MERGED-->FYM Election Poll - Page 13 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
View Poll Results: Who will you be voting for, for US President?
Kerry 171 66.02%
Bush 74 28.57%
None. I'm a loser and won't vote. 4 1.54%
Other. I'm a loser too and would prefer to waste my vote on someone else in this tight race. 3 1.16%
Undecided between Bush and Kerry. 7 2.70%
Voters: 259. You may not vote on this poll

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-17-2004, 09:29 PM   #181
ONE
love, blood, life
 
namkcuR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 10,290
Local Time: 04:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


The Secretary General of the United Nations is entitled to his opinion, but he does not ultimately decide whether a resolution is or is not approved and whether a war is legal or not. Once again, the war has three different resolutions that authorize it. If Annan does not think they do, then he should not think the first Gulf War was authorized either. Second, if Annan thinks the war is illegal, why has the UN approved of 3 resolutions authorizing the occupation? Where is the resolution attempting to condemn the invasion? Where is the resolution calling for the withdrawal of US and coalition troops, if the war is in fact illegal as Annan claims? The fact is, no war in history has had more legal documentation justifying it than the war to remove Saddam from power.
Go on, keep yacking about those three resolutions. About 1441 in particular. Yes, they authorize the use of force. But they authorize it if, and only if, Saddam fails to comply with all the other things outlined in the resolutions. The UN decides whether or not Saddam has or has not complied with those things. The weapons inspectors in 2003 did not get to finish their job. They begged for more weeks and they were not given them, because the US invaded before they could finish. And because the weapons inspectors never finished their job the way they wanted to, the UN never categorically said that Saddam had not complied, and they never categorically gave the green light to invade. There are conditions in the resolutions, and the UN did not give indication that those conditions were met. This war is a waste of money, lives, and time.
__________________

__________________
namkcuR is offline  
Old 09-17-2004, 09:44 PM   #182
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 07:05 AM
How is it a waste exactly?

I am quite serious because tens of thousands more innocent civilians would be dead today in Iraq if we didnt' go in.

The possibility that Saddam would reactivate WMD programs would still be there and the uncertainty would exist.

By calling the entire operation a waste of lives and money you are doing a disservice to those that have died and ignore all the good that has been done in Iraq by removing one of the most evil dictatorships of the latter 20th Century.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 09-17-2004, 11:11 PM   #183
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 05:05 PM
Allowing it to go on is more of a disservice to their memories. I'm not at all sure that the same number or more Iraqi's would have died under Hussein than have in this war. And I honestly don't think that the WMD program had been a going concern for several years and seriously doubt that it ever would have been reactivated.
__________________
indra is offline  
Old 09-18-2004, 12:14 AM   #184
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 07:05 AM
How?

If they succeed in the mission of creating a stable Iraq their lives will have been part of achieving that cause, leaving now will mean 1000 lives wasted for absolutly nothing. Infact worse than nothing, they would have been used to create a black hole in the Arab world from which the blowback will be a terrorist strike 1000 times worse than 9/11.

If you investigate the numbers of people dying as a direct result of the regime, ignoring those killed by sanctions, the numbers are much larger than the 13.000 killed. A figure used by Mark Steyn gave 70,000 each year. This is before those killed as a result of sanctions is tallied.

You can learn more about the human rights abuse in Iraq here.
http://iraqiholocaust.blogspot.com/
It can be graphic but it might put some context to these figures.

