caputuring saddam has righted all the wrongs?

[spillmind]

at least so many are acting like it is so.

while i agree 'capturing' saddam is a good thing- i thought it would be funny to pay a visit here again and see the level of back slapping going on. it did not disapppoint for a good laugh!

people like to forget:

a) who put saddam in power in the first place, and then turned around and double crossed him. of course, we are exempt from all wrong doing, because we are the good guys, right? the REAL humanitarians, right?

(deny)
b) that we invaded for humanitarian reasons that we (non bushies) even as people have sucessfully debated as false time and time again- and yet here were are calling the kettle black all over again. i by no means condone anything this man did, but it's a bit hypocritical to demonize (our own creation)

c) how we *still* support countries like algeria, buying their UN vote for invading iraq with army means and supplies, while the government there still goes on a killing spree of the 'rebels' in a way that would make saddam blush.

bush has the devil's own luck.

 

[jimnyc]

at least so many are acting like it is so.

Show me JUST ONE instance where a member here has stated capturing Saddam has absolved the US from any wrongdoing it may have done.

while i agree 'capturing' saddam is a good thing- i thought it would be funny to pay a visit here again and see the level of back slapping going on. it did not disapppoint for a good laugh!

The "back slapping" you are reffering to is those who were elated with the news of Saddam's capture. Should we have been unhappy?

people like to forget:

a) who put saddam in power in the first place, and then turned around and double crossed him. of course, we are exempt from all wrong doing, because we are the good guys, right? the REAL humanitarians, right?

We put him in power 30 years ago? And who said anything about forgetting what efforts the USA may have done to assist Saddam in the past? In hindsight it appears horrible mistakes were made in helping Saddam advance. But, this does nothing to change who Saddam was nor does it make it any less of good news that he has been captured.

(deny)
b) that we invaded for humanitarian reasons that we (non bushies) even as people have sucessfully debated as false time and time again- and yet here were are calling the kettle black all over again. i by no means condone anything this man did, but it's a bit hypocritical to demonize (our own creation)

Part of the invasion most certainly was for humanitarian reasons, and neither you or anyone else has come close to showing that is anything but the case. You are free to try again if you like, but you are up against 12 years of resolutions that speak otherwise.

Saddam Hussein was not "my" creation, so I think I reserve the right to demonize him all I like. I don't demonize the gun retailer for the murders, I leave that up to the person committing the crimes.

c) how we *still* support countries like algeria, buying their UN vote for invading iraq with army means and supplies, while the government there still goes on a killing spree of the 'rebels' in a way that would make saddam blush.

A wrong elsewhere in the world has nothing to do with actions that have been taken against Saddam. When a petty thief is captured stealing, we don't allow him to get away with it because there are those who commit grand larceny on the loose. And lets face it, with Saddam we were dealing with neither a petty thief or a full time criminal, we were dealing with a murderer of the worst kind.

bush has the devil's own luck.

Have fun squirming, because this man with the devil's luck will be keeping you typing your liberal garbage for the next 5 years.

 

[spillmind]

Have fun squirming, because this man with the devil's luck will be keeping you typing your liberal garbage for the next 5 years.

funny shit.

A wrong elsewhere in the world has nothing to do with actions that have been taken against Saddam. When a petty thief is captured stealing, we don't allow him to get away with it because there are those who commit grand larceny on the loose. And lets face it, with Saddam we were dealing with neither a petty thief or a full time criminal, we were dealing with a murderer of the worst kind.

'nothing' to do with our actions? you can absolve us of any support for atrocities elsewhere to suddenly put down a claimed 'immediate threat'? this would make sense if it were truly that way. however, i am yet to see anyone post anything PROVING saddam was more of an immediate threat than anyone else to the USA. another spin on the 'one of many reasons' that one could make a case for for many countries. this claim is wholly lacking in consistency to be true.

