Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: VioletAura
Saddam's enemies were evil, not him. He did what was necessary to keep Iraq together. Those people were not so innocent and got what they deserved. The US is now finding that out the hard way.
Any follow up plan, who should replace him or anything? Of course not, just kill him, yeah that would have worked.
We should have let Saddam annex Kuwait and there would be less problems in the world today.
Are you actually serious on both points?
CkG
Yes I am.
Compared to what he is surrounded by, Saddam is almost a saint. He curbed religous fanatics in Iraq, something that the Sauds failed to do and what other arab states refused to do. He ran a secular gov't and used Iraq's wealth to benefit the people living there.
As for Kuwait, if the US gave Iraq the thumbs up as it always does to Israel, there would be a lot more people alive today and there would be a large secular presence in the Middle East. Bin Laden would have turned his pathetic network on Saddam and his bearded head would be on a pike outside one of Saddam's palaces today and the 9/11 attacks would never have happened (OBL's was pissed because when he volunteered his group to fight Saddam the Sauds laughed at him and accepted US help instead).
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Originally posted by: VioletAura
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: VioletAura
Saddam's enemies were evil, not him. He did what was necessary to keep Iraq together. Those people were not so innocent and got what they deserved. The US is now finding that out the hard way.
Any follow up plan, who should replace him or anything? Of course not, just kill him, yeah that would have worked.
We should have let Saddam annex Kuwait and there would be less problems in the world today.
Are you actually serious on both points?
CkG
Yes I am.
That's all I need to know.
<insert flame here>
CkG
Originally posted by: daniel1113
You forgot #9: Ronald Reagan was the greatest president of the 20th century.
Other then that, not a bad list
Um....yeah. Tell us more about the guy who was prez before you were so much as a twinkle in the UPS man's eye.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,265
- 126
Originally posted by: Fausto1
Originally posted by: daniel1113
You forgot #9: Ronald Reagan was the greatest president of the 20th century.
Other then that, not a bad list
Um....yeah. Tell us more about the guy who was prez before you were so much as a twinkle in the UPS man's eye.
Man you are harsh.
Admirable
Originally posted by: Fausto1
Originally posted by: daniel1113
You forgot #9: Ronald Reagan was the greatest president of the 20th century.
Other then that, not a bad list
Um....yeah. Tell us more about the guy who was prez before you were so much as a twinkle in the UPS man's eye.
Can we call him Old Dirty Grand Master Weezy? That's somehow appropriate... and about as OT as cheerleading for Reagan in an unrelated thread.
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: VioletAura
Saddam's enemies were evil, not him. He did what was necessary to keep Iraq together. Those people were not so innocent and got what they deserved. The US is now finding that out the hard way.
Any follow up plan, who should replace him or anything? Of course not, just kill him, yeah that would have worked.
We should have let Saddam annex Kuwait and there would be less problems in the world today.
Are you actually serious on both points?
CkG
i know huh...cause like fox news like omg totally disagrees on both points!!!
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Originally posted by: Pers
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: VioletAura
Saddam's enemies were evil, not him. He did what was necessary to keep Iraq together. Those people were not so innocent and got what they deserved. The US is now finding that out the hard way.
Any follow up plan, who should replace him or anything? Of course not, just kill him, yeah that would have worked.
We should have let Saddam annex Kuwait and there would be less problems in the world today.
Are you actually serious on both points?
CkG
i know huh...cause like fox news like omg totally disagrees on both points!!!
? You too? I know you hate America, but you actually believe that Saddam wasn't evil - only his enemies were? And you also believe that we(America and others) should have just let Saddam take over Kuwait?
Oh, and what does Fox have to do with this?
CkG
No Bush and Company knew they were over playing the WMD card but they were trying to get people motivated to do what needed to be done. Sadly Americans are quite selfish and don't want to risk there lives or there sons and daughters lives fighting a war even if it changes an entire nation. They need the fear that there are WMD's and that we are in grave danger.
Congratulations, Mrburns2007! I believe you are the first person to actually admit that our president knowinglylied to us. And that it's ok to boot! How 'bout it, my right-leaning friends. Is he right?
Earth to Burns! Earth to Burns! Come in Mr. Burns.
I repeat.
Mr. Burns. I'd like to test proposition number 8, which you "know" to be true. How can we test whether France or the U.S knew better? Right now, based on the fact that we're up to our A$$ in alligators and can't get any help, there weren't any WMD, and Sadaam didn't have any significant ties with Al Queda, it looks like the score is France 1, U.S. 0. I find that you right wing types have short attention spans and like to drift off on tangents. So here's the question again,
"How can we test whether France or the U.S knew better?" For bonus points, you can tell us how long it will take to ascertain the outcome of the test you propose.
I repeat.
Mr. Burns. I'd like to test proposition number 8, which you "know" to be true. How can we test whether France or the U.S knew better? Right now, based on the fact that we're up to our A$$ in alligators and can't get any help, there weren't any WMD, and Sadaam didn't have any significant ties with Al Queda, it looks like the score is France 1, U.S. 0. I find that you right wing types have short attention spans and like to drift off on tangents. So here's the question again,
"How can we test whether France or the U.S knew better?" For bonus points, you can tell us how long it will take to ascertain the outcome of the test you propose.
1. Yup
2. At some point there was a assumption made, most like based more on the fact that theres no proof that the stuff was destroyed, and on Saddams behavior, than completely undeniable evidence. Either way, Bush came to the right conculsion.
