August 13, 200422 yr I know most of you have already seen this pic, I just thought I would post it and remind some of the more self-righteous righties in this group that when Saddam was gassing his people, it was your main man Ronnie that was selling the stuff to him, sending your boy Rummy over to let good ol? Saddam not to worry about talk about sanctions, he was our boy. If I were Saddam, I would get this picture made into a t-shirt, and wear it into court every day. stories
August 13, 200422 yr being a "righty" or "conservative" does not mean we like spending taxpayers' money on nation-building....
August 13, 200422 yr Author being a "righty" or "conservative" does not mean we like spending taxpayers' money on nation-building.... 508885[/snapback] I agree, in fact, if I was a conservative, I would be pissed off at these guys, they have really changed what it is all about. Do you not support going into iraq?
August 13, 200422 yr being a "righty" or "conservative" does not mean we like spending taxpayers' money on nation-building.... 508885[/snapback] I agree, in fact, if I was a conservative, I would be pissed off at these guys, they have really changed what it is all about. Do you not support going into iraq? 508905[/snapback] i havent completely made up my mind (one could say I flip-flop...fortunately for me, I'm not running for office), but I do not like the idea of using our military in other countries....it doesnt seem to me the ideas of what this country was founded on.
August 13, 200422 yr Author The USA has been involved in overseas adventures ever since Jefferson went after the Barbary pirates. 508935[/snapback] But this is the first time we went for an out and out (I know you can make cases for other conflicts, Vietnam w/ Gulf of Tonkin, I'm sure there were others, but this one wasn't trying to sneak anything past anyone) first strike attack. I'm sorry, I don't really feel that it is right for a country with our strength and VALUES, to attack a country unprevoked.
August 13, 200422 yr Author See you look at everything from a strictly American viewpoint. Imagine from invading Iraq that the UN puts sanctions on us and says we can't have any planes, and just to make sure, the Mexican Air force and their 3 crop dusters are going to fly around our country and make sure that we follow their instructions. Do you think that we would stand up for that? I think not.
August 13, 200422 yr I know most of you have already seen this pic, I just thought I would post it and remind some of the more self-righteous righties in this group that when Saddam was gassing his people, it was your main man Ronnie that was selling the stuff to him, sending your boy Rummy over to let good ol? Saddam not to worry about talk about sanctions, he was our boy. If I were Saddam, I would get this picture made into a t-shirt, and wear it into court every day. stories 508859[/snapback] International relations...dimplomacy....isn't this what all you liberals wanted to use in order to deal with Hussein? There you have it!!! thanks for ridiculizing yourself!
August 13, 200422 yr Author International relations...dimplomacy....isn't this what all you liberals wanted to use in order to deal with Hussein? There you have it!!! thanks for ridiculizing yourself! 509308[/snapback] It's obvious that nearly 4 full years of this administration have pretty much confused your definition of the terms international relations and diplomacy. Let me see if I can slow it down a bit, and maybe get my point across better. What these guys were doing back then was against the wishes of Congress, who requested sanctions, but the Regan administration squashed that idea. If they would of taken some sort of action at the time(not ness. military), all of this probably could of been avoided. That's all I was trying to say. Try reading a few of those articles on that link I posted, it should really help to inform you, give you the knowledge that you need to make an edjucated decision, instead of blindly repeating the republican talking points.
August 13, 200422 yr The U.S was working against Iran, acting in our own national interest. All countries do that, you can not criticize them for it. France still had dealings with Saddam when the war began.
August 13, 200422 yr The U.S was working against Iran, acting in our own national interest. All countries do that, you can not criticize them for it. France still had dealings with Saddam when the war began. 509406[/snapback] France. :lol Thank you fishfan because obviously some of these guys don't get it. They think there was never time for diplomacy but there was a good 3-4 months to do so before the stupid pre-emptive strike.
August 13, 200422 yr I know most of you have already seen this pic, I just thought I would post it and remind some of the more self-righteous righties in this group that when Saddam was gassing his people, it was your main man Ronnie that was selling the stuff to him, sending your boy Rummy over to let good ol? Saddam not to worry about talk about sanctions, he was our boy. If I were Saddam, I would get this picture made into a t-shirt, and wear it into court every day. stories 508859[/snapback] International relations...dimplomacy....isn't this what all you liberals wanted to use in order to deal with Hussein? There you have it!!! thanks for ridiculizing yourself! 509308[/snapback] ridiculizing?
August 13, 200422 yr Ridiculize: (v.) To make ridiculous; To ridicule. http://www.brainydictionary.com/words/ri/r...lize213530.html Ri`dic?u`lize v. t. 1. To make ridiculous; to ridicule. http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/Ridiculize
August 13, 200422 yr Ridiculize: (v.) To make ridiculous; To ridicule. http://www.brainydictionary.com/words/ri/r...lize213530.html Ri`dic?u`lize v. t. 1. To make ridiculous; to ridicule. http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/Ridiculize 509685[/snapback] thanks, FurmanGator...educate them!
