Who´s going to win ?

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]A no-hassle ticket to getting a Green card or what?

Heeheehee hohoho hahahahahaha.

Not .

[shinRaiden 0]

IceFire: Statements like this need to have actual documented facts behind them. When you say he is honest, you need to prove how he is, and clarify where he has made corrections in harmony with that honesty. If you say "I like Bush and Dean is bad" and leave it at that, you are no different than those who say "Bush goose-stepped from texas to DC" and fail to explain how and why.

My comment about all the other catasrophes is two-fold:

1) Where do you draw the line with conspiricy theories and culpability, and more importantly,

2) Now that we are in this mess, what are we going to do about it?

As for Bush complicity in 9/11, can anyone DOCUMENT anything where Bush was told that Al'Qaeda "Will hit such-and-such", and responded with a deliberate informed decision to fiddle while Rome burns ala Nero? I've only heard Dean say "Well, an interesting theory I once heard..." and that doesn't cut it for me.

Now to twist the knife in the back of the US. All the same arguements against GW2 orginated many years ago. If you read back in history, you'll see that the US had a strong (and much more credible and effective) peace movement in the early 1900's and '30's. We were PROUD of the fact that we were sitting on our butts watching Europe slaughter each other in the two World Wars. Sure there were a few annoying buzzards that kept yapping nonsense about trains to Treblinka, but thats not OUR problem... was/is it?

Now again, a common attitude is that the whole ME and Afganistan and anywhere else can go to hell, just as long as it don't interrupt my Super Bowl 38 (Patriots by 7 IMHO). For people who are on any side politically, why shouldn't Iraq or Tibet be liberated? Furthermore, what's the difference anyway?

I may not agree with pretty much everything Toadeater sez, HOWEVER, he does make the effort to research and organize a consistent arguement - in the debate sense.

[Winters 1]

How about an option for "None of the above"

all the candidates (republican and democrat) are pretty weak.

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]Now to twist the knife in the back of the US. All the same arguements against GW2 orginated many years ago. If you read back in history, you'll see that the US had a strong (and much more credible and effective) peace movement in the early 1900's and '30's. We were PROUD of the fact that we were sitting on our butts watching Europe slaughter each other in the two World Wars. Sure there were a few annoying buzzards that kept yapping nonsense about trains to Treblinka, but thats not OUR problem... was/is it?

I believe that the peace movement in the '30's was called "America First". Of course, TBA has a very different idea of what that means .

[EiZei 0]

Are you saying that Gulf war II & WW2 are even remotely comparable?

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]Are you saying that Gulf war II & WW2 are even remotely comparatable?

Saddam was a vicious tyrant, so was Hitler. Both were quite happy to invade other countries, both were very brutal toward anyone they didn't approve of, and both were very interested in the prospect of acquiring WMDs.

[turms 0]

Quote[/b] ]Are you saying that Gulf war II & WW2 are even remotely comparatable?

Saddam was a vicious tyrant, so was Hitler. Both were quite happy to invade other countries, both were very brutal toward anyone they didn't approve of, and both were very interested in the prospect of acquiring WMDs.

So is Bush :P

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]So is Bush :P

I'm sorry, I must have missed that group of peace protestors having their heads shaved and then being lead into a room for "special treatment".

[turms 0]

Quote[/b] ]So is Bush :P

I'm sorry, I must have missed that group of peace protestors having their heads shaved and then being lead into a room for "special treatment".

Quote[/b] ]Both were quite happy to invade other countries

Iraq,Afganistan,whats next?

Quote[/b] ]both were very brutal toward anyone they didn't approve of

¨

Iraq,Afganistan

Quote[/b] ]both were very interested in the prospect of acquiring WMDs

Anybody fancy a tactical briefcasenuke?

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]both were very brutal toward anyone they didn't approve of

Iraq,Afganistan

Again, I must have missed US soldiers executing anybody who annoyed them.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Both were quite happy to invade other countries

Iraq,Afganistan,whats next?

After 9/11, it would have been insanity for the US not to invade Afghanistan and assault AQ. Iraq is much more hazy.

Quote[/b] ]Anybody fancy a tactical briefcasenuke?

They go in bombs, not briefcases. Or would you prefer that we simply shot full-power thermonuclear weapons at hard-to-break superbunkers?

