?Thank you, thank you, Mr. Bush?

[rudder]

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
?Thank you, thank you, Mr. Bush,? some of the looters shouted. An elderly man beat a portrait of Saddam with his shoe, while a younger man spat on the portrait. MSNBC

I bet the liberals just love this! And who was right all along? Mr. Bush!

How does that make anyone right? Do you think the innocent civilian killed in the conflict is happy about the outcome?

I'm glad the Iraqis will soon be freed. I just don't agree with the methods and circumstances.

He would have eventually been voted out of office right? Plus, the guy was in his sixties. Once he died there would be nicer people to come in and take over the country. Saddam had two sons that could run the country. Uday and Qusay are not as bad as the imperialist western press makes them out to be.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
?Thank you, thank you, Mr. Bush,? some of the looters shouted. An elderly man beat a portrait of Saddam with his shoe, while a younger man spat on the portrait. MSNBC

I bet the liberals just love this! And who was right all along? Mr. Bush!

Awww. That is so sweet. Looters are for Bush. I would be too if I was getting away with stealing some one else's stuff thanks to Dubya.

It's interesting that they call it looting and don't tell you WHAT they are looting. They ransacked the UN and Baath party headquarters. They probably feel those two organizations owe them something.

 

[UNCjigga]

Originally posted by: EXman

It's just Liberals generally aren't afraid to speak their mind on this matter.

even though they look stupid today as Iraqis celebrated... hopefully they will stop pushing a moot point, face reality, and join in support of millions of oppresed Iraqis.

Frankly liberals don't have the Balls to admit when they were wrong. Even though today Saddam's Iraq came symbolically crumbling down today.

The only thing *I* was wrong about was I thought it would take much longer than 3 weeks to get into the heart of Baghdad. And (*HOPEFULLY*) I'll be wrong about Saddam & Friends using chem/bio weapons inside Baghdad to prevent our advance. But then again, maybe they didn't have any usable chem/bio weapons in the first place...

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: EXman
blah blah blah BDawg

what you still want Iraqis to suffer under Saddam? Or are you still blinded from people telling you this is about Oil.

your position is weakening day by day...

If you think that Dubbya actually cares about the Iraqi citizens, there's a bridge I'd like to sell you.

I think this is about a lot of things, oil is one of the least of them.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
?Thank you, thank you, Mr. Bush,? some of the looters shouted. An elderly man beat a portrait of Saddam with his shoe, while a younger man spat on the portrait. MSNBC

I bet the liberals just love this! And who was right all along? Mr. Bush!

Awww. That is so sweet. Looters are for Bush. I would be too if I was getting away with stealing some one else's stuff thanks to Dubya.

It's interesting that they call it looting and don't tell you WHAT they are looting. They ransacked the UN and Baath party headquarters. They probably feel those two organizations owe them something.

Yes, I am sure the shopkeepers have AK's with them because the looters are only looting UN and Baath party headquarters. I am sure that combine that we saw some looters riding on national television is just Baath party vehicle. Baath party HQ just means municipal government office. So we will have to pay to buy new equipment to replace the one that was stolen for the new government.

 

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

There are some who will never trust/like whatever him...you see the same thing in this forum. If he makes a real effort towards a PL state, moderate arabs will see that as progress.

And then there are those who will not trust him because his stated vision includes changing nearly every Midlle Eastern country.

QED

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: uncJIGGA
The only thing *I* was wrong about was I thought it would take much longer than 3 weeks to get into the heart of Baghdad. And (*HOPEFULLY*) I'll be wrong about Saddam & Friends using chem/bio weapons inside Baghdad to prevent our advance. But then again, maybe they didn't have any usable chem/bio weapons in the first place...

And, ya know what? If no WMD are ever found, by the time the next elections roll around and that aspect is raised, those raising that point will be summarily labeled as dredging up the past and unwilling to see the greater good that came out of Saddam being toppled.

Betcha $20.

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: uncJIGGA
The only thing *I* was wrong about was I thought it would take much longer than 3 weeks to get into the heart of Baghdad. And (*HOPEFULLY*) I'll be wrong about Saddam & Friends using chem/bio weapons inside Baghdad to prevent our advance. But then again, maybe they didn't have any usable chem/bio weapons in the first place...