We put him in power 30 years ago? And who said anything about forgetting what efforts the USA may have done to assist Saddam in the past? In hindsight it appears horrible mistakes were made in helping Saddam advance. But, this does nothing to change who Saddam was nor does it make it any less of good news that he has been captured.

...and yes, saddam is the evil one, we just 'made mistakes' whatever, man. more credit without accountability, it appears.

Part of the invasion most certainly was for humanitarian reasons, and neither you or anyone else has come close to showing that is anything but the case.

total and utter BS. you can put away your 'liberation' banner, because most other put it away a long time ago. there are humanitarian crimes of lesser and greater extent in the world, and we could honestly care less, since it is not in a FINANCIAL INTREST for us to 'make it right' humanitarian yeah, keep holding onto that and read through some of our older threads. i bet the daisy cutters were 'intended' for the resistance, right? please. the hypocrisy makes this point nuetral, at best.

Show me JUST ONE instance where a member here has stated capturing Saddam has absolved the US from any wrongdoing it may have done.

nobody has stated anything in reference, which is EXACLTY my point. tunnel vision.

 

[jimnyc]

'nothing' to do with our actions? you can absolve us of any support for atrocities elsewhere to suddenly put down a claimed 'immediate threat'? this would make sense if it were truly that way. however, i am yet to see anyone post anything PROVING saddam was more of an immediate threat than anyone else to the USA. another spin on the 'one of many reasons' that one could make a case for for many countries. this claim is wholly lacking in consistency to be true.

Like I've already stated, there were a myriad of reasons as to why Iraq was invaded. You can deny the humanitarian reasons all you like, but none of you liberals can explain why it was included in every resolution against Iraq.

And "absolve us of any support for atrocities elsewhere"? The USA has done more than any other country in existence to help others in need. The events of 9/11 brought terrorism to the forefront and we had to start somewhere. Who else have we been dealing with for 12 years?

As I cannot prove that Saddam was the biggest threat to the USA, you cannot prove there is a greater threat elsewhere. I can prove that perhaps hundreds of thousands of lives have been saved with his departure.

...and yes, saddam is the evil one, we just 'made mistakes' whatever, man. more credit without accountability, it appears.

And now you are trying to compare our efforts with that of Saddam. Yes, what the USA has done was make mistakes, what Saddam did was systematically murder hundreds of thousands of his own people.

total and utter BS. you can put away your 'liberation' banner, because most other put it away a long time ago. there are humanitarian crimes of lesser and greater extent in the world, and we could honestly care less, since it is not in a FINANCIAL INTREST for us to 'make it right' humanitarian yeah, keep holding onto that and read through some of our older threads. i bet the daisy cutters were 'intended' for the resistance, right? please. the hypocrisy makes this point nuetral, at best.

There are NOT humanitarian issues elswhere in the world that also had the added danger that Saddams regime presented. If you can provide data to speak otherwise I would be happy to read it.

You keep speaking of this financial interest. Can you please provide data to show what financial gain we will get from this to kill the 187 billion put into it? Or are you going to hang the entire war on advancing Halliburton?

I've read your older threads. They were nothing more than opinion then and that still stands true today. I say the humanitarian issues were a major part of the invasion. I've cited previous resolutions and speeches to backup my assertions. What have you offered other than your opinion to prove otherwise?

And are you inferring that bombs may have been dropped purposely at people other than the insurgents? Can you back that up too, or is your entire point made by making ludicrous accusations with zero data to back them up?

nobody has stated anything in reference, which is EXACLTY my point. tunnel vision.

Nice backpeddling! We were discussing Saddams capture, not the wrongs committed by the USA.

Speaking of tunnel vision, shall we do a search on all your prior posts and see how many touched upon the good coming out of the war on terror? Or does the expectation of posting about both sides only apply to us?

 

[jimnyc]

** An inside joke that only a few will understand **

BTW, Spillmind, thanks for returning to the board in true fashion and making your silly comments again - and proving me correct!!