So you are willing to leave WMD programs in the hands of a regime like that because you have your doubts about them being reactivated? Do you have the same feelings about Iran, after all why would the Iranians ever use the weapons. They may as well have them because the IAEA is unsure of whether they are for peaceful purposes or not.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 09-18-2004, 01:12 AM   #185
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by namkcuR


Go on, keep yacking about those three resolutions. About 1441 in particular. Yes, they authorize the use of force. But they authorize it if, and only if, Saddam fails to comply with all the other things outlined in the resolutions. The UN decides whether or not Saddam has or has not complied with those things. The weapons inspectors in 2003 did not get to finish their job. They begged for more weeks and they were not given them, because the US invaded before they could finish. And because the weapons inspectors never finished their job the way they wanted to, the UN never categorically said that Saddam had not complied, and they never categorically gave the green light to invade. There are conditions in the resolutions, and the UN did not give indication that those conditions were met. This war is a waste of money, lives, and time.
Thats false because 1441 clearly says that Saddam was in material breech of his obligations in regards to the resolutions. In addition, prior resolutions including the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement had already authorized the use of force if Saddam failed to meet his obligations. Name one UN resolution that Saddam complied with?

The UN decided that Saddam was in material breech of his obligations but was willing to give Saddam one last chance to comply. The UN inspectors cannot do Saddam's work for him. Without Saddam's full cooperation, UN inspections cannot achieve their full goal. Saddam had the opportunity to show the UN where or what happened to the unaccounted Stocks of WMD, and he didn't. There is a process that inspections are supposed to follow in order to achieve Verifiable disarmament. Ukraine, Kazakstan, Belarus, South Africa all followed this process and achieved Verifiable disarmament in under a year. With Saddam, it had been 12 years of playing BS games. The 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire never intended that. The Fact is the invasion was long overdue. It would be absurd to make requirments of someone like Saddam and then not do what is required to enforce those requirments.

It was countries like Germany and France that suddenly begged for more weeks, which would have been a waste of time. The UN inspectors did not have the ability to disarm Saddam without his cooperation. Saddam could role out intact WMD or take them to where the WMD was dismantled. Those were the only options Saddam had if he wanted to comply and he did neither.

The coalition efforts in Iraq, are NOT a waste of time! Saddam was a massive threat to the region and the world and its frustrating when people fail to realize how much safer and better the world is without Saddam in power. In addition the work that is being done now to build a new Iraq will help make the region secure and prosperous in the future.

Those who think otherwise need to consider what the cost of Saddam remaining in power would be for the region, the world, and the Iraqi people. 4 countries attacked and invaded, the planets energy supplies threatened with seizure and sabotage, WMD used more times by Saddam than any leader in history, 1.7 million people murdered. It is difficult for me to understand why anyone would think that Saddam should be left off the hook and allowed to remain in power after everything he had done. What type of future would that create for the world?
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-18-2004, 11:07 AM   #186
ONE
love, blood, life
 
namkcuR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 10,290
Local Time: 04:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Thats false because 1441 clearly says that Saddam was in material breech of his obligations in regards to the resolutions. In addition, prior resolutions including the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement had already authorized the use of force if Saddam failed to meet his obligations. Name one UN resolution that Saddam complied with?

The UN decided that Saddam was in material breech of his obligations but was willing to give Saddam one last chance to comply. The UN inspectors cannot do Saddam's work for him. Without Saddam's full cooperation, UN inspections cannot achieve their full goal. Saddam had the opportunity to show the UN where or what happened to the unaccounted Stocks of WMD, and he didn't. There is a process that inspections are supposed to follow in order to achieve Verifiable disarmament. Ukraine, Kazakstan, Belarus, South Africa all followed this process and achieved Verifiable disarmament in under a year. With Saddam, it had been 12 years of playing BS games. The 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire never intended that. The Fact is the invasion was long overdue. It would be absurd to make requirments of someone like Saddam and then not do what is required to enforce those requirments.

It was countries like Germany and France that suddenly begged for more weeks, which would have been a waste of time. The UN inspectors did not have the ability to disarm Saddam without his cooperation. Saddam could role out intact WMD or take them to where the WMD was dismantled. Those were the only options Saddam had if he wanted to comply and he did neither.

The coalition efforts in Iraq, are NOT a waste of time! Saddam was a massive threat to the region and the world and its frustrating when people fail to realize how much safer and better the world is without Saddam in power. In addition the work that is being done now to build a new Iraq will help make the region secure and prosperous in the future.

