Americans got screwed

[rtwngAvngr]

"Far from unregulated capitalism" - you prove you don't know what your talking about with that statement. There is very limited weak regulation within the USA, and almost no regulation internationally.

Explain to me how the "libs" are trying to destroy families and how the policies of the right support "family values".

Wade.

And then I asked you what you meant by it. Taxes? Minimum wage? osha regulation? Can you stop being a Mary long enough to tell us what you mean by regulated capitalism. Either one is free too operate a business or one isn't.

Instead of calling names, why don't you settle down and just answer the question.

 

[wade]

Wade--we're way past all that
The goal NOW is to help Iraq begin it's march toward democracy. Re-hash all the old "facts" you want but your gonna miss history in the making. The Iraqis' don't give a damn why we decided to oust Saddam. They are just glad we did!!

I was replying to a post. My reply was within the context of the discussion.

"Were past all that" is what people say when they wish to avoid unpleasent truths.

All the evidence is that while they are glad to be rid of Saddam, they now want to be rid of us!

Wade.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I was replying to a post. My reply was within the context of the discussion.

"Were past all that" is what people say when they wish to avoid unpleasent truths.

All the evidence is that while they are glad to be rid of Saddam, they now want to be rid of us!

Wade.

A small vocal, violent, minority want to be rid of us. Most want freedom. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

 

[wade]

Wade, I dealt with that aspect. THe whole region was being armed by superpowers pursuing larger global goals. In context it makes sense; we did what was necessary to keep unfavorable influences out of the region. Context, wade, context.

I have no problems with us having played the arms game to counter Soviet moves. Howeve that is not what was going on at all.

Iraq was engaging in a war of agression against the Iranians. The Iranians at that time were hardly a Soviet pawn - they hated the Soviets almost as much as they hated us. We just hated the Iranians so we decided to support Saddams war. Iran was not a threat to Iraq, which pretty much kills your argument.

Even further, you can say "balance of power" justifies US support of Saddam all you want, and that it has to be taken in "context" all you want, but that does not change the fact that your "CONTEXT" ARGUMENT PROVIDES ABSOLUTELY NO JUSTIFICATION FOR HAVING GIVEN SADDAM, OR ANY OTHER NATION, WMD'S unless the Soviets were giving them to the neighbor nations - which they weren't and we knew they weren't.

You here that splat? It's your argument hitting the floor.

Wade.

 

[wade]

A small vocal, violent, minority want to be rid of us. Most want freedom. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

Most want to decide their own fate. A minority (how small is a ?) are willing to die to get us to leave. But there is little question that the great majority want us out NOW!

Why is that so hard for you to grasp? Oh - you only listen to what Bush says - you don't watch the news, and when you do you only watch FOX. That explains it!

 

[dilloduck]

I was replying to a post. My reply was within the context of the discussion.

"Were past all that" is what people say when they wish to avoid unpleasent truths.

All the evidence is that while they are glad to be rid of Saddam, they now want to be rid of us!

Wade.

Smart people--we want out too. I can deal with unpleasant truths but it's hard to get to them with all the repeated lies flying around. We did what we did. History proves us wrong or right. Let's just try to get to the truth about what is going on now and that all depends on who you choose to listen to.

 

[wade]

When the CIA contradicts the Adminstration and says the situation in Iraq is getting worse, not better, and that the people of Iraq want the USA out of their country as soon as possible, I think that is pretty compelling.

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/front/7765782.htm?1c

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/11/11/sprj.irq.cia/

Of particular note:

The Associated Press reported an estimated 3,240 civilian Iraqi deaths between March 20 and April 20, but the AP said that the figure was based on records of only half of Iraq's hospitals, and the actual number was thought to be significantly higher.

With civilian loss levels so high we can never succeed. Evidence is that things are almost as bad now as they were then. We need to change our course and we need to do so NOW!



Wade.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Most want to decide their own fate. A minority (how small is a ?) are willing to die to get us to leave. But there is little question that the great majority want us out NOW!

I have a big question about it. SO that means there is a big question about it.

Why is that so hard for you to grasp? Oh - you only listen to what Bush says - you don't watch the news, and when you do you only watch FOX. That explains it!

My sources of news are many and varied.

You only listen to the little people that come out of your furnace in the evening, and whisper left wing lies into your ear. They wear funny green clothes and pointy shoes, and speak an ancient language only you understand.

 

[wade]

RWA - you are a snot nosed kid right? You have never actually been anywhere but your home town right? You've never seen anyone die a violent death right? Your parents are staunch repubilcans right?

 

[wade]

Nice duck RWA. Let me throw it back at ya...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=162159&postcount=68

 

[jimnyc]

Jimny,

You play the game of deception through selective information. You choose only to look at a relatively small slice of time, rather than the whole. You wish only to look at the post-Gulf War period, and sure enough, doing so your argument is valid. But that is hardly the whole story. You also wish to deny the period prior to the Gulf War, when the USA gave/sold huge amounts of military equipment to Saddam, including WMD's and the technology to build WMD's.

