And it keeps climbing...

almost 2 1/2 yrs dowm the line and still no wmd\'s? y\'know the reason we went to war in the first place?

O-kay. It\'s true that we have not found any large stocks of WMD\'s. You\'re replying to "A" in which I stated that they very well may have been removed from the country and the US has yet to discover where. We\'re good, but we\'re not that good. By the same token, maybe there were no WMD\'s in recent years. I\'ll keep an open mind on that.

In the meantime, I\'ll state that Saddam wouldn\'t comply with inspectors until the last freaking second. Plus, the US government gave him a deadline to peacefully leave the country and he declined.

...and bush rushed the u.n. inspectors out before they could finish the job

Also a reply to "A". I don\'t think they would have found anything anyway, if my point is true. The US and the UN were generally disgruntled at Saddam and his regime\'s ways regarding everything at this point.

...yea bush truly wanted to resolve the matter "diplomatically" ...

Heh, I won\'t argue that it was a forceful tactic and probably the wrong one. By the same token, I will repeat that Saddam was inherently bad and the US and their allies simply figured that enough is enough.

bush to this day have been on record sayin\' "we\'ve haven\'t found the weapons yet, but EVEN if we don\'t the removal of saddam was in america\'s best interest and the world\'s"...all they\'ve found from what i remember were old missles from the 80\'s that\'s been buried somewhere...if weapons of any signifigance have been found, trust..we would\'ve heard about it...

This is all hearsay, your word against mine since neither of us have the initiative to show some proof. Basically, I read reports about a year ago about some low-level WMD\'s (nothing too dangerous at all) being discovered but they flew under the media\'s typically picky eye since.. like you say.. they were insignificant. True or not? The link came from a reputable friend of mine.

so tru..you do not need wmd\'s to kill thousands of people, but guess what? the u.s. gave him those chemical weapons

I\'m not sure of the exact death tolls, but at their peak something upwards of 20,000 innocent or petty crime-committing Iraqis per year got the axe. By gun, knife, torture without killing, intoxication.. whatever..

if the u.s. is so big on liberating the iraqi people they need to liberate about 100 african nations from the atrocities that are goin\' on over there,...oops!...i guess those people over there don\'t need to be "liberated"

Taking that last line out of context makes you sound like more of an asshole than I am, heh. Anyway, you know that ideally.. everybody would be free. Iraq simply happens to be a bigger point of interest (with a large population) and the US government and the UN assumed that Iraq had WMD\'s.

saddam wasn\'t a threat to nobody

Except his own people, who will soon lead peaceful, prosperous lives without the fear of a fascist government. Since Ghettomath posted a site listing coalition/US troop and Iraqi civilian casualties, it\'s important to put emphasis on this.

even him and osama hated each other

Jesus Burger-Flipping Christ, everybody hates Osama. Even Osama hates Osama.

...and that\'s how to properly put someone in thier place

/cheer

Blade, thanks for your post. And although I disagree with you it\'s commendable. Instead of a short holier-than-thou statement or simply stating one as "ignorant" you provide a detailed and readable counter-argument.

While I no longer think you\'re an asshole, I still think you and those like you who are for the war in Iraq are contradicting yourselves.

You did state that you don\'t care about the abundent loss of civilian life in Iraq, yet you say you care about their future and their freedoms as a democratic nation. How can you condone the killing of the nation you wish to liberate?

I understand what your saying as it pertains to the bigger picture - but as for Vietnamese living in America - I think what the U.S. did in Vietnam is a greater blemish on America\'s history compared to your example of Vietnamese "living out the American Dream." Shouldn\'t they be living the "Vietnamese Dream?"

Your fade to black image of the future of Iraq is pretty rosