Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
If your arguments were so strong it would not be necessary for you to name call.
My arguments were and are strong.... yours were nothing more than trying to present feeling and opinion as fact...
You were discredited, as well as your sources....
I will call out a manipulator, a liar, and one stating their feeling as fact... which you have done specifically in 2 days in 2 threads that I have participated in...
And it is pretty fun exposing people like you... it's just you're pretty stubborn... you seem to have an aversion to admitting when you are caught
If your arguments were so strong it would not be necessary for you to name call.
My arguments were and are strong.... yours were nothing more than trying to present feeling and opinion as fact...
You were discredited, as well as your sources....
I will call out a manipulator, a liar, and one stating their feeling as fact... which you have done specifically in 2 days in 2 threads that I have participated in...
And it is pretty fun exposing people like you... it's just you're pretty stubborn... you seem to have an aversion to admitting when you are caught
You still stay with name calling Weak.
How do you measure the suffering of the Iraqi people in this war that was completely unnecessary?
Tell me that. Convince me with facts and figures how much better the Iraqis are now then before the war.
I will continue to discuss this issue. If you can't handle how I do it, dave, put me on ignore. We did not go to war to better the Iraqi people.
I will continue to discuss this issue. If you can't handle how I do it, dave, put me on ignore.
I will continue to discuss this issue. If you can't handle how I do it, dave, put me on ignore. We did not go to war to better the Iraqi people.
You are not discussing the issue.. you are discussing your feelings and presenting your feelings as fact.... there is a big difference.. and I will call you out every time you do it to to expose your smoke screen
You are right.. we did not go to war with Iraq to "better the people" we went to war with Iraq as a result of their invasion of Kuwait... we re-opened aggression after the terms of cease-fire were continually violated and the national security situation for us drastically changed (and that is fact)
I will continue to discuss this issue. If you can't handle how I do it, dave, put me on ignore.
Who said this?
"Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas, or biological weapons. . . . Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: he has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. . . . I have no doubt today that, left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."
Who said this?
"You allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons. How many people is he going to kill with such weapons? . . . We are not going to allow him to succeed. "
And this?
"Husseins vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons, and his present and potential future support for terrorist acts and organizations . . . make him a terrible danger to the people of the United States. "
And this?
"My position is very clear. The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Husseins WMDs. "
I will continue to discuss this issue. If you can't handle how I do it, dave, put me on ignore.
Who said this?
"Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas, or biological weapons. . . . Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: he has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. . . . I have no doubt today that, left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."
Who said this?
"You allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons. How many people is he going to kill with such weapons? . . . We are not going to allow him to succeed. "
And this?
"Husseins vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons, and his present and potential future support for terrorist acts and organizations . . . make him a terrible danger to the people of the United States. "
And this?
"My position is very clear. The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Husseins WMDs. "
Saddam was found to have no WMDs. Remember?
I will continue to discuss this issue. If you can't handle how I do it, dave, put me on ignore. We did not go to war to better the Iraqi people.
You are not discussing the issue.. you are discussing your feelings and presenting your feelings as fact.... there is a big difference.. and I will call you out every time you do it to to expose your smoke screen
You are right.. we did not go to war with Iraq to "better the people" we went to war with Iraq as a result of their invasion of Kuwait... we re-opened aggression after the terms of cease-fire were continually violated and the national security situation for us drastically changed (and that is fact)
We made more enemies and fed terrorism. There is more ill will toward us from Middle East countries than before we started.
The Iraq war is a colossal failure.
I will continue to discuss this issue. If you can't handle how I do it, dave, put me on ignore.
Who said this?
"Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas, or biological weapons. . . . Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: he has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. . . . I have no doubt today that, left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."
Who said this?
"You allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons. How many people is he going to kill with such weapons? . . . We are not going to allow him to succeed. "
And this?
"Husseins vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons, and his present and potential future support for terrorist acts and organizations . . . make him a terrible danger to the people of the United States. "
And this?
"My position is very clear. The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Husseins WMDs. "
Saddam was found to have no WMDs. Remember?
I will continue to discuss this issue. If you can't handle how I do it, dave, put me on ignore.
Who said this?
"Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas, or biological weapons. . . . Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: he has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. . . . I have no doubt today that, left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."
Who said this?