 

[spillmind]

Like I've already stated, there were a myriad of reasons as to why Iraq was invaded. You can deny the humanitarian reasons all you like, but none of you liberals can explain why it was included in every resolution against Iraq.

and like you always say when one argument goes down in flames, 'there were many reasons for invading iraq'. well, defend one at a time. thank you.

...do go on about the speeches and resolutions. the fact that we pinpoint and cite humanitarian reasons (largely from a DECADE ago), whilst ignoring (not acting consistently) much of the same atrocities globally, and in fact CONDONING it by buying algeria's vote, shows the inconsistency of that ludicrous claim. simple as that. this is not opinion. this is FACT, and coming from a perspective that doesn't subscribe to the 'good idea' of the american global capitalism domination. ..yet one of a very proud american to be able to type these words. i suggest trying to keep a side helping of reality handy.

And "absolve us of any support for atrocities elsewhere"? The USA has done more than any other country in existence to help others in need. The events of 9/11 brought terrorism to the forefront and we had to start somewhere. Who else have we been dealing with for 12 years?

'dealing with'? you mean, BOMBING? how about who have we been spying on suspecting threatening activity? and who to what end? while you may be a glass half full kind of person (as i used to be), out government's track record of late leads me to take the opposite approach. great, we help other countries out- what do you think we are getting out of it? rest assured, it is not merely peace of mind. and they call me utopian!! there aint no free lunch! they all pay it back somehow or another, as i am sure you are well aware-

As I cannot prove that Saddam was the biggest threat to the USA, you cannot prove there is a greater threat elsewhere. I can prove that perhaps hundreds of thousands of lives have been saved with his departure.

why do i need to prove anything? i didn't push/support this fallacy! the purden of proof is not on me! it is on the instigators! you should be well aware of this, jim. where are you getting this hundreds of thousands hypothetical figure? compare that to saddam's death toll numbers against the uprising A DECADE AGO, and tell me your figures aren't being exaggerated to superficially bolster your otherwise reaching point.

And now you are trying to compare our efforts with that of Saddam. Yes, what the USA has done was make mistakes, what Saddam did was systematically murder hundreds of thousands of his own people.

murder is murder in my book, you know, THOU SHALL NOT KILL. who gave you the power to determine whose cause is righteous or not? divine intervetnion? as for the last part of that sentence, please be more specific about 'systematically murder hundreds of thousands of his own people.' and be sure to note why we did not oust him immediately thereafter.

And are you inferring that bombs may have been dropped purposely at people other than the insurgents? Can you back that up too, or is your entire point made by making ludicrous accusations with zero data to back them up?

'puposely'?

i must admit, you certainly have developed a knack for putting a backwards spin on things. ! there is nothing ludicrous about noting that those cluster bombs are going to kill some (if not many) civilians, and in knowing this, we still dropped them on towns. no one but you is going to deny this (apparently), and in knowing this, we still used them- in haste...? casualties of war, eh? then be prepared for the ramifications, whatever they may be. the burden of proof is on you to prove that they didn't think civilians would be injured with these tactics, or you are in agreement that this tactic was wrong? or you think it was necessary?

as for what good has come of this 'war', care to enlighten us? funny, i can't think of one solid FACT! maybe because there aren't any- oh! maybe that america made iraq trade oil in dollars, instead of euros, and that we have insider domestic contracts sure to bolster our own economy, or maybe that we have a new wanna be surrogate isreal? one that won't have it's own democracy for some time, since the majority of the populace is not moderate towards an american cause? oh wait- those are good things?

 

[eric]

Jim, don't ban him. I always look forward to a good joke !

He cant take it much longer and will disappear again anyway to debate with his fellow tree-huggers

 

[Moi]

to me is that those who are the leading exploiters of freedom are the ones so very shy to live or die for it. You can sit in your chair, typing on your internet connection, whilst degrading the President of the United States, eating 3 squares a day, sleeping in a bed every night and waking up knowing that your children, as a whole, aren't being raped, beaten and murdered all becuase you were the wrong tribe.