You consider 17 years prior to the Gulf war a small slice of time? The stats I posted were for pre-Gulf war, not post Gulf. I have not denied the period prior to that time. Please look at the original data I posted. It appears we are looking at 2 different graphs. The graph I posted covers 1973-1990.

My apologies if I came off 'deceptive', I just wanted the actual data thrown out there. No more and no less.

 

[wade]

I appologize Jimny, I misread what you wrote.

I stand by the point that it was the USA that, more than anyone else, gave Saddam WMD's - and this was an inexcusable mistake.

Wade.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I appologize Jimny, I misread what you wrote.

I stand by the point that it was the USA that, more than anyone else, gave Saddam WMD's - and this was an inexcusable mistake.

Wade.

Oh yeah. You just meant wmd now. Sure you did. Are you also dating Morgan Fairchild?

 

[dilloduck]

I appologize Jimny, I misread what you wrote.

I stand by the point that it was the USA that, more than anyone else, gave Saddam WMD's - and this was an inexcusable mistake.

Wade.

Do we get 50% excused for getting him out of his little spider hole?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

RWA - you are a snot nosed kid right? You have never actually been anywhere but your home town right? You've never seen anyone die a violent death right? Your parents are staunch repubilcans right?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I have no problems with us having played the arms game to counter Soviet moves. Howeve that is not what was going on at all.

Iraq was engaging in a war of agression against the Iranians. The Iranians at that time were hardly a Soviet pawn - they hated the Soviets almost as much as they hated us. We just hated the Iranians so we decided to support Saddams war. Iran was not a threat to Iraq, which pretty much kills your argument.

Even further, you can say "balance of power" justifies US support of Saddam all you want, and that it has to be taken in "context" all you want, but that does not change the fact that your "CONTEXT" ARGUMENT PROVIDES ABSOLUTELY NO JUSTIFICATION FOR HAVING GIVEN SADDAM, OR ANY OTHER NATION, WMD'S unless the Soviets were giving them to the neighbor nations - which they weren't and we knew they weren't.

You here that splat? It's your argument hitting the floor.

Wade.

The fact is, wade, that security is always a preemptive game. YOu choose who in a region you feel is beneficial for your nation and you help out. Everyone does it. Context, wade, context. Waiting until shit happens to finally pay attention to the shifting political sands of the outside world is foolish, and apparently what Kerry wants to do even AFTER 9/11. Who do you support by the way, bush or kerry? I know it's a stupid question, just indulge us with a bit more of your wisdom.

 

[wade]

Stop with the "context" shit RWA. You, more than anyone else on this board, have no idea what it means.

There is no valid argument justifing having given WMD's to Saddam. And absolutely no argument justifying giving him the technology to produce them on his own. None of his rivals had them, so it makes no sense to have given them to him. There is no "context" argument here at all RWA.

Wade.

 

[jimnyc]

Stop with the "context" shit RWA. You, more than anyone else on this board, have no idea what it means.

There is no valid argument justifing having given WMD's to Saddam. And absolutely no argument justifying giving him the technology to produce them on his own. None of his rivals had them, so it makes no sense to have given them to him. There is no "context" argument here at all RWA.

Wade.

I'm not sure why that past has such a relevance to current events. Yes, I'm aware of the stories of what the USA has done to assist Iraq in the past. But the USA has lots of WMD and we are not seen as a terrorist nation. It's because we help so many people and use our power in a responsible manner. It's not hard to believe we tried to help them, but also try to put them down if they weren't responsible. This was tried through diplomatic efforts for far too many years than it should have gone on. Making a poor decision (in some peoples judgement) doesn't preclude you from making things right down the road. Removing Saddam, liberating a nation & ensuring the world that utilizing and/or making WMD when you have shown you are irresponsible can come with dire consequences. It shows the consequences of failing to abide by previously agreed to world sanctioned resolutions.

No matter what happens in Iraq in the future, one thing is certain and that is that Saddam won't be directly responsible for any more citizens deaths. His sons won't run over those around them as if they were animals. His regime won't be constantly terrorizing the people. Even if they fall to dictatorship down the road once again, it won't change the fact that the USA had stepped in and gave put their lives on the line to make Iraq, and the world, safer.

 

[wade]

I'm just pointing out the hippocracy of some of the statments made earlier in this thread.

Yes, Saddam will not be doing it. But the odds are good that a new totalitarian regime is Iraq's future, probably of an Islamic fundimentalist nature.

Again, I've been in favor of deposing Saddam since before the first Gulf War. The issue is how it has been done - which is playing rigtht into the hands of Al-Queda, ruining the USA's world political position and most importantly our economy.

Wade.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

"The right action done wrongly. " Typical kerryism. W is for wrong. Who's this guys' campaign advisor, Big Bird?

Our political position in the world? I don't care what a bunch of socialist, lying, backstabbing, morality lacking europeans think. Why do you care, Wade?