Death to Saddam

[xveganxcowboyx]

Originally Posted by cudvig

You are so corredt man im with you, plus im in the military and so is my best friend. We both have signed up to be deployed(if you have a negative comments on that, you can go f**k yourself, Positive comments welcome thank you) We both believe in this liberation of iraq and are willing to fight for it. Also bush didnt start this, the f**king towel heads did. There has only been two presidents who had to deal with the probelm of being attacked on our own soil, first FDR WWII but that was pearl harbor and not the heart of america in downtown NYC at our most important building. So if you bitch ass liberal want to get something done stop whining and actually try to help this country instead of destoring it.

Ooo and let that MOFO HANG from the tallest building so everyone can see

Saddam and in fact Iraq as a whole had absolutely nothing to do with september 11. Al Quaeda did. They were in the least being harbored by the Taleban. That's why world-wide support for our actions in Afghanistan was high, it was a reasonably legitimate course of action. The support for invading Iraq was low, because we had absolutely no good reason to invade.

Don't get me wrong, Saddam is a sick and demented fuck and deserves exactly what's coming to him. The trial is of course just a formality. He is being killed appropriately by those he wronged. Fair.

But when it comes to whether or not Bush has done something wrong, it's pretty clear. Sure, the members of the military are volunteer, but they entrust their safety in the commander in chief. When that person abuses their power and gets americans (and foreigners) killed he is doing something terribly wrong. Simply put, people die in war. Everyone knows this so you do not enter into a war without good reason.

[Goat Blower]

Originally Posted by xveganxcowboyx

Saddam and in fact Iraq as a whole had absolutely nothing to do with september 11. Al Quaeda did.

You sure about that?

[FattyBoomBatty]

Originally Posted by Goat Blower

You sure about that?

vegancowboy has my vote, Iraq never planned that attack, if you think iraq should be blamed in part for the 9/11 stuff, you could also think that America is to blame for the oklahoma city bombing. Why would the president start a war with a country that didn't harbor the leading terrorists in the attack and had no weapons of mass destruction? That is the real question. One possible answer is that he was getting revenge for his pappy cause saddam put a hit on bush sr. That last part is true.

[xveganxcowboyx]

Originally Posted by Goat Blower

You sure about that?

Yes.

There has never been any evidence supporting that. Even Bush has stated this publickly after being called on his insinuations that there was a connection. There was absolutely no connection between Saddam's regime and sept. 11 or Al Quaeda's actions. In fact, the two were pretty opposed to each other given that Iraq and Saddam's government were much more secular than most middle eastern countries.

[Gravy]

Given it's not pushes fault people got sent over seas, and i'm not blaming him for that... But can't we hang him anyways for being a dumbass?

You think they will televise the hanging? I'd be willing to pay for that sh!t.

Originally Posted by xveganxcowboyx

Yes.



There has never been any evidence supporting that. Even Bush has stated this publickly after being called on his insinuations that there was a connection. There was absolutely no connection between Saddam's regime and sept. 11 or Al Quaeda's actions. In fact, the two were pretty opposed to each other given that Iraq and Saddam's government were much more secular than most middle eastern countries.

We went over because we thought he had nuclear weapons. So we wanted to stop him before he was able to test or atempt to use them on this own people, or a nearby country. It's like giving a 4 year old a big red button that says "DO NOT PUSH", we know what's going to happen.

What i don't get, if we went into iraq to prevent them from getting nukes... didn't north Korea just get them and test them sucesfully? And now Iran is working on their program... at this rate we need a new president or a draft if we are going to keep this up.

[Goat Blower]

Originally Posted by xveganxcowboyx

Yes.

There has never been any evidence supporting that. Even Bush has stated this publicly after being called on his insinuations that there was a connection. There was absolutely no connection between Saddam's regime and sept. 11 or Al Qaeda's actions. In fact, the two were pretty opposed to each other given that Iraq and Saddam's government were much more secular than most middle eastern countries.

Well, if we'd have all known that beforehand, it would've made it much easier to make the decision. But we didn't, and a decision was made, sometimes you have to do that, popular or not. Had Iraq fired a missle our way at some point, we'd all be mad at Bush for not doing anything. Iraq definitely had a nuclear program, but even when that information is given to the American public, some democrats cry foul and have it removed stating the info could get into the wrong hands. Since we just took it out of the wrong hands, that's a weak argument in my book. More like bad timing for them as far as elections go. Hmmmm.