August 13, 200422 yr seemed like a wasted post anyhow....i mean, what if it isn't a word? big deal, we got the point! I'm surprised that it's a mod trying to nitpick like that! :lol
August 13, 200422 yr Of course we had time for 'diplomacy' before attacking iraq. However, you have to calculate that every action taken by the any nation has an effect on future events. For example, FDR and Stalin....the cold war lasted for about 40 yrs after arming stalin. Same happened with hussein and the mujahadeen. Had we not armed Iraq what may have happened? Maybe nothign negative, maybe Iran would have created a panArab state under the tyrannical and dangerous rule of the ayatollah komeini (sp?). Blame bush all you want for atacking preemptively, but to blame Reagan for arming saddam, and because of arming saddam, saddam became a threat to the U.S. 10 years later, and because of this Bush attackied iraq and caused what is occuring today. Putting the blame there has no merit.
August 13, 200422 yr I know most of you have already seen this pic, I just thought I would post it and remind some of the more self-righteous righties in this group that when Saddam was gassing his people, it was your main man Ronnie that was selling the stuff to him, sending your boy Rummy over to let good ol? Saddam not to worry about talk about sanctions, he was our boy. If I were Saddam, I would get this picture made into a t-shirt, and wear it into court every day. stories 508859[/snapback] International relations...dimplomacy....isn't this what all you liberals wanted to use in order to deal with Hussein? There you have it!!! thanks for ridiculizing yourself! 509308[/snapback] You don't negotiate with these kind of scumbag... But that doesn't mean we couldn't put more diplomatic pressure, more economic sanctions and let the UN do their job... That is what diplomacy is all about babe.
August 14, 200422 yr Author Saddam strikes me as someone you could indeed negotiate with. We negotiated for decades with Stalin, the Vietnamese, the DPRK, PRC, etc. For sure, there ain't no choir boys among that bunch. Of course negotiating doesn't mean you'll get what you want...there were many many months of "negotiations" with the DPRK over the shape of conference tables where the cease fire negotiations would be held :lol Osama doesn't strike me as someone you could negotiate with. 510531[/snapback] I agree with the fact that Saddam seems like someone you could negotiate with. So why didn't we instead of a preemptive go it alone war? We are more than willing to talk it out with North Korea, and we know they have nukes, because they told us they do. My big problem with all of this, the reason I posted the picture, is that no one in the administration will admit they had anything to do with Saddam.
August 14, 200422 yr Author I agree with the fact that Saddam seems like someone you could negotiate with. So why didn't we instead of a preemptive go it alone war? We are more than willing to talk it out with North Korea, and we know they have nukes, because they told us they do. My big problem with all of this, the reason I posted the picture, is that no one in the administration will admit they had anything to do with Saddam. 510573[/snapback] OK, I'll ask the question again. We went through 10+ years of UN attempts to get cooperation, negotiations, sanctions, blah blah blah. At some point you have to declare an impasse even though you're still nominally "talking". At some point you have to come to the realization that you're being bullshitted and its all just a stalling tactic. How much longer are you willing to talk and wait? Another 10 years? 20, 30 years? How much longer are you willing to maintian the military deployment keeping the lid on Saddam? It had been there 10+ years already. Another 10, 20 30 years? Pick a number, any number. 510702[/snapback] Well we went what was it, something like 47 years against a country with enough weapons of mass destruction to make the world one big glow in the dark nightlight, and never had a pre emptive invasion.
August 14, 200422 yr I agree with the fact that Saddam seems like someone you could negotiate with. So why didn't we instead of a preemptive go it alone war? We are more than willing to talk it out with North Korea, and we know they have nukes, because they told us they do. My big problem with all of this, the reason I posted the picture, is that no one in the administration will admit they had anything to do with Saddam. 510573[/snapback] OK, I'll ask the question again. We went through 10+ years of UN attempts to get cooperation, negotiations, sanctions, blah blah blah. At some point you have to declare an impasse even though you're still nominally "talking". At some point you have to come to the realization that you're being bullshitted and its all just a stalling tactic. How much longer are you willing to talk and wait? Another 10 years? 20, 30 years? How much longer are you willing to maintian the military deployment keeping the lid on Saddam? It had been there 10+ years already. Another 10, 20 30 years? Pick a number, any number. 510702[/snapback] Well we went what was it, something like 47 years against a country with enough weapons of mass destruction to make the world one big glow in the dark nightlight, and never had a pre emptive invasion. 510817[/snapback] Because launching a first strike against the U.S.S.R. would've meant nuclear annihilation....the idea of a first strike against Iraq was to stop them from increasing their WMD arsenal. tonyi hits the head of the nail once again...you all wanted negotiations, but apparently, you all forget that there were 10 years of negotiations.
August 14, 200422 yr Author As we saw so many times before, with Russia, China, Cuba, North Korea... Containment works, and it doesn't cost American lives. Maybe if you two believe in the cause so much you should be the ones over there putting your asses on the line.
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.