[ralphwiggum 6]

Quote[/b] ]both were very brutal toward anyone they didn't approve of

Quote[/b] ]Again, I must have missed US soldiers executing anybody who annoyed them.

you were talking about Hitler, the guy who lead the nation, but trying to delegate the status down to a single soldier in your reply.

TBA didn't approve of Iraq. now what happened?

Quote[/b] ]Both were quite happy to invade other countries

Iraq, with notion of pre-emptive strike.

Quote[/b] ]both were very interested in the prospect of acquiring WMDs

US already has an arsenal of them. so no need to seek to acquire one.

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]you were talking about Hitler, the guy who lead the nation, but trying to delegate the status down to a single soldier in your reply.

Because the brutality was in the ways that soldiers were allowed to handle prisoners, civvies, etc...

Quote[/b] ]US already has an arsenal of them. so no need to seek to acquire one.

Sure, but we don't use them the way AQ would.

Quote[/b] ]Iraq, with notion of pre-emptive strike.

All strikes are pre-emptive, it's just a matter of who's doing the pre-empting. If Saddam had managed to get his hands on WMDs, then he would have become aggressive again and probably would have invaded one of his neighbors.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Quote[/b] ]you were talking about Hitler, the guy who lead the nation, but trying to delegate the status down to a single soldier in your reply.

Because the brutality was in the ways that soldiers were allowed to handle prisoners, civvies, etc...

there has been chrages of brutality in US servicemen(and women), which are being investigated. they already let go of one police MP for brutal treatment of POW in early January.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]US already has an arsenal of them. so no need to seek to acquire one.

Sure, but we don't use them the way AQ would.

AQ never used one yet. Iraq never used it on us. and the chemical weapon is not something that would be hard to obtain for germany. in fact IIRC, it was Germans during WW1 that used it.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Iraq, with notion of pre-emptive strike.

All strikes are pre-emptive, it's just a matter of who's doing the pre-empting. If Saddam had managed to get his hands on WMDs, then he would have become aggressive again and probably would have invaded one of his neighbors.

so i guess Hitler is not guilty on this one? We don't have LEOs here who shoot first and then ask questions later.

Even your statement supports that WMD was not in Iraq you said 'If Saddam had managed to get his hands on WMDs then he would have become aggressive again and probably would have invaded one of his neighbors.' implying that since he hasn't done so, he doens't have one.

having WMD does not make you aggressive.(remember the good old argument, "it's not the gun, it's the people that kill people." )

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]there has been chrages of brutality in US servicemen(and women), which are being investigated. they already let go of one police MP for brutal treatment of POW in early January.

Will you please give me a count of the Iraqi prisoners who've been executed at a whim?

Quote[/b] ]AQ never used one yet. Iraq never used it on us. and the chemical weapon is not something that would be hard to obtain for germany. in fact IIRC, it was Germans during WW1 that used it.

AQ would use one if it could get one. Iraq didn't use them in GW1 because they were told that the US would respond to chemical weapons with nuclear weapons.

Quote[/b] ]Even your statement supports that WMD was not in Iraq you said 'If Saddam had managed to get his hands on WMDs then he would have become aggressive again and probably would have invaded one of his neighbors.' implying that since he hasn't done so, he doens't have one.

Because it takes time to create them from scratch. If you don't think that Saddam wanted WMDs, then you're crazy.

Quote[/b] ]having WMD does not make you aggressive.

It gives you a club to intimidate people with while you go do what you want.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Quote[/b] ]there has been chrages of brutality in US servicemen(and women), which are being investigated. they already let go of one police MP for brutal treatment of POW in early January.

Will you please give me a count of the Iraqi prisoners who've been executed at a whim?

can you prove that every iraqi uniformed soldier was treated fairly? you are now trying to argue that by small difference, it is not same. while implelmenting strictest sense of equality, a small difference means non-equivalence, considering that US has the burden of higher morality, even the smallest mistreatment is not going to be an acceptable term.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]AQ never used one yet. Iraq never used it on us. and the chemical weapon is not something that would be hard to obtain for germany. in fact IIRC, it was Germans during WW1 that used it.