"You allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons. How many people is he going to kill with such weapons? . . . We are not going to allow him to succeed. "
And this?
"Husseins vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons, and his present and potential future support for terrorist acts and organizations . . . make him a terrible danger to the people of the United States. "
And this?
"My position is very clear. The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Husseins WMDs. "
Saddam was found to have no WMDs. Remember?
.UNSCOM had uncovered Saddams extensive biological-weapons (BW) program, dating back to before Desert Storm, only in 1995. Since then, Iraq claimed to have destroyed its BW stockpilebut there was no proof of this. Similar doubts surrounded Saddams chemical-weapons (CW) program, of which even bigger stockpiles remained unaccounted for. (In UNSCOMs estimate, there were 1.5 undocumented tons of VX gas alone.) In addition, UNSCOM believed Saddam still possessed clandestine Scud missiles, useful as a delivery system for a chemical attack
By the end of the 1990s, sanctions had become a joke, proving less a liability to Saddam than an asset in rebuilding his power. In October 2000 a supposedly contained Iraq had boldly renewed its military cooperation with Syria, moving divisions to the Syrian border and even deploying troops into Syria itself to put pressure on Israel. Since then, Saddams attacks on American and British air patrols over Iraq had grown more intense. When General Tommy Franks met with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld after the liberation of Afghanistan, these attacks headed his daily list of challenges
Why Iraq Was InevitableSince 1998, no inspector had visited Iraq. Huge quantities of chemical WMDs were known to have existed before Desert Storm. Quantities had been destroyed since. How much more was left? Saddam had never made the accounting demanded by the UN. In its absence, the UNs chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, reasonably inferred that considerable quantities must still have existed.
yeah. saying iraq and israel are the only secular nations in the mideast isnt accurate. there's jordan, turkey and lebanon, too. i'd say israel and turkey obviously have their act together the most, but trailing them was likely iraq in terms of stability, notwithstanding a decade of sanctions.Looks like you moved the goalposts. First you said that the US destabilized one of the most stable secular countries, and second you said that there were only two to choose from. Strange.
no accusation or estimate of this activity nears that which are accused or estimated of the status quo in iraq since the invasion -- nothing close. Uday and the guard weren't responsible for 600k+ excess violent deaths. iraq is troubled now, where that had never been the case before.It is a matter of the press because while you may think violence increased, it actually didn't. Saddam's Republican Guard and Uday's personal hit squad did not need to do roadside and community bombings. They were able to seize anyone and everyone they wanted. Some were killed on sight, some were lured away and then executed, and in a few cases entire villages were wiped out. Nobody knew about it at the time because there was no free press and the limited number of journalists that actually did find these facts didn't report it.
do you have any fact to support these claims? obviously, i am under the impression that the al qaeda in iraq is a reactionary movement which started with our invasion in 2003. i thought that ansar were kurdish separatists who saddam had in check -- examples of iranian-influenced forces which troubled the country after we disbanded the iraqi military. could you educate with some sources?Al Qaeda in Iraq predates the US invasion. It's where Zarqawi relocated after the US invaded Afghanistan and Al Qaeda affiliate Ansar al-Islam operated freely there.
the US is the dominant geopolitical force on the planet. our overriding objective is to disrupt challengers. as you mentioned, we disrupted the oil for food arrangement which played into russian hands. we involved allies in an expensive conflict, and any chance of an organized pan-islamic state, a caliphate, is doused for a decade or better.What would be the purpose of creating chaos in Iraq?
. . . .in the words of Vice President Joe Biden, Obama's effusive Recovery Act point man, "Now the fun stuff starts!" The "fun stuff," about one-sixth of the total cost, is an all-out effort to exploit the crisis to make green energy, green building and green transportation real; launch green manufacturing industries; computerize a pen-and-paper health system; promote data-driven school reforms; and ramp up the research of the future. "This is a chance to do something big, man!" Biden said during a 90-minute interview with TIME.
For starters, the Recovery Act is the most ambitious energy legislation in history, converting the Energy Department into the world's largest venture-capital fund. It's pouring $90 billion into clean energy, including unprecedented investments in a smart grid; energy efficiency; electric cars; renewable power from the sun, wind and earth; cleaner coal; advanced biofuels; and factories to manufacture green stuff in the U.S. The act will also triple the number of smart electric meters in our homes, quadruple the number of hybrids in the federal auto fleet and finance far-out energy research through a new government incubator modeled after the Pentagon agency that fathered the Internet.
