problem. We didn't get rid of Saddam when he was Hitler, so we have to get rid of him when he's a pale shadow of his former self, and risk the safety of the world?

Are tenuous comparisons all you can come up with in support for war?

Your the one who said they had nothing in common and i proved you wrong and your last comment even brought up a new simularity.
So what you're saying we shouldn't have killed hitler we should have let him go right. Realize hitler was mamed pretty bad when the assassination attempt failed. His generals called him a shell of his former self. Also by that time his army was not strong and would lose. So according to you we should have let hitler go.

Risk the safty of the world--again you call saddam a threat indirectly. What are you on that makes you so stupid.

Whats your answer to the crisis? the 18th un resolution, 12 MORE years of inspections, wait untill he is a threat again?

There are two threats. Is that so damn hard to see?
Threat 1: Saddam.
Threat 2: The effects of attacking Iraq without worldwide support.

Which is worse?

No dont dodge my question, whats your solution about iraq. You answer my question then ill answer yours.

My solution is WAR, with more support from the rest of the world. You see, I'm not anti war. I'm anti rashness. To me, dividing the world is more dangerous than waiting.

 

[przero]

WinkOsmosis - The same thing you say about Sadam, they said about Hitler in the '30's. Think about the progression if nothing is done.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: przero
And what would you have thought of Hitler?

How can you possibly compare Hitler to Hussein? Hitler had a huge military, and was a direct threat to Europe. He was actively taking over land. What is Hussein doing? Maybe building weapons of mass destruction, which aren't even that mass. So what do we do? Attack, giving him reason to use the alleged weapons, and angering half the world?

If the rest of the planet agrees that Saddam should be removed and Iraq disarmed, then let's do it. But going in guns blazing, like some Rambo movie is not the way to create lasting peace. It's a great way to create a world more dangerous that it was before.

LOL You are a dumb @ss.
Hussein invaded Kuiate.
When Hussein did he had the 4th largest military in the world.
We kicked his @ss out; then found his WMDs.
Now he's rebuilding.

Do you see a cycle here or are you too fing stupid. this is the caliber of the anti-war people

Hello? Umm.. we dealt with that problem. It happened. That doesn't mean you can compare Hitler's situation with Saddam's. When there's a problem, you deal with it appropriately. You don't go comparing it to other problems, based on the history of the current problem. We didn't get rid of Saddam when he was Hitler, so we have to get rid of him when he's a pale shadow of his former self, and risk the safety of the world?

Are tenuous comparisons all you can come up with in support for war?

Your the one who said they had nothing in common and i proved you wrong and your last comment even brought up a new simularity.
So what you're saying we shouldn't have killed hitler we should have let him go right. Realize hitler was mamed pretty bad when the assassination attempt failed. His generals called him a shell of his former self. Also by that time his army was not strong and would lose. So according to you we should have let hitler go.

Risk the safty of the world--again you call saddam a threat indirectly. What are you on that makes you so stupid.

Whats your answer to the crisis? the 18th un resolution, 12 MORE years of inspections, wait untill he is a threat again?

There are two threats. Is that so damn hard to see?
Threat 1: Saddam.
Threat 2: The effects of attacking Iraq without worldwide support.

Which is worse?

No dont dodge my question, whats your solution about iraq. You answer my question then ill answer yours.

My solution is WAR, with more support from the rest of the world. You see, I'm not anti war. I'm anti rashness. To me, dividing the world is more dangerous than waiting.

So you are saying that removing Saddam by force is the right thing to do?
But we cannot do the right thing because the world says it is not right?

So who is right?

 

[przero]

Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.

 

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: przero
And what would you have thought of Hitler?

How can you possibly compare Hitler to Hussein? Hitler had a huge military, and was a direct threat to Europe. He was actively taking over land. What is Hussein doing? Maybe building weapons of mass destruction, which aren't even that mass. So what do we do? Attack, giving him reason to use the alleged weapons, and angering half the world?

If the rest of the planet agrees that Saddam should be removed and Iraq disarmed, then let's do it. But going in guns blazing, like some Rambo movie is not the way to create lasting peace. It's a great way to create a world more dangerous that it was before.

LOL You are a dumb @ss.
Hussein invaded Kuiate.
When Hussein did he had the 4th largest military in the world.
We kicked his @ss out; then found his WMDs.
Now he's rebuilding.

