Who Is Lying About Iraq?

Cap’n AMatrixca said:
It all mattered in 2002 when the Democrat leadership demanded that second resolution so they could sabre-rattle too.

What is this? Take backs? Your hand left the piece...

;) ;)

You mean the UN resolution. That wasn't sabre-rattling, it was complying with international law. Funny but the UN intelligence was far better than our own and that is a pretty damning statement of the state of the intelligence that we used to go to war.

Check ;)
 
zipman said:
Nah, let's just forget about him like our fearless leader has and just concentrate on the next mistaken to cost us billions of dollars and thousands of lives. :rolleyes:



The deaths are something to be saddened and even appalled by but save the money argument. If (big If) Iraq can become a free nation where its citizens have rights that aren't determined by one madman you can't put a price on it. To me a lot of this coming from your side is that the only freedom that matters is our own and money trumps the chance of helping an entire nation become free. Thats just how it sounds to me which is why it gets me so, angry I guess is the closest word I can think of, when debates like this come up.
 
BlueEyesInLevis said:
Actually Zippy thats EXACTLY what you are saying. You just wont admit it.

It seems that all you want to do is put words in other people's mouths when you can't defend your position.

Saddam was contained. He wasn't gassing anyone and he wasn't invading anyone. There was no reason to go to war with him.
 
SleepingWarrior said:
The deaths are something to be saddened and even appalled by but save the money argument. If (big If) Iraq can become a free nation where its citizens have rights that aren't determined by one madman you can't put a price on it. To me a lot of this coming from your side is that the only freedom that matters is our own and money trumps the chance of helping an entire nation become free. Thats just how it sounds to me which is why it gets me so, angry I guess is the closest word I can think of, when debates like this come up.

How much are you willing to spend in lives and money to free to every country that is oppressed by a dictator?

Do you have any idea how long that list is?

Meanwhile, Iran and North Korea have grown into bigger threats than Saddam was.

Bush pushed for this war and got it to our country's detriment. And if the question is do I care more for our country or another one, my first priority is always going to be this country. That's pretty much what patriotism meant until the right turned it into agreeing blindly with the policies of our government regardless of the effect of those policies on the american people.
 
zipman said:
It seems that all you want to do is put words in other people's mouths when you can't defend your position.

Saddam was contained. He wasn't gassing anyone and he wasn't invading anyone. There was no reason to go to war with him.


How contained is contained? Would you being to say that since 1991 Saddam no longer killed those within his reach that opposed him, or put into prison, had tortured, etc...

I hear the "slippery slope" argument quite often from both sides but it never is uttered in these discussions. It is not hard for me to imagine a point in time where this grows to where the next Hitler can go about ethnic cleansing as long as it is contained within his own borders. Now that scares me.
 
zipman said:
Bullshit. He was effectively contained and everyone knew that.


Tell that to the people INSIDE his country Zippy! Tell that to those in his torture chambers! Tell that to the FAMILES of his detainees.


Why cant you admit, that if you and the rest if your looney left had been in power, there would....

STILL be rape rooms....

STILL be torture chambers...

STILL be new and expanding mass graves...

and there would STILL be Usay and Qusey (remember them Zippy?)

and there would STILL be Chemical Ali (remember him Zippy?)
 
We were in that perilous place that the French face now...

What happens once you lift the curfew?

What happens when you continue to demonstrate weakness?

[How does it improve our image in the region to spend decades keeping him and his sons contained?]
 
zipman said:
Saddam was contained. He wasn't gassing anyone and he wasn't invading anyone. There was no reason to go to war with him.

zipman, you're making excellent points for your case.

Kudos, Man...

By the way, you were all for the invasion at the time...
 
Oliver Clozoff said:
Who do you think they are?

If one of your patients answers your question with a question, would you think they were being evasive?
 
Cap’n AMatrixca said:
[How does it improve our image in the region to spend decades keeping him and his sons contained?]

Should that have been our policy back in '41... to push Hitler back to his borders and keep him and the other Nazis "contained"?

according to zippy and the rest...yes.
 
His bribing of our allies wasn't contained, but then they were just dying for the chance, a reason, any reason, to recreate a bi-polar world and oppose us.
 
Purple Haze said:
zipman, you're making excellent points for your case.

Kudos, Man...

By the way, you were all for the invasion at the time...


As was the Hildabeast, and so on ad naseum
 
BlueEyesInLevis said:
STILL be rape rooms....

STILL be torture chambers...

STILL be new and expanding mass graves...

There STILL are, someone else has taken up the duties...
 
zipman said:
How much are you willing to spend in lives and money to free to every country that is oppressed by a dictator?

Do you have any idea how long that list is?

Meanwhile, Iran and North Korea have grown into bigger threats than Saddam was.

Bush pushed for this war and got it to our country's detriment. And if the question is do I care more for our country or another one, my first priority is always going to be this country. That's pretty much what patriotism meant until the right turned it into agreeing blindly with the policies of our government regardless of the effect of those policies on the american people.


If the free world (Including ourselves) would come together oppression could be stamped out.

Its good that you do put our country first but that should not come to a point where the freedom of others doesn't matter because we may lose some money. Losing lives makes me step back and question it a hell of a lot but other people and countries do matter to me almost as much as our own. We are so ready in this nation to fight (not in the warlike sense) for rights that are on a tangent to others but what good are we to the world if we won't fight for the basic rights that people in other countries are routinely denied?
 
miles said:
Hmmmm...would Al-Quadi be happy or sad if we pulled out of Iraq?

Don't know, but I'm pretty certain Osama is laughing his fool head off...
 
Purple Haze said:
zipman, you're making excellent points for your case.

Kudos, Man...

By the way, you were all for the invasion at the time...


Thank you.

And yes, I did support the invasion based on the information available to me at the time.

But I would much rather admit I was wrong and back up my reasons for why I think it was wrong than sit around and pretend that this war was a good idea and spout the republican talking points for the day.

And with that, I'm off to dinner. I'm having Peking Duck at a top chinese restaurant with cousins who are in from out of town.
 
Purple Haze said:
Don't know, but I'm pretty certain Osama is laughing his fool head off...


You don't know?

You know Bush lied but don't know if AQ would be happy if we left Iraq?
 
Back
Top