Beinfest4Prez Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 We actually did do someting about Iran, when we supported Iraq in their war with Iran. And when this was done we didnt assume that there would be no potential danger from aiding iraq, but it was a necessary risk that was taken in order to control Iran's growing influence in the region at the time. Furthermore, why do people against the Iraq war continue to say "O why dont we attack Iran or saudi arabia instead because they have WMD's and terrorist links"....I would like to see how many of you would support open military action against either of these nations, and Lina what do u think should have be done to deal with Saddam and Iraq other than the war? 448371[/snapback] Tonyi, Legacy, The problem here is that we shouldn't have done "anything" about each country. Iran e Iraq did not do anything against America. The 9/11 Commission concluded that Iraq had no ties with Al-Qaeda, plus we now know that their WMDs were not there either. From the original reasons given to us by this administration, our invasion to Iraq is not justified. "People" like me continue to cite other countries like Iran or Saudi Arabia, because we want to put some sense into all this madness... Those other countries had confirmed ties to terrorists and had confirmed WMDs programs (Iran)... From those reasons given to us to invade Iraq, those other countries seem to fit the criteria better. However, this doesn't mean we want military action against those countries. We just want you to understand how ridiculous is that we invaded Iraq and continue to lose soldiers there. It is more ridiculous than bombing the hell out of Saudi Arabia where the 9/11 hijackers come from or Iran where they are developing WMDs and their government is notoriously extremist. The only country that deserved our military action was Afghanistan, because Bin Laden with his surrogates was there and the Taliban was supporting them. 448445[/snapback] I cant believe you think that Iraq was an innocent bystander in all this. First of all terrorist does not equal al qaeda. There are many other terorist organizations and islamic radicals that were operating in Iraq. again remember black september. And how about saddam's monetary rewards for suicide bombers in israel? Not to mention that he violated the treaty he signed with the U.S. when we found WMD programs in Iraq in 1999. Stop painting saddams regime as an innocent non hostile regime, when the fact is that Iraq WAS a threat to the U.S. for various reasons. We cannot be so naive to think that Saddam had reformed and had stopped creating WMDs or plotting to form a panArab state under Baathist control. Furthermore, The house of saud has been vicitmized themselves by numerous terrorist attacks, so why are we going to overthrow a government that does NOT sponsor terrorism. It is irrelevant that members of the al qaeda leadership were born there, because that does not mean that the saudi govt is to blame but saudi individuals, who by the way are not in saudi arabia. 448452[/snapback] Black September was Palestinians not Iraqis. And besides that was long before Saddam. And why the hell would Saddam support Islamic terrorists. He was the most secular leader in the region. You republicans disgust me. You blatantly disregard the facts and believe this military gungho crap. Stop bashing Cyberlina because she tells the truth. 448661[/snapback] Check your facts, nidal was there under Saddam's supervision. 448667[/snapback] As if Saddam had any control over it. Don't talk about Black September at all and any connections with Saddam. Why, maybe its because they were Palestinians who happened to be hiding out in Iraq. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legacyofCangelosi Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 We actually did do someting about Iran, when we supported Iraq in their war with Iran. And when this was done we didnt assume that there would be no potential danger from aiding iraq, but it was a necessary risk that was taken in order to control Iran's growing influence in the region at the time. Furthermore, why do people against the Iraq war continue to say "O why dont we attack Iran or saudi arabia instead because they have WMD's and terrorist links"....I would like to see how many of you would support open military action against either of these nations, and Lina what do u think should have be done to deal with Saddam and Iraq other than the war? 448371[/snapback] Tonyi, Legacy, The problem here is that we shouldn't have done "anything" about each country. Iran e Iraq did not do anything against America. The 9/11 Commission concluded that Iraq had no ties with Al-Qaeda, plus we now know that their WMDs were not there either. From the original reasons given to us by this administration, our invasion to Iraq is not justified. "People" like me continue to cite other countries like Iran or Saudi Arabia, because we want to put some sense into all this madness... Those other countries had confirmed ties to terrorists and had confirmed WMDs programs (Iran)... From those reasons given to us to invade Iraq, those other countries seem to fit the criteria better. However, this doesn't mean we want military action