AQ would use one if it could get one. Iraq didn't use them in GW1 because they were told that the US would respond to chemical weapons with nuclear weapons.

same thing said about other nations until India and Pakistan got their own arsenal. so far, no nuke war in that region. you are assuming that AQ would use WMD if it gets one. in fact it's not even sure if they know how to handle it properly. again, good old arfument, give a man a gun and he will use it against you?

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Even your statement supports that WMD was not in Iraq you said 'If Saddam had managed to get his hands on WMDs then he would have become aggressive again and probably would have invaded one of his neighbors.' implying that since he hasn't done so, he doens't have one.

Because it takes time to create them from scratch. If you don't think that Saddam wanted WMDs, then you're crazy.

he wanted, but he can't. there is difference between having something and wanting it. his WMDs were destroyed due to UN inspections and WMD was not found in Iraq.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]having WMD does not make you aggressive.

It gives you a club to intimidate people with while you go do what you want.

obviously didn't deter Iran from holding off Iraq's offensive

[-33ker 0]

We already have a thread for this kind of discussion...

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]US already has an arsenal of them. so no need to seek to acquire one.

Sure, but we don't use them the way AQ would.

Actually, you're the only nation in the world who has ever used them. Twice.

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]you are now trying to argue that by small difference, it is not same.

Oh, so lining prisoners up in a field and mowing them down with an MG42 is only "slightly different" from some idiot punching a prisoner?

Quote[/b] ]you are assuming that AQ would use WMD if it gets one.

They would definitely try to.

Quote[/b] ]his WMDs were destroyed due to UN inspections and WMD was not found in Iraq.

Where there's a will, there's a way...

Quote[/b] ]obviously didn't deter Iran from holding off Iraq's offensive

While sustaining heavy casualties...

[Winters 1]

Soz, how about that election ehhh?

ooops, didnt know this turned into Iraq Thread 3/Middle East part 3 thread, oh well  

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

I am not a defender of Hiroshima and Nagasaki but would you know what would have happened without the Holocaust? Well yes several million jews would still be around! But what would have happened without the atomic attack? Would the cold war would have remained cold? What would russia have behaved without this "demonstration of power" by the US. Things could look worse now without it.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Quote[/b] ]you are now trying to argue that by small difference, it is not same.

Oh, so lining prisoners up in a field and mowing them down with an MG42 is only "slightly different" from some idiot punching a prisoner?

how about "we are military of morality, the holier than thou-s' and turn around and punch POWs? not being an evil means being a saint, and so far, being a saint is not what the troops are doing in some cases.

Quote[/b] ]They would definitely try to.

they don't have one yet, so they can't do a thing. just because i can ban you doens't mean i will at whim of moment.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]his WMDs were destroyed due to UN inspections and WMD was not found in Iraq.

Where there's a will, there's a way...

unfortuntely, the ways were all closed and roadblocked.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]obviously didn't deter Iran from holding off Iraq's offensive

While sustaining heavy casualties...

that did not put an end to nation called Iran.

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]Actually, you're the only nation in the world who has ever used them. Twice.

I suppose we could have invaded Japan and lost massive numbers of soldiers.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Quote[/b] ]Actually, you're the only nation in the world who has ever used them. Twice.

I suppose we could have invaded Japan and lost massive numbers of soldiers.

change we with Iraq and Japan with Kuwait... oh wait that's what happened...not with WMD, but with traditional military...

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]not being an evil means being a saint

That's just stupid. You can be not evil and not be a saint (It's amazing how many people do this ).

Quote[/b] ]how about "we are military of morality, the holier than thou-s' and turn around and punch POWs

But it's not official policy, and the soldiers who do it are punished.

Quote[/b] ]unfortuntely, the ways were all closed and roadblocked.

It's called "Put them in a truck and drive them over the border."

Quote[/b] ]just because i can ban you doens't mean i will at whim of moment.

Because I can talk to another moderator and get myself unbanned .

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]change we with Iraq and Japan with Kuwait...  oh wait that's what happened...not with WMD, but with traditional military...

Oh, Kuwait is an island with heavily armed troops dug in on all of its beaches? Interesting geography work.

Quote[/b] ]they don't have one yet, so they can't do a thing.

And they will try and try and try until they get one, or until they are wiped out.