The Return of Al Qaeda

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Lets just say that I strongly disagree. If I could go back in time I would still fully support going into Iraq. It is the right thing to do.

You'd support taking out Saddam even though he didn't have WMD?

Why? If he didn't have WMD, he'd be just another pathetic tinpot Arab dictator.

I could post some PICTURES if you would like! They woud be very similar to the haulocaust. I will refrain.

[Dan J 277]

Lets just say that I strongly disagree. If I could go back in time I would still fully support going into Iraq. It is the right thing to do.

You'd support taking out Saddam even though he didn't have WMD?

Why? If he didn't have WMD, he'd be just another pathetic tinpot Arab dictator.

And still have little if anything to do with AQ... The people we are 'supposed' to be fighting.

Iraq had nothing to do with AQ, sure they were both bad groups, but like gangs in the hood, they didn't necessarily get along.

Iraq's involvement with AQ was used as a justification for war, which was disproved before the war. As well capitalizing on the anger and nationalism of 9/11.

AQ only go involved in the power vacuum after the fall of the Iraqi government. But even now, very few people we are fighting there are actually part of AQ. Most of them are resistance fighters. Pissed off at our continued involvement in Iraq. We are not really fighting the terror that threatens us at home. Those guys have regrouped elsewhere and are planning attacks as the war goes on. But as long as the war goes on, we feed these groups with willing fighters and resources.

Bush had several arguments for attacking Iraq. All of them have been false, misleading or dis-proven. What the hell are we still doing there? There are people benefiting from our continued involvement in Iraq. They are not the American people. They are companies called Haliburton and Blackwater, as well as other defense companies.

[Dan J 277]

Lets just say that I strongly disagree. If I could go back in time I would still fully support going into Iraq. It is the right thing to do.

You'd support taking out Saddam even though he didn't have WMD?

Why? If he didn't have WMD, he'd be just another pathetic tinpot Arab dictator.

I could post some PICTURES if you would like! They woud be very similar to the haulocaust. I will refrain.

I could raise you pictures of innocent people killed by American bombs and soldiers. Doesn't matter who does the killing, or who dies. It doesn't justifiy it.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Lets just say that I strongly disagree. If I could go back in time I would still fully support going into Iraq. It is the right thing to do.

You'd support taking out Saddam even though he didn't have WMD?

Why? If he didn't have WMD, he'd be just another pathetic tinpot Arab dictator.

I could post some PICTURES if you would like! They woud be very similar to the haulocaust. I will refrain.

I could raise you pictures of innocent people killed by American bombs and soldiers. Doesn't matter who does the killing, or who dies. It doesn't justifiy it.

So were all even on the pics? Its funny the side your takin! Poor Saddam? He didnt have WMD? What did he HAVE? A warm heart that you miss? Hmmmm. Maybe you could CHANNEL him?

PLEASE HELP ME understand your PERSPECTIVE?

[GaryC 7]

Lets just say that I strongly disagree. If I could go back in time I would still fully support going into Iraq. It is the right thing to do.

You'd support taking out Saddam even though he didn't have WMD?

Why? If he didn't have WMD, he'd be just another pathetic tinpot Arab dictator.

And still have little if anything to do with AQ... The people we are 'supposed' to be fighting.

I have this feeling that Gary believes Saddam had WMD. There's no other explanation for why he thinks the invasion was a good idea. If he believes Saddam had WMD, he must think our President is a liar.

Yes I think he had WMD's. But that isn't why I think it was a good idea to take him out. He was a murderous butcher that supported other murderous butchers. His ties to AQ may have been only in passing at the time but that would have changed. I also think we should take out Iran right now. We don't need to send in troops, just take out all his military sites from the air. Syria would be next if I had my way. They are all sponsors of terrorism and they need to go. Now I will sit here and watch you call me a warmonger. That is fine with me, I like the abuse.

[Dan J 277]

Lets just say that I strongly disagree. If I could go back in time I would still fully support going into Iraq. It is the right thing to do.

You'd support taking out Saddam even though he didn't have WMD?

Why? If he didn't have WMD, he'd be just another pathetic tinpot Arab dictator.

I could post some PICTURES if you would like! They woud be very similar to the haulocaust. I will refrain.

I could raise you pictures of innocent people killed by American bombs and soldiers. Doesn't matter who does the killing, or who dies. It doesn't justifiy it.

So were all even on the pics? Its funny the side your takin! Poor Saddam? He didnt have WMD? What did he HAVE? A warm heart that you miss? Hmmmm. Maybe you could CHANNEL him?

PLEASE HELP ME understand your PERSPECTIVE?

The world isn't black and white, and the for us or against us rhetoric is bull$hit. Its for people who rather remain ignorant.

Never did I say I support Saddam, but I also never said, attacking Iraq was just and the correct course of action.