Those who think otherwise need to consider what the cost of Saddam remaining in power would be for the region, the world, and the Iraqi people. 4 countries attacked and invaded, the planets energy supplies threatened with seizure and sabotage, WMD used more times by Saddam than any leader in history, 1.7 million people murdered. It is difficult for me to understand why anyone would think that Saddam should be left off the hook and allowed to remain in power after everything he had done. What type of future would that create for the world?
The UN gave him one last chance to comply. They never said whether or not he did or didn't oblige on that last chance. They didn't have the chance. Bush gave his orders before the UN had the chance. And the weapons inspectors never got to give the final report they wanted to, they didn't get to finish their job.

Everything that had been said about Saddam prior to the invasion was being said for a decade before, and Saddam never used the WMDS people claim he had to produce a mass murder. If he had used them to produce a mass murder of the apocylptic levels you speak of, the whole world would have known about it, it would have been all over the news.

My feeling would be different if there had been conclusive pictures or video clips of these WMDs that Bush and the CIA were SO sure he had, or if anyone in Iraq were to gave conclusive indication that there were WMDS hidden. But there was no hard proof. We invaded on a hunch we were 90-95% sure of. You know what the great thing about the armed forces is(as much as I disagree with a lot of their idealogy)? It's that they're willing to make the ultimate sacerfice for their country. All that they ask in exchange is that we don't send them into that situation unless it is ABSOLUTELY NECCESSARY. Re-read those words, let them sink in. We betrayed that trust. Perhaps it was poorly worded when I said the war was a waste of time, for I don't claim that Saddam was a good guy by any stretch of the imagination, but he was NOT the threat Bush and Co. would have you think. The war was not ABSOLUTELY NECCESSARY. And when 1000+ soldiers are gonna die, it better be. It's not right the way all those women and children and so forth in Iraq were treated by Saddam and his people it's not, nor is it right that 1.7 million people were killed. I don't argue that. But it's not the business of the US to intervene. It's the business of the UN, and by the UN, it was illegal, and that was stated by its secretary general himself, a guy who I already trusted much more than I ever trusted Bush, and that feeling has only been re-enforced. Perhaps had Bush been a little more patient, the UN would've given the green light and we wouldn't be having this debate.

You know what else is frustrating? When people seem to be blind to all the dishonestly, lying, and secrecy that has been with this administration from the start. You know what they say, love is blind.
__________________
namkcuR is offline  
Old 09-18-2004, 01:40 PM   #187
Blue Crack Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 17,927
Local Time: 04:05 PM
When you give somebody a deadline to comply, you're only giving them time to hide or destroy the evidence, just like a junkie who flushes his stash down the toilet when the cops are at the door. We will never know if there were WMD that were gotten rid of before they were found. Saddam sure seemed secretive about it for somebody who wasn't guilty, huh?
__________________
U2Kitten is offline  
Old 09-18-2004, 01:49 PM   #188
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by namkcuR


The UN gave him one last chance to comply. They never said whether or not he did or didn't oblige on that last chance. They didn't have the chance. Bush gave his orders before the UN had the chance. And the weapons inspectors never got to give the final report they wanted to, they didn't get to finish their job.

Everything that had been said about Saddam prior to the invasion was being said for a decade before, and Saddam never used the WMDS people claim he had to produce a mass murder. If he had used them to produce a mass murder of the apocylptic levels you speak of, the whole world would have known about it, it would have been all over the news.

