SimonX,
What left is there to debate? You Bush-haters are not going to give him credit, even when Iraq is liberated from Saddam.
Our intelligence has told us that al-Queda has been training in Iraq. Saddam has WOMD (I believe you know this). He said he did not have those rockets he is now destroying. He has a drone that violates 1441. He continually violates the no-fly zone. Some of Iraq’s high-ranking defectors have told us he has chemicals. What more do you want? He is in material breech of 1441. Diplomacy hasn’t worked in 12 years. Blix said Saddam would not use chemicals on us (wait! I thought he didn’t have any to use!).
He will obtain the means to deliver WOMD if we do not stop him now. He is a lied and lied and lied. How can you trust him?
What is your real beef with liberating Iraq? I don’t understand.
The debate is really over because we ARE GOING IN and we will remove Saddam’s regime. You don’t have to like it, but it will happen. Why debate it any longer?
I thought we were discussing the relative just-ness of the war in this thread.
Cite with relevance please.
AQ was training in the US of A too.
Who wants to trust him? We can’t invade a country because we don’t trust the leader of that country.
I’m all for liberating the people of Iraq. I’m just unconvinced of the necessity of doing it this way, right now.
I’m also unconvinced about Iraq representing an immanent threat to the US.
Just because it is going to happen doesn’t negate the relative just-ness of an action.
ps
Why do you feel the need to determine who I like and dislike?
I thought we were discussing the relative just-ness of the war in this thread.
Cite with relevance please.
AQ was training in the US of A too.
Who wants to trust him? We can’t invade a country because we don’t trust the leader of that country.
I’m all for liberating the people of Iraq. I’m just unconvinced of the necessity of doing it this way, right now.
I’m also unconvinced about Iraq representing an immanent threat to the US.
Just because it is going to happen doesn’t negate the relative just-ness of an action.
ps
Why do you feel the need to determine who I like and dislike?
I thought we were discussing the relative just-ness of the war in this thread.
Cite with relevance please.
AQ was training in the US of A too.
Who wants to trust him? We can’t invade a country because we don’t trust the leader of that country.
I’m all for liberating the people of Iraq. I’m just unconvinced of the necessity of doing it this way, right now.
I’m also unconvinced about Iraq representing an immanent threat to the US.
Just because it is going to happen doesn’t negate the relative just-ness of an action.
ps
Why do you feel the need to determine whom I like and dislike?
I thought we were discussing the relative just-ness of the war in this thread.
Cite with relevance please.
AQ was training in the US of A too.
Who wants to trust him? We can’t invade a country because we don’t trust the leader of that country.
I’m all for liberating the people of Iraq. I’m just unconvinced of the necessity of doing it this way, right now.
I’m also unconvinced about Iraq representing an immanent threat to the US.
Just because it is going to happen doesn’t negate the relative just-ness of an action.
ps
Why do you feel the need to determine whom I like and dislike?
So Saddam was in gross violation of Res. 1441. He fired rockets that he said he didn’t have that violated 1441. Whether France, Germany, Russia or China gives us their blessing is immaterial.
AZCowboy,
Do you watch the news? Do you understand Res.1441? Do you realize that a Scud owned/used by Iraq is a gross breech of Res.1441? Do you realize that Saddam has been lying to the world?
If Russia, China, France, and Germany don’t have the balls to enforce Res.1441, we’ll have to do it, along with the support of 40 other nations.
And let me guess. You also believe that the Patriot missile systems used in GW1 were 100% effective, because you heard it on the news during war coverage, eh?
Yep, I might learn something.
Until it is a confirmed scud, it is simply a news report during the chaos of war.
Nonetheless, I sure hope you’re right, that we find clear and compelling evidence of WoMD violations. Otherwise …
Why, no, Shodan, I wouldn’t. But thanks for the drive by snide, anyway.
You see, when I say I know something, I mean I know it. I’m not interested, as Our Leader seems to be, in an arcane view of phenomenology where faith is knowledge (or perhaps GeeDubya is influenced by Gnostic thinkers).
I know the Lake Street Bridge exists. I can take you there, show it to you, you can thump its rusty rivets. It’s there, and I know it.
The Bushistas, on the other hand, simply stamp thier collective foot and insist they know that Saddam has WMD’s. They can’t tell you where. They can’t tell you why they know. But they do. But as our philosopher in residence, Donald Rumsfeld, remarked, “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” Well, perhaps not. But neither is evidence of any kind whatsoever.
I trust this will not trouble you, those blessed with the faith that surpasseth all understanding. Or argument, for that matter.