against those countries. We just want you to understand how ridiculous is that we invaded Iraq and continue to lose soldiers there. It is more ridiculous than bombing the hell out of Saudi Arabia where the 9/11 hijackers come from or Iran where they are developing WMDs and their government is notoriously extremist. The only country that deserved our military action was Afghanistan, because Bin Laden with his surrogates was there and the Taliban was supporting them. 448445[/snapback] I cant believe you think that Iraq was an innocent bystander in all this. First of all terrorist does not equal al qaeda. There are many other terorist organizations and islamic radicals that were operating in Iraq. again remember black september. And how about saddam's monetary rewards for suicide bombers in israel? Not to mention that he violated the treaty he signed with the U.S. when we found WMD programs in Iraq in 1999. Stop painting saddams regime as an innocent non hostile regime, when the fact is that Iraq WAS a threat to the U.S. for various reasons. We cannot be so naive to think that Saddam had reformed and had stopped creating WMDs or plotting to form a panArab state under Baathist control. Furthermore, The house of saud has been vicitmized themselves by numerous terrorist attacks, so why are we going to overthrow a government that does NOT sponsor terrorism. It is irrelevant that members of the al qaeda leadership were born there, because that does not mean that the saudi govt is to blame but saudi individuals, who by the way are not in saudi arabia. 448452[/snapback] Black September was Palestinians not Iraqis. And besides that was long before Saddam. And why the hell would Saddam support Islamic terrorists. He was the most secular leader in the region. You republicans disgust me. You blatantly disregard the facts and believe this military gungho crap. Stop bashing Cyberlina because she tells the truth. 448661[/snapback] Check your facts, nidal was there under Saddam's supervision. 448667[/snapback] As if Saddam had any control over it. Don't talk about Black September at all and any connections with Saddam. Why, maybe its because they were Palestinians who happened to be hiding out in Iraq. 448691[/snapback] Actually Saddam personally gave amnesty to nidal, and furthermore gave monetary rewards to suicide bombers in palestine. You guys sound like you like saddam, hey i agree that invasion wasnt the best idea, but Saddam was a murderous dictator, that supported anti-israeli and anti-us groups not because of faith, but for personal gain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beinfest4Prez Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 We actually did do someting about Iran, when we supported Iraq in their war with Iran. And when this was done we didnt assume that there would be no potential danger from aiding iraq, but it was a necessary risk that was taken in order to control Iran's growing influence in the region at the time. Furthermore, why do people against the Iraq war continue to say "O why dont we attack Iran or saudi arabia instead because they have WMD's and terrorist links"....I would like to see how many of you would support open military action against either of these nations, and Lina what do u think should have be done to deal with Saddam and Iraq other than the war? 448371[/snapback] Tonyi, Legacy, The problem here is that we shouldn't have done "anything" about each country. Iran e Iraq did not do anything against America. The 9/11 Commission concluded that Iraq had no ties with Al-Qaeda, plus we now know that their WMDs were not there either. From the original reasons given to us by this administration, our invasion to Iraq is not justified. "People" like me continue to cite other countries like Iran or Saudi Arabia, because we want to put some sense into all this madness... Those other countries had confirmed ties to terrorists and had confirmed WMDs programs (Iran)... From those reasons given to us to invade Iraq, those other countries seem to fit the criteria better. However, this doesn't mean we want military action against those countries. We just want you to understand how ridiculous is that we invaded Iraq and continue to lose soldiers there. It is more ridiculous than bombing the hell out of Saudi Arabia where the 9/11 hijackers come from or Iran where they are developing WMDs and their government is notoriously extremist. The only country that deserved our military action was Afghanistan, because Bin Laden with his surrogates was there and the Taliban was supporting them. 448445[/snapback] I cant believe you think that Iraq was an innocent bystander in all this. First of all terrorist does not equal al qaeda. There are many other terorist organizations and islamic radicals that were operating in Iraq. again remember black september. And how about saddam's monetary rewards for suicide bombers in israel? Not to mention that he violated the treaty he signed with the U.S. when we found WMD programs in Iraq in 1999. Stop painting saddams regime as an innocent non hostile regime, when the fact is that Iraq WAS a threat to the U.S. for various reasons. We cannot be so naive to think that Saddam had reformed and had stopped creating WMDs or plotting to form a panArab state under Baathist control. Furthermore, The house of saud has been vicitmized themselves by numerous terrorist attacks, so why are we going to overthrow a government that does NOT sponsor terrorism. It is irrelevant that members of the al qaeda leadership were born there, because that does not mean that the saudi govt is to blame but saudi individuals, who by the way are not in saudi arabia. 