dairygirl4u2c Posted July 23, 2005 Share Posted July 23, 2005 Just because there has been a lot of democrat bashing going on and I don't think the dems are completely clueless. Can anyone point to the tie between Al Quieda and Iraq that was used as justification for the war? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomProddy Posted July 23, 2005 Share Posted July 23, 2005 Iraq.. um.. wait I know this one.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathan Posted July 23, 2005 Share Posted July 23, 2005 What, like the US needed an excuse to kick Saddam Hussein's ass? The way I see it, it's one less evil, murderous dictator living like royalty while his people are routinely tortured and killed by the truckload. What are you liberals crying about? The US just liberated a country. That's a [i]good[/i] thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted July 24, 2005 Author Share Posted July 24, 2005 [quote]What, like the US needed an excuse to kick Saddam Hussein's ass? The way I see it, it's one less evil, murderous dictator living like royalty while his people are routinely tortured and killed by the truckload. What are you liberals crying about? The US just liberated a country. That's a good thing.[/quote] Perhaps. But that doesn't mean it's not based on a lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomProddy Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 [quote name='Nathan' date='Jul 23 2005, 10:51 PM']What, like the US needed an excuse to kick Saddam Hussein's ass? [right][snapback]655970[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted July 24, 2005 Author Share Posted July 24, 2005 This thread is like the epitome of every discussion I've ever seen on the Iraq and Al Quieda link. (when these talks actually happen, sadly everyone talks about WMDs when these have nothing to do necessarily with the link.. *that was said to exist*.. had to put that with asterisks to emphasize so some don't go getting well Saddam was bad, without admitting the lie the war was based on) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 Saddam sent out memos to his loyalist after the loss of Bagdad clearly telling them not make alliances with Islamic Militants, that these men had very different interest that the Baathest did. I don't think there was a link there because I don't think Hussain liked Osama and his tactics anymore than we did. Now that being said he might have communicated technical advise because Osama was the enemy of his enemy but beyond that I really doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 what, no poll? : but then you can't file it in your database! lol there was some communication between them I know, but I really don't know the extent of it. only people deep in the intelligence sphere really know how deep that communication between them went... I really have no clue. but DJ is right about the mistrust sadam would've had for Osama et cetera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 This is now two threads that I'm finding myself on the same side of the argument with Don John. (Looking out the window for the first horse of the Apocalypse to come riding) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilroy the Ninja Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 [quote name='hot stuff' date='Jul 24 2005, 05:37 PM']This is now two threads that I'm finding myself on the same side of the argument with Don John. (Looking out the window for the first horse of the Apocalypse to come riding) [right][snapback]657389[/snapback][/right] [/quote] See??? DJ's not all bad.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Posted July 24, 2005 Share Posted July 24, 2005 [quote]See??? DJ's not all bad.... smile.gif[/quote] LOL I've never thought that about DJ. (Although I am considering getting my PhD) He's politely PM'd me on issues before and I've appreciated the courtesy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JP2Iloveyou Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 Can someone tell me why the link was necessary? Isn't it enough that he was killing people and being a tyrant? I mean, there was no direct link between Pearl Harbor and Nazi Germany either, so by your logic, we were unjustified in attacking the Germans in WWII as well. Let me give you an example on a smaller scale. If somebody hits my little brother, as far as I'm concerned, I have every right to hit that person, regardless of whether or not he hit me. I certainly wouldn't stand there and let my little bro fend for himself against a bully based solely on the fact that said bully didn't personally hit me. It seems to me that when one is honest and examines the role the United States plays in the world, we really should be the world's policeman. We have the finances and technology to do it. IMO, it is just as immoral, if not more so, to turn a blind eye to evil and pretend that it doesn't exist than to engage it, even if that means more loss of life. The Church's documents are clear that peace is not merely the absence of war, but also the presence of justice. I for one and sick and tired of people that have this attitude that American lives are somehow more valuable that innocent Iraqi lives, or Afghan lives, or innocent life anywhere. This doesn't mean that we have to go around sticking our noses in every little skirmish that breaks out, but the tyrannical reign of Saddam Hussein had been going on for years when we finally removed him from power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melchisedec Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 [quote name='JP2Iloveyou' date='Jul 25 2005, 02:22 PM']It seems to me that when one is honest and examines the role the United States plays in the world, we really should be the world's policeman. [right][snapback]658454[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Tell that to the people fighting the war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didacus Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 You want to know the reason why the US invaded IRAQ? Read this link: [url="http://lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm"]http://lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm[/url] I guarantee it will put things in perspective for you, especially the younger crowd around phatmass. IT IS NOT ABOUT FREEDOM IT IS NOT ABOUT TERRORISM IT IS NOT TO PROTECT THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE War is a Racket was written by a former US general, in the eve of world war II. this guy was there for world war I (a general) and he knows precisely what war is about, and the 'atrocities behind the scenes' if you will. His paper is one of the most powerful, bluntly true papers on the reasons of war ever written. Well worth the read ladies and gents... [b]My sons will never go to war... for this I pray. Not unless the pope himself calls for it, my sons (and daugther for that matter) will never go to any war for country or state.[/b] Have a go, and let me know what you think... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didacus Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 [quote name='JP2Iloveyou' date='Jul 25 2005, 02:22 PM']Can someone tell me why the link was necessary? Isn't it enough that he was killing people and being a tyrant? I mean, there was no direct link between Pearl Harbor and Nazi Germany either, so by your logic, we were unjustified in attacking the Germans in WWII as well. [/quote] Pear Harbor - US goes to war against Japan. US goes to war against Germany for, 'unnoficially', Germany sinking US boats en-route for Great Britain. The two where not linked in any way, at least not 'officially'. Behind the scens, Japan attacked - the Us defended themselves. The US joining into the war against Germany was for economical reasons. France and Great Britain owed more money to the US than Germany... Little known fact, the US was selling oil to Germany - EVEN WHEN THEY WHERE AT WAR WITH EACH OTHER! Why? For profits, nothing like selling your goods to both sides, after all, the longer they fight, the more money you make, even if one the sides is your own country, gotta keep them pennies rolling. [quote name='JP2Iloveyou' date='Jul 25 2005, 02:22 PM']Let me give you an example on a smaller scale. If somebody hits my little brother, as far as I'm concerned, I have every right to hit that person, regardless of whether or not he hit me. I certainly wouldn't stand there and let my little bro fend for himself against a bully based solely on the fact that said bully didn't personally hit me. [/quote] There is a difference between helping out an ally which is attacked, and jumping on a 'bully' just because he is a bully. Unless that 'bully' does anything concrete to your little borther - how can you be justified? And if two bullies where fighting one against the other, which bully would you side with? [quote name='JP2Iloveyou' date='Jul 25 2005, 02:22 PM']It seems to me that when one is honest and examines the role the United States plays in the world, we really should be the world's policeman. We have the finances and technology to do it. IMO, it is just as immoral, if not more so, to turn a blind eye to evil and pretend that it doesn't exist than to engage it, even if that means more loss of life. [/quote] Oh really? Have you ever heard of a nation called Rwanda? How many international representatives begged the US for help in Rwanda, and the US turned ablind eye. Millions where slaughtered in an attempted genocide that was proven with the brightess of clarity - the US does nothing meaningful to help... No oil in Rwanda, no gold, no copper mines... no money to be made. what about Vietnam? The good US doing the world's police duty? Because the French couldn't handle it right? FACT: during the first gulf war, the US had every chance and reason to remove Sadam from power... but they didn't. Wehren't they suppsoed to do what was right? What was best? Why didn't they remove him then? That is a heck of a question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now