JEALOUS LIBERALS IN DENIAL (what else is new)
- Thread starter CHARLESMANSON
- Start date
StevieD said:
When you refuse to let UN inspectors into your weapons facilities, that makes you a threat to the rest of the free world.
It doesn't matter. The question was "How was Iraq a threat?" This is how: Whether we found any WMD's or not is inconsequential, the fact is that they refused to comply with the UN inspectors, and that made them a threat.
The fact is that we didn't know whether they had WMD's or not, but you can't sit around and wait until they drop a dirty bomb in Times Square until you act.
If I guy walks into a store and tells the cashier that he has a gun, and the cashier grabs a gun behind the counter and shoots him. Is the cashier to blame if it turns out he only had a water pistol? NO! The cashier acted based on the threat of a gun, and therefore cannot be held responsible for the fact that there was no real gun.
Even John Kerry thought Iraq was a threat.
JOHN KERRY --Jan 23, 2003--"The world has spoken, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War."
It is such a copout to bitch about the war now that we didn't find any WMD's, but if they didn't have any, they should've complied with the UN. It's that simple! And the same thing goes for North Korea and Iran if they want to think they don't have to comply with UN policy.
The fact is that we didn't know whether they had WMD's or not, but you can't sit around and wait until they drop a dirty bomb in Times Square until you act.
If I guy walks into a store and tells the cashier that he has a gun, and the cashier grabs a gun behind the counter and shoots him. Is the cashier to blame if it turns out he only had a water pistol? NO! The cashier acted based on the threat of a gun, and therefore cannot be held responsible for the fact that there was no real gun.
Even John Kerry thought Iraq was a threat.
JOHN KERRY --Jan 23, 2003--"The world has spoken, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War."
It is such a copout to bitch about the war now that we didn't find any WMD's, but if they didn't have any, they should've complied with the UN. It's that simple! And the same thing goes for North Korea and Iran if they want to think they don't have to comply with UN policy.
It doesn't even matter why the war got started. All we should concern ourselves with is winning the war.
We need more enlistees! Every American male between 21-29 should be joining (I do believe you should be allowed to drink if your also allowed to die).
Why aren't more people signing up? What is everyone's excuse?
We need more enlistees! Every American male between 21-29 should be joining (I do believe you should be allowed to drink if your also allowed to die).
Why aren't more people signing up? What is everyone's excuse?
no we should bomb the !@#$ out of these people and get it over with
the blood is on the terrorists hands despite what any peacenik would say
quit fighting this politically correct war. if i and other conservatives would have known we woud fight like sissies we would never have been for this
the blood is on the terrorists hands despite what any peacenik would say
quit fighting this politically correct war. if i and other conservatives would have known we woud fight like sissies we would never have been for this
Soooo, on the one hand you praise us for freeing innocent Iraqis from Sadaam, but on the other hand you want us to bomb all of them? ...Not really following that logic.
So Freeze, were you under the assumption that the war would be nothing more than bombing the hell of people and then that's it - over? We win? If so, you really should maybe study up a little on warfare.
Are you suggesting we devastate every city in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia -...well, every city the ME basically? ...Actually, that's not true at all - it would actually have to bomb every SQUARE FOOT of the ME if we want to be sure to kill every terrorist. This is what you are suggesting?
Result:
a) All global economies destroyed
b) All remaining nations of the world declare war on us.
c) Life as we know it OVER.
d) here's the rub ...there will still be some terrorists left!
I'm so sick of your kind of logic. You rave about how we free millions of people, yet also want to kill them. Make up your mind, sport. War is hell - but because we took it lightly in March 2003, now we must face reality. It's like , well it wasn't so easy like we initially thought. Best we just give up, blame the liberals, or say screw the world and bomb our way out of it.
So Freeze, were you under the assumption that the war would be nothing more than bombing the hell of people and then that's it - over? We win? If so, you really should maybe study up a little on warfare.