448452[/snapback] Black September was Palestinians not Iraqis. And besides that was long before Saddam. And why the hell would Saddam support Islamic terrorists. He was the most secular leader in the region. You republicans disgust me. You blatantly disregard the facts and believe this military gungho crap. Stop bashing Cyberlina because she tells the truth. 448661[/snapback] Check your facts, nidal was there under Saddam's supervision. 448667[/snapback] As if Saddam had any control over it. Don't talk about Black September at all and any connections with Saddam. Why, maybe its because they were Palestinians who happened to be hiding out in Iraq. 448691[/snapback] Actually Saddam personally gave amnesty to nidal, and furthermore gave monetary rewards to suicide bombers in palestine. You guys sound like you like saddam, hey i agree that invasion wasnt the best idea, but Saddam was a murderous dictator, that supported anti-israeli and anti-us groups not because of faith, but for personal gain. 448697[/snapback] No I don't support Saddamn but god damn it, the war is not good for Israel at all. You remove one murderous dictator and you get millions of arabs pissed off at you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lcyberlina Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 You see this is the problem of opposing the war in Iraq and speaking against it. People immediately label you a "terrorist" lover. None of us speaking against the administration and its wrong decision to go to war with Iraq have ever said or even implied we like Saddam. We know very well what kind of man he was and still is. We know the suffering he put his own people through. We know he supported the families of palestininan suicide bombers. Yes, he has been a terrible man. However, the reasons given to us for going to Iraq never involved a humanitarian cause. They told us Saddam had WMDs and that he was ready to give them to his best friend Osama Bin Laden... THOSE were the reasons given to us. A lot of soldiers and innocent people have died or been maimed for those reasons. BTW, no supposed "anti-US" terrorist group received money from Saddam. I'd like a world in which there are no murderous and repressive dictators like Saddam, Kim Jong II, Fidel Castro and many others... But just how many soldiers have to die? How much do Americans have to give in order to keep the world a "pristine" place? Why is it that the only way to instaur democracy is by forcing it? Don't you think that is a paradox? Why is the US more concerned in "spreading democracy" abroad than in their own hemisphere? Of course, we know that this war wasn't for humanitarian purposes; if it was, then we would have to act in many other countries... I really don't know what the whole purpose of this war was and I want Mr. President to answer this. So far, he hasn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beinfest4Prez Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 You see this is the problem of opposing the war in Iraq and speaking against it. People immediately label you a "terrorist" lover. None of us speaking against the administration and its wrong decision to go to war with Iraq have ever said or even implied we like Saddam. We know very well what kind of man he was and still is. We know the suffering he put his own people through. We know he supported the families of palestininan suicide bombers. Yes, he has been a terrible man. However, the reasons given to us for going to Iraq never involved a humanitarian cause. They told us Saddam had WMDs and that he was ready to give them to his best friend Osama Bin Laden... THOSE were the reasons given to us. A lot of soldiers and innocent people have died or been maimed for those reasons. BTW, no supposed "anti-US" terrorist group received money from Saddam. I'd like a world in which there are no murderous and repressive dictators like Saddam, Kim Jong II, Fidel Castro and many others... But just how many soldiers have to die? How much do Americans have to give in order to keep the world a "pristine" place? Why is it that the only way to instaur democracy is by forcing it? Don't you think that is a paradox? Why is the US more concerned in "spreading democracy" abroad than in their own hemisphere? Of course, we know that this war wasn't for humanitarian purposes; if it was, then we would have to act in many other countries... I really don't know what the whole purpose of this war was and I want Mr. President to answer this. So far, he hasn't. 448739[/snapback] Thank you Lina. :thumbup Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jack1 Posted August 1, 2004 Share Posted August 1, 2004 This is World War III and it will be worse before it gets better. We don't really know where the enemy is or who they are. What scares me most about John Kerry winning