100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: The Left Was Right | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
we were there looking for him. Iraq was different. Not only did they violate the rules put on them but Hussein and his family were torturing and murdering innocent people. YES he needed to be stopped Bi Laden has many places to hide and people helping him hide. It's not as easy to find him when countries are hiding him in places we don't know about. There are many places to hide there I never said they shouldn't do something for china. and I didn't say we were torturing anyone in Iraq |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My point was really very simple--where were all of the people who are now debating water boarding or other questionable forms of treatment (and I'm not an advocate of torture) when Saddam's kid was raping new wives on their wedding day? Where were they when he was gassing the Kurds or murdering his own for no reason save for the fact that he could? I don't understand that mentality. If torture and murder are wrong, why wasn't the humanitarian rational good enough to remove Saddam? Is the world not a better place without him? Would we in fact be safer today if he were still alive and in power? And if it is our "fault" that he was in power to begin with then isn't it on us to do the right thing and remove him? How is that not a moral imperative?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My point was really very simple--where were all of the people who are now debating water boarding or other questionable forms of treatment (and I'm not an advocate of torture) when Saddam's kid was raping new wives on their wedding day? Where were they when he was gassing the Kurds or murdering his own for no reason save for the fact that he could? I don't understand that mentality. If torture and murder are wrong, why wasn't the humanitarian rational good enough to remove Saddam? Is the world not a better place without him? Would we in fact be safer today if he were still alive and in power? And if it is our "fault" that he was in power to begin with then isn't it on us to do the right thing and remove him? How is that not a moral imperative? I agree...for the same reason we went into Kosovo. And YES I think we should help China but that just hasn't happened yet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
we were there looking for him. Iraq was different. Not only did they violate the rules put on them but Hussein and his family were torturing and murdering innocent people. YES he needed to be stopped Bi Laden has many places to hide and people helping him hide. It's not as easy to find him when countries are hiding him in places we don't know about. There are many places to hide there Again I will say this, so since Saddam was "easier to get" we got him for 9/11??? Saddam has been doing what he does since he has been in power why now? If we were going to take him out why wait until after 9/11? It makes no sense because it was not a valid reason to go into Iraq. We were wrong to go there. Bush could care less about UN sanctions. I guess he will use them if he needs to use them oh and that is what we did to Saddam also, we used him when it was convenient for us. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My point was really very simple--where were all of the people who are now debating water boarding or other questionable forms of treatment (and I'm not an advocate of torture) when Saddam's kid was raping new wives on their wedding day? Where were they when he was gassing the Kurds or murdering his own for no reason save for the fact that he could? I don't understand that mentality. If torture and murder are wrong, why wasn't the humanitarian rational good enough to remove Saddam? Is the world not a better place without him? Would we in fact be safer today if he were still alive and in power? And if it is our "fault" that he was in power to begin with then isn't it on us to do the right thing and remove him? How is that not a moral imperative? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
we were there looking for him. Iraq was different. Not only did they violate the rules put on them but Hussein and his family were torturing and murdering innocent people. YES he needed to be stopped Bi Laden has many places to hide and people helping him hide. It's not as easy to find him when countries are hiding him in places we don't know about. There are many places to hide there Again I will say this, so since Saddam was "easier to get" we got him for 9/11??? Saddam has been doing what he does since he has been in power why now? If we were going to take him out why wait until after 9/11? It makes no sense because it was not a valid reason to go into Iraq. We were wrong to go there. Bush could care less about UN sanctions. I guess he will use them if he needs to use them oh and that is what we did to Saddam also, we used him when it was convenient for us. Hussein wasn't blamed for 911 (at least not by everyone). He violated the rules set down by the other countries for his past actions. AND for what he was doing to his own people. Bin Laden has been to blame for 911 and we went looking for him FOR THAT. How can you say there was no valid reason to go there??? What he did to his own people wasn't enough??? Again ... we went to Kosovo for the same thing under Clinton |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
again...on top of murder and torture of his own people...Hussein also violated the UN resolutions...not Bush's but the UN's
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
