nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
Perhaps they should realize that we want a leader of our own country. Alienation is a two way street. You can't sit there, pointing at Bush and cry "he is alienating us" when your own hands are dirty.
U2_Guy said:
If the result left America bitterly divided, it left Europe remarkably united — wondering why Americans would want another four years of a man whose words and deeds have alienated most of the U.S.'s allies.
nbcrusader said:Perhaps they should realize that we want a leader of our own country. Alienation is a two way street. You can't sit there, pointing at Bush and cry "he is alienating us" when your own hands are dirty.
U2_Guy said:
Oh i c: if you warn ppl b4 that you gonna kill them its ok...
And my friend: the UN didn't allow the invasion. And if Hussein was ample warned he did what he had to do: nothing. CAUSE IT WAS PROVED THEY DIDN'T HAVE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!
Irvine511 said:
yes, if you say that SH must comply with many, many UN-passed resolutions or else he will be invaded, then that country has options available to it that might prevent an attack.
the same cannot be said of 9-11. and be careful: i know people who died in the WTC, and i know people who ran out of that building.
you're also running on thin ice when you start defending a homocidal dictator.
nbcrusader said:Perhaps they should realize that we want a leader of our own country. Alienation is a two way street. You can't sit there, pointing at Bush and cry "he is alienating us" when your own hands are dirty.
U2_Guy said:
Am i deffending Bush? Are you nuts??
U2_Guy said:
Am i deffending Bush? Are you nuts??
U2Traveller said:
No, you're not, obviously.
Irvine511 said:
you were defending Saddam Hussein, a homocidal dictator. Bush, terrible as he may be, was democratically elected.
your equivocations are increasingly desperate.
U2_Guy said:
Thank you! I don't wanna make a wrong impression here!
Irvine511 said:
you were defending Saddam Hussein, a homocidal dictator. Bush, terrible as he may be, was democratically elected.
your equivocations are increasingly desperate.
nbcrusader said:
No, we've got quite an impression of you.
U2_Guy said:
Am i deffending Hussein? Hmmmm yes, i guess i am...
The ROW reads and understands what we read and the news were clear even b4 the US invaded Iraq: there wasn't no weapons of mass destruction (the excuse used to invade Iraq). I guess in America ppl don't get to read those news...
nbcrusader said:
No, we've got quite an impression of you.
Irvine511 said:
agreed. he makes life for those of us who are against Bush, against the invasion of Iraq, and for greater multilateralism on the part of the US much more difficult.
U2_Guy: you're not helping the cause! back up your assertions with fact and reason! you're heart is in the right place, but your arguments cannot be sustained!
nbcrusader said:
I guess we are blessed to have a representative of ROW here.
You are flat out wrong, however, on your assessment of Iraq before the war.
U2_Guy said:
Thank you crusader!
nbcrusader said:
I guess I should have used the sarcasm smilie
where did that one go.....?
U2_Guy said:You're welcome!
And LOLOLOLOL now i know you ppl don't read those news! LOLOLOL
U2_Guy said:
Am i deffending Hussein? Hmmmm yes, i guess i am...
The ROW reads and understands what we read and the news were clear even b4 the US invaded Iraq: there wasn't no weapons of mass destruction (the excuse used to invade Iraq). I guess in America ppl don't get to read those news...
Irvine511 said:
no, you're wrong. the one thing the world was in agreement on was the presence of weapons and weapons programs. further, it was the 2002 british government dossier that stated, clearly, that SH could arm and launch a biological or chemical attack with a warhead in under 45 minutes. much of the intelligence came from the British, and much of that intelligence proved to be wrong.
go back and look at Hans Blix's presentation to the UN in regards to the success (or lack thereof) of the weapons inspectors in Iraq. Blix says, basically, nothing. no proof for, no proof against, mostly because he's a big diplomat and knows how to cover his ass.
the debate, at the time, was not whether or not there were weapons, but whether or not those weapons were an *imminent* threat. in the end, everyone was wrong. and i bet you Hussein was surprised too -- i bet he though he had weapons, but due to the secrecy and paranoia of a police state like Iraq, one scientist lies to the other, one official lies to the other, and they tell SH what he wants to hear.
again, you're speaking for the rest of the world. bad idea.
U2_Guy said:
You're welcome!
And LOLOLOLOL now i know you ppl don't read those news! LOLOLOL
U2_Guy said:Why do you think the world didn't support the war?? I'm sure now you get different news from us...