My feeling would be different if there had been conclusive pictures or video clips of these WMDs that Bush and the CIA were SO sure he had, or if anyone in Iraq were to gave conclusive indication that there were WMDS hidden. But there was no hard proof. We invaded on a hunch we were 90-95% sure of. You know what the great thing about the armed forces is(as much as I disagree with a lot of their idealogy)? It's that they're willing to make the ultimate sacerfice for their country. All that they ask in exchange is that we don't send them into that situation unless it is ABSOLUTELY NECCESSARY. Re-read those words, let them sink in. We betrayed that trust. Perhaps it was poorly worded when I said the war was a waste of time, for I don't claim that Saddam was a good guy by any stretch of the imagination, but he was NOT the threat Bush and Co. would have you think. The war was not ABSOLUTELY NECCESSARY. And when 1000+ soldiers are gonna die, it better be. It's not right the way all those women and children and so forth in Iraq were treated by Saddam and his people it's not, nor is it right that 1.7 million people were killed. I don't argue that. But it's not the business of the US to intervene. It's the business of the UN, and by the UN, it was illegal, and that was stated by its secretary general himself, a guy who I already trusted much more than I ever trusted Bush, and that feeling has only been re-enforced. Perhaps had Bush been a little more patient, the UN would've given the green light and we wouldn't be having this debate.

You know what else is frustrating? When people seem to be blind to all the dishonestly, lying, and secrecy that has been with this administration from the start. You know what they say, love is blind.
There is nothing in resolution 1441 that stated that another resolution was required. It specifically re-affirmed prior resolutions that authorized the use of military force if Saddam was not in compliance and once again said that Saddam would face Serious Consequences if he did not comply! When inspectors were let back into the country and Saddam did not account for the stocks of WMD, war automatically became authorized. The decision was left to Saddam to decide if there would be war or not, and he decided on war. The Weapons inspectors cannot give a final report when Saddam did not do what he was required to do. The United States was the author of the resolution and the rest of the security council approved it!

Saddam murdered thousands of people in Iraq and Iran with WMD. It was all over the news. Look up what was done to Kurdish civilians in 1988. A Town of 5,000 was murdered one morning in 1988. Iranian troops got hit with thousands of chemical filled artillery shells. No other leader has used WMD more times than Saddam. He even attempted to potentially use WMD in the first Gulf War by positioning thousands of stocks near the Iraqi/Kuwaiti border for Republican Guard use. Luckily, these stocks were destroyed by Allied airpower or overrun before they could be used.

After Saddam's defeat in the first Gulf War in 1991, he began to cooperate in disarmament. He did cooperate in the dismantling of large stocks of WMD from 1991-1998, while at the same time, increasingly began to hide things and stop UN inspectors from inspecting many things. Iraqi military personal would block the UN inspectors from going into buildings, while other Iraqi military personal would be in the back loading equipment on to trucks and would move the entire contents of the building some where else. Then the UN inspectors would be allowed to inspect essentially an empty building.

In November of 1998 when UN inspectors were forced out of the country and not allowed to return, Saddam according to UN inspectors had not accounted for and verifiably disarmed of over 1,000 Stocks of Anthrax, 500 pounds of Mustard Gas, 500 pounds of Sarin Gas and over 20,000 Bio/Chem capable shells just to name a few of the things.

In November of 2002 when inspectors were let back into the country, Saddam claimed that he destroyed the above stocks but showed no evidence to prove that he had. Failure to show where the stocks were or where they were dismantled if that in fact happened were total violations of the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement which authorized renewed military action if Saddam failed to meet his obligations.

The criteria for whether war was necessary in Iraq or not was VERIFIABLE DISARMAMENT! Let me say that again, VERIFIABLE DISARMAMENT. That is what the UN resolutions and Gulf War Ceacefire agreement call for. It was a ABSOLUTELY NECCESSARY that SADDAM VERIFIABLY DISARM of all WMD.

Why did the UN in 1991 say that it was ABSOLUTELY NECCESSARY that Saddam verifiably disarm of all WMD. Well lets see, Saddam invaded and attacked FOUR different countries in the space of 10 years! He threatened the entire planets ENERGY SUPPLIES with seizure and sabotage. No big deal you say? The sudden loss of energy supplies from the Persian Gulf would create an economic depression that potentially would be impossible to recover from. Over 50% unemployment in the rich countries of the world and the total end of any foreign aid to Africa or other poor countries as the planets richest countries get crushed and forced into poverty with all of its troubling effects. Saddam used WMD more times than any other leader in history! His behavior showed a total lack of rational thought and disregard for his countries survival. He was willing to nearly risk everything on absurd and crazy dreams of power. Miscaculation after Miscaculation. In the process of all this, he murdered 1.7 million people collectively from several countries.