And, ya know what? If no WMD are ever found, by the time the next elections roll around and that aspect is raised, those raising that point will be summarily labeled as dredging up the past and unwilling to see the greater good that came out of Saddam being toppled.

Betcha $20.

The Bush admin would never change positions on this war, it's about aiding terrorists...I mean it's about WMD...I mean it's about stabilizing the region...I mean it's about freeing the Iraqi people...yeah, that's the ticket.

 

[Tom]

Being "liberal" doesn't have anything to do with being for or against this or any other war. I'm fairly liberal and I've supported this action in posts here many times. In fact I think that Bush Sr made a big mistake by ending the war prematurely in 1991.

Additionally a large majority of Democrats in the House and senate also supported this action.

Why is it important to some people to always try to divide America into seperate groups, even when where isn't a disagreement ?

 

[Corn]

The Bush admin would never change positions on this war, it's about aiding terrorists...I mean it's about WMD...I mean it's about stabilizing the region...I mean it's about freeing the Iraqi people...yeah, that's the ticket.

My question is why must people like you believe there should only be one reason or justification for this war, and not all that you mentioned? As far as I'm concerned, each of those "positions" is valid and not at odds with the other. Unless of course you are a rabid liberal frothing at the mouth in desperation..........

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
?Thank you, thank you, Mr. Bush,? some of the looters shouted. An elderly man beat a portrait of Saddam with his shoe, while a younger man spat on the portrait. MSNBC

I bet the liberals just love this! And who was right all along? Mr. Bush!

How does that make anyone right? Do you think the innocent civilian killed in the conflict is happy about the outcome?

I'm glad the Iraqis will soon be freed. I just don't agree with the methods and circumstances.

 

[Corn]

I just don't agree with the methods and circumstances.

Of course you don't, you would rather the Iraqi people continue to be oppressed while trying to oust Saddam using bad language. Or perhaps you prefer the status quo of starving the Iraqi people to death until there are no more people for Saddam to rule over.

Either way you really don't care about the people of Iraq and the suffering they have had to endure, instead you are worried about your feelings. Disgusting. :disgust:

 

[her209]

The people in the LA riots had something that was owed to them as well.

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: Corn

I just don't agree with the methods and circumstances.

Of course you don't, you would rather the Iraqi people continue to be oppressed while trying to oust Saddam using bad language. Or perhaps you prefer the status quo of starving the Iraqi people to death until there are no more people for Saddam to rule over.

Either way you really don't care about the people of Iraq and the suffering they have had to endure, instead you are worried about your feelings. Disgusting. :disgust:

Corn - you don't care about the Iraqi people or their suffering or their deaths......disgusting.

 

[UNCjigga]

Originally posted by: Corn

The Bush admin would never change positions on this war, it's about aiding terrorists...I mean it's about WMD...I mean it's about stabilizing the region...I mean it's about freeing the Iraqi people...yeah, that's the ticket.

My question is why must people like you believe there should only be one reason or justification for this war, and not all that you mentioned? As far as I'm concerned, each of those "positions" is valid and not at odds with the other. Unless of course you are a rabid liberal frothing at the mouth in desperation..........

1. We all want to round up whoever was remotely responsible for 9/11. So far we can only implicate Al Quaeda. There are no known links between Al Quaeda and Iraq--actually Saddam and Osama have been at odds with each other in the past. If the war in Iraq is about terrorism, we need to invade Sudan, Syria and Lebanon, Indonesia etc. NOW and wipe out all those terrorist cells. The war is NOT about terrorism...

2. Original thrust of the war effort was to enforce UN resolutions in place after the Gulf War. We needed 'evidence' of the destruction of ALL banned chemical & biological weapons and 'full disclosure' of any nuclear weapons program. This is what we've been hearing for the past 12+ months (or past 5 years if you consider Clinton's minimal efforts in this arena.) I do not doubt that we will find evidence of old, untouched bio/chem weapons in Iraq. We may even find facilities for the manufacture of these banned weapons. But so far all we've been able to prove was that they had a few missiles that could fly farther than 90 miles, not WMD. Did the inspectors have enough time? I don't think so...they barely had 3 months of real time to work. Everyone said Iraq has had 12 years to disclose all evidence but how much diplomatic pressure was on them those 12 years? It seems to me we went straight from oil-for-food to war drums beating. So far, our troops have found no WMD...just a few rusty containers of pesticides and some leftover lethal chemicals from 1940. This war is not about WMD, and the Bush Administration seems to agree at this point...

