There comes a point at which you pull the pitcher.

Regardless of how good you thought he looked in the minor leagues.

He's been a total failure in every endeavour so far. Hasn't accomplished a single goal.

Your man is a loser Republicans, and he's taking us with him. FAILED

AcadianSidhe

I love how everytime someone brings up the humanitarian argument about Iraq everyone screams, "What about the rest of the world?" Christ, what, would you people prefer we left EVERYONE alone and let things go as they will?

Look at it like this:
if while walking down the street you saw several women being raped (seperate attacks) but only helped one of them. Now consider that you had made statements about getting that one rapist because you said he threatened you. People might be suspicious if you said that the reason you attacked that rapist was because of the rape.

We can't do everything at once, and we do give out PLENTY in aid.

Total foriegn aid for 2003 is 14 Billion which is 0.0067 (0.67%) of the total budget. Japan spends more. So does Europe. Of the 14, at least 3 Billion goes to Isreal, at least 2 Billion goes to Egypt.

06-10-03 04:07:40 PM Albo

Weemill: How and where was Saddam a threat to the US? that question? Well, despite the fact that his air defense forces fired hundreds of missiles at US planes enforcing the no-fly zone,

How dare Saddam defend his own country against attacking US/UK airplanes in non-UN no-fly zones!

Exactly how is that threatening to the US? Would you expect anything less if you flew over and bombed other countries?


he supported Al-Queda terrorists, who attacked us and who consider us their mortal enemy.

Bullshiat he supported them. Nobody can give ANY sort of proof. Zero.


Is that now enough?

To go to war? Definately not, especially considering your points are either invalid, or stupid. Next?

"He had the weapons, just ask the Kurds. What makes me wonder is the lack of panic on the adminstrations part, I would dropping a brick if I couldn't find these weapons."

Yeah in '88, and this is your third "official" war against Saddam since then...3 strikes and yer out!

06-10-03 04:13:58 PM Shut........UP

He had the weapons, just ask the Kurds. What makes me wonder is the lack of panic on the adminstrations part, I would dropping a brick if I couldn't find these weapons.

One could say that they aren't panicking because they never expected to find them, and that they simply planned on futzing around until they could soften people up for the 'revelation' that they lied, a la the Fox News report I saw earlier.

Of course, as disillusioned as I am, I can't really bring myself to believe what I just wrote.

Saddam - Al Queda link, from the UK Telegraph:

The proof that Saddam worked with bin Laden
By Inigo Gilmore
(Filed: 27/04/2003)


Iraqi intelligence documents discovered in Baghdad by The Telegraph have provided the first evidence of a direct link between Osama bin Laden's al-Qa'eda terrorist network and Saddam Hussein's regime.

Papers found yesterday in the bombed headquarters of the Mukhabarat, Iraq's intelligence service, reveal that an al-Qa'eda envoy was invited clandestinely to Baghdad in March 1998.

The documents show that the purpose of the meeting was to establish a relationship between Baghdad and al-Qa'eda based on their mutual hatred of America and Saudi Arabia. The meeting apparently went so well that it was extended by a week and ended with arrangements being discussed for bin Laden to visit Baghdad...

Jsnbase:

I really dont know. kind of a vague question. If it turns out being good for the country, I cant see how the war could be that bad.

I know if weapons are found, no one is going to change there mind, because the anti-war people will say somthing like the CIA made them, and if no weapons are found, the conservatives will say they were hidden, or destroyed or somthing.

Im just curious if anything is going to change anyones mind on this topic.

well said Burn98, Weemill and Big Al.

Father_Jack: lmao! thanks! too true.

SHUT UP
"Oh well, we either fight saddam now or Uday in the future."

I've seen you say this alot.

I think its a bad idea to base current foreign policy, especially when it comes to things like fighting a war, on hypothetical future events.

What if we'd taken that logic in 1950 against the soviet union?

THere's no way you can say for sure if the world would've had to deal with Uday and a newly belligerent iraq. He couldve been overthrown, he couldve converted to aztec snake worshipping and opened a crystal shop in Sedona for all we know. You could be right, too, of course. But theres no way to know.

But i dont think saying "well, either now or later" Is a good reason to justify a war.