That is why the UN made it an absolute requirement that Saddam VERIFIABLY DISARM of all WMD or face renewed military action. It would have been stupid to require a man like Saddam to Verifiably Disarm but have no effective means to enforce the issue if he refused which he eventually did. The Enforcement of UN resolutions in regards to Saddam's violations was long overdue.

Mr. Annan has a right to his opinion, but he does not have a vote on the Security Council nor does he decide what is or is not legal. The UN has NEVER published any Document showing that the war in Iraq is illegal! NEVER! Let that sink in. Let it all sink in that the UN in resolutions 678, 687, and 1441 approved of the use of military force in against Saddam if he failed to meet his obligations. Name one resolution that Saddam complied with after 12 years!?

If the war was illegal as Mr. Annan claims, why has the UN passed three different resolutions approving the occupation of Iraq? In 1991 when Saddam invaded Kuwait, the UN immediately put forth and passed a resolutions condemning that invasions! Where is the UN resolution that condemns the current invasion? Please tell me! Where is the UN resolution that calls for the withdrawal of US and coalition troops?

Bottom line, the UN would never authorize an occupation that it felt was illegal. In the case of Iraq, starting with resolution 1483, the United Nations has approved of the occupation of Iraq and has actively worked with the coalition in the occupation. If the occupation was illegal as you claim, the UN would not have anything to do with it and would be condemning and calling for the withdrawal of coalition troops just as they did to Saddam over his invasion of Kuwait in 1990!

What is frustrating is when people throw around terms like LIE and DISHONESTY when in fact there is no evidence that any of that has happened. It is frustrating when people get their idea's from a man like Michael Moore and decide to qoute him as well. But let me qoute a best friend currently serving his SECOND tour of duty in Iraq on his opinion of Michael Moore's film: " The movie was written at the intellectual level of a 2nd grader and the claims he makes are not only false, but preposterous."
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-18-2004, 04:45 PM   #189
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 01:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


What is frustrating is when people throw around terms like LIE and DISHONESTY when in fact there is no evidence that any of that has happened.






Quote:
Let's see here. Elizabeth.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. As you said, the Security Council faces a vote next week on a resolution implicitly authorizing an attack on Iraq. Will you call for a vote on that resolution, even if you aren't sure you have the vote?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, first, I don't think -- it basically says that he's in defiance of 1441. That's what the resolution says. And it's hard to believe anybody is saying he isn't in defiance of 1441, because 1441 said he must disarm. And, yes, we'll call for a vote.

Q No matter what?

THE PRESIDENT: No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam.

.
Bush Flil/Flop: Bush Attacked Iraq Without U.N. Vote
Bush "failed to win explicit [security] council approval for the use of force" in Iraq. Two days before bombs began to fall in Iraq, the Bush administration withdrew its resolution from the UN Security Council that would have authorized military force. Bush abandoned his call for a vote after it became clear that the US could muster only four votes in support of force. [Washington Post, 3/21/03; Los Angeles Times, 3/18/03]
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 09-18-2004, 05:24 PM   #190
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by deep










Bush Flil/Flop: Bush Attacked Iraq Without U.N. Vote
Bush "failed to win explicit [security] council approval for the use of force" in Iraq. Two days before bombs began to fall in Iraq, the Bush administration withdrew its resolution from the UN Security Council that would have authorized military force. Bush abandoned his call for a vote after it became clear that the US could muster only four votes in support of force. [Washington Post, 3/21/03; Los Angeles Times, 3/18/03]
The United States and other member states of the UN already had LEGAL authority based on prior resolutions to launch the invasion based on Saddam's violations. Nothing in 1441 stated that there needed to be another resolution. The only reason another one was considered was for political reasons. From a purely legal standpoint, the coalition did not even need resolution 1441 to invade Iraq. 1441 restated the prior UN resolutions and threw a bone to Saddam to actually have one more chance to comply. Saddam did not take the offer which made the use of military force a necessity.

There is no UN resolution condemning the use of force against Iraq in 2003. There is no UN resolution calling for the withdrawal of coalition forces. If the operation was illegal, the UN would not be approving multiple resolutions authorizing the operation, instead the UN would be condemning the invasion and calling for the removal of coalition forces.

If you want an example of an illegal invasion of a country and how the UN reacts to an illegal invasion, I refer you to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in 1990!
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-18-2004, 06:02 PM   #191
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 01:05 PM
THE PRESIDENT:

"No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote.

We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam."


Does this not fit your defintion of a lie?
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 09-19-2004, 02:08 PM   #192
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:05 PM
Deep,

Lie- When someone knowingly says something that is false.

The above statement is not a lie because there was a consideration at having another resolutions for political reasons, just as resolutions are often considered and sometimes dropped. There was no legal necessity for another resolution. 1441 was more than enough and never called for the need of another resolution to authorize military action.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-19-2004, 04:11 PM   #193
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by DaveC
116 votes in the Electoral College will be extraordinarily difficult to make up in the next 3 months, what with the extremely vast majority of voters already decided.
So what do you think about this qoute now?
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-19-2004, 04:57 PM   #194
Blue Crack Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 17,927
Local Time: 04:05 PM


I thought he'd take it out of his sig by now
__________________
U2Kitten is offline  
Old 09-19-2004, 08:19 PM   #195
ONE
love, blood, life
 
namkcuR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 10,290
Local Time: 04:05 PM
I am done arguing with you about this, Sting. I could go and find evidence that Bush lied time and again and put it right in your face and it wouldn't change a thing. You'd still find a way to say that Bush never lied and that there has never been more legal grounds for a war than this one and blah blah blah.

It's not just a matter of black and white. It's not a comic book world where when you beat the boss of the bad guys, all evil ceases. I'm tired of Saddam being made into a figurehead for all of this. Yes, he was a sick bastard who commited too many hanus crimes to count. But so were/are countless other terrorists everywhere in the world. And we don't know their names. But they will still commit their crimes and the war in Iraq won't stop them at all. And there are more terrorists in Iraq NOW that are more dangerous NOW because they can commit their crimes without worrying what Saddam will do them if they do so. There is still terrorism EVERYWHERE. The removal of Saddam is NOT this great victory against terrorism. All it is is the removal of a dictator who was more of a criminal than a statesman and very much a terrorist. But it doesn't even scratch the tip of the iceburg of terrorism. It barely makes a dent. Osama is still out there and he is more dangerous than Saddam ever was and I'm completely convinced we haven't put forth even close to the effort we're capable of in terms of finding him and 'capturing' him. Of course he's a figurehead too, though. The difference between him and Saddam though is that he is behind 9/11, and as bad as anything Saddam ever did was, it pales next to the tragedy of 9/11. And the man behind that is still a free man because Mr. Bush thought it more important to spend all our money and so many young lives on Saddam.

So I could argue about Bush's lies and the lack of UN approval forever and your mind wouldn't change, just like mine isn't. But think about everything I just said. When Bush leaves office, whether that's in January or in 2009, the absence of Saddam from Iraq will represent very little in the way of decreased terrorism in the international community. It's not a comic book world. It's the real world. So, in the end, I believe the war was illegal, unneccessary, and wrong. But that's almost a moot point. Whether it was wrong or right, I don't think it does much at all for decreasing terrorism. It might even increase it, who knows. But you clearly have your mind made up and I have mine made up too. So you go and vote for Bush in November. I'll vote for Kerry. We'll see who wins. And your polls mean percisely zip to me. The only thing that matters is who is on top on election night. That is all.
__________________

__________________
namkcuR is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com