[QUOTE=RickJay] (he threatens the ) the peace of his region, - TRUE
Well, no, not really. Iraq, by 2003, was almost completely marginalized and its ability to project force was nonexistent.
[/quote]
He was marginalized in 1991. The psycho kept bouncing back every few years.
Oil-for-illegal cash? Bribing the member nations of the UN security council?
It was the best way and we did it.
The speech said “we will” not “we did”. We did try.
[/quote]
So what? War kills people; are we supposed to take from this that they didn’t screw the war up because he predicted people would die?
[/QUOTE]
Everything in the speech was spelled out beforehand is all I am saying.
Jeez, isn’t this like the 6,000th time someone tried to argue that Clinton felt the same way as GW and therefore we should all be okee dokee with the current state of affairs?
The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, - TRUE
[/quote]
Irrelevant. The same is true of scores of other heads of state, including George W. Bush.
False – and also irrelevant.
Absolute horseshit.
There was no threat.
False. It took very little time and very little effort to bring change to Iraq. Unfortunateely, the changes were all for the worse.
The utterest horsehit. Have you read a newspaper in the last few years?
A fatuous truism which argues more against your position than for it.
Duh. That’s why you don’t do it without a good reason, dipshit.
When the invasion itself is unjustified, the “unintentional” harm to civilians is not unintentional at all. The decision to incur civilian casualties by attacking miltary targers unnecessarily is morally indistinguishable from deciding to kill civilians just for the hell of it. Timothy McVeigh shrugged off his own murders of children with the same justification.
Not only that, but most of the harm to civilians has come after we were no longer engaged in hostilities with the Iraqi military. Not only that but plenty of harm to civilians HAS been intentional (Abu Ghraib?).
[QUOTE=DevNull]
It is not nice to direct insults towards the office of the president of the USA. Surely, you do not believe just because of his speech I posted that his speech is like that of a mass-murderer… do you?
[/QUOTE]
It is also not “nice” to have a President who used fabricated evidence to invade another country, and then proceeds to so completely botch the job that there are no good options on how to solve the problem. It’s not “nice” that we’re currently pouring some $2 billion a week down what is effectively the world’s largest rat hole. It is not “nice” that nearly six years after 9/11 Osama’s not had a bullet put through his brain and that Al Qaeda is just as strong as ever (thus the several thousand Americans who’ve paid the ultimate price in this war have had their lives wasted). Considering the injustices that I’ve just listed that this Administration has done, insulting the office of the President is so far off the radar scope in terms of being “not nice” as to be in another universe.
[QUOTE=Marley23]
Where was he bouncing, exactly?
[/quote]
He would bounce back as a military power every once in a while after Gul War I
Anyone who is familiar with the power of the UN Security Council. Saddam was.
Clinton wrote/spoke those words as a wish? Why would he wish those things in that speech without wanting to try them? Are you saying that the Bush administration failed Clinton’s wishes as laid out in that speech?
Ten years from now I’ll be pulling the old Clinton and his “The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government” speech.
It will be twice as effective in the future because no one can ignore the speech. They can only spin it when it comes up.
Spinning does not last long in history. This ain’t nothing.
[QUOTE=Marley23]
Would you do everybody a favor and go back under your bridge?
[/QUOTE]
Yes!
I know how hard it is to let some shmuck get in the last word, especially if his arguments aren’t the slightest bit coherent.
That may be what needs to be done with this ____.
[QUOTE=DevNull]
It is not nice to direct insults towards the office of the president of the USA.
[/QUOTE]
I for one have quite a bit of respect for the office of the president of the USA. I just wish those who voted for GW had a little more.
[QUOTE=Uncommon Sense]
Yes!
I know how hard it is to let some shmuck get in the last word, especially if his arguments aren’t the slightest bit coherent.
That may be what needs to be done with this ____.
[/QUOTE]
Another fascist. What gives? I am in the pit, right? I didn’t even insult anyone and you are all acting like thought should be suppressed.
[QUOTE=DevNull]
If I was a troll I would not have a well-defined set of morals and beliefs.
Am I making the pit an unpleasant place or is the subject matter making you nervous? Your fascist tone is not pleasing me one bit.
[/QUOTE]
Uh-oh. Better watch out, Marley. You’re not pleasing the troll one bit.
Aren’t you frightened?
Oh, and for the record:
“A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.” [Robert O. Paxton, “The Anatomy of Fascism,” 2004]
Pot, meet kettle.
[QUOTE=Tuckerfan]
It is also not “nice” to have a President who used fabricated evidence to invade another country
[/QUOTE]
That sounds illegal.
You should impeach the guy.
If he did it yesterday then eight months from now you should have him impeached. What? What’s that? five years ago? He supposedly did this FIVE YEARS AGO???
What’s the hold up? Having a hard time fabricating the fabricated evidence? (snicker)
[QUOTE=DevNull]
He would bounce back as a military power every once in a while after Gul War I
[/quote]
I’m pretty sure you imagined this.
…Was threatened by the bribery? I don’t even know what this is supposed to mean.
You’re not big on this “reading” thing, are you? ‘We’ did not try to plan anything as far as occupying Iraq goes. The government hoped some things would work out, and that was about it.
You’re right. I should never have suggested that a politician would say something he didn’t mean. That would never happen.
Good- nobody will be listening then, either, but thanks for the advance warning. It’ll help me tune you out.
[QUOTE=DevNull]
Another fascist. What gives? I am in the pit, right? I didn’t even insult anyone and you are all acting like thought should be suppressed.
[/QUOTE]
Oh, no, not at all. I was just giving everyone in this thread an out so-to-speak.
We’re all too well aware of your wit and wisdom, it’d be a shame to see some of our more established colleagues here get trampled by your superior intellect and debate skills.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Heh. You’re the pussy who prefaced your OP by saying you didn’t have the spine to defend yourself in a debate.
[/QUOTE]
If thinking that makes you comfortable, I wish you luck with it.
That you felt compelled to take the time and write me about your feelings on the matter is a bit odd… but once again, the reason my threads are so wildly popular is my genuine concern for the welfare of my debate opponents. a little steam needed to be blown off by them so I set up this little corner, as provided by the rules. It’s nothing major, but it will do.