Originally posted by Rayx0r

lol.. I was getting out the popcorn too

looks like fishermage just got the excuse he needed to back out of the debate.

ya, I sorta read "Gotcha" the same way olddaddy did.  Now that hes pretty much owned you in a debate you're pulling out a single phrase he said and spinning it to insinuate that he went for a personal tone with you.

meanwhile, you finish off by insulting him by calling him a liberal and not being capable of holding a debate with you.  Another "I win" button for you consistant across many threads I see you post in.  When you cant backup what you're saying, you try to make the person you're debating look like theyre insulting you.  Meanwhile, you do the same thing and call the debate over,  but thats OK 

I am BEGGING for a good discussion here, one without the crap. I answered him, and complimented him, until he went butthead on me. I did NOT call him anything -- I asked for a liberal to come forward who knows how decent people debate. I desperately want that here.

I was ENJOYING the debate, he didn't "own" me -- he was making the argument that the Iraqis wanted and supported Saddam, wanted their women raped by him, wanted to be gassed by him, wanted to fill mass graves for him -- and I was disagreeing. If you think he "owned" me, you must feel that way to. Do you?

He was also trying to make a VERY weak case that a ceasefire agreement is materially different than a surrender agreement -- as if it matters to the debate. It doesn't.

I still disagree, but I have no desire to debate with people who resort to shabby tactics. In fact, according to the mods we are NOT ALLOWED to engage such people. We MUST stop responding, OR ELSE. That's how these forums work whe you are not a liberal.

I am NOT insulted, and he was NOT insulting me. It is impossible to insult me. That doesn't mean i won't call him when he returns to his usual tactics.

is there a liberal here who knows how decent people debate? Bring it on :)

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by olddaddy

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by olddaddy

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by olddaddy

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by olddaddy

Originally posted by Fishermage

Dictatorships are not legitimate countries. Any country or any individual for that that matter has every right to remove any dictator from power, morally speaking.

All free countries should be spreading freedom throughout the world. Pity so many are also moral cowards. It wasn't just America that did this -- we only led this.

Where is the "empire?" I see us pulling out, as promised.

Of course dictatorships are not legitimate countries, presidents and prime ministers are not legitimate countries either. They are people, governments. You argue apples and oranges.

A dictatorship is just as legitimate a government as a republic, democracy, theocracy, or oligarchy. Each of these forms of government holds power through the will of the people. No dictator controls his country single handed, he/she forms coalitions to enjoy the support of enough of the populace to retain power.

Governments are not controlled by one person. George W Bush does not control the United States and enjoy the support from 100% of the population. He holds his control based on the support of the Republican Party, a coalition of Republican voters, and a coalition of the Republican Congress.

Saddam enjoyed his position through the support of the Sunni Iraqis. Had it not been Saddam, it would have been another Sunni, possibly from the military. Primarily because a Kurd could not form a coalition to retain power in the country, and the Shiites were/are poorly positioned to govern.

To paraphrase Ghandi...."There go my people, I must hurry to get in front of them, for I am their leader". 

I other words you do not believe in our declaration of Independence. If the people are kept in check under a reign of terror, it is the will of the people that they have done so -- if exiles are begging to end the rape of their families -- F'em, they want it like that.

Once again you are comparing apples and oranges. The Declaration of Independance does not call for a foreign nation to initiate hostile action against another nation for the purpose of regime change.

The Declaration of Independance does recognize the right of a people to rise up against their OWN government.

That is why French interferance in the revolution was delayed. That is why foreign intervention in many revolutions is delayed. To determine whether the minority seeking to overthrow their government represent the will of the majority and have just cause.

Under your scenario, we should be liberating Mindinoa from the Phillipines, the Basques from Spain, and the Palestininans from Israel, invading Zimbabwe, and every country in which a minority of the populace does not support their own government.

 

The people of Iraq WERE rising up in opposition to Saddam, so were the people inside Iraq. We helped them. I am talking about whether it is morally right to help0 them free themselves or not. I say it is, and the declaration's language supports me on that.

If governments purpose is to secure the rights of life liberty and property, and IF they derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, THEN Saddam's regime was unlawful. IF that is the case and his people in exile begged us to help them overthrow him and restore democracy (they did), we have every moral right to help them do so. We did so.

I am not making any comparisons. I am deciding that the rights enshrined in the declaration are universal. You don't believe that. Gotcha.

 

The people of Iraq were NOT rising up in opposition to Saddam, only certain segments of the population rose up in opposition to Saddam. That does not warrant intervention by a foreign power into the affairs of a sovereign state for the purpose of regime change.

That is why the Iraqi military was disarmed, to prevent the restoration of Saddam. Up until the execution of Saddam such a possibilty was recognized. That is what the Sunni resistance against the United States occupation was all about. Had the United States pulled out immediately, while Saddam was still alive, the Sunni's would have restored Saddam to power.

Saddam's government did secure the rights of liberty and property, and derived it's powers from the consent of the governed just as much as any other government does. It protected the rights of the Sunni constituency, protected the property of the Sunni constituency, and had the consent of the Sunni constituency. That constituency of the Iraqi people makes Saddam's government just as legitimate as the constituency of the Republican Party. No other nation in the world would interfere in the internal affairs of the United States and invade for the purpose of a regime change based on a revolt or request by the Democrats, or any other segment of the American population. It would be seen as an illegal and immoral act under international law.

Your interpretation of the rights enshrined in the Declaration of Independance is comparing apples and oranges. The over riding principle of the Declaration of Independance was that it represented, both through the elected legislatures of ALL of the 13 American Colonies, and through each legislatures designed signatories, the grievances of ALL 13 colonies. It was not a declaration of only a segment of the population.

