The Passion Of The Liberal

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by for the people
COLOR=darkred]First, there is NO proof that Saddam was amassing WMD to use against us or that he had ties to to terrorist groups with plans to use WMD against us[/COLOR] To state that he was indicates total lack of diregard for the facts. If you have proof that he was, I'm sure dubya's campaign would sure like to speak to you as well as CNN. Pres. Bush lied to the American People. He stated that Iraq was trying to buy yellow cake uranium in Africa in his 2003 State Of The Union Address. This was after his own inspector said that there was no credibility to the accusation. This was also after the accusation had been taken out of speeches two previous times by the Bush adm. Bush should have been impeached and removed from office by now.
Let's look at a little history. With the help of the CIA, the government of Iran was overthrown and the Shaw placed in power. Everyone knows what a nice guy he was. If you don't look it up. When his regime was overthrown, Reagan and George senior gave Saddam WMD to use against "his Neighbors," the Iranians, which he did. To even suggest that the US always acts to support civil rights in foriegn countries and "liberating nations from dictators" is just rediculous.

I am certainly not defending Saddam. He was is a crazed lunatic. However, to defend invading Iraq, you must be advocating that we invade all nations with ruthless totalitarian regimes. There are many nations in the world in which the people are suffering far more severely than the Iraqi citizens were: Somalia for one.[
So, why Iraq?

I have very little regard for President Bush, but I certainly don't want a foriegn nation to invade us to take him out of power.

Claiming to be a Christian and behaving in a Christian manner are two different things. All too often, I see conservatives as hypocrits: justifying actions contrary to the Christian Ethic. No, I don't see conservatives saying "go ahead and sin." That's the problem. They seem to be unwilling or incapable of looking at things objectively. It's just too convenient to see things in black and white for them. I do agree that there are good and bad Muslims, but there are also good and bad Christians. Claiming to be "born again" and living your life as one are two different things. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"

Your tired, old, hackneyed bag of half baked arguments have not only been successfully disproven repeatedly, but never have been, and never will be the least bit persuasive on anyone with half a clue. But I admire your tenacity.:clap1:

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
You've obviously forgotten your anti-psychotics this morning. The voices in your head are getting a little too loud, aren't they?

Nope. I just don't believe anything you type anymore. You lost your credibility a long time ago.

 

[Avatar4321]

You're wrong. I could have been happy with John McCain as President because I beleive he is an honest man who would have tried his best to do the right things for America

McCain is a man who is waging war on free speech of Americans and the rights of men and women to contribute to political causes because he is too corrupt to not be corrupted by them so it must be the systems fault rather than his. I mean he has already made it illegal to air an ad critisizing an incumbant Senator's record 60 days before an election. And now he is trying to control speech by fining talk radio for anything he thinks is obscene. Which he will use eventually to try to shut Rush up. Because Rush is the biggest thorn in his side for simply pointing out McCains political agenda.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
Yes of course. Its totally wrong to end a regime of an evil totalitarian regime. Lets just bring the troops home before Iraq is totally stable and put them in a civil war and watch as an even worse regime than Saddam emerges so that the lives of our troops who have died to free Iraq will have been in vain.

You claim to support the troops. Prove it. Vote for the guy letting them do what they were sworn to do, protecting liberty in the world. Dont vote for the guy who voted to put them in Iraq and then voted to deny them the funds they needed to survive telling the troops that they ought to go buy their own body armor if they want to survive.

Umm...yeah, and the US deals with Pervez Musharaff, the military Junta in Burma, The House of Saud in Saudi Arabia, and any number of other "evil totalitarian" regimes. As it stands now Dubbyuh ahs already given the greenlight to the destabilizing elements in Iraq by signaling a return of sovereignty just as the US presidential campaign heats up.

And our troops never take an oath to protect "...liberty in teh world..." They took an oath to support and defend th Constitution against "...All enemies, foreign and domestic..."

 

[cptpwichita]

yes we support bad people and even train them(school of the americas)and we chose who to help(like turning a blind eye to the genocide in rawanda).we live in a world that is unstable and full of violence and any number of nations would turn our nation to rubble if they could.can we change the world?at what cost?of course we are looking out for our own interests we have to.maybe iraq was just about oil but the fact is we need oil to support our high standard of living and seeing the price of gasoline shoot through the roof.if we would become more energy independent by drilling in anwar and put finding a new cleaner and abundant energy source as priority one we wouldn't have to deal with oppressive middle eastern regimes.we did a good deed in iraq by freeing those people from a brutal dictator but we can't afford to be the worlds policemen helping even some who don't want our help and rebuilding countries while back at home we have our own problems-crime,unemployment,drugs,health care and a social security system that is almost broke.at the same time we have to be pre-emptive in dealing with terrorists and the countries who support them unless we want to see another 9-11.i think we are going to see that by dealing with afghanistan and iraq now we have made it safer for the u.s. and sent a message to all those who would attack us.

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Umm...yeah, and the US deals with Pervez Musharaff, the military Junta in Burma, The House of Saud in Saudi Arabia, and any number of other "evil totalitarian" regimes. As it stands now Dubbyuh ahs already given the greenlight to the destabilizing elements in Iraq by signaling a return of sovereignty just as the US presidential campaign heats up.

And our troops never take an oath to protect "...liberty in teh world..." They took an oath to support and defend th Constitution against "...All enemies, foreign and domestic..."

Sighs. the House of Saud is not a totalitarian regime. its a monarchal dictatorship. Totalitarian regimes systematicly kill large parts of the population in mass graves etc for not supporting the regime. Communism is a totalitarian system for example. Totalitarian regimes are modern occurances. I believe the first could be considered the French revolution. With dictatorships there is possibility of reform, with totalitarian regimes, there is not.