Are you suggesting we devastate every city in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia -...well, every city the ME basically? ...Actually, that's not true at all - it would actually have to bomb every SQUARE FOOT of the ME if we want to be sure to kill every terrorist. This is what you are suggesting?
Result:
a) All global economies destroyed
b) All remaining nations of the world declare war on us.
c) Life as we know it OVER.
d) here's the rub ...there will still be some terrorists left!
I'm so sick of your kind of logic. You rave about how we free millions of people, yet also want to kill them. Make up your mind, sport. War is hell - but because we took it lightly in March 2003, now we must face reality. It's like , well it wasn't so easy like we initially thought. Best we just give up, blame the liberals, or say screw the world and bomb our way out of it.
a former inspector has stated that he thinks one of the reasons why saddam let the world think that he had wmds was to keep iran in check.....in other words this inspector said that saddam was bluffing.....& the u.s. called his bluff.
besides the wmd issue i think saddam was a threat to the u.s.for the following:
it is known that saddam paid $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers for blowing themselves up in israel.
can anybody here state that they know for a fact that saddam wouldn't pay $25,000 or even $50,000 for a suicide bomber to blow himself up in the u.s. ? or send dozens of suicide bombers to the states ?
i think that is very plausible..he definitely had the cash...thanks in part to our friend in the u.n.
so because he could.... this, imo made saddam a threat to the u.s.
besides the wmd issue i think saddam was a threat to the u.s.for the following:
it is known that saddam paid $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers for blowing themselves up in israel.
can anybody here state that they know for a fact that saddam wouldn't pay $25,000 or even $50,000 for a suicide bomber to blow himself up in the u.s. ? or send dozens of suicide bombers to the states ?
i think that is very plausible..he definitely had the cash...thanks in part to our friend in the u.n.
so because he could.... this, imo made saddam a threat to the u.s.
No argument from me that Saddam was/is a sick sadist not worthy of praise or free rides. But I think we fall into a trap of thinking there's anything special about that. Saudi Arabia has had telethons benifitting Palestian terrorists. Evildoers all over the globe. Is it practical or even possible to remove all of them? We have to ultimately do what's in our best interest. Jury is still out on this one.
The big issue is what to do from this point forward. We have to complete the mission in Iraq. This may require the troop levels we have currently for many more years.
In case something happens with Iran or N Korea, we need a hell of a lot more troops than we have now. How do we sucker more people to join the military? - this is the big question.
The big issue is what to do from this point forward. We have to complete the mission in Iraq. This may require the troop levels we have currently for many more years.
In case something happens with Iran or N Korea, we need a hell of a lot more troops than we have now. How do we sucker more people to join the military? - this is the big question.
No time at the moment to 'debate' those wonderfully insightful points you raised, Manson (other than to say it was a great show for the world, but go and ask the Iraqi civilian how his life has changed?...)....
.......Iraq had a higher voter turnout percentage than the United States did.
Does this, in fact, say more about the American people than anything else?...Which leads to me to my real point of posting...
...You're obviously pretty keen on Bush and co. (what a delightfully retro avatar you have too
), so tell us Manson, did you vote?
.......Iraq had a higher voter turnout percentage than the United States did.
Does this, in fact, say more about the American people than anything else?...Which leads to me to my real point of posting...
...You're obviously pretty keen on Bush and co. (what a delightfully retro avatar you have too
), so tell us Manson, did you vote? MrChristo said:...You're obviously pretty keen on Bush and co. (what a delightfully retro avatar you have too
Mr. Christo, the US has a few rules about voting which prohibit Mr. Manson from participating.
1. Felons cannot vote
2. Voters must be US citizens (Mr. Manson appears to be Canadian).
I know liberals would like us to allow felons to vote and also would rather have world opinion, the UN, the French, other world leaders (as John Kerry would like), or some other outside influence choose our leaders, but that is not the case as of yet.