Do you see a cycle here or are you too fing stupid. this is the caliber of the anti-war people

Hello? Umm.. we dealt with that problem. It happened. That doesn't mean you can compare Hitler's situation with Saddam's. When there's a problem, you deal with it appropriately. You don't go comparing it to other problems, based on the history of the current problem. We didn't get rid of Saddam when he was Hitler, so we have to get rid of him when he's a pale shadow of his former self, and risk the safety of the world?

Are tenuous comparisons all you can come up with in support for war?

Your the one who said they had nothing in common and i proved you wrong and your last comment even brought up a new simularity.
So what you're saying we shouldn't have killed hitler we should have let him go right. Realize hitler was mamed pretty bad when the assassination attempt failed. His generals called him a shell of his former self. Also by that time his army was not strong and would lose. So according to you we should have let hitler go.

Risk the safty of the world--again you call saddam a threat indirectly. What are you on that makes you so stupid.

Whats your answer to the crisis? the 18th un resolution, 12 MORE years of inspections, wait untill he is a threat again?

There are two threats. Is that so damn hard to see?
Threat 1: Saddam.
Threat 2: The effects of attacking Iraq without worldwide support.

Which is worse?

No dont dodge my question, whats your solution about iraq. You answer my question then ill answer yours.

My solution is WAR, with more support from the rest of the world. You see, I'm not anti war. I'm anti rashness. To me, dividing the world is more dangerous than waiting.

But if we dont get the support than we do nothing--great solution

.
And to you question 1.

Is it true WinkOsmosis? Is ignorance bliss. You seem to be the person to ask.

 

[Grey]

Out of curiosity WinkOsmosis, do you think the US should have left Slobodan Milosevic in power in Serbia?

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: przero
And what would you have thought of Hitler?

How can you possibly compare Hitler to Hussein? Hitler had a huge military, and was a direct threat to Europe. He was actively taking over land. What is Hussein doing? Maybe building weapons of mass destruction, which aren't even that mass. So what do we do? Attack, giving him reason to use the alleged weapons, and angering half the world?

If the rest of the planet agrees that Saddam should be removed and Iraq disarmed, then let's do it. But going in guns blazing, like some Rambo movie is not the way to create lasting peace. It's a great way to create a world more dangerous that it was before.

LOL You are a dumb @ss.
Hussein invaded Kuiate.
When Hussein did he had the 4th largest military in the world.
We kicked his @ss out; then found his WMDs.
Now he's rebuilding.

Do you see a cycle here or are you too fing stupid. this is the caliber of the anti-war people

Hello? Umm.. we dealt with that problem. It happened. That doesn't mean you can compare Hitler's situation with Saddam's. When there's a problem, you deal with it appropriately. You don't go comparing it to other problems, based on the history of the current problem. We didn't get rid of Saddam when he was Hitler, so we have to get rid of him when he's a pale shadow of his former self, and risk the safety of the world?

Are tenuous comparisons all you can come up with in support for war?

Your the one who said they had nothing in common and i proved you wrong and your last comment even brought up a new simularity.
So what you're saying we shouldn't have killed hitler we should have let him go right. Realize hitler was mamed pretty bad when the assassination attempt failed. His generals called him a shell of his former self. Also by that time his army was not strong and would lose. So according to you we should have let hitler go.

Risk the safty of the world--again you call saddam a threat indirectly. What are you on that makes you so stupid.

Whats your answer to the crisis? the 18th un resolution, 12 MORE years of inspections, wait untill he is a threat again?

There are two threats. Is that so damn hard to see?
Threat 1: Saddam.
Threat 2: The effects of attacking Iraq without worldwide support.

Which is worse?

No dont dodge my question whats your solution. You answer my question then ill answer yours.

Ha ha...that seems to be the strategy these days...I've learned the way around it is to not get caught up in what they're saying and wait to hear a real alternative solution...

