Suddenly People Get It?

Baldimo wrote:

squinney wrote:

So, now that the evil dictator Saddam has been dealt with, can we finally go get Osama and deal with avenging the deaths of OUR citizens?

We have been after him. Remember how long it took us to catch the Unibomber? You must think this stuff is easy to do. Stop watching movies, it takes more then 2hrs to save the world and get the bad guy.

who are you lecturing? You didn't even have what it takes to off one prick......

I just saw a news bleep on CNN saying that the execution of Saddam is now shown to be an act of pure revenge.

WELL NO ****!!!!!!


He reaped what he sowed and the world is less one dickhead but this was a foregone conclusion the minute bush took office, and the people who hated Saddam for both legitimate and non legitimate reasons have extracted their revenge. That was the mission.


wise up.

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

I just saw a news bleep on CNN saying that the execution of Saddam is now shown to be an act of pure revenge.

WELL NO ****!!!!!!


He reaped what he sowed and the world is less one dickhead but this was a foregone conclusion the minute bush took office, and the people who hated Saddam for both legitimate and non legitimate reasons have extracted their revenge. That was the mission.


wise up.

No, it proves that it was an act of revenge for some of the individuals participating in the execution. But if many Iraqis feel some sense of revenge at his execution, is this not actually warranted by the extraordinary cruelty with which he ruled his country?

As for Mr. Bush, the invasion was undertaken to preclude the possibility that someday soon Hussein would have nuclear and/or bioweapons, which might easily have turned into an immense tragedy for mankind.

McGentrix wrote:

Frank is one of the few libs on A2K I would like to sit and share a beer with. He doesn't pretend and he doesn't put on the haughty airs many of his brethren do.

Hear, hear. (He's a leftist even though he won't admit it.)

Frank wrote:

You American conservatives are a pathetic lot! You've been on the wrong side of damn near every important issue this country has ever faced...and you have shown no improvement over the years.

I've heard that somewhere before.

Frank, stick around this time, okay?

Brandon is flexible in his rationalizations for the war, Vinny.

Hey, Brandon9000, I disagree with "As for Mr. Bush, the invasion was undertaken to preclude the possibility that someday soon Hussein would have nuclear and/or bioweapons, which might easily have turned into an immense tragedy for mankind." I don't have the world's best memory, but as I remember it, the invasion was because the coalition guys belived that Hussein already had those weapons and was hiding them from the UN inspectors. Am I wrong?

It was because it was believed that it was likely that he had active but hidden development programs.

Brandon9000 wrote:

It was because it was believed that it was likely that he had active but hidden development programs.

That's not what the President said, Brandon.

He clearly stated that "our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."

Unless I'm really mistaken, in order to disarm somebody of WMD, he must be in possession of WMD, right? So the reason for the invasion was that Iraq allegedly was in possession of WMD, not due to the possibility that Iraq had active but hidden development programmes.

Try to stick to the truth, Brandon.

Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is todeveloping a nuclear weapon. Well, we don't know exactlyand that's the problem.

-- George Bush, Cincinnati, Ohio, Oct. 8, 2002.

Anyway, no matter what the president did or did not say, I have outlined what were the proper reasons to invade Iraq.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is todeveloping a nuclear weapon. Well, we don't know exactlyand that's the problem.

-- George Bush, Cincinnati, Ohio, Oct. 8, 2002.

Cherrypicking, aren't we? Do you think that presenting all the quotes that left some doubt about Iraqi WMDs while ignoring all those where either Bush or other government officials clearly stated that they knew that Iraq was in possession of WMD makes a good case for your very personal theory about the reasons for the war?

Brandon9000 wrote:

Anyway, no matter what the president did or did not say, I have outlined what were the proper reasons to invade Iraq.

Have I mentioned the words "very personal theory" already? Well, let me do so again: this is nothing but your very personal theory about the reasons for the war. It is in no way supported by the collective speeches, quotes and interviews from the Bush administration.