we were there looking for him. Iraq was different. Not only did they violate the rules put on them but Hussein and his family were torturing and murdering innocent people. YES he needed to be stopped Bi Laden has many places to hide and people helping him hide. It's not as easy to find him when countries are hiding him in places we don't know about. There are many places to hide there Again I will say this, so since Saddam was "easier to get" we got him for 9/11??? Saddam has been doing what he does since he has been in power why now? If we were going to take him out why wait until after 9/11? It makes no sense because it was not a valid reason to go into Iraq. We were wrong to go there. Bush could care less about UN sanctions. I guess he will use them if he needs to use them oh and that is what we did to Saddam also, we used him when it was convenient for us. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
we went into Iraq the first time in 1991...911 hadn't happened. Hussein violated the UN sanctions (not Bush's) and continued to torture and murder. 911 happened in 2001
911 had nothing to do with Desert Storm. we went back to Iraq in 2003...almost 2 yrs AFTER 911 Hussein was not blamed for 911. Hussein had his own crimes. How come you don't have a problem with Clinton sending us into Kosovo? But I have said all of this before |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
we went into Iraq the first time in 1991...911 hadn't happened. Hussein violated the UN sanctions (not Bush's) and continued to torture and murder. 911 happened in 2001 911 had nothing to do with Desert Storm. we went back to Iraq in 2003...almost 2 yrs AFTER 911 Hussein was not blamed for 911. Hussein had his own crimes. How come you don't have a problem with Clinton sending us into Kosovo? But I have said all of this before |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
we went into Iraq the first time in 1991...911 hadn't happened. Hussein violated the UN sanctions (not Bush's) and continued to torture and murder. 911 happened in 2001 911 had nothing to do with Desert Storm. we went back to Iraq in 2003...almost 2 yrs AFTER 911 Hussein was not blamed for 911. Hussein had his own crimes. How come you don't have a problem with Clinton sending us into Kosovo? But I have said all of this before |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Madison--you are actually making the argument that the people of Iraq were better off under Saddam? That's like saying that the people of Germany were better off under Hitler. Ask Germans now if they agree. Not everything globally occurs in short order. History is about perspective and that can take time. And if you want to talk about oil deals I wonder if your condemnation extends to the massive issue the U.N. had going with France and the oil money that was far dirtier than our own. Why so selective?
-Drew |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Madison--you are actually making the argument that the people of Iraq were better off under Saddam? That's like saying that the people of Germany were better off under Hitler. Ask Germans now if they agree. Not everything globally occurs in short order. History is about perspective and that can take time. And if you want to talk about oil deals I wonder if your condemnation extends to the massive issue the U.N. had going with France and the oil money that was far dirtier than our own. Why so selective? -Drew |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Madison--you are actually making the argument that the people of Iraq were better off under Saddam? That's like saying that the people of Germany were better off under Hitler. Ask Germans now if they agree. Not everything globally occurs in short order. History is about perspective and that can take time. And if you want to talk about oil deals I wonder if your condemnation extends to the massive issue the U.N. had going with France and the oil money that was far dirtier than our own. Why so selective? -Drew Well, of coarse that's the only viable comparison you see--it's the only one you are looking for. Five years? And they were under his thumb for how long? That and I asked about the German people, not Poland. Do you think that the German people were better off with or without Hitler on the throne? What about Italy under Mussolini? Pol Pot, Mao, Aidid, Tojo, Enver?.....name for me if you would a dictator that the people of the world were better served by than the alternative, long range. And if the replacement was worse does that mean we should just stop giving a damn? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the life of the average Iraqi was better off under saddam. America aided saddams regime throughout the worst of his attrocities and now america runs his old torture chambers. lets take it a step further.america was far better off prior o bush
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the life of the average Iraqi was better off under saddam. America aided saddams regime throughout the worst of his attrocities and now america runs his old torture chambers. lets take it a step further.america was far better off prior o bush By average Iraqi, do you mean the ones that were not beaten for losing a soccer game for the Iraqi National Team? Or are you referring here to the ones whose wives weren't raped on their wedding night by a member of the "Guard?" Or did you just mean the average Iraqi who could never have spoken out about what he/she did not like or wanted changed? You can take issue with GWB until your fingers get tired of typing. It's great sport these days and doesn't require much effort. You just don't think the average Iraqi deserves the same. I mean after all, they were better off under Saddam. I never lived the life of an average Iraqi so I'm not able to make such a statement. I take it you have though....right? As for supporting him through the worst of his treatment of the average Iraqi...well, then we had an obligation to take him out of power for having put him there in the first place. -Drew |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the