i bet those iraqis sure are happy to be free

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by spillmind, Jul 28, 2004.

  1. spillmind
    Offline

    spillmind Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2003
    Messages:
    780
    Thanks Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Palo Alto, Ca.
    Ratings:
    +13
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. dmp
    Offline

    dmp Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    13,088
    Thanks Received:
    741
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Enterprise, Alabama
    Ratings:
    +741
    You can't be serious.
     
  3. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    Bush did not bring terrorism to Iraq. There were terrorists all over Iraq during Saddam's rule, but they did not attack because Saddam was friendly towards terrorists who targeted the West. Now that the new Iraqi government is friendly towards the West, they are themselves a target of the many terrorists inside its own borders.

    The US is not more of a terrorist target. When was the last terrorist attack on US soil?

    While I certainly don't want any US troops killed or wounded (especially since i have several friends over there) 900 killed and 6000 wounded in 1 1/2 years is almost nothing. Consider the tens of thousands that died in the Battle of Antietam in one day.

    And many Iraqis have died. Yet I don't see mass revolts in the streets of Iraqi cities demanding that Saddam or another dictator be reinstated. The longer Iraq is a democracy, the stronger its people will stand against terrorism. That's why the terrorists are trying so hard to attack Iraq's new government now, before it has a chance to take hold.
     
  4. HGROKIT
    Offline

    HGROKIT Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,398
    Thanks Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Federal Way WA, USA
    Ratings:
    +19
  5. Comrade
    Offline

    Comrade Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,873
    Thanks Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Seattle, WA.
    Ratings:
    +167
    No, terrorists went to Iraq, Bush didn't "bring" them. Then they mostly died.

    And honorably, right?

    Less deaths than in any period in Iraqi history before Saddam was deposed.

    Again, far less than in any conflict started by their own government under Saddam.

    Sounds terrible!

    Maybe we'll stick around then.
     
  6. spillmind
    Offline

    spillmind Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2003
    Messages:
    780
    Thanks Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Palo Alto, Ca.
    Ratings:
    +13
    do you have any way of proving that saddam supported terrorists like you claim? and if they aren't attacking anyone, how are they terrorists?

    so you are saying there will never be another attack on our soil in retaliation for our aggressive behavior in the ME? if you're not saying this, why try to make this a point?

    i don't think it's almost NOTHING. i bet their families don't either. and iraq is not vietnam. so why bother trying to trivialize their deaths?

    try mobilizing any kind of protest UNDER MARTIAL LAW. i know you're more intelligent than that. are you saying iraq is a democracy UNDER MARTIAL LAW? if they are a democracy, it certainly doesn't resemble anything of our system. save for the puppetmasters.

    btw, the jesus shtick is a nice touch. really smoothes things over.

    :laugh: again, if they weren't attacking anyone before, how were they terrorists? are you speaking firsthand on the intent of thousands of people you're never met and never seen? oh, that's right, our government says so, right?

    honorably, yes. for a honorable cause? you tell me.

    i assume you are talking since the CIA made sure the Ba'ath party was installed? i don't recall 40,000+ deaths anytime recently between the first gulf war and this 'war'. care to refresh our memory? or can we call this statement official PROPAGANDA?

    yes, better get used to it. funny how i don't remember anybody saying we are going to be there for years, possibly decades to come when they were pushing so hard to invade. we've already proven the humanitarian reason a complete farce, because the US ignores Sudan. let me guess, this time around, we are blaming the UN for that, right? how convenient. too bad some people actually believe that nonsense.
     
  7. MJDuncan1982
    Offline

    MJDuncan1982 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2004
    Messages:
    506
    Thanks Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Mississippi
    Ratings:
    +25
    Great point with Sudan. For those who champion the moral argument for the war in Iraq it seems they must be for going into Sudan and helping out there. Minus the moral argument you're left with the two real reasons: WMD and terrorism - both are questionable enough to necessitate not rushing to war.
     
  8. Gop guy
    Offline

    Gop guy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Messages:
    927
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    West Reading PA
    Ratings:
    +0
    It's a shame spillmind is so anti-freedom, oh well....
     
  9. Sandy73
    Online

    Sandy73 Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
  10. spillmind
    Offline

    spillmind Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2003
    Messages:
    780
    Thanks Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Palo Alto, Ca.
    Ratings:
    +13
    :laugh: did you think of that one all by yourself? GET REAL, MAN. i'm not stating anything that isn't true. it's amazing how you can block out the truth so that it fits your rose-colored view of iraq. debate a point or get out of the peanut gallery.

    you care to explain? i thought not, and i rest my case. pretty easy to condemn something without even arguing your side. not unpredictable, however.
     

Share This Page