Stucco:
That answer falls in line with the Bushies ... funny how everyone that questions the motives for invading Iraq are called names .. normally by folks who have never spent a day in the military?
It started in September of 2001 when criminal element Cheney crawled out of his cave and started his "Anti-American" crap for those who disagreed with this administration
Again ... the comments from Ego are why the Bushies are an embarrassing strain of human beings
That answer falls in line with the Bushies ... funny how everyone that questions the motives for invading Iraq are called names .. normally by folks who have never spent a day in the military?
It started in September of 2001 when criminal element Cheney crawled out of his cave and started his "Anti-American" crap for those who disagreed with this administration
Again ... the comments from Ego are why the Bushies are an embarrassing strain of human beings
First off, Iraq had stockpiles of WMD, which they didn't.
Then they aquired uranium enrichments from Niger, which they didn't.
Then they needed to have a criminal ousted from power, so we got Chalabi.
Then we needed to fight terrorism, so we left Bin Laden alone to go get non-terroristic Iraqis.
Then we decided to spread freedom, against their will.
Get will the program Judge.
Then they aquired uranium enrichments from Niger, which they didn't.
Then they needed to have a criminal ousted from power, so we got Chalabi.
Then we needed to fight terrorism, so we left Bin Laden alone to go get non-terroristic Iraqis.
Then we decided to spread freedom, against their will.
Get will the program Judge.
stucco43 said:
every post i've seen of yours has the little anal sex avatar in it. i'll be more than happy to answer your question, or any questions you have, but don't disrespect me. okay, buddy.
i don't come in here calling other people names, like you other guys.
1) Wmd''s...Yeah, i'm ready for snide remarks (as usual) for this one, but you guys on the left know as well as I that Clinton, Kerry, Kennedy, as well as leaders of other countries also believed Saddam had WMD's. He used chemical and biological weapons before against Iran and the Kurds. We have found evidence that he had the makings of weapons. He led the world to believe he had weapons.
2) Regime change. In case you guys have forgotten, Saddam was not a very good guy. The mass graves that have been uncovered, along with all the footage of torture, and executions show this. Basically, the same genocide that led Clinton to ousting Milosevic in Yugoslavia. Nobody on the left complained about that. Which goes into my 3rd reason....
3) Liberation of the Iraqi people. Maybe not a big deal to you guys, UNLESS YOU WERE THE ONES LIVING IN IRAQ UNDER SADDAM. You guys talk about regime change living under the Bush Administration, imagine life under Saddam, Usay, and Qusay. (see also, mass graves, torture, rape, rape rooms, executions). Remember Rwanda and our lack of action there?? We could've saved hundreds of thousands of lives if we'd acted sooner.
4) Resolutions passed, resolutions ignored. Weapons inspectors were kicked out of Iraq in 1998, so we had no idea exactly what Saddam had been up to, in regards to weapons. He could have built quite a cache since then. Who knows?? No inspectors, no proof.
5) Saddam's history of invading his neighbors. Iran, Kuwait, if we hadn't stopped him in '91, maybe Saudi Arabia also. The Kurds up North, who he was supposed to stay the Hell away from.
In closing, if we'd wanted to, we had enough reason to invade long ago, when on a daily basis, Saddam's soldiers were firing at our planes in the no-fly zone. That would've been all the provocation we needed. Now the whole world knows why the French, Russians, and German's were hellbent against this war. They took Saddam's money over what was right and just. They didn't give a damn if Saddam tortured or starved his people to death, they were making money. Upstanding folks, weren't they.
We had less reason than what i outlined to fight Hitler and Tojo in WW2. Imagine what the world would look like if we hadn't.
stucco43 said:Again ... the comments from Ego are why the Bushies are an embarrassing strain of human beings
You really consider these guys humans beings!!!!!
guys in the MINORITY are real tuff over the net. guess you're gonna tell me next how you'd kick my butt real good if you had the chance, LOL
doc mercer said:
i've been pretty fair with you, Doc. You know I don't resort to that kind of namecalling. Show me more respect than that. Whether we agree or disagree, i'm always respectful with you.
When "insurance guy" was in here shooting off his mouth the other day, i came to you guys defense. i call it like i see it.
Ego...stop using silly things like logic on guys like Doc Mullah and loser. What you wrote makes perfect sense, which automatically disqualifies them from agreeing with you.
All the Left can do now is hope we lose the war...otherwise the Dems are about as relevant as the Whigs or Bull Moose. So, since rooting against America isn't a chic as they thought (See Presidential Election 2004, results)...they might want to consider becoming a worthwhile party not led by spineless Hollywood demagogues and front groups for Far Left America-haters (See International Answer and/or MoveOn).
The Dems of the late 1940s decided that Communism was a bad thing, and mainstream America identified with that. How can they get back to relevance with the American public? Well, getting tough on terrorism would be a good start these days; insisting to Americans that 9/11 wasn't a big deal and terrorism is blown out of proportion (See Moore, Michael), isn't the path to the White House. Good ideas can come out of the Left, but the Moore-ian nonesene has to stop. I remember reading about when the Democratic Party wasn't such a gang of tools....but whatever.
All the Left can do now is hope we lose the war...otherwise the Dems are about as relevant as the Whigs or Bull Moose. So, since rooting against America isn't a chic as they thought (See Presidential Election 2004, results)...they might want to consider becoming a worthwhile party not led by spineless Hollywood demagogues and front groups for Far Left America-haters (See International Answer and/or MoveOn).
The Dems of the late 1940s decided that Communism was a bad thing, and mainstream America identified with that. How can they get back to relevance with the American public? Well, getting tough on terrorism would be a good start these days; insisting to Americans that 9/11 wasn't a big deal and terrorism is blown out of proportion (See Moore, Michael), isn't the path to the White House. Good ideas can come out of the Left, but the Moore-ian nonesene has to stop. I remember reading about when the Democratic Party wasn't such a gang of tools....but whatever.
JinnRikki said:
big difference in "self responsibility" if you're trying to get a better job, or trying to get out of the system. Not when you want to overthrow the Govt. You need numbers, many, many numbers. You need organization. You see the problems our military is having with whats left of these thugs, Iraqi civilians are gonna be able to overthrow, Saddam???? Highly unlikely.
I'm sure a lot of you guys would like to overthrow Bush, but you guys know it isn't possible.
JDeuce said:
If this were 1960, i would be a Democrat. I believe Kennedy could've been the greatest President of all time, if he wasn't assasinated. The Left today would reject Kennedy the way they do Bayh, Liebermann, and Zell Miller.
Remember right after the election, all this talk about changing and realizing they are out of touch. How long did that last?? Dean's about to become their Chairman, the downward spiral continues.
ego74 said:
Maybe they preferred the "status quo" over having tens of thousands of their innocents slaughtered by "collateral damage." Mind you, this "colateral damage" was predicted to turn into Iraqi civil war (and most likely back into military dictatorship when the dust settles) when we finally decided leave.
Nobody is saying that Saddam wasn't evil -- we're saying that Bushies' dumba*s plan was dumb.