Vroomazoom thats a very good question, and initially I would say yes, but the reasons the American people were led to believe this was a necessary war were based on what appears to be lies from the Bush administration. So, no. The cost in human lives and US taxpayer money (billions for Iraq while the US economy is in the crapper) just don't cut it. I don't know if content is the right word, most US citizens are content to have $0.99 value menus and a new Bachelor episode. I honestly believe the majority of American citizens do not really care about what goes on outside the US borders, in other words, most Americans are sheeple and will believe whatever they see on TV. Nothing new.

AcadianSidhe
um, I don't think it was all about the oil.

Oh My Gawd! Don't say that! You'll get them started! I so do not want go through that argument again. (of course I could just stop reading ;-)

Have you ever heard the story of Pandora's Box?

Albo Thank you. You've proven to me that your whole foundation for believing in this war is weak. You're just like the majority, too, because they also believe that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. Guess you're not as special, or intelligent, as you though, eh?

"How dare Saddam defend his own country against attacking US/UK airplanes in non-UN no-fly zones!"

Ya, poor saddam. How dare a ruthless dictator not be allowed to butcher and torture and do whatever he needs to to stay in power. Its his right to rule that country since he killed the most people to do it.

Don't forget to defend Little Kim over in NK also. Daddy let him be president.

You lose alot of credibility when you defend people like him having some "right" to be in power.

Just friendly advice.

06-10-03 04:17:25 PM Albo

Saddam - Al Queda link, from the UK Telegraph:

The proof that Saddam worked with bin Laden
By Inigo Gilmore
(Filed: 27/04/2003)


Iraqi intelligence documents discovered in Baghdad by The Telegraph have provided the first evidence of a direct link between Osama bin Laden's al-Qa'eda terrorist network and Saddam Hussein's regime.

You mean the same so called "papers" found to be a fraud?

Vroom:

It doesn't look like any minds will change, does it? Before the war I would get pretty involved in the little flamewars, until I finally just got sort of shell-shocked (no pun intended). Now I find it much harder to care about this country politically and socially. I don't feel that my views are wanted. Does that count as changing my mind?

"I think its a bad idea to base current foreign policy, especially when it comes to things like fighting a war, on hypothetical future events."

Almost all foreign policy is based on hypothetical future events. The Monroe doctorine up to the Marshall Plan to Truemans Contaiment where all on hypothetical outcomes to the geo-political situation of the time.

I'm just glad Bush is willing to lie to us. It's a part of being a parent who knows best. His DOJ listens in our phone conversations. It's part of being a good parent, keeping us out of trouble.

That Godly Parenting program really works. Look how good Jenna and Barbara turned out. They'll be like their cousin Nicole soon. Real role models.

But nobody will ever turn out as good as First Lady Laura Bush. Now there's a partier who knew how to keep it together. She kills her boyfriend by running her car into his, but still can keep a straight face in MADD ads. Republican values to the core.

Funny how the conservatives simply ignore the quotes and facts that the detractors have presented.

06-10-03 04:20:20 PM Shut........UP

Ya, poor saddam. How dare a ruthless dictator not be allowed to butcher and torture and do whatever he needs to to stay in power. Its his right to rule that country since he killed the most people to do it.

When did I ever say this? I said that was a poor excuse for the whole "threat to the US"


Don't forget to defend Little Kim over in NK also. Daddy let him be president.

Strawman arguments are fun!


You lose alot of credibility when you defend people like him having some "right" to be in power.

I never said he had the right. I said don't be surprised when you send airplanes over a country to bomb them to the stone age and they actually have the NERVE to fire back.


Just friendly advice.

Heres some friendly advice. Stop being a simpleton, stop being such an uniformed moron, and please don't speak unless you actually know what you're talking about.

UNinformed. Ooops

Vroomazoom

I think its been said by me and a few others, that I hope that WMD ARE found. I'm not a fan of bush, mind you, but I'd hate to see the political backlash that could happen (but won't cuz dems are pvssies) if they're not found. If there was a solid link between Al-Quaeda and Iraq, i'd have been down for war. If there was solid proof of WMD, same thing. I think that nation building is a latent benefit(something i say a lot) but not necessarily our main goal. If that were one of our main goals, i think we need to revamp our foreign policy, b/c there's LOTS of countries who needed it worse than Iraq, IMO.

Albo
though=thought

Albo- one meeting does not a partnership make. Are there any more documents establishing a direct link between Saddam and 9-11. If there are, then that would make this war justified.