3. Our current raison d'etre is 'regime change'. We want to free the people of Iraq from an oppressive regime. Nevermind that our country, under the same people now in the current administration (*cough* Rumsfeld) helped support and build this regime a few decades ago. I DO NOT LIKE THIS REASON ONE BIT. Relations with the Arab/Muslim world are fragile enough with Sharon in Israel, and now we're gonna just roll in and take out a government? What does this say to other Middle Eastern countries? How will their people perceive this (can't help the fact that they don't have a free press!) And beyond the Middle East, what kind of precedent does this set for American intervention elsewhere? I don't like the idea of our troops bailing out *some* of the oppressed people around the world and not all of them. I supported the action in Kosovo/Yugoslavia, I supported our action in Somalia and I would have supported action in Rwanda but for some reason we never went there...

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: Corn

The Bush admin would never change positions on this war, it's about aiding terrorists...I mean it's about WMD...I mean it's about stabilizing the region...I mean it's about freeing the Iraqi people...yeah, that's the ticket.

My question is why must people like you believe there should only be one reason or justification for this war, and not all that you mentioned? As far as I'm concerned, each of those "positions" is valid and not at odds with the other. Unless of course you are a rabid liberal frothing at the mouth in desperation..........

Dubbya never presented them as multiple reasons. He presented another reason when no one bought the previous.

First, he tried to create a false link between Saddam and Al Queda.

Then, he said we needed to invade because they we in violoation of UN resoultions, only the UN didn't agree.

Then, he said it was a pre-emptive strike to get rid of these WMD.

Now, since they haven't found any WMD yet, Dubbya's focusing on liberating the Iraqi people. Liberate the North Koreans, they're the ones who are starving.

 

[Corn]

Corn - you don't care about the Iraqi people or their suffering or their deaths......disgusting.

[edit] Nevermind, I don't owe this asshat jack sh1t. Instead I'll just leave him wallowing in his smug ignorance.

 

[TheNinja]

Originally posted by: Corn

I just don't agree with the methods and circumstances.

Of course you don't, you would rather the Iraqi people continue to be oppressed while trying to oust Saddam using bad language. Or perhaps you prefer the status quo of starving the Iraqi people to death until there are no more people for Saddam to rule over.

Either way you really don't care about the people of Iraq and the suffering they have had to endure, instead you are worried about your feelings. Disgusting. :disgust:

Ding, Ding, Ding...we have a winner. Corn, you just summed up what almost every anti-war protestor is about. I couldn't quite understand the scope or reasoning among the protestors, now I do. They don't care about the Iraqi people whether they live or die, they care about how it makes them feel that US troops are over there and have accidently caused the death of civilians. If they actually cared about the Iraqi "innocent civilians" they would have protested Saddam a long time ago for starving his people. In other words they are looking out for their conscience, it makes them feel good about themselves to protest war b/c they are ignorant about the entire situation. Thank you for pointing this out to me.

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: Corn

Corn - you don't care about the Iraqi people or their suffering or their deaths......disgusting.

[edit] Nevermind, I don't owe this asshat jack sh1t. Instead I'll just leave him wallowing in his ignorance.

Blah...blah...blah and this dickbreath can wallow in his pool of feces.

 

[Kev]

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: Corn

Corn - you don't care about the Iraqi people or their suffering or their deaths......disgusting.

[edit] Nevermind, I don't owe this asshat jack sh1t. Instead I'll just leave him wallowing in his ignorance.

Blah...blah...blah and this dickbreath can wallow in his pool of feces.

you present an interesting and insightful argument...would you please elaborate on this profound thought you have just formulated?

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: maladroit

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: Corn

Corn - you don't care about the Iraqi people or their suffering or their deaths......disgusting.

[edit] Nevermind, I don't owe this asshat jack sh1t. Instead I'll just leave him wallowing in his ignorance.

Blah...blah...blah and this dickbreath can wallow in his pool of feces.

you present an interesting and insightful argument...would you please elaborate on this profound thought you have just formulated?

While profound it's not quite as elaborate as it might appear at first. Start with the useless crap and insults that spew forth from Corn. Then add more useless crap and insults while slowly stirring. Chop up several onions and two large bunches of broccoli. Throw the onions and broccoli in the trash. Boil in the blender at 350 degrees.