life of the average Iraqi was better off under saddam. America aided saddams regime throughout the worst of his attrocities and now america runs his old torture chambers. lets take it a step further.america was far better off prior o bush By average Iraqi, do you mean the ones that were not beaten for losing a soccer game for the Iraqi National Team? Or are you referring here to the ones whose wives weren't raped on their wedding night by a member of the "Guard?" Or did you just mean the average Iraqi who could never have spoken out about what he/she did not like or wanted changed? You can take issue with GWB until your fingers get tired of typing. It's great sport these days and doesn't require much effort. You just don't think the average Iraqi deserves the same. I mean after all, they were better off under Saddam. I never lived the life of an average Iraqi so I'm not able to make such a statement. I take it you have though....right? As for supporting him through the worst of his treatment of the average Iraqi...well, then we had an obligation to take him out of power for having put him there in the first place. -Drew |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the life of the average Iraqi was better off under saddam. America aided saddams regime throughout the worst of his attrocities and now america runs his old torture chambers. lets take it a step further.america was far better off prior o bush By average Iraqi, do you mean the ones that were not beaten for losing a soccer game for the Iraqi National Team? Or are you referring here to the ones whose wives weren't raped on their wedding night by a member of the "Guard?" Or did you just mean the average Iraqi who could never have spoken out about what he/she did not like or wanted changed? You can take issue with GWB until your fingers get tired of typing. It's great sport these days and doesn't require much effort. You just don't think the average Iraqi deserves the same. I mean after all, they were better off under Saddam. I never lived the life of an average Iraqi so I'm not able to make such a statement. I take it you have though....right? As for supporting him through the worst of his treatment of the average Iraqi...well, then we had an obligation to take him out of power for having put him there in the first place. -Drew and how much more did Hussein and his sons do to Iraqi's? what happened to that girl was a tragedy and shouldn't be minimized. those soldiers are being tried and some face the death penalty. The wedding party was a tragedy, as well. A costly mistake was made. But you seem to be minimizing what Hussein and his sons did. They were evil and needed to be taken out. After war...you can't rebuild over night...not to mention insurgents are still hendering all of that. They are MUCH better off without him Not many other countries rebuild after they defeat a country in war. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
we went into Iraq the first time in 1991...911 hadn't happened. Hussein violated the UN sanctions (not Bush's) and continued to torture and murder. 911 happened in 2001 911 had nothing to do with Desert Storm. we went back to Iraq in 2003...almost 2 yrs AFTER 911 Hussein was not blamed for 911. Hussein had his own crimes. How come you don't have a problem with Clinton sending us into Kosovo? But I have said all of this before my main point was that Hussein was NOT blamed for 911. Desert Storm came 12 yrs before. Hussein committed his own crimes. 911 was separate. Kosovo was actually no threat to us...we went in to save the people. Iraq IS a threat to us and we went in to save the people. as far as oil???? sorry but I have no problem with that. If we are doing most of the work...why should France or someone benefit? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the life of the average Iraqi was better off under saddam. America aided saddams regime throughout the worst of his attrocities and now america runs his old torture chambers. lets take it a step further.america was far better off prior o bush By average Iraqi, do you mean the ones that were not beaten for losing a soccer game for the Iraqi National Team? Or are you referring here to the ones whose wives weren't raped on their wedding night by a member of the "Guard?" Or did you just mean the average Iraqi who could never have spoken out about what he/she did not like or wanted changed? You can take issue with GWB until your fingers get tired of typing. It's great sport these days and doesn't require much effort. You just don't think the average Iraqi deserves the same. I mean after all, they were better off under Saddam. I never lived the life of an average Iraqi so I'm not able to make such a statement. I take it you have though....right? As for supporting him through the worst of his treatment of the average Iraqi...well, then we had an obligation to take him out of power for having put him there in the first place. -Drew I'm awake and know at least this much. We are a people (as a rule) that is both saddened by the loss of life at the wedding party (as it was a mistake) and outraged by the actions of soldiers who commit crimes in violation of the law. But therein is where the difference is found. Never in the history of the world has a military as strong as ours used as much restraint as ours. We could have ended all of this in a month if wedding parties and mosques didn't matter. But they do. Their mosques matter more to our fighter pilots than they ever mattered to Saddam and we avoided as much of that as we could. Did mistakes happen? Yes. Did crimes occur? Yes. But as yellowrose points out, those crimes will be prosecuted and with any luck those who committed them will be jailed. Your attempt to equate the two not only misses the point but compares the exception (us) to the rule (Saddam's regime). |
|
|
|
|