But if Saddam was so bad, what about all the other places in the world were there are bad leader's killing innocent people, do we need to go invade and kill all them too? Oh wait, some of them have nukes and would nuke the sh!t out of us if it came down to it.

But anyway, we took care of Saddam, oh in a few weeks or so, its been years, what are we still doing there? Does Saddam have a bunch of clones that we are trying to kill too?

Saddam didn't have WMD's or he destroyed them. But he did test chemical weapons on his people. But testing a weapon doesn't mean they were to the point of being considered a WMD. You can have chemical weapons, but its pretty useless if you don't have any way to deliver it effectively.

But hey, look at it another way. The US does have lots of WMD's and a rather incompetent leader who has started an unjust war against another country resulting in many innocent deaths. Following the arguments of Mr Bush and the conservatives who still support this war, doesn't that give justification for the US to be attacked by an outside state?

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Whats ridiculous about this debate is that Saddam had the C H O I C E! U.N. Resolution. Let Inspectors in to continue or be TAKIN OUT! Saddam chose the latter. Well France didnt help him like he thought now the boy is CHEWIN DIRT! Poor guy.

Dam, if we would have just let him be, we could all live in peace? Screw the folks he was KILLIN! At least he was keeping the place under control!

FRICKIN BUSH!

[GaryC 7]

The world isn't black and white, and the for us or against us rhetoric is bull$hit. Its for people who rather remain ignorant.

Never did I say I support Saddam, but I also never said, attacking Iraq was just and the correct course of action.

But if Saddam was so bad, what about all the other places in the world were there are bad leader's killing innocent people, do we need to go invade and kill all them too? Oh wait, some of them have nukes and would nuke the sh!t out of us if it came down to it.

But anyway, we took care of Saddam, oh in a few weeks or so, its been years, what are we still doing there? Does Saddam have a bunch of clones that we are trying to kill too?

Saddam didn't have WMD's or he destroyed them. But he did test chemical weapons on his people. But testing a weapon doesn't mean they were to the point of being considered a WMD. You can have chemical weapons, but its pretty useless if you don't have any way to deliver it effectively.

But hey, look at it another way. The US does have lots of WMD's and a rather incompetent leader who has started an unjust war against another country resulting in many innocent deaths. Following the arguments of Mr Bush and the conservatives who still support this war, doesn't that give justification for the US to be attacked by an outside state?

Tell that to these children. You know not what you speak of.

[GaryC 7]

He also gave his people other nice presents. Such a nice guy, we were wrong to take him out.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Lets just say that I strongly disagree. If I could go back in time I would still fully support going into Iraq. It is the right thing to do.

You'd support taking out Saddam even though he didn't have WMD?

Why? If he didn't have WMD, he'd be just another pathetic tinpot Arab dictator.

I could post some PICTURES if you would like! They woud be very similar to the haulocaust. I will refrain.

I could raise you pictures of innocent people killed by American bombs and soldiers. Doesn't matter who does the killing, or who dies. It doesn't justifiy it.

So were all even on the pics? Its funny the side your takin! Poor Saddam? He didnt have WMD? What did he HAVE? A warm heart that you miss? Hmmmm. Maybe you could CHANNEL him?

PLEASE HELP ME understand your PERSPECTIVE?

The world isn't black and white, and the for us or against us rhetoric is bull$hit. Its for people who rather remain ignorant.

Never did I say I support Saddam, but I also never said, attacking Iraq was just and the correct course of action.

But if Saddam was so bad, what about all the other places in the world were there are bad leader's killing innocent people, do we need to go invade and kill all them too? Oh wait, some of them have nukes and would nuke the sh!t out of us if it came down to it.

But anyway, we took care of Saddam, oh in a few weeks or so, its been years, what are we still doing there? Does Saddam have a bunch of clones that we are trying to kill too?

Saddam didn't have WMD's or he destroyed them. But he did test chemical weapons on his people. But testing a weapon doesn't mean they were to the point of being considered a WMD. You can have chemical weapons, but its pretty useless if you don't have any way to deliver it effectively.

But hey, look at it another way. The US does have lots of WMD's and a rather incompetent leader who has started an unjust war against another country resulting in many innocent deaths. Following the arguments of Mr Bush and the conservatives who still support this war, doesn't that give justification for the US to be attacked by an outside state?

You need a internal compass! Lets pretend we found WMD! You would LOVE GWB for saving us? We all know what its about.

But hey look at it another way. Saddam was innocent and was a great guy untill we came along!

[Dan J 277]

The world isn't black and white, and the for us or against us rhetoric is bull$hit. Its for people who rather remain ignorant.

Never did I say I support Saddam, but I also never said, attacking Iraq was just and the correct course of action.

But if Saddam was so bad, what about all the other places in the world were there are bad leader's killing innocent people, do we need to go invade and kill all them too? Oh wait, some of them have nukes and would nuke the sh!t out of us if it came down to it.