(See TIME's special report "After One Year, A Stimulus Report Card.")
The only stimulus energy program that's gotten much attention so far chiefly because it got off to a slow start is a $5 billion effort to weatherize homes. But the Recovery Act's line items represent the first steps to a low-carbon economy. "It will leverage a very different energy future," says Kristin Mayes, the Republican chair of Arizona's utility commission. "It really moves us toward a tipping point."
Read more: Recovery Act: How Obama's Stimulus Is Changing America - TIME
these woulda lost = created job stats are silly if you ask me. same with trying to directly attribute jobs to a legislation which has hardly gotten up to a jogging pace as yet.
at the same time, dividing expenditure by jobs created is not sensible either. if it were, i beg what the prototypical return in terms of jobs should be, and what that is based on. does that validate the idea that the legislation is even responsible for these jobs? not for me.
can you substantiate that more government jobs have been added than have private sector jobs, foxfyre?
America supported Chaing in principle only. We left him to flounder. McCarthur wanted to use his troops to tie up China when they became involved in Korea. Truman refused. I think that was a mistake.The US did not learn its lesson from its failure in China and in Vietnam. In China, against Mao Tse Tungs communists, America supported Chiangkai Shek who ultimately ran out of mainland China and with American support became ruler of Chinese off-share island of Taiwan.
We refused to learn lesson from utter failure for intervention in Vietnam against Ho Chi Minhs government.
We are making the same mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I disagree. This war was won. The military objectives were met.Talk to the Iraqis about whether they are better off or not.
We have heard plenty from them..and they say they are better off compared to Saddam being in control.
How can you think differently? Have you not see, read, watched what those people went through under him? Come on Sky.
Iraq will be judged a failure by history. The Iraq war hasn't been won anymore than the Vietnam war was won. We've repeated the same failed pattern.
yeah. saying iraq and israel are the only secular nations in the mideast isnt accurate. there's jordan, turkey and lebanon, too. i'd say israel and turkey obviously have their act together the most, but trailing them was likely iraq in terms of stability, notwithstanding a decade of sanctions.Looks like you moved the goalposts. First you said that the US destabilized one of the most stable secular countries, and second you said that there were only two to choose from. Strange.
no accusation or estimate of this activity nears that which are accused or estimated of the status quo in iraq since the invasion -- nothing close. Uday and the guard weren't responsible for 600k+ excess violent deaths. iraq is troubled now, where that had never been the case before.It is a matter of the press because while you may think violence increased, it actually didn't. Saddam's Republican Guard and Uday's personal hit squad did not need to do roadside and community bombings. They were able to seize anyone and everyone they wanted. Some were killed on sight, some were lured away and then executed, and in a few cases entire villages were wiped out. Nobody knew about it at the time because there was no free press and the limited number of journalists that actually did find these facts didn't report it.
Al Qaeda in Iraq predates the US invasion. It's where Zarqawi relocated after the US invaded Afghanistan and Al Qaeda affiliate Ansar al-Islam operated freely there.
do you have any fact to support these claims? obviously, i am under the impression that the al qaeda in iraq is a reactionary movement which started with our invasion in 2003. i thought that ansar were kurdish separatists who saddam had in check -- examples of iranian-influenced forces which troubled the country after we disbanded the iraqi military. could you educate with some sources?
the US is the dominant geopolitical force on the planet. our overriding objective is to disrupt challengers. as you mentioned, we disrupted the oil for food arrangement which played into russian hands. we involved allies in an expensive conflict, and any chance of an organized pan-islamic state, a caliphate, is doused for a decade or better.What would be the purpose of creating chaos in Iraq?
if it were for the oil, shit would have been planned differently -- iraq petroleum would probably have been re-privatized. if it were for nation-building, we might have started some work in the relatively peaceful parts of the country where we have no excuse; the nation's infrastructure would not have taken a dive.
if it was terror we were after, it would have made more sense to get at yemen, syria, afghanistan (in earnest) -- and that is just in the region.
i dont believe that our military is incompetent, or that the US so clumsy that the general form of our intentions wont be realized after 8 years. i argue that that general form is before us in the chaos which iraq has been left in.