Are you tellling me this freedom isn't worth killing and dying for? The people of Iraq do not have this freedom. What is hypocritical is for you to exploit those very freedoms in their name.

And, if Saddam and his buddies were allowed to take over the world I would have to do without those basic freedoms too, being female and all. So, the answer to what benefit the war had:

It put the world on notice that we don't stand for their threats and will protect our way of life above all else. If that causes me and some members of the military to lose our lives, so be it. Freedom is worth it.

 

[Palestinian Jew]

It put the world on notice that we don't stand for their threats and will protect our way of life above all else. If that causes me and some members of the military to lose our lives, so be it. Freedom is worth it.

So are you saying you believe Bush is going to go to every other country that is as much a threat to the U.S. as Saddam was? I guess he better start making a list now to be able to finish it by the time the next election rolls around. Even I am as great a threat to America as Saddam was, I COULD become an expert hacker and make the entire internet go down, which almost happened last October, or I COULD become a pilot and fill a two seater with fertilizer then crash into the white house or senate sending the country into chaos.

No, I do not like all of these IFs and COULD HAVE BEENS that Bush has adopted as his foreign policy.

 

[eric]

I COULD become an expert hacker and make the entire internet go down, which almost happened last October,

Wrong, please get your facts straight.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by Palestinian Jew


No, I do not like all of these IFs and COULD HAVE BEENS that Bush has adopted as his foreign policy.

According to this doctrine, the US shouldn't have even been a country. After all, we fought a war for our freedom based on taxes for tea!!!!! Surely, no one was going to die without tea?

What should we tell the founding fathers when we meet them in the hereafter (whatever hereafter you believe in at all)? That they were completely unjust for subjecting thousands of innocent civilians to death over something as miniscule as freedom?????

Oh, or perhaps we should have told all the slaves to knuckle under and take it. I mean, why risk loss of life because, hey, they weren't dead were they? Merely under-compensated for their work.

Blech....this line of thinking is reprehensible.

 

[spillmind]

perhaps you didn't see my other posts: particularly 'Reasons Warin in Iraq was needed: 2' and read my post there. then tell me about volunteering for habitiat for hunanity, donating blood, volunteering at the local fire dept, and at the county fair register to vote booth shows how ungrateful i am for the live i live.

And, if Saddam and his buddies were allowed to take over the world I would have to do without those basic freedoms too, being female and all. So, the answer to what benefit the war had:

don't even go there. totally unfounded, untrue ridiculous SPECULATION. this has been largely dismissed about this ever becoming a reality- i can't even believe you realistically believe that could ever happen that's american propaganda leading you to believe that you live in fear.

It put the world on notice that we don't stand for their threats and will protect our way of life above all else. If that causes me and some members of the military to lose our lives, so be it. Freedom is worth it.

people actually BELIEVE THIS NONSENSE?

a) where was this threat?

b) how was our freedom threatened?

this should be good!

the moderators wish i was some BS spouting liberal that makes no sense, but i assure you, i am not your average ignorant american.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by spillmind
the moderators wish i was some BS spouting liberal that makes no sense, but i assure you, i am not your average ignorant american.

That's the first thing you've posted today that I agree with. You are FAR from the average foaming at the mouth tree hugger, much worse.

 

[spillmind]

 

[jimnyc]

Stay within the thread. PM's will not be discussed here, and the boards rules are not up for discussion.

 

[Palestinian Jew]

I'm not sure if you're understanding me, Bush is going off totally multiple hypothetical situations at once: IF Saddam has WMDS or IF he MIGHT be able to aquire them, then IF he is feeling malicious towards the U.S. and IF he can get people to REALLY join in his cause, then he COULD attack the U.S. and MIGHT be able to get all of his plans secretly through the intelligence of the CIA. Did you notice that none of this was FACT and purely speculation?