But anyway, we took care of Saddam, oh in a few weeks or so, its been years, what are we still doing there? Does Saddam have a bunch of clones that we are trying to kill too?

Saddam didn't have WMD's or he destroyed them. But he did test chemical weapons on his people. But testing a weapon doesn't mean they were to the point of being considered a WMD. You can have chemical weapons, but its pretty useless if you don't have any way to deliver it effectively.

But hey, look at it another way. The US does have lots of WMD's and a rather incompetent leader who has started an unjust war against another country resulting in many innocent deaths. Following the arguments of Mr Bush and the conservatives who still support this war, doesn't that give justification for the US to be attacked by an outside state?

Tell that to these children. You know not what you speak of.

What about these? No Saddam didn't kill them we did.

So Saddam killing innocent people = bad, the US killing innocent people = good? I mean, you complain about how terrorists cowardly blow innocent people up, but what about our coward bombs being dropped from the sky? they don't always hit the right target. And even if they do, there is likely to be collateral damage. Your so focused on Saddam killing innocent people, thats you cant see whats really going on. We have killed many, many, many people. Many of them women and children. How is our killing of innocents any more justifiable than Saddam's?

[Dan J 277]

Lets just say that I strongly disagree. If I could go back in time I would still fully support going into Iraq. It is the right thing to do.

You'd support taking out Saddam even though he didn't have WMD?

Why? If he didn't have WMD, he'd be just another pathetic tinpot Arab dictator.

I could post some PICTURES if you would like! They woud be very similar to the haulocaust. I will refrain.

I could raise you pictures of innocent people killed by American bombs and soldiers. Doesn't matter who does the killing, or who dies. It doesn't justifiy it.

So were all even on the pics? Its funny the side your takin! Poor Saddam? He didnt have WMD? What did he HAVE? A warm heart that you miss? Hmmmm. Maybe you could CHANNEL him?

PLEASE HELP ME understand your PERSPECTIVE?

The world isn't black and white, and the for us or against us rhetoric is bull$hit. Its for people who rather remain ignorant.

Never did I say I support Saddam, but I also never said, attacking Iraq was just and the correct course of action.

But if Saddam was so bad, what about all the other places in the world were there are bad leader's killing innocent people, do we need to go invade and kill all them too? Oh wait, some of them have nukes and would nuke the sh!t out of us if it came down to it.

But anyway, we took care of Saddam, oh in a few weeks or so, its been years, what are we still doing there? Does Saddam have a bunch of clones that we are trying to kill too?

Saddam didn't have WMD's or he destroyed them. But he did test chemical weapons on his people. But testing a weapon doesn't mean they were to the point of being considered a WMD. You can have chemical weapons, but its pretty useless if you don't have any way to deliver it effectively.

But hey, look at it another way. The US does have lots of WMD's and a rather incompetent leader who has started an unjust war against another country resulting in many innocent deaths. Following the arguments of Mr Bush and the conservatives who still support this war, doesn't that give justification for the US to be attacked by an outside state?

You need a internal compass! Lets pretend we found WMD! You would LOVE GWB for saving us? We all know what its about.

But hey look at it another way. Saddam was innocent and was a great guy untill we came along!

Nope, because even if they had WMD's it would still not be just.

If its all about WMD's where are our invasion plans for North Korea, China, Israel, France, Soviet Union, UK, India and Packistan. They all have WMD's too.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

He also gave his people other nice presents. Such a nice guy, we were wrong to take him out.

Again - I don't think anyone is in the dark as to the type of guy Saddam was, so suggesting that we somehow support or sympathise with him is rather dishonest IMO. As someone else pointed out - there are plenty of people out there as bad or worse than Saddam, plenty of countries where people are getting butchered out of hand or left to starve. Is it ok - no; is it a fact of life - yes. World did ####### all about the Rwandan genocide for instance, and seems to be following suit with Darfur - but is quite prepared to remove a comparatively 'local bully' from the middle-east.

I don't suppose you'll ever admit that the removal of Saddam Hussein has contributed directly to the subsequent explosion of fundamentalist/extremist violence.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Whats ridiculous about this debate is that Saddam had the C H O I C E! U.N. Resolution. Let Inspectors in to continue or be TAKIN OUT! Saddam chose the latter. Well France didnt help him like he thought now the boy is CHEWIN DIRT! Poor guy.

Dam, if we would have just let him be, we could all live in peace? Screw the folks he was KILLIN! At least he was keeping the place under control!

FRICKIN BUSH!

When did you join Amnesty International to be so concerned about the plight of oppressed peoples. Don't see much outrage coming from you about Darfur, Sudan or Somalia - of course its easier to play the humanitarian when it suits your purposes. If its not on TV then surely it doesn't exist.

[reach449 2]

All it will take is another 9/11 or WORSE and this thread is a moot point! Then EVERYONE on this thread, that are saying we are killing too many people will change thier mind.

reach449