But what if they had that next meeting, and then realized that they hated each other?

And remember, the United States had formal a relationship with Bin Ladin. He was also on our buddy list prior to 9-11.

Now, Weemill, that wasn't very nice to say.

To quote a huge, drugged, beaten, tasered black man, "can't we all get along?"

"Saddam - Al Queda link, from the UK Telegraph:

The proof that Saddam worked with bin Laden
By Inigo Gilmore
(Filed: 27/04/2003) (blah blah blah...)"


You do know that this "document" hasn't even inspired the confidence of our administration, yes? It was in English and covered in white out, for pete's sake.

Vroomazoom

If the war ends up being positive for Iraq, will that be enough for anyone to be content with the war?

Yes! I am very content with the War.

Iraqi people liberated. Check!

G. W. Bush looks like a lier or a fool. Check.

So much more then I had hoped for!

BTW I am glad to see you join in. Albo was getting lonely.

06-10-03 04:13:58 PM Shut........UP

Oh well, we either fight saddam now or Uday in the future.

Damn straight! And McCarthy was right! Should have attacked the soviets in the 50s! /sarcasm

You can't go around overthrowing countries because you think they might threaten you in the future. If Saddam was a threat to the middle east, let those countries take care of it, right?

Albo: Saddam - Al Queda link, from the UK Telegraph:

A number of different al-Quaeda "envoys" were allowed to enter the US and receive flight training at official, FAA-sanctioned flight schools that allowed them to use jet planes to kill 3000 people. Now, the White House is refusing to release the information on what it might have known prior to the attacks.

Can the countries that lost citizens and nationals in the attacks claim a US-al Quaeda link?

Burn98:
Just that apparently someone thought I thought it was about the oil, and I didn't (at least not entirely). Believe me, I don't even feel like rehashing the argument again. Some people think that, some don't. I don't think anyone will change anyone else's minds at this point. Of course, we're all far too right to agree to disagree.

Heh, all too well- studied mythology since I was 9.

"He was also on our buddy list prior to 9-11."

I meant prior to 1991.

/all those 9's and 1's are confusing me.

"How dare Saddam defend his own country against attacking US/UK airplanes in non-UN no-fly zones!"

I guess the "How Dare" part of the statement through me off...

"Stop being a simpleton, stop being such an uniformed moron, and please don't speak unless you actually know what you're talking about."

Gee A1, can you ever post anything without having to resort to insults?

That really shows you lack of intellect when it happens.

Don't forget to respond with at least one ALL CAPS SENTENSE.

Anyone else miss "That's My Bush!"?

They've been found!

http://www.coxar.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

"You can't go around overthrowing countries because you think they might threaten you in the future"

Sure you can. We just did.

"If Saddam was a threat to the middle east, let those countries take care of it, right?"

So those countries have the right to invade for strategic reasons but we do not?

Interesting theory.

Sroth:

content wasnt a good word. I couldnt think of a better one. I had "happy" but that was was totally wrong.

Cyberluddite:

I wasnt asking if people would be content that their children died you asshat.

Jsnbase:

I dont know. seems the war changed your disposition, not the other way around.

Shut........Up
"How dare Saddam defend his own country against attacking US/UK airplanes in non-UN no-fly zones!"

Ya, poor saddam. How dare a ruthless dictator not be allowed to butcher and torture and do whatever he needs to to stay in power. Its his right to rule that country since he killed the most people to do it.

Don't forget to defend Little Kim over in NK also. Daddy let him be president.

You lose alot of credibility when you defend people like him having some "right" to be in power.

Just friendly advice.

Saddam has no right to fark over his people. Point well taken. But lets not lose sight of the fact that we put him there, let him stay there throughout the 90's (yes bush I AND Clinton) and this has nothing to do with US national security, like the question i posed to Albo. Some pro US circles say might makes right, however, and to those people, i say, his might put Saddam there, and kept him there.

"he (Uday) couldve converted to aztec snake worshipping and opened a crystal shop in Sedona for all we know"

This, actually, isn't a bad place to look for the Husseins. There are actually so many damn snake worshipping crystal shop owning freaks in the freak show that is Sedona, they would be totally lost in the crowd. Come to think of it, WMDs could have been converted into peaceful energy in one of the many "vortexes" in and around Sedona. Oh well, maybe Uday and Saddam will get in touch with one of their past lives while living there and abandon the dark side. Born-again Bush would have to accept them then.

"And remember, the United States had formal a relationship with Bin Ladin. He was also on our buddy list prior to 9-11."

So did Bush and his Arbusto Oil Company and Osama's brother. He financed Dubya's company...they were buddies, small world eh?

Shut....up, you know better than to poke sticks at BigAl. He'll bite your Capslock off...

Albo now must leave to pound a few Yuenglings, watch daughter's softball game and pick up tommorrow's right-wing conspiracy marching orders.

Ooops. pretend you didn't read that last part.

Albo
Papers found yesterday in the bombed headquarters of the Mukhabarat, Iraq's intelligence service, reveal that an al-Qa'eda envoy was invited clandestinely to Baghdad in March 1998.

I am so unimpressed with this. I mean several Presidents of the United States have shaken hands with Yessir Arifat. (that is not how its spelled but I am too lazy to look it up) FDR shook hands with Joseph Stalin. All your source proves is that they had contact. Not that they ever actually worked together. Just that they had contact. I would expect them to talk at some time, wouldn't you?

Burn98

Here you clearly imply that those who damn the administration for invading Iraq because of WMD, do not care about "dank prisons and mass graves of children".

So if we had waited for however long the opposition wanted to wait for the inspectors to piddle around, could you live with the possibility that even 1 child may have been sent to another mass grave?

Our government spends way too much time arming the wrong people and not enough time confronting the tyrants in this world.

Hypothetical: Lets say that Bush has been found guilty of lying to Americans about Iraq. Lets also say he is impeached. Regardless of what may happen, the liberation of Iraq was a good thing. I only hope that we can do another good thing by giving the new Iraqi government a healthy start.

There is a country in the middle east with proven connections to Al Queda, WMDs (nukes, even!), a military dictatorship and a rising core of Islamic fundamentalism. They're called Pakistan. Now I'm not advocating a war here, just curious as to why Saddam got all the attention.


And "That's My Bush" was spectacularly unfunny.

Whatwherewhy

PRICELESS!

"Point well taken. But lets not lose sight of the fact that we put him there"

We did NOT put saddam in power, he managed that all by himself without help from the US.

Saddam was friendly to the soviets during his reign, not the US.

Burn98:

that was my next question. haha. If the republicans were too look bad, and the war was benificial, than the dems should support it. i think. im sure someone will tell me why that is wrong.

Vroomazoom

"If it turns out being good for the country, I cant see how the war could be that bad."


The main problem - at least for me - is, good or bad, our government did not act in good faith with the world or its own citizens in trying to achieve its goals. To say its a bad precident is the hugest understatement in the history of understatements. And the next logical question is whether you want to be governed through lies made by people in power that are simply trying to foward their own hidden agendas?

Hey, if George had come out and said, "I wanna get this shmoe outta office," I would have accepted it. I wouldn't have backed it, but at least I would know where he's coming from and sympathized. In my opinion, not anywhere enough for a war - but at least I know he's thinking with the white hat on.

When you plant evidence, falsify reports, cook testimony and get caught, you are a Bad Cop. You will be fired, you may go to jail. Should that sort of activity, under any circumstance, be acceptable operating proceedure for the most powerful nation on the planet?

I sure don't think so..

SHUT UP
"I think its a bad idea to base current foreign policy, especially when it comes to things like fighting a war, on hypothetical future events."

Almost all foreign policy is based on hypothetical future events. The Monroe doctorine up to the Marshall Plan to Truemans Contaiment where all on hypothetical outcomes to the geo-political situation of the time.
----

My mistake. You are correct in saying doctrines are planned in accordance with predictions of the future, ie, the rebuilding of europe, or the perceived future agression of european colonial powers in the western hemisphere.

I should've left out the "foreign policy" bit (since its all-encompassing) and said:

"I think its a bad idea to fight a war, or to judge the validity of the reasons for a war, based hypothetical future events."

Whatwherewhy - that's some funny stuff

Swahnhennessy, I've posted a couple of posts about Pakistan but nobody seems to care.

What are the chances of the US actually engaging Pakistan that they have nukes and a credible army? Seems like the States like to kick butts when the opposition is very very weak...