the presidency is that he has absolutely NO qualifications to be the president. I have been a c-span junkie for over 20 years. Kerry has never done anything except vote against military spending for all the time I have been keeping an eye on the dems. If Kerry should win, just like in Spain, the terrorists will also have won. This is a very dangerous time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beinfest4Prez Posted August 1, 2004 Share Posted August 1, 2004 This is World War III and it will be worse before it gets better. We don't really know where the enemy is or who they are. What scares me most about John Kerry winning the presidency is that he has absolutely NO qualifications to be the president. I have been a c-span junkie for over 20 years. Kerry has never done anything except vote against military spending for all the time I have been keeping an eye on the dems. If Kerry should win, just like in Spain, the terrorists will also have won. This is a very dangerous time. 488957[/snapback] Why did you bump this thread... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Das Texan Posted August 1, 2004 Share Posted August 1, 2004 what qualifications did dubya have upon winning the whitehouse? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beinfest4Prez Posted August 1, 2004 Share Posted August 1, 2004 what qualifications did dubya have upon winning the whitehouse? 488963[/snapback] He had these Das. 1. DUI on record 2. AWOL from military 3. Drug addict 4. Daddy's little boy Did I explain them clearly? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g8trz2003 Posted August 1, 2004 Share Posted August 1, 2004 he got voted in Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beinfest4Prez Posted August 1, 2004 Share Posted August 1, 2004 he got voted in 488979[/snapback] Actually Gore won the popular vote so that doesn't work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Das Texan Posted August 1, 2004 Share Posted August 1, 2004 he got voted in 488979[/snapback] sorta. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Das Texan Posted August 1, 2004 Share Posted August 1, 2004 oh and i said upon winning the white house....read. which generally means when he won the white house what qualifications did he have. damn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beinfest4Prez Posted August 1, 2004 Share Posted August 1, 2004 oh and i said upon winning the white house....read. which generally means when he won the white house what qualifications did he have. damn. 489000[/snapback] Das didn't you read my qualifications? They're surefire to get anyone in the WH! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g8trz2003 Posted August 1, 2004 Share Posted August 1, 2004 woh! I never said that one of his qualifications was getting voted in...I simply said that he got voted in. Which, he did, with the appropriate amount of electoral votes. So, regardless of his "qualifications" or lack thereof, he is our president, because that is how our voting process works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Das Texan Posted August 1, 2004 Share Posted August 1, 2004 oh and i said upon winning the white house....read. which generally means when he won the white house what qualifications did he have. damn. 489000[/snapback] Das didn't you read my qualifications? They're surefire to get anyone in the WH! 489003[/snapback] sorry dood....wasnt talking to you really.... should of clarified. :thumbup Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Posted August 1, 2004 Share Posted August 1, 2004 Really? What are electoral votes? Is that how our voting process works? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Das Texan Posted August 1, 2004 Share Posted August 1, 2004 woh! I never said that one of his qualifications was getting voted in...I simply said that he got voted in. Which, he did, with the appropriate amount of electoral votes. So, regardless of his "qualifications" or lack thereof, he is our president, because that is how our voting process works. 489009[/snapback] and? it came right after asking for his qualifications. and if all things go as planned he wont be in the White House come January. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g8trz2003 Posted August 1, 2004 Share Posted August 1, 2004 who's plans? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Das Texan Posted August 1, 2004 Share Posted August 1, 2004 half the country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g8trz2003 Posted August 1, 2004 Share Posted August 1, 2004 lol. half. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJB34 Posted August 1, 2004 Share Posted August 1, 2004 Really? What are electoral votes? Is that how our voting process works? 489013[/snapback] are you serious or are you being sarcastic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g8trz2003 Posted August 1, 2004 Share Posted August 1, 2004 dudeski, sarcasm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJB34 Posted August 1, 2004 Share Posted August 1, 2004 ok thats waht i thought Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Posted August 1, 2004 Share Posted August 1, 2004 Definite Sarcasm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.