Besides that, just because we don't have pictures of all the weapons with Saddam posing in front of it doesn't mean they weren't there. They had plenty of time to get rid of them before we came over and it's widely though that a lot of it was trucked into Syria. There's also been reports of high levels or serin and other toxic gases dumped into the rivers there, it wouldn't be hard to get rid of. I think it's just a matter of time before we find something big.

I'll agree, Saddam obviously wasn't directly responsible for 9/11. Did he help Al Qaeda along the way? Very good possibility. Did he knowingly harbor and Al Qaeda, I can pretty much guarantee it. Just because you don't see it on the nightly news doesn't mean it doesn't happen. If you've been in the military during any conflict at all, you'd know that.

Point is, going in and killing the bad guy isn't cut and dry in this case. But along the way, we got rid of a murderous dictator and are restoring democracy to a country that's been in fear for decades. We're also building schools and giving freedom to people that are just realizing what it is. So even if we haven't gotten what we came for yet, we've left doing more for that country than all the "save the world" organizations combined could ever do. I feel good about that.

Oh yeah, back on topic for Vicious.

[xveganxcowboyx]

Originally Posted by Goat Blower

Well, if we'd have all known that beforehand, it would've made it much easier to make the decision. But we didn't, and a decision was made, sometimes you have to do that, popular or not. Had Iraq fired a missle our way at some point, we'd all be mad at Bush for not doing anything. Iraq definitely had a nuclear program, but even when that information is given to the American public, some democrats cry foul and have it removed stating the info could get into the wrong hands. Since we just took it out of the wrong hands, that's a weak argument in my book. More like bad timing for them as far as elections go. Hmmmm.

We did know about it. There were very few things presented as evidence of Iraqs weapons programs, including the aluminum tubes being imported and a supposed mobile chemical factory. Even if these things had been true they would not have added up to a solid justification for war. Interestingly it was shown (after the fact) that the evidence was absolutely bogus and this was known before the invasion. This is why the entire world was opposed to the invasion in the first place. They knew and we knew Iraq was not a threat. Unfotunately that is not the story the government told the american people.

Further more the United States has no right to complain about weak intelligence when we were the ones who forced a withdrawl of recently admitted weapons inspectors so we could attack. It went like this: Iraq stalls and keeps inspectors out. The UN and world governments get pissy and push for admittance. Iraq allows weapons and nuclear inspectors in. The US tells them to get out so it can attack.


Besides that, just because we don't have pictures of all the weapons with Saddam posing in front of it doesn't mean they weren't there. They had plenty of time to get rid of them before we came over and it's widely though that a lot of it was trucked into Syria. There's also been reports of high levels or serin and other toxic gases dumped into the rivers there, it wouldn't be hard to get rid of. I think it's just a matter of time before we find something big.

Originally Posted by Goat Blower

I'll agree, Saddam obviously wasn't directly responsible for 9/11. Did he help Al Qaeda along the way? Very good possibility. Did he knowingly harbor and Al Qaeda, I can pretty much guarantee it. Just because you don't see it on the nightly news doesn't mean it doesn't happen. If you've been in the military during any conflict at all, you'd know that.

Again, there is no evidence supporting this. Saying there might be a possibility it happened is no justification for anything. In fact, there have been many more documented meetings with US officials and Al Quaeda officials than Iraqi and Al Quaeda. I'm not suggesting any US Al Quaeda connection, but pointing out the total lack evidence on that connection.

Originally Posted by Goat Blower

Point is, going in and killing the bad guy isn't cut and dry in this case. But along the way, we got rid of a murderous dictator and are restoring democracy to a country that's been in fear for decades. We're also building schools and giving freedom to people that are just realizing what it is. So even if we haven't gotten what we came for yet, we've left doing more for that country than all the "save the world" organizations combined could ever do. I feel good about that.

To some degree I agree with you. I don't think we are doing a whole lot of good in Iraq currently, nor do I think our actions come close to comparing with those of the thousands of aid organisations world wide, but we are in Iraq now. We are trying to do some decent things. I truly hope that we can do some good in the long run. Current trends suggest otherwise, but it's possible we may create a democratic country. It's possible we may help create an economically stable country. We've screwed up a lot with arrogant and unjustified actions. the least we can do now is work our asses off to leave the place better than it was when we went in.

As a side note, I think we would have been much more justified in aiding Kurdish rebels in 91. Whether or not it would have been good strategy I don't know, but at that point we had a decent reason to do it.

[Goat Blower]

double post