Greg_W Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 click me, bitch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cracked Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 The invasion of Iraq was totally unjustified. Bush lied about WMD and I honestly believe that Saddam was a nice guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Off_White Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 You mean nuclear material that the US already knew was there, that the UN had sealed for 14 years, was not involved in a concealed weapons program, and that we failed to secure when we invaded? Not a smoking gun yet, but keep hoping, okay? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 This was what struck me U.S. and U.N. officials said Wednesday Washington had transported 1.8 tons of enriched uranium out of Iraq for safekeeping more than a year after looters stole it from a U.N.-sealed facility left unguarded by U.S. troops. So how much didn't get recovered? Were we better off with nuclear material in the hands of madman, or not knowing where the hell it is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 Actually it was under UN guard. Until we got there and promptly forgot about it(?). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashw_justin Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 I honestly believe that Saddam was a nice guy. Not sure I'd say "nice," but I don't think he was the homocidal lunatic they wanted us to believe, because if that were true, one of his own people would have killed him a long time ago. All this "the people liked him because they were afraid..." Ahem. How afraid are they when they walk up to heavily armed soldiers and start letting loose? Yeah, I didn't think so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg_W Posted July 8, 2004 Author Share Posted July 8, 2004 I honestly believe that Saddam was a nice guy. Not sure I'd say "nice," but I don't think he was the homocidal lunatic they wanted us to believe, because if that were true, one of his own people would have killed him a long time ago. All this "the people liked him because they were afraid..." Ahem. How afraid are they when they walk up to heavily armed soldiers and start letting loose? Yeah, I didn't think so. Are you serious? So, all the heinous shit people say he did to his own people was a lie or something? Nobody offed Hitler, Mussolini, or Stalin when they were at their height. You sound like some sort of delusional apologist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashw_justin Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 That's because Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin, like it or not, were popular in their countries and strongly supported by everyone around them. It takes more than one single leader to do anything, evil or otherwise. It takes all those around him to support it. And if an entire country supports the actions of a their leader, like it or not the supporting country is not going to deem those actions evil. The truth is, bad leaders do fall. If they stray too far from the wishes of their country they get THE AXE. Of course in the USA we like to believe that all bad leaders fall because we say so. That's just our egocentric view of things. What I'm saying is if the Iraqi people thought that Saddam Hussein was a bad evil man, somebody would have killed him. So you have believe one of two things: either Saddam Hussein wasn't a homocidal lunatic, or the entire country is full of homocidal lunatics. Clearly there are those who believe the latter. But I'd like to believe that the Iraqi people are as morally intelligent as a good number of other nations. And these people chose to support a leader, granted who did some bad things. However they were satisfied enough not to revolt, which means by any political theory that his leadership should not have been fucked with on any grounds that he was a bad leader. We went to war on Iraq because we want to maintain our influence in the region, show our strength, and maybe even get some cheap oil in the process. Terrorists and evil leaders were just excuses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ratboy Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 Not sure I believe all this about the Iraqis didn't really hate Hussein, but I just wanted to point out that some people did in fact try to assasinate Hitler. Rommel's involvement in this lead to his execution from what I remember. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg_W Posted July 8, 2004 Author Share Posted July 8, 2004 Not sure I believe all this about the Iraqis didn't really hate Hussein, but I just wanted to point out that some people did in fact try to assasinate Hitler. Rommel's involvement in this lead to his execution from what I remember. You are correct on both your points. This just prooves my point further. We don't know what attempts were made on Hussein's life during his rule; totalitarian regimes tend to keep such things out of their press. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cracked Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 http://web.amnesty.org/web/wire.nsf/October2001/iraq http://web.amnesty.org/pages/irq-article_3-eng http://www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2003/emay/6_sports.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg_W Posted July 8, 2004 Author Share Posted July 8, 2004 According to asswipe_justin, if those prisoners felt they were being unfairly treated, they should have chewed their way out of prison and killed Saddam with sharpened prison utensils. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dberdinka Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 Saddam is a real bastard but.... we invade a secular dictatorship without an active WMD program and... Allow looters to steal 1.8 tons of radioactive material! and Create a power vacuum that allows Islamic Radicalism to flourish! So ummm...isn't the "war on terrorism" really a war against Islamic Radicals who want to build theocractic governments as well as an attempt to limit their access to weapons they can use against us (i.e. WMD) The article referenced is just more evidence that we lost this battle BIG-TIME. Thanks Bush! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashw_justin Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/may2004/guan-m21.shtml http://www.globalpolicy.org/wtc/analysis/2003/0326gua.htm Look, they're torturing people over in the US, AND their last election was rigged. Guess we better go invade and save the people from their evil leader!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashw_justin Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 Hey, who's got my back here. I thought this place was full of moonbats... JoshK? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cracked Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 I hate arguing against friends. Unless it's about snowboards vs skis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashw_justin Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 Sorry, it's just that every time I see Saddam on TV I get lost in his dreamy eyes and long to curl up in his shaggy beard. Hey you know what's funny, none of us know shit about Iraq except what the media wants us to. So it's quite possible that we can say whatever the hell we want and all be equally FOS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashw_justin Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 Or I take that back Gotterdamerung said he's in Iraq didn't he? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markinore Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 1) At some point, Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. 2) Iraq was a brutal dictatorship; those who challenged the dictatorship were routinely imprisoned or killed. 3) Iraq had no democracy, no freedom of the press, no freedom of speech. 4) Iraq engaged in harsh anti-American rhetoric. We can all agree on these, right? Where we seem to differ is on the point of whether those things justified an invasion and occupation. Because if those things do justify that action, which of the following countries that meet the above criteria are next: North Korea, China, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Pakistan? If you don't think we should invade those countries, why not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assmonkey Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 (edited) Unless it's about snowboards vs skis. If it was easy, it would be called snowboarding. Edited July 8, 2004 by assmonkey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johndavidjr Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 The "nuclear material" was 400 tons of natural uranium and not, in itself, a security threat. For more on bumbling Bush policy on this issue, see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35404-2004Jul7.html _________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.