3. Yup
4. Yup
5. Yup
6. Yup
7. Define rebuild. Things will be fine in 5 to 10 years, but most of that is up to the Iraqis.
8. France is incapable of being right. So it really doesn't matter what we do. ;-)
2. At some point there was a assumption made, most like based more on the fact that theres no proof that the stuff was destroyed, and on Saddams behavior, than completely undeniable evidence. Either way, Bush came to the right conculsion.
3. Yup
4. Yup
5. Yup
6. Yup
7. Define rebuild. Things will be fine in 5 to 10 years, but most of that is up to the Iraqis.
8. France is incapable of being right. So it really doesn't matter what we do. ;-)
I respectfully request that anyone who agrees with Mrburns2007 (Bush knowingly lied and that he was justified in doing so) to post in this thread that you do. I think so far that AEB is the only one. Is there anyone else?
Easy if you do nothing Saddam stays in power and his people starve while he builds palace after palace. Take Saddam out and try to rebuild it then future generations have at least a chance to have a better life.
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Pers
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: VioletAura
Saddam's enemies were evil, not him. He did what was necessary to keep Iraq together. Those people were not so innocent and got what they deserved. The US is now finding that out the hard way.
Any follow up plan, who should replace him or anything? Of course not, just kill him, yeah that would have worked.
We should have let Saddam annex Kuwait and there would be less problems in the world today.
Are you actually serious on both points?
CkG
i know huh...cause like fox news like omg totally disagrees on both points!!!
? You too? I know you hate America, but you actually believe that Saddam wasn't evil - only his enemies were? And you also believe that we(America and others) should have just let Saddam take over Kuwait?
Oh, and what does Fox have to do with this?
CkG
no i don't hate america. America is my home. unfortuntely, it is home for the likes of yourself. those who smile while pretending to concern themselves w/ other people's problems. Those who try to shove their ideology down the rest of our throats. Those stupid enough to believe the result of war is peace. I hate americans who believe that to liberate means to kill. I hate americans who are too lazy to think for themselves, and rely on the most convenient entertainment medium to do all the thinking for them. I hate those who wrap an american flag around themselves in an effort to isolate themselves from all the world's problems. I hate those who mourn the loss of American soldiers, yet neglect to mention the innocent iraqis killed. I hate the self-righteous 'holier than thou' types who can find a million faults in another culture, yet fail to address their own faults. and lastly, i hate hypocrites. So while you go parading around callling saddam evil - try to draw some parallels w/ presidents of our own.
anyway....essentially, i hate you.
wow...that's very noble of you to concern yourself w/ the ordeals the iraqis face w/ saddam's presence. but please admit to me you aren't stupid enough to believe this was a crusade to liberate iraqis?
...please?
so we spend $87 billion to save Iraqis over Californians? Either you people are the most gullible sh!theads....or that "stupid" media is a lot smarter than you think and did an excellent job at convincing you of "bush's goals"... personally, i think it's a little of both.
So basically you are saying that it was OK for Bush to lie to us in order to mobilize the populus to go to war against Iraq? So if Saddam wasn't an immenent threat, then that means that sole reason we went there was to liberate the Iraqi people right? A purely altruistic deed and a testament to the benevolence of our Commander and Chief? It has to be just BUSH's benevolence, you yourself just said that he had to lie to the people of America in order to get them to fight, implying that they would not support the war had they not felt threatened. WOW. Amazing. You are my new favorite con. Cheers to you my friend.:beer:
... Ok, come on now, you know you can't really beleive this, just say it was for oil and to do Israel a favor and we'll call it a day. Liberating the Iraqi people is a pleasent consequence at best.
Well I'll make another list:
1. Some American corporations get some fat contracts (probably the ones that voted for Bush)
2. Saddam won't be in power (death or maybe prison), no more worrying about him in the future.
3. In 10 years there should be some kind of fledgling democracy ( The Arabs have to start somewhere there only 500 years behind the west and Europe)
Is the only choice the lesser of two evils......maybe.......
PS: I have no clue what Bush's goal is but the end result will be a very different Iraq!
You really must take what a politician says with a grain of salt. I've found they always slant things to whatever they need.
Mr Burns. I still don't see the test for determining whether we knew better than France. At the moment, it doesn't look so. But perhaps the test is:
Quote: "3. In 10 years there should be some kind of fledgling democracy ( The Arabs have to start somewhere there only 500 years behind the west and Europe)."
1. Hell, it already was "some kind of fledgling democracy, the entire country without exception voted for Sadaam, remember.
2. How I've come to love the word "should." And you've used it as a weasel word. Yeah, Iraq "should be some kind of fledgling democracy." The question isn't "should," it's "will it be a "fledgling democracy." I say the answer is "no." Oh, one may be set up and it may evenIraq is not capable of sustaining a democracy in the forseeable future.
3. By the way, do you think that Afghanistan is now a "fledgling democracy," because if you do, then you're right, we probably will see a "fledgling democracy" in Iraq.
Quote: "3. In 10 years there should be some kind of fledgling democracy ( The Arabs have to start somewhere there only 500 years behind the west and Europe)."
1. Hell, it already was "some kind of fledgling democracy, the entire country without exception voted for Sadaam, remember.
2. How I've come to love the word "should." And you've used it as a weasel word. Yeah, Iraq "should be some kind of fledgling democracy." The question isn't "should," it's "will it be a "fledgling democracy." I say the answer is "no." Oh, one may be set up and it may evenIraq is not capable of sustaining a democracy in the forseeable future.
3. By the way, do you think that Afghanistan is now a "fledgling democracy," because if you do, then you're right, we probably will see a "fledgling democracy" in Iraq.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 8K
-
Facebook
Twitter