Presto. You end up with a big ball of useless crap.

 

[EXman]

If you think that Dubbya actually cares about the Iraqi citizens, there's a bridge I'd like to sell you a bridge

GW cares much more for Iraqis than the likes of Juaque Chirac, Putin, and Schoeder these guys are the longsharks that fronted him all the old rusty weapons and oil contracts for the future.

 

[Ornery]

I heard an interview on Fox yesterday, with an Iraqi living in Detroit or Chicago I think. His name was Ed, but he said he is changing his name to Bush! Now that's gratitude!

Edit: More likely "Ed" was from Dearborn.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: uncJIGGA
The only thing *I* was wrong about was I thought it would take much longer than 3 weeks to get into the heart of Baghdad. And (*HOPEFULLY*) I'll be wrong about Saddam & Friends using chem/bio weapons inside Baghdad to prevent our advance. But then again, maybe they didn't have any usable chem/bio weapons in the first place...

And, ya know what? If no WMD are ever found, by the time the next elections roll around and that aspect is raised, those raising that point will be summarily labeled as dredging up the past and unwilling to see the greater good that came out of Saddam being toppled.

Betcha $20.

The Bush admin would never change positions on this war, it's about aiding terrorists...I mean it's about WMD...I mean it's about stabilizing the region...I mean it's about freeing the Iraqi people...yeah, that's the ticket.

All 4 apply though, so whats your point? Just more bit*hing about Bush? Wow, how insightfull and informative. Guess what, I think Bush is an asshat myself, doesn't change the fact he chose the right road in this case and handled it well so far. Don't start whining about all the money France, Russia, China and Germany lost in their "moral opposition", they made up for it by selling Iraq weapons banned by resolutions they signed themselves.

Probably made millions sick worldwide to hear those Iraqis thanking Bush for their freedom, DEAL WITH IT ALREADY.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: uncJIGGA

Originally posted by: Corn

The Bush admin would never change positions on this war, it's about aiding terrorists...I mean it's about WMD...I mean it's about stabilizing the region...I mean it's about freeing the Iraqi people...yeah, that's the ticket.

My question is why must people like you believe there should only be one reason or justification for this war, and not all that you mentioned? As far as I'm concerned, each of those "positions" is valid and not at odds with the other. Unless of course you are a rabid liberal frothing at the mouth in desperation..........

3. Our current raison d'etre is 'regime change'. We want to free the people of Iraq from an oppressive regime. Nevermind that our country, under the same people now in the current administration (*cough* Rumsfeld) helped support and build this regime a few decades ago. I DO NOT LIKE THIS REASON ONE BIT. Relations with the Arab/Muslim world are fragile enough with Sharon in Israel, and now we're gonna just roll in and take out a government? What does this say to other Middle Eastern countries? How will their people perceive this (can't help the fact that they don't have a free press!) And beyond the Middle East, what kind of precedent does this set for American intervention elsewhere? I don't like the idea of our troops bailing out *some* of the oppressed people around the world and not all of them. I supported the action in Kosovo/Yugoslavia, I supported our action in Somalia and I would have supported action in Rwanda but for some reason we never went there...

A link to how exactly we "helped support and build this regime a few decades ago" would be appreciated. So you're saying that "we" put Saddam in power? Is that what you're saying?

On another note, IF THIS WAS THE CASE (let's just give you the benefit of the doubt for a second), why is it that so many protestors/anti war activists base their opinion on a government from the 1980's??? From the Reagan/Carter administrations??? C'mon now, I was like 5-10 years old then, as were alot of people who are now in their mid to late 20's. That's like the Germans holding a grudge against THEIR OWN COUNTRY because of HITLER. I didn't vote, nor support, nor have anything to do with the United States administrations of the past. Why do so many protestors worry about the past??? Yes, we sold some chemical weapons to Iraq, as did Britain, and about 10 other countries in the mid 80's. GET OVER IT. This is 2003 for Christ's sake, not the cold war. People label the United States government as the same entity all the time, when in fact it's not. Just because you didn't support the decisions of a past administration doesn't mean that invalidates the decisions of the administration of TODAY. Following my argument, you're basing your strongest beliefs for THIS WAR on something that happened "DECADES AGO". What does that say about you and your beliefs? It shows a strong paranoia of ALL GOVERNMENT in general, am I wrong? Please inform me if I am.