Suddenly People Get It?

old europe wrote:

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 to developing 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:

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.

I don't want to dispute your very personal theory about how the invasion of Iraq was perfectly justified based on the danger Iraq's potential WMD would have posed to the United States at some point in the future.

Likewise, I wouldn't dispute somebody's very personal theory about how the invasion of Poland was perfectly justified based on the fact that the German people needed living space in the East.

Brandon9000 wrote:

old europe wrote:

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 to developing 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.

according to the Tri-Lams :wink:

One is the annexation of other peoples' home and property. The other is an attempt to prevent a manifestly evil, imperialistic dictator, with a history of annexing his neighbors from developing doomsday weapons, and only undertaken after a dozen years of diplomacy.

Brandon9000 wrote:

One is the annexation of other peoples' home and property. The other is an attempt to prevent a manifestly evil, imperialistic dictator, with a history of annexing his neighbors from developing doomsday weapons, and only undertaken after a dozen years of diplomacy.

Actually, one is the invasion of a souvereign country for perfectly valid reasons, while the other is the invasion of a souvereign country for perfectly valid reasons.

So, we're still debating the reason for going to Iraq and getting Saddam and hanging him... not going after Osama whats his name?

old europe wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

One is the annexation of other peoples' home and property. The other is an attempt to prevent a manifestly evil, imperialistic dictator, with a history of annexing his neighbors from developing doomsday weapons, and only undertaken after a dozen years of diplomacy.

Actually, one is the invasion of a souvereign country for perfectly valid reasons, while the other is the invasion of a souvereign country for perfectly valid reasons.

Well, if you consider Hitler's invasion of Poland valid, that's your problem, but I do not.

Brandon9000 wrote:

One is the annexation of other peoples' home and property. The other is an attempt to prevent a manifestly evil, imperialistic dictator, with a history of annexing his neighbors from developing doomsday weapons, and only undertaken after a dozen years of diplomacy.

Actually, one is the invasion of a souvereign country for perfectly valid reasons, while the other is the invasion of a souvereign country for perfectly valid reasons.

squinney wrote:

So, we're still debating the reason for going to Iraq and getting Saddam and hanging him... not going after Osama whats his name?

And the two are mutually exclusive why?

Brandon9000 wrote:

squinney wrote:

So, we're still debating the reason for going to Iraq and getting Saddam and hanging him... not going after Osama whats his name?

And the two are mutually exclusive why?

Your tiresome habit of misunderstanding most posts on this forum

well he's dead. if everyone would just let it drop and shut the f*ck up about it he would soon be forgotten, due to peoples inability to remember any damn thing.

He continues to be empowered and exert influence in his death because people can't stop rubbernecking.