Also eric, I saw a full hour special on the History Channel about what happened last October, which I kind of doubt that they are wrong, but give me some info to prove otherwise and I will say I was wrong. A hacker attacked the servers of the internet and only was stopped because he wanted to quit. The Homeland Security guys were shitting their pants waiting for it to happen.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by spillmind
is how your right wing agenda will have free reign here, and the opposing side is ridiculed, only to become unfairly enraged when it comes back to show they claring irony and taking drastic steps to snuff out the opposition.

perhaps you didn't see my other posts: particularly 'Reasons Warin in Iraq was needed: 2' and read my post there. then tell me about volunteering for habitiat for hunanity, donating blood, volunteering at the local fire dept, and at the county fair register to vote booth shows how ungrateful i am for the live i live.



don't even go there. totally unfounded, untrue ridiculous SPECULATION. this has been largely dismissed about this ever becoming a reality- i can't even believe you realistically believe that could ever happen that's american propaganda leading you to believe that you live in fear.

people actually BELIEVE THIS NONSENSE?

a) where was this threat?

b) how was our freedom threatened?

this should be good!

the moderators wish i was some BS spouting liberal that makes no sense, but i assure you, i am not your average ignorant american.

Actually, I don't need to read your posts to determine my view of the world. I find your arguments completely unpersuasive. In fact, I don't even comprehend half of what you say as it's so unclear and unfounded. What the heck is "claring irony"? And, when have I ridiculed anyone? No part of my post has been directed at a person rather than a position.

Furthermore, I am not a right wing supporter nor do I have an agenda. Your attempts to label me as such are quite ham fisted. And it is not unfounded that Saddam's regime was a misogynist regime.

 

[eric]

Sorry, had to take a call !

Also eric, I saw a full hour special on the History Channel about what happened last October, which I kind of doubt that they are wrong, but give me some info to prove otherwise and I will say I was wrong

Keep in mind it makes for an interesting program. Truth lies somewhere in between. I assume you are talking about the SQL Slammer Worm, did it do damage, yes, come close to shutting down the internet for any substantial time, no. If you want a full explanation, let us continue in a computer thread, I will be more than glad to answers any questions you might have.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by Palestinian Jew
I'm not sure if you're understanding me, Bush is going off totally multiple hypothetical situations at once: IF Saddam has WMDS or IF he MIGHT be able to aquire them, then IF he is feeling malicious towards the U.S. and IF he can get people to REALLY join in his cause, then he COULD attack the U.S. and MIGHT be able to get all of his plans secretly through the intelligence of the CIA. Did you notice that none of this was FACT and purely speculation?

Also eric, I saw a full hour special on the History Channel about what happened last October, which I kind of doubt that they are wrong, but give me some info to prove otherwise and I will say I was wrong. A hacker attacked the servers of the internet and only was stopped because he wanted to quit. The Homeland Security guys were shitting their pants waiting for it to happen.

First off, Bush is not the only person who believed the intelligence that he had at hand. If memory serves, almost all of the democrats and republicans in the congress voted for the war. There are entire other countries that believed it too. In fact, although the UN was too scared to do anyting about it, I am pretty sure that they didn't doubt he pursued them and could have had access to them. All Saddam had to do was capitulate to the requirements of the surrender agreement in a timely fashion to avoid conflict.

Secondly, what in the world does hacking the internet have to do with the war in Iraq.

 

[spillmind]

Actually, I don't need to read your posts to determine my view of the world. I find your arguments completely unpersuasive. In fact, I don't even comprehend half of what you say as it's so unclear and unfounded. What the heck is "claring irony"? And, when have I ridiculed anyone? No part of my post has been directed at a person rather than a position.

i am not looking to convert anyone. i was challenging your outlandish claims of our threatened freedom, and rest assured, you won't have any proof of it, either.