I'm cherry picking President Bush quotes about the same way that you are.

I think that he clearly indicated that Iraq had to be stopped before it developed an arsenal of really serious WMD.

As for my stated reasons why the invasion of Iraq was necessary being "very personal," that's exactly correct.

It sounds like you don't believe tht posters on the Politics forum have a right to give their opinions, when, in fact, that's one of the purposes of the forum.

Indeed, I have, just as you say, stated my opinion as to why the invasion of Iraq was the correct decision based on what was known then.

If you want to dispute my opinion, then you must first address it.

...

Brandon9000 wrote:

Indeed, I have, just as you say, stated my opinion as to why the invasion of Iraq was the correct decision based on what was known then.

Actually, you should amend that to "was known be me then". Otherwise you're passing it off as ex cathedra, and not merely as your very personal theory.

Brandon9000 wrote:

If you want to dispute my opinion, then you must first address it.

I don't want to dispute your opinion. That would be quite pointless. I merely wanted you to acknowledge that your statements about the reasons the Bush administration had for going to war cannot be reliably backed up by the sum of statements from the Bush administration prior to the invasion.

You did that, and I'm happy we agree on that matter.

No, I am giving my opinion as to why the invasion of Iraq was the correct decision based on what was known by the US government then.

Specifically, that there was uncertainty about the status of Iraq's WMD development efforts, plus the fact that Iraq had often obstructed inspectors, which implies that there is something to hide.

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat....I would also add, we saw from the air that there were dozens of trucks that went into that facility after the existence of it became public in the press and they moved things out. They dispersed them and took them away."

Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003

1. I acknowledged no such thing. The president made different statements about Iraq's WMD status at different times. He certainly never claimed that Iraq already did have nuclear weapons.

2. I assert that you don't want to disputemy opinion as to why the invasion was justified simply because you cannot.

Brandon9000 wrote:

No, I am giving my opinion as to why the invasion of Iraq was the correct decision based on what was known by the US government then.

Well, I would certainly be interested in how you know what was known by the US government prior to the invasion, Brandon.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Specifically, that there was uncertainty about the status of Iraq's WMD development efforts, plus the fact that Iraq had often obstructed inspectors, which implies that there is something to hide.

You're saying that there was uncertainty about the status of Iraq's WMD. Maybe you can help me and point out how that uncertainty is reflected in this quote here about Iraq's WMD:

Quote:

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat....I would also add, we saw from the air that there were dozens of trucks that went into that facility after the existence of it became public in the press and they moved things out. They dispersed them and took them away."

Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003

Brandon9000 wrote:

1. I acknowledged no such thing. The president made different statements about Iraq's WMD status at different times. He certainly never claimed that Iraq already did have nuclear weapons.

Nuclear? When did I say nuclear? When did you? Hm?

Brandon9000 wrote:

2. I assert that you don't want to disputemy opinion as to why the invasion was justified simply because you cannot.

No, I don't want to dispute your opinion, because it has no merit. History went right by your very personal theory about why Iraq should have been invaded and left you behind in the dust.

Well, it certainly is easier to win debates by merely stating that your opponent is wrong, than by having to counter his actual arguments.

Quote:

Well, it certainly is easier to win debates by merely stating that your opponent is wrong, than by having to counter his actual arguments.

They've been proven wrong long ago.

It would be official if you weren't to cowardly to be judged.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

Well, it certainly is easier to win debates by merely stating that your opponent is wrong, than by having to counter his actual arguments.

They've been proven wrong long ago.

It would be official if you weren't to cowardly to be judged.

Cycloptichorn

Please provide a link to a post in which my theory about the invasion was disproven, and explain how the text of the post constitutes a disproof, rather than merely an opinion or an argument in progress.

So, your argument, basically, is that you don't want to dispute my personal justification of the invasion of Iraq, because it has no merit.