Originally posted by: Czar
well then good luck getting more and more support for helping rebuilding iraq
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: Czar
well then good luck getting more and more support for helping rebuilding iraq
Looks like you're right. It's starting.
Originally posted by: SuperTool
I don't think it's a problem when US taxpayer is paying for it. It would be a problem if it was from Iraqi oil revenue, unless Iraqi people had a voice in the decision.
I think Russians can't do much about it, but Germans and French can pull their forces out of Afghanistan in retaliation, which would force US to spread its troops even thinner.
I do think burning bridges with Russia, France, and Germany is a mistake. In the real WoT relating to Al Qaeda, Russia is US' most natural partner with its problems in Chechnya.
The damage done to that relationship because of this Iraq fiasco will be detrimental to the US security long term. Russia reached out to the US after 9/11 only to be slapped on the hand by Dubya.
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: Czar
well then good luck getting more and more support for helping rebuilding iraq
Looks like you're right. It's starting.
Was funny on Leno last night, Jimmy Carter ripping Dubya a new one on this in his subtle kind of way.
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
the removal of saddam hussein from power in iraq was moral, just and the right thing to do.
to argue that a monster to his own people, a mass murderer, a demonstrated threat to regional stability, an avowed enemy of the U.S., a
billionare interested in obtaining/developing/using nuclear, biological and chemical weapons to control his neighbors, and someone INVOLVED in ongoing
discussions with Al-qaeda about how to harm the U.S., should not have been forceably removed from power..identifies you as a morally bankrupt.
some things are black and white.
there does exist true evil.
the french, german and russians have a history and tradition that brings into question their morality and opposition to evil.
the libs would argue "Bush should have gotten the U.N. to approve of the Iraq War!"
wake up...NOTHING would have gotten the French or the Russians to agree...
are you therefore arguing that Saddam should not have been removed?
a morally bankrupt position.
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
the removal of saddam hussein from power in iraq was moral, just and the right thing to do.
to argue that a monster to his own people, a mass murderer, a demonstrated threat to regional stability, an avowed enemy of the U.S., a
billionare interested in obtaining/developing/using nuclear, biological and chemical weapons to control his neighbors, and someone INVOLVED in ongoing
discussions with Al-qaeda about how to harm the U.S., should not have been forceably removed from power..identifies you as a morally bankrupt.
some things are black and white.
there does exist true evil.
the french, german and russians have a history and tradition that brings into question their morality and opposition to evil.
the libs would argue "Bush should have gotten the U.N. to approve of the Iraq War!"
wake up...NOTHING would have gotten the French or the Russians to agree...
are you therefore arguing that Saddam should not have been removed?
a morally bankrupt position.
To wage preemptive war against an enemy that is not an imminent threat is morally bankrupt.
there does exist true evil.
the french, german and russians have a history and tradition that brings into question their morality and opposition to evil.
Saddam was an evil man who treated his people like cattle. Anyone opposed to the war is basically condoning those actions.
Country's opposed to the war should not get contracts. Why should they? We did all the grunt work, now they want to come and cash in? SCREW 'EM. Maybe next time they will listen when we come calling instead of blowing us off.
I agree that if you view the conflict as much a US security measure as a liberation then that's a valid viewpoint - however, there should be checks to make sure the Iraqi's aren't being ripped off.
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
the removal of saddam hussein from power in iraq was moral, just and the right thing to do.
to argue that a monster to his own people, a mass murderer, a demonstrated threat to regional stability, an avowed enemy of the U.S., a
billionare interested in obtaining/developing/using nuclear, biological and chemical weapons to control his neighbors, and someone INVOLVED in ongoing
discussions with Al-qaeda about how to harm the U.S., should not have been forceably removed from power..identifies you as a morally bankrupt.
the libs would argue "Bush should have gotten the U.N. to approve of the Iraq War!"
wake up...NOTHING would have gotten the French or the Russians to agree...
are you therefore arguing that Saddam should not have been removed?
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
the removal of saddam hussein from power in iraq was moral, just and the right thing to do.
to argue that a monster to his own people, a mass murderer, a demonstrated threat to regional stability, an avowed enemy of the U.S., a
billionare interested in obtaining/developing/using nuclear, biological and chemical weapons to control his neighbors, and someone INVOLVED in ongoing
discussions with Al-qaeda about how to harm the U.S., should not have been forceably removed from power..identifies you as a morally bankrupt.
some things are black and white.
there does exist true evil.
the french, german and russians have a history and tradition that brings into question their morality and opposition to evil.
the libs would argue "Bush should have gotten the U.N. to approve of the Iraq War!"
wake up...NOTHING would have gotten the French or the Russians to agree...
are you therefore arguing that Saddam should not have been removed?
a morally bankrupt position.
I agree. The UN is pointless. Everyone just tries to use it for their own country's advantage. France was opposed because it would hurt them financially. Yea, that's a good reason right there. Saddam was an evil man who treated his people like cattle. Anyone opposed to the war is basically condoning those actions.
Country's opposed to the war should not get contracts. Why should they? We did all the grunt work, now they want to come and cash in? SCREW 'EM. Maybe next time they will listen when we come calling instead of blowing us off.
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: GrGr
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: GrGr
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: SuperTool
I don't think it's a problem when US taxpayer is paying for it. It would be a problem if it was from Iraqi oil revenue, unless Iraqi people had a voice in the decision.
I think Russians can't do much about it, but Germans and French can pull their forces out of Afghanistan in retaliation, which would force US to spread its troops even thinner.
I do think burning bridges with Russia, France, and Germany is a mistake. In the real WoT relating to Al Qaeda, Russia is US' most natural partner with its problems in Chechnya.
The damage done to that relationship because of this Iraq fiasco will be detrimental to the US security long term. Russia reached out to the US after 9/11 only to be slapped on the hand by Dubya.
Yeah everyone, Supertool is right. We should reward the three countries that did the most damage to the UN by doling out Iraqi contracts to 'em. Ingenious.
Still shooting at the messengers despite the fact that they were correct all along regarding the Bushies' "evidence" for WMD.
Please Sire, explain to me how they were right.
fact is, these three countries supported Iraq's WMD for the longest. And they fought hard to get rid of the sanctions prematurely, so that they could profit from iraqi intransigence.
What WMD's?
"He [Saddam Hussein] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to use conventional power against his neighbors." Colin Powell, Cairo Egypt, February 24th, 2001
Prematurely? You mean while the 500,000 kids were still alive?
You didn't answer my question.
As for those kids, are you blaming the United States, United Nations, or Saddam Hussein?
Maybe it's time the US just pulls out of the U.N since it's so useless.
Bush is Hitler. How do you like them apples?Originally posted by: EXman
To wage preemptive war against an enemy that is not an imminent threat is morally bankrupt.
I guess Chamberlain was right then to appease Hitler?
Ouch how you like them apples?
Originally posted by: EXman
Maybe it's time the US just pulls out of the U.N since it's so useless.
The U.N. will not let that happen as we bankroll the UN. And they do suck. If that plane hit thier building do you think we'd have a problem?
Syria is the the chair of the security council fro pete's sake they have been taking Saddam's blackmarket oil for ages as well as it's boarders leak insurgents into Iraq all the time. and lastly Syria is trembling due to many in the region say WMD's could have found there way into Syria via Iraq and that even now there are contingency plans to invade them if there is solid intel (that be a first) they had them.
Bush is Hitler. How do you like them apples?
OxymoronAnd so what Syria is one of the member in Security council?
Originally posted by: EXman
Bush is Hitler. How do you like them apples?
Moonbeam if you truely believe that there is no argueing with you.
OxymoronAnd so what Syria is one of the member in Security council?
It is no secret that there are terrorist right now training there that they turn the other cheek to Just ask all the Isrealies who have had been bombed from terrorists that have active bases in Syria. their 2 year term is over in 21 days good riddance.
You all Like Syria? I don't hate them and a friend of mine is Syrian and he agrees that it is not a good place anymore. He has a wife who cannot get into the US cause she is Syrian and they were married there. So he sees her 2 times a year in Syria. He has shared his stories from his travels there and never tells anyone that he is an American citizen. Sad. off the subject for a sec oh well...
look what the U.N. would lose if the US stepped away 24% of their budget. Notice China and Russia pay 1% each
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Bush is Hitler. How do you like them apples?Originally posted by: EXman
To wage preemptive war against an enemy that is not an imminent threat is morally bankrupt.
I guess Chamberlain was right then to appease Hitler?
Ouch how you like them apples?
And if you find my comment moronic please don't flip out till you look at your own.
Originally posted by: EXman
Bush is Hitler. How do you like them apples?
Moonbeam if you truely believe that there is no argueing with you.I asked you to think before replying. If you truly think Saddam Husein is Hitler than there's no arguing with you. "I guess Chamberlain was right then to appease Hitler?" Your parallel, not mine.