It wasn't signed by one colony, it wasn't signed by a minority of colonies, it wasn't signed by a majority of colonies, IT WAS SIGNED BY A CONSENSUS OF ALL THE COLONIES. That was a very important distinction at the time because it allowed for legitimate international recognition of the revolution.

Your arguement is that if a segment of a sovereign nation requests assistance in overthrowing a government that they feel is tyranical, the United States has the obligation under the Declaration of Independance to respond militarily and overthrow that regime. That is a receipe for toppling every single legitimate government in the world. Under your scenario, we should be invading Israel and liberating the Palestinian people.

You are twisting and subverting the Declaration of Independance to make it a document which justifies overthrowing any regime any where in the world that has even an insignificant amount of it's population that denounces their government as a tyranny. It doesn't work that way.

And, by the way, your use of the word "gotcha" is still not a magic "I win" button.

 

Oh well, at least you WERE arguing decently. there you go again with that "I win" button crap. I'll try with you the next time you try and be civilized. Bummer, it was nice for a moment.

 

You went first with the "gotcha" statement. I responded in kind. You reap what you sow.

Gotcha means, "I understand what you are saying." that did not deserve YOU getting personal. Sorry, once again you have shown you have no real desire to have a reasonable discussion. Dang, and I was so looking forward to what might have been a real debate. Oh well.

Maybe someday a liberal will rise who knows how decent people argue.

Perhaps one day you will learn not to play semantics games by taking a cheap shot with a double entendre.

Originally posted by olddaddy

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by olddaddy

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by olddaddy

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by olddaddy

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by olddaddy

Originally posted by Fishermage

Dictatorships are not legitimate countries. Any country or any individual for that that matter has every right to remove any dictator from power, morally speaking.

All free countries should be spreading freedom throughout the world. Pity so many are also moral cowards. It wasn't just America that did this -- we only led this.

Where is the "empire?" I see us pulling out, as promised.

Of course dictatorships are not legitimate countries, presidents and prime ministers are not legitimate countries either. They are people, governments. You argue apples and oranges.

A dictatorship is just as legitimate a government as a republic, democracy, theocracy, or oligarchy. Each of these forms of government holds power through the will of the people. No dictator controls his country single handed, he/she forms coalitions to enjoy the support of enough of the populace to retain power.

Governments are not controlled by one person. George W Bush does not control the United States and enjoy the support from 100% of the population. He holds his control based on the support of the Republican Party, a coalition of Republican voters, and a coalition of the Republican Congress.

Saddam enjoyed his position through the support of the Sunni Iraqis. Had it not been Saddam, it would have been another Sunni, possibly from the military. Primarily because a Kurd could not form a coalition to retain power in the country, and the Shiites were/are poorly positioned to govern.

To paraphrase Ghandi...."There go my people, I must hurry to get in front of them, for I am their leader". 

I other words you do not believe in our declaration of Independence. If the people are kept in check under a reign of terror, it is the will of the people that they have done so -- if exiles are begging to end the rape of their families -- F'em, they want it like that.

Once again you are comparing apples and oranges. The Declaration of Independance does not call for a foreign nation to initiate hostile action against another nation for the purpose of regime change.

The Declaration of Independance does recognize the right of a people to rise up against their OWN government.

That is why French interferance in the revolution was delayed. That is why foreign intervention in many revolutions is delayed. To determine whether the minority seeking to overthrow their government represent the will of the majority and have just cause.

Under your scenario, we should be liberating Mindinoa from the Phillipines, the Basques from Spain, and the Palestininans from Israel, invading Zimbabwe, and every country in which a minority of the populace does not support their own government.

 

The people of Iraq WERE rising up in opposition to Saddam, so were the people inside Iraq. We helped them. I am talking about whether it is morally right to help0 them free themselves or not. I say it is, and the declaration's language supports me on that.

If governments purpose is to secure the rights of life liberty and property, and IF they derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, THEN Saddam's regime was unlawful. IF that is the case and his people in exile begged us to help them overthrow him and restore democracy (they did), we have every moral right to help them do so. We did so.

I am not making any comparisons. I am deciding that the rights enshrined in the declaration are universal. You don't believe that. Gotcha.

 

The people of Iraq were NOT rising up in opposition to Saddam, only certain segments of the population rose up in opposition to Saddam. That does not warrant intervention by a foreign power into the affairs of a sovereign state for the purpose of regime change.

That is why the Iraqi military was disarmed, to prevent the restoration of Saddam. Up until the execution of Saddam such a possibilty was recognized. That is what the Sunni resistance against the United States occupation was all about. Had the United States pulled out immediately, while Saddam was still alive, the Sunni's would have restored Saddam to power.

Saddam's government did secure the rights of liberty and property, and derived it's powers from the consent of the governed just as much as any other government does. It protected the rights of the Sunni constituency, protected the property of the Sunni constituency, and had the consent of the Sunni constituency. That constituency of the Iraqi people makes Saddam's government just as legitimate as the constituency of the Republican Party. No other nation in the world would interfere in the internal affairs of the United States and invade for the purpose of a regime change based on a revolt or request by the Democrats, or any other segment of the American population. It would be seen as an illegal and immoral act under international law.

Your interpretation of the rights enshrined in the Declaration of Independance is comparing apples and oranges. The over riding principle of the Declaration of Independance was that it represented, both through the elected legislatures of ALL of the 13 American Colonies, and through each legislatures designed signatories, the grievances of ALL 13 colonies. It was not a declaration of only a segment of the population.

It wasn't signed by one colony, it wasn't signed by a minority of colonies, it wasn't signed by a majority of colonies, IT WAS SIGNED BY A CONSENSUS OF ALL THE COLONIES. That was a very important distinction at the time because it allowed for legitimate international recognition of the revolution.