Me: So anyway, how do you propose we take away the threat of Saddam outside of war?
Anti-war guy: Bush and Cheney have been linked to oil contracts!
Me: Um...so uh...how do you propose we take away the threat of Saddam outside of war?
Anti-war guy: How can the US complain about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction, when we also have them?!
Me: Well, we haven't used them since we and the world signed an agreement not to decades ago...So anyway, how do you propose we take away the threat of Saddam outside of war?
Anti-war guy: We will alienate important trading partners France, Germany, Russia, China and so forth if we do this!
Me: Umm...that sucks...anyway, how do you propose we take away the threat of Saddam outside of war?
Anti-war guy: End the racist war! No blood for oil!
Me: Okay...So uh, how do you propose we take away the threat of Saddam outside of war?
Anti-war guy: Bush is doing this because he has a vendetta because of his father not finishing and he's a republican
Me: Um...great...if you'll recall, Clinton did bomb Iraq for a few days straight in Dec 1998 so unless he switched parties and families for just three days, you're kinda wrong . Anyway, how do you propose we take away the threat of Saddam outside of war?
Anti-war guy: [silence]
Me: [silence]
Anti-war guy: End the racist war! No blood for oil! Free Khalid Shaik Mohammed! Eye for eye makes blind world!

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: przero
And what would you have thought of Hitler?

How can you possibly compare Hitler to Hussein? Hitler had a huge military, and was a direct threat to Europe. He was actively taking over land. What is Hussein doing? Maybe building weapons of mass destruction, which aren't even that mass. So what do we do? Attack, giving him reason to use the alleged weapons, and angering half the world?

If the rest of the planet agrees that Saddam should be removed and Iraq disarmed, then let's do it. But going in guns blazing, like some Rambo movie is not the way to create lasting peace. It's a great way to create a world more dangerous that it was before.

LOL You are a dumb @ss.
Hussein invaded Kuiate.
When Hussein did he had the 4th largest military in the world.
We kicked his @ss out; then found his WMDs.
Now he's rebuilding.

Do you see a cycle here or are you too fing stupid. this is the caliber of the anti-war people

Hello? Umm.. we dealt with that problem. It happened. That doesn't mean you can compare Hitler's situation with Saddam's. When there's a problem, you deal with it appropriately. You don't go comparing it to other problems, based on the history of the current problem. We didn't get rid of Saddam when he was Hitler, so we have to get rid of him when he's a pale shadow of his former self, and risk the safety of the world?

Are tenuous comparisons all you can come up with in support for war?

Your the one who said they had nothing in common and i proved you wrong and your last comment even brought up a new simularity.
So what you're saying we shouldn't have killed hitler we should have let him go right. Realize hitler was mamed pretty bad when the assassination attempt failed. His generals called him a shell of his former self. Also by that time his army was not strong and would lose. So according to you we should have let hitler go.

Risk the safty of the world--again you call saddam a threat indirectly. What are you on that makes you so stupid.

Whats your answer to the crisis? the 18th un resolution, 12 MORE years of inspections, wait untill he is a threat again?

There are two threats. Is that so damn hard to see?
Threat 1: Saddam.
Threat 2: The effects of attacking Iraq without worldwide support.

Which is worse?

No dont dodge my question, whats your solution about iraq. You answer my question then ill answer yours.

My solution is WAR, with more support from the rest of the world. You see, I'm not anti war. I'm anti rashness. To me, dividing the world is more dangerous than waiting.

But if we dont get the support than we do nothing--great soultion

.

Is it true? Is ignorance bliss. You seem to be the person to ask.

Think about why we aren't getting support. Is it because the rest of the world is stupid and the USA is smart?

Chew on this one. Why aren't you so eager to attack North Korea? Why aren't they like Germany? They have nuclear weapons and have threatened us and Japan. Why is Iraq the target but not NK? If you want to equate every current issue with history, go right ahead. Just make sure you carry it through.

I should add that until now I was loosely in favor of the US disarming Iraq by force, as soon as possible. I've been where you all are. I know it's not wrong. I know it's not right either. Only now do I realize the danger and likelihood of a world war. If North Korea wasn't in the equation I might be wholeheartedly in favor of the USA carrying out its crusade.
Tell me of a historical situation similar to the current one we face with the "axis of evil". Did Italy have nuclear weapons?

 

[przero]

I am eager to remove the regime in NK. Let's do it. I think if NK sees us remove Sadam powerfully, they will come around. Then I want a regime change in France!

 

[Grey]

NORTH KOREA IS CHINA"S PROBLEM!!!!!!! Bush and his administration have flat out said it a hundred times already. I believed the term they used is that it's a regional issue! If China won't do anything about a nuclear arms race in their backyard why should the US? They don't want us taking care of the Iraq issue but attack N korea!

If the US pulled out of the Iraq situation and surrounded N. Korea all you damn liberals would start screaming "but NK hasn't actually dont anything yet!" and the whole thing would start again. Use your damn minds people jeezus I am gonna have a heart attack!