Your arguement is that if a segment of a sovereign nation requests assistance in overthrowing a government that they feel is tyranical, the United States has the obligation under the Declaration of Independance to respond militarily and overthrow that regime. That is a receipe for toppling every single legitimate government in the world. Under your scenario, we should be invading Israel and liberating the Palestinian people.

You are twisting and subverting the Declaration of Independance to make it a document which justifies overthrowing any regime any where in the world that has even an insignificant amount of it's population that denounces their government as a tyranny. It doesn't work that way.

And, by the way, your use of the word "gotcha" is still not a magic "I win" button.

 

Oh well, at least you WERE arguing decently. there you go again with that "I win" button crap. I'll try with you the next time you try and be civilized. Bummer, it was nice for a moment.

 

You went first with the "gotcha" statement. I responded in kind. You reap what you sow.

Gotcha means, "I understand what you are saying." that did not deserve YOU getting personal. Sorry, once again you have shown you have no real desire to have a reasonable discussion. Dang, and I was so looking forward to what might have been a real debate. Oh well.

Maybe someday a liberal will rise who knows how decent people argue.

 

Perhaps one day you will learn not to play semantics games by taking a cheap shot with a double entendre.

Actually, the only semantic game in our debate was when you acted as if there was a meterial difference between a cease-fire agreement (which we dictated upon victory) and a surrender agreement.

Also there was no possible way to take "gotcha" as meaning "I caught you" in that context. Only someone who is looking for a fight would do that. Well, since I don't want to get into the usual mix-up with the mods by continuing am argument with someone who merely wants to start a flame war and doesn't want to have a real discussion, I'll bid you adieu.

Again, I am calling out for a liberal who knows how decent people argue.

Come, let us debate the issues!

I wonder if this is the first time a shoe has been thrown at an american president?

At least he dodged it, he'd do well on my highschool's dodge ball team :)

I think thats all he'll be rememberd for in history, the president who dodged a shoe, and started a couple wars.

Originally posted by Wolfenpride

I wonder if this is the first time a shoe has been thrown at an american president?

At least he dodged it, he'd do well on my highschool's dodge ball team :)

I think thats all he'll be rememberd for in history, the president who dodged a shoe, and started a couple wars.

Yes but not the rights war. Im thinking a good size war is in order. Between real countries where th enemy is clear. After all WW2 fixed the economy(The New Deal basicly did shit). War is the best thing to fix a economy and I think some european countries need to learn their place after all this trash talking because of the Iraq war(dont even pretend like they could stand a chance itd be over in a week or so with clear targets)

And for those who can't tell sarcasm, no I don't think we should go to war with Europe.

Its amazing that some still write the history like they want. The aim or the reason for the Iraw invasion was not to help or to free iraqi people. Did you forget all that the reason was that the US government believed that Hussein was involved with Al Quaida and it was believed that massive destruction weapons was a threat ?

None of the reason was right, there were no massive destruction weapons and saddam was not involved with al quaida, the whole iraq war had nothing in common with 911.  Not to mention that there was probably a high interest about the Oil ressources, about economical interests and guess what....much parts of it even failed. How many companies pulled out or just did not reached their financial goals in iraq. The press in the US was so biased at this time it was unbelievable, where were the criticial statements in this time...movies were produced i.e. 21 days to bagdad which are full of propaganda and lies.

In the last 8 years the bush government lost faith in the world, they told the world "either you are with us or against us", they refused international UN Resolutions and didnt care about it. The conflicts which arised brought the world problems which did not end until now and will still take years to solve them.

Why do you think Obama did win the elections, cause peopel want a change and this change is important. The good bye wishes from the houndred of thousands of iraqi civilian victims in form of two shoes is just a small act from one nervous journalist, but dont you think that bush deserves "at least" two shoes ?

Originally posted by Wolfenpride

I wonder if this is the first time a shoe has been thrown at an american president?

At least he dodged it, he'd do well on my highschool's dodge ball team :)

I think thats all he'll be rememberd for in history, the president who dodged a shoe, and started a couple wars.

I don't know if he is the only American President to drop a shoe but I bet he's the first one to cause them to become airborne!!

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Chieftan

That reporter liked it better in Iraq when throwing a shoe at the president meant watching his wife and daughter get raped while his toes and ears were cut off.  What a piece of human trash.

 

Some people don't deserve saving, but as Americans we should save them anyway because it is the right thing to do. All men and women of freedom can do no less.

Someday, with that mentaility, you will come to my country. And i will kill you, as any other patriot would do, in order to defend my Patria.

Originally posted by bananajoe

Its amazing that some still write the history like they want. The aim or the reason for the Iraw invasion was not to help or to free iraqi people. Did you forget all that the reason was that the US government believed that Hussein was involved with Al Quaida and it was believed that massive destruction weapons was a threat ?

None of the reason was right, there were no massive destruction weapons and saddam was not involved with al quaida, the whole iraq war had nothing in common with 911.  Not to mention that there was probably a high interest about the Oil ressources, about economical interests and guess what....much parts of it even failed. How many companies pulled out or just did not reached their financial goals in iraq. The press in the US was so biased at this time it was unbelievable, where were the criticial statements in this time...movies were produced i.e. 21 days to bagdad which are full of propaganda and lies.

In the last 8 years the bush government lost faith in the world, they told the world "either you are with us or against us", they refused international UN Resolutions and didnt care about it. The conflicts which arised brought the world problems which did not end until now and will still take years to solve them.

Why do you think Obama did win the elections, cause peopel want a change and this change is important. The good bye wishes from the houndred of thousands of iraqi civilian victims in form of two shoes is just a small act from one nervous journalist, but dont you think that bush deserves "at least" two shoes ?

 

 

Actually the weapons of mass destruction arguemnet was used primarily to get liberals and the french to go along with it. The primary reason was that he was in violation of the cease-fire agreement, and that was reason enough for hostilities to resume.

It was called "Operation Iraqi Freedom," Not "Operation Disarm Saddam."

Originally posted by bluesession

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Chieftan

That reporter liked it better in Iraq when throwing a shoe at the president meant watching his wife and daughter get raped while his toes and ears were cut off.  What a piece of human trash.

 

Some people don't deserve saving, but as Americans we should save them anyway because it is the right thing to do. All men and women of freedom can do no less.

 

Someday, with that mentaility, you will come to my country. And i will kill you, as any other patriot would do, in order to defend my Patria.

If your women were being raped in government rape rooms, if your people were being lined up, murdered, and filling mass graves, if your people were being gassed -- you would want things to stay that way? You would let your pride and your patriotism keep you enslaved and oppressed?

This does not happen when I take a liberal position on an issue. No conservative on this forum has ever attacked me for being pro-choice, pro gay marriage, against the Patriot Act, in favor of the legalization of all drugs including hard drugs, anti death penalty,  against obscenity laws -- or any of the numerous issues I am not conservative on.

Conservative Christians do not attack me for my somewhat Universalist views.

No, if they do disagree with me, it has always been respectful, and they always stick to the issue, instead of making ME the issue.

I doubt I will be attacked by conservatives for believing Obama should Person of the Year, or being in favor of Caroline Kennedy for NY State Senate.

No, this kinda stuff ONLY happens when I take a position that liberals disagree with me on.

This is why I am asking for a liberal to come forward who knows how decent people argue. Well, other than Beatnik and Daily Buzz whom I have already given credit to in other threads for knowing this.

LMAO i love that Gif image... this thread is so stupid... yes 50% of americans think he deserved it and 50% of ppl think its stupid. Yes bush saved iraq from saddam. No bush screwed iraq by taking it from Sadam... what i love is Americans dont see the FUTURE... they see the PAST... and when they see the PAST they only see the BAD...

Is iraq better off with there own president elected or with sadam... (obvious question an elected official)

Is iraq better off with the killings and raping from there own ppl or killings and raping from there government (well 1 out of 6 woman in the U.S get raped every year. so id have too say...) killings and raping from there own ppl better because at least that way justice can be served when killing or imprissoning the ppl that did it where when there govnt was doing it nothing could be done about it.

Is iraq better off overall... Yes... Is it because of Bush.... NO..... its because of the proud americans that made it happen. Bush didnt go too iraq and fight... bush didnt go there too help iraqi ppl... bush didnt do squat. PROUD AMERICANS did...

And NO everyone... im not American just so you know.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by bananajoe

Its amazing that some still write the history like they want. The aim or the reason for the Iraw invasion was not to help or to free iraqi people. Did you forget all that the reason was that the US government believed that Hussein was involved with Al Quaida and it was believed that massive destruction weapons was a threat ?

None of the reason was right, there were no massive destruction weapons and saddam was not involved with al quaida, the whole iraq war had nothing in common with 911.  Not to mention that there was probably a high interest about the Oil ressources, about economical interests and guess what....much parts of it even failed. How many companies pulled out or just did not reached their financial goals in iraq. The press in the US was so biased at this time it was unbelievable, where were the criticial statements in this time...movies were produced i.e. 21 days to bagdad which are full of propaganda and lies.

In the last 8 years the bush government lost faith in the world, they told the world "either you are with us or against us", they refused international UN Resolutions and didnt care about it. The conflicts which arised brought the world problems which did not end until now and will still take years to solve them.

Why do you think Obama did win the elections, cause peopel want a change and this change is important. The good bye wishes from the houndred of thousands of iraqi civilian victims in form of two shoes is just a small act from one nervous journalist, but dont you think that bush deserves "at least" two shoes ?

 

 

 

Actually the weapons of mass destruction arguemnet was used primarily to get liberals and the french to go along with it. The primary reason was that he was in violation of the cease-fire agreement, and that was reason enough for hostilities to resume.

It was called "Operation Iraqi Freedom," Not "Operation Disarm Saddam."

The cease-fire agreement was ratified by the UN 1991 after gulf war I, only some years later  Bush didnt care much about the UN in 2003. The operation was called Iraqi Freedom (a name which denies the real reasons) and not Disarm Saddam, but if you use the internet and research for TV cuts you will see that the reasons they did start the Iraq war were assumptions about WMD aswell Al Quaida, these messages were broadcasted around the world. The internet changed a lot and you can research very well.

"was used primarily to get liberals and the french to go along with it."....thats even worse, if lies needs to be spread to get allience members to go along with.

Originally posted by bananajoe

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by bananajoe

Its amazing that some still write the history like they want. The aim or the reason for the Iraw invasion was not to help or to free iraqi people. Did you forget all that the reason was that the US government believed that Hussein was involved with Al Quaida and it was believed that massive destruction weapons was a threat ?

None of the reason was right, there were no massive destruction weapons and saddam was not involved with al quaida, the whole iraq war had nothing in common with 911.  Not to mention that there was probably a high interest about the Oil ressources, about economical interests and guess what....much parts of it even failed. How many companies pulled out or just did not reached their financial goals in iraq. The press in the US was so biased at this time it was unbelievable, where were the criticial statements in this time...movies were produced i.e. 21 days to bagdad which are full of propaganda and lies.

In the last 8 years the bush government lost faith in the world, they told the world "either you are with us or against us", they refused international UN Resolutions and didnt care about it. The conflicts which arised brought the world problems which did not end until now and will still take years to solve them.

Why do you think Obama did win the elections, cause peopel want a change and this change is important. The good bye wishes from the houndred of thousands of iraqi civilian victims in form of two shoes is just a small act from one nervous journalist, but dont you think that bush deserves "at least" two shoes ?

 

 

 

Actually the weapons of mass destruction arguemnet was used primarily to get liberals and the french to go along with it. The primary reason was that he was in violation of the cease-fire agreement, and that was reason enough for hostilities to resume.

It was called "Operation Iraqi Freedom," Not "Operation Disarm Saddam."

 

The cease-fire agreement was ratified by the UN 1991 after gulf war I, only some years later  Bush didnt care much about the UN in 2003. The operation was called Iraqi Freedom (a name which denies the real reasons) and not Disarm Saddam, but if you use the internet and research for TV cuts you will see that the reasons they did start the Iraq war were assumptions about WMD aswell Al Quaida, these messages were broadcasted around the world. The internet changed a lot and you can research very well.

"was used primarily to get liberals and the french to go along with it."....thats even worse, if lies needs to be spread to get allience members to go along with.

Three reasons, none of which had anything to do with Al Qaeda.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

According to the President of the United States George W. Bush and former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Tony Blair, the reasons for the invasion were "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."

I choose to view the first reason listed as primarily a way to get the French and liberals on board, you choose to view the last as false. They never said Al Qaeda, they said "terrorism," which was well demonstrated and is still true. He supported global terrorism, and every investigation has shown that. He never said Al Qaeda. Only Cheney said he "wouldn't be surprised," it was never stated as a reason for the war.

As to WMD, they weren't lies -- everyone on earth thought he had them. The lie is that they were lies. They did not find "stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction," as the British, the French -- as everyone's intelligence thought they would, but they did find as general Franks has said, the equivalent of a "disassembled pistol on the table."

If a cop meets a suspect at the scene of a crime, and he sees the guywith his hand in his pocket, the cop says "take your hand out of your pocket." If the suspect does NOT remove his hand out of his pocket, thus revealing that he had no weapon, the cop is entitled to shoot. If it turns out the guy had a candybar in there, it is still the suspect's fault because he was not willing to come forth and remove the threat which was always in his power to do.

Such was what happened with Saddam and WMD.

The cease-fire agreement was violated in numerous ways. Saddam was a monster subjecting his own people to a reign of terror. Iraqi exiles from every faction were begging us to invade. The shiite people had tried, and failed to rise up against him when George HW Bush betrayed them. Saddam flagrantly flaunted several UN Resolutions against him.

There is no question that resuming hostilities against Iraq was justified, and there are multiple angles of justification, depending on what is mots important to YOU as a human being.

If none of the above matters to you, then I suppose it wasn't justified in your eyes.

For me there were more than enough reasons to resume the war that saddam started.

None of this has to do with whether the war was WISE or prudent. Those are two separate issues, which people are mixing in an attempt to bolster the weak argument against justification. Two different things, two sets of arguments, and in those, you'll get two different opinions from me.

The WISDOM of the war will be determined over the course of the next few decades. If Iraq becomes a flourishing democracy and an ally in the defensive war against the Jihad, it'll be seen as a wise move, if not, not. It is all way too early to tell.

Bush made some choices, and it hurt his popularity. So did Harry Truman. History has turned around on Harry, only time will tell if it will turn around on George.

Iraqi's don't want American Freedom.

They didn't ask for it.

Enough with the delusions.

In fact ,en masse, they have violently attempted to resist. Thousands have given their lives to prevent this outcome. It's an extremely divided society, but that appears to be the one single thing that the entire country can agree upon.

There is absolutely nothing moral about forcing "freedom" on people at gunpoint. That is not what freedom is. I cannot think of a more twisted morality than that which is able to label it so.

Best thing about the shoes thrown at Bush? The smug look on his face when he dodged them.

Originally posted by baff

Iraqi's don't want American Freedom.

They didn't ask for it.

Enough with the delusions.

 

In fact ,en masse, they have violently attempted to resist. Thousands have given their lives to prevent this outcome. It's an extremely divided society, but that appears to be the one single thing that the entire country can agree upon.

There is absolutely nothing moral about forcing "freedom" on people at gunpoint. That is not what freedom is. I cannot think of a more twisted morality than that which is able to label it so.

 

 

Best thing about the shoes thrown at Bush? The smug look on his face when he dodged them.

Actually, they asked for it for years.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_National_Congress

What you say was also said about Japan and Germany. yes, those people didn't want freedom either. The Jews, Gypies and homosexuals were happy to be slaughtered for the reich.

We forced them into Freedom -- I'd say that wirked out pretty well, regardless of what the isolationists said at the time.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by bananajoe

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by bananajoe

Its amazing that some still write the history like they want. The aim or the reason for the Iraw invasion was not to help or to free iraqi people. Did you forget all that the reason was that the US government believed that Hussein was involved with Al Quaida and it was believed that massive destruction weapons was a threat ?

None of the reason was right, there were no massive destruction weapons and saddam was not involved with al quaida, the whole iraq war had nothing in common with 911.  Not to mention that there was probably a high interest about the Oil ressources, about economical interests and guess what....much parts of it even failed. How many companies pulled out or just did not reached their financial goals in iraq. The press in the US was so biased at this time it was unbelievable, where were the criticial statements in this time...movies were produced i.e. 21 days to bagdad which are full of propaganda and lies.

In the last 8 years the bush government lost faith in the world, they told the world "either you are with us or against us", they refused international UN Resolutions and didnt care about it. The conflicts which arised brought the world problems which did not end until now and will still take years to solve them.

Why do you think Obama did win the elections, cause peopel want a change and this change is important. The good bye wishes from the houndred of thousands of iraqi civilian victims in form of two shoes is just a small act from one nervous journalist, but dont you think that bush deserves "at least" two shoes ?

 

 

 

Actually the weapons of mass destruction arguemnet was used primarily to get liberals and the french to go along with it. The primary reason was that he was in violation of the cease-fire agreement, and that was reason enough for hostilities to resume.

It was called "Operation Iraqi Freedom," Not "Operation Disarm Saddam."

 

The cease-fire agreement was ratified by the UN 1991 after gulf war I, only some years later  Bush didnt care much about the UN in 2003. The operation was called Iraqi Freedom (a name which denies the real reasons) and not Disarm Saddam, but if you use the internet and research for TV cuts you will see that the reasons they did start the Iraq war were assumptions about WMD aswell Al Quaida, these messages were broadcasted around the world. The internet changed a lot and you can research very well.

"was used primarily to get liberals and the french to go along with it."....thats even worse, if lies needs to be spread to get allience members to go along with.

Three reasons, none of which had anything to do with Al Qaeda.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

According to the President of the United States George W. Bush and former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Tony Blair, the reasons for the invasion were "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."

I choose to view the first reason listed as primarily a way to get the French and liberals on board, you choose to view the last as false. They never said Al Qaeda, they said "terrorism," which was well demonstrated and is still true. He supported global terrorism, and every investigation has shown that. He never said Al Qaeda. Only Cheney said he "wouldn't be surprised," it was never stated as a reason for the war.

As to WMD, they weren't lies -- everyone on earth thought he had them. The lie is that they were lies. They did not find "stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction," as the British, the French -- as everyone's intelligence thought they would, but they did find as general Franks has said, the equivalent of a "disassembled pistol on the table."

If a cop meets a suspect at the scene of a crime, and he sees the guywith his hand in his pocket, the cop says "take your hand out of your pocket." If the suspect does NOT remove his hand out of his pocket, thus revealing that he had no weapon, the cop is entitled to shoot. If it turns out the guy had a candybar in there, it is still the suspect's fault because he was not willing to come forth and remove the threat which was always in his power to do.

Such was what happened with Saddam and WMD.

The cease-fire agreement was violated in numerous ways. Saddam was a monster subjecting his own people to a reign of terror. Iraqi exiles from every faction were begging us to invade. The shiite people had tried, and failed to rise up against him when George HW Bush betrayed them. Saddam flagrantly flaunted several UN Resolutions against him.

There is no question that resuming hostilities against Iraq was justified, and there are multiple angles of justification, depending on what is mots important to YOU as a human being.

If none of the above matters to you, then I suppose it wasn't justified in your eyes.

For me there were more than enough reasons to resume the war that saddam started.

None of this has to do with whether the war was WISE or prudent. Those are two separate issues, which people are mixing in an attempt to bolster the weak argument against justification. Two different things, two sets of arguments, and in those, you'll get two different opinions from me.

The WISDOM of the war will be determined over the course of the next few decades. If Iraq becomes a flourishing democracy and an ally in the defensive war against the Jihad, it'll be seen as a wise move, if not, not. It is all way too early to tell.

Bush made some choices, and it hurt his popularity. So did Harry Truman. History has turned around on Harry, only time will tell if it will turn around on George.

 

Well maybe you did forget, but i remember very well what i did hear and read in the media. I suggest to watch the following short TV videos please. After 911, terrorism was linked to Al Quaida thats why we all, most of the main western countries, did invade Iraq besides the other reasons aswell Afghanistan until now.

TV Cut with Bush

www.youtube.com/watch

TV Cut with Vice President

www.youtube.com/watch

As it comes to WMD, if it were not lies it was at least a big mistake at the least the CIA did admit they were mistaken. We dont talk only about lies or misleaded politics, we talk also about mistakes which the bush administration is responsible for. We dont talk about wisdom here, we talk about facts i mentioned already in one of the threads above how the USA lost his faith in the world. You can watch a lot of discussion on TV or anywhere and a lot of qualified or  specialized discussion members will agree that the bush administration did a lot of damage to the US aswell to our international confederacies.

I dont want to sound harsh or annoy you, its just  not easy to discuss in forums or chat rooms when you dont see your discussion partners 

Originally posted by bananajoe

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by bananajoe

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by bananajoe

Its amazing that some still write the history like they want. The aim or the reason for the Iraw invasion was not to help or to free iraqi people. Did you forget all that the reason was that the US government believed that Hussein was involved with Al Quaida and it was believed that massive destruction weapons was a threat ?

None of the reason was right, there were no massive destruction weapons and saddam was not involved with al quaida, the whole iraq war had nothing in common with 911.  Not to mention that there was probably a high interest about the Oil ressources, about economical interests and guess what....much parts of it even failed. How many companies pulled out or just did not reached their financial goals in iraq. The press in the US was so biased at this time it was unbelievable, where were the criticial statements in this time...movies were produced i.e. 21 days to bagdad which are full of propaganda and lies.

In the last 8 years the bush government lost faith in the world, they told the world "either you are with us or against us", they refused international UN Resolutions and didnt care about it. The conflicts which arised brought the world problems which did not end until now and will still take years to solve them.

Why do you think Obama did win the elections, cause peopel want a change and this change is important. The good bye wishes from the houndred of thousands of iraqi civilian victims in form of two shoes is just a small act from one nervous journalist, but dont you think that bush deserves "at least" two shoes ?

 

 

 

Actually the weapons of mass destruction arguemnet was used primarily to get liberals and the french to go along with it. The primary reason was that he was in violation of the cease-fire agreement, and that was reason enough for hostilities to resume.

It was called "Operation Iraqi Freedom," Not "Operation Disarm Saddam."

 

The cease-fire agreement was ratified by the UN 1991 after gulf war I, only some years later  Bush didnt care much about the UN in 2003. The operation was called Iraqi Freedom (a name which denies the real reasons) and not Disarm Saddam, but if you use the internet and research for TV cuts you will see that the reasons they did start the Iraq war were assumptions about WMD aswell Al Quaida, these messages were broadcasted around the world. The internet changed a lot and you can research very well.

"was used primarily to get liberals and the french to go along with it."....thats even worse, if lies needs to be spread to get allience members to go along with.

Three reasons, none of which had anything to do with Al Qaeda.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

According to the President of the United States George W. Bush and former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Tony Blair, the reasons for the invasion were "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."

I choose to view the first reason listed as primarily a way to get the French and liberals on board, you choose to view the last as false. They never said Al Qaeda, they said "terrorism," which was well demonstrated and is still true. He supported global terrorism, and every investigation has shown that. He never said Al Qaeda. Only Cheney said he "wouldn't be surprised," it was never stated as a reason for the war.

As to WMD, they weren't lies -- everyone on earth thought he had them. The lie is that they were lies. They did not find "stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction," as the British, the French -- as everyone's intelligence thought they would, but they did find as general Franks has said, the equivalent of a "disassembled pistol on the table."

If a cop meets a suspect at the scene of a crime, and he sees the guywith his hand in his pocket, the cop says "take your hand out of your pocket." If the suspect does NOT remove his hand out of his pocket, thus revealing that he had no weapon, the cop is entitled to shoot. If it turns out the guy had a candybar in there, it is still the suspect's fault because he was not willing to come forth and remove the threat which was always in his power to do.

Such was what happened with Saddam and WMD.

The cease-fire agreement was violated in numerous ways. Saddam was a monster subjecting his own people to a reign of terror. Iraqi exiles from every faction were begging us to invade. The shiite people had tried, and failed to rise up against him when George HW Bush betrayed them. Saddam flagrantly flaunted several UN Resolutions against him.

There is no question that resuming hostilities against Iraq was justified, and there are multiple angles of justification, depending on what is mots important to YOU as a human being.

If none of the above matters to you, then I suppose it wasn't justified in your eyes.

For me there were more than enough reasons to resume the war that saddam started.

None of this has to do with whether the war was WISE or prudent. Those are two separate issues, which people are mixing in an attempt to bolster the weak argument against justification. Two different things, two sets of arguments, and in those, you'll get two different opinions from me.

The WISDOM of the war will be determined over the course of the next few decades. If Iraq becomes a flourishing democracy and an ally in the defensive war against the Jihad, it'll be seen as a wise move, if not, not. It is all way too early to tell.

Bush made some choices, and it hurt his popularity. So did Harry Truman. History has turned around on Harry, only time will tell if it will turn around on George.

 

 

Well maybe you did forget, but i remember very well what i did hear and read in the media. I suggest to watch the following short TV videos please. After 911, terrorism was linked to Al Quaida thats why we all, most of the main western countries, did invade Iraq besides the other reasons aswell Afghanistan until now.

TV Cut with Bush

www.youtube.com/watch

 

TV Cut with Vice President

www.youtube.com/watch

 

As it comes to WMD, if it were not lies it was at least a big mistake at the least the CIA did admit they were mistaken. We dont talk only about lies or misleaded politics, we talk also about mistakes which the bush administration is responsible for. We dont talk about wisdom here, we talk about facts i mentioned already in one of the threads above how the USA lost his faith in the world. You can watch a lot of discussion on TV or anywhere and a lot of qualified or  specialized discussion members will agree that the bush administration did a lot of damage to the US aswell to our international confederacies.

I dont want to sound harsh or annoy you, its just  not easy to discuss in forums or chat rooms when you dont see your discussion partners 

You're not annoying me, I just disagree. Early on, when no one knew anything, people wondered all sorts of things. The fact is we DID have and still do have intelligence that Saddam's people met with Al Qaeda people, but no OPERATIONAL link was discovered that ever came from it. there were links however, and MANY links of Saddam to global terrorism

Either way, for me, that's not why the resumption of hostilities with Iraq was justified.

there were many reasons given and the one that works for me was he was a really bad guy. That's all we need as a MORAL justification.

All the things you mention has nothing to do with what I am saying. They may be right and they may be interesting and worth discussing, but once again as I am often forced to remind people on these forums, read the thread for context, context context. This is what always happens in long threads.

people were attacking Bush MORALLY, and I responded. that set off the usual attacks from the Bushhaters.

I am ONLY discussing moral justification, not the wisdom of it.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by bananajoe

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by bananajoe

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by bananajoe

Its amazing that some still write the history like they want. The aim or the reason for the Iraw invasion was not to help or to free iraqi people. Did you forget all that the reason was that the US government believed that Hussein was involved with Al Quaida and it was believed that massive destruction weapons was a threat ?

None of the reason was right, there were no massive destruction weapons and saddam was not involved with al quaida, the whole iraq war had nothing in common with 911.  Not to mention that there was probably a high interest about the Oil ressources, about economical interests and guess what....much parts of it even failed. How many companies pulled out or just did not reached their financial goals in iraq. The press in the US was so biased at this time it was unbelievable, where were the criticial statements in this time...movies were produced i.e. 21 days to bagdad which are full of propaganda and lies.

In the last 8 years the bush government lost faith in the world, they told the world "either you are with us or against us", they refused international UN Resolutions and didnt care about it. The conflicts which arised brought the world problems which did not end until now and will still take years to solve them.

Why do you think Obama did win the elections, cause peopel want a change and this change is important. The good bye wishes from the houndred of thousands of iraqi civilian victims in form of two shoes is just a small act from one nervous journalist, but dont you think that bush deserves "at least" two shoes ?

 

 

 

Actually the weapons of mass destruction arguemnet was used primarily to get liberals and the french to go along with it. The primary reason was that he was in violation of the cease-fire agreement, and that was reason enough for hostilities to resume.

It was called "Operation Iraqi Freedom," Not "Operation Disarm Saddam."

 

The cease-fire agreement was ratified by the UN 1991 after gulf war I, only some years later  Bush didnt care much about the UN in 2003. The operation was called Iraqi Freedom (a name which denies the real reasons) and not Disarm Saddam, but if you use the internet and research for TV cuts you will see that the reasons they did start the Iraq war were assumptions about WMD aswell Al Quaida, these messages were broadcasted around the world. The internet changed a lot and you can research very well.

"was used primarily to get liberals and the french to go along with it."....thats even worse, if lies needs to be spread to get allience members to go along with.

Three reasons, none of which had anything to do with Al Qaeda.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

According to the President of the United States George W. Bush and former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Tony Blair, the reasons for the invasion were "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."

I choose to view the first reason listed as primarily a way to get the French and liberals on board, you choose to view the last as false. They never said Al Qaeda, they said "terrorism," which was well demonstrated and is still true. He supported global terrorism, and every investigation has shown that. He never said Al Qaeda. Only Cheney said he "wouldn't be surprised," it was never stated as a reason for the war.

As to WMD, they weren't lies -- everyone on earth thought he had them. The lie is that they were lies. They did not find "stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction," as the British, the French -- as everyone's intelligence thought they would, but they did find as general Franks has said, the equivalent of a "disassembled pistol on the table."

If a cop meets a suspect at the scene of a crime, and he sees the guywith his hand in his pocket, the cop says "take your hand out of your pocket." If the suspect does NOT remove his hand out of his pocket, thus revealing that he had no weapon, the cop is entitled to shoot. If it turns out the guy had a candybar in there, it is still the suspect's fault because he was not willing to come forth and remove the threat which was always in his power to do.

Such was what happened with Saddam and WMD.

The cease-fire agreement was violated in numerous ways. Saddam was a monster subjecting his own people to a reign of terror. Iraqi exiles from every faction were begging us to invade. The shiite people had tried, and failed to rise up against him when George HW Bush betrayed them. Saddam flagrantly flaunted several UN Resolutions against him.

There is no question that resuming hostilities against Iraq was justified, and there are multiple angles of justification, depending on what is mots important to YOU as a human being.

If none of the above matters to you, then I suppose it wasn't justified in your eyes.

For me there were more than enough reasons to resume the war that saddam started.

None of this has to do with whether the war was WISE or prudent. Those are two separate issues, which people are mixing in an attempt to bolster the weak argument against justification. Two different things, two sets of arguments, and in those, you'll get two different opinions from me.

The WISDOM of the war will be determined over the course of the next few decades. If Iraq becomes a flourishing democracy and an ally in the defensive war against the Jihad, it'll be seen as a wise move, if not, not. It is all way too early to tell.

Bush made some choices, and it hurt his popularity. So did Harry Truman. History has turned around on Harry, only time will tell if it will turn around on George.

 

 

Well maybe you did forget, but i remember very well what i did hear and read in the media. I suggest to watch the following short TV videos please. After 911, terrorism was linked to Al Quaida thats why we all, most of the main western countries, did invade Iraq besides the other reasons aswell Afghanistan until now.

TV Cut with Bush

www.youtube.com/watch

 

TV Cut with Vice President

www.youtube.com/watch

 

As it comes to WMD, if it were not lies it was at least a big mistake at the least the CIA did admit they were mistaken. We dont talk only about lies or misleaded politics, we talk also about mistakes which the bush administration is responsible for. We dont talk about wisdom here, we talk about facts i mentioned already in one of the threads above how the USA lost his faith in the world. You can watch a lot of discussion on TV or anywhere and a lot of qualified or  specialized discussion members will agree that the bush administration did a lot of damage to the US aswell to our international confederacies.

I dont want to sound harsh or annoy you, its just  not easy to discuss in forums or chat rooms when you dont see your discussion partners 

 

You're not annoying me, I just disagree. Early on, when no one knew anything, people wondered all sorts of things. The fact is we DID have and still do have intelligence that Saddam's people met with Al Qaeda people, but no OPERATIONAL link was discovered that ever came from it. there were links however, and MANY links of Saddam to global terrorism

Either way, for me, that's not why the resumption of hostilities with Iraq was justified.

there were many reasons given and the one that works for me was he was a really bad guy. That's all we need as a MORAL justification.

All the things you mention has nothing to do with what I am saying. They may be right and they may be interesting and worth discussing, but once again as I am often forced to remind people on these forums, read the thread for context, context context. This is what always happens in long threads.

people were attacking Bush MORALLY, and I responded. that set off the usual attacks from the Bushhaters.

I am ONLY discussing moral justification, not the wisdom of it.

So what do you say to the videos i posted ? I just try to correct you cause you were wrong with some of your assumptions. Even in 2008 the pentagon did announce there was and is no link between Hussein and Al Quaida/911 terrorism to justify the war with it....just read some news or google for it. All i did was answering to some parts of your conclusions. Of course saddam hussein was a bad guy and he deserved to get kicked off his throne, dont get me wrong but we talk about the reasons the bush administrations did sell to the masses and  involved over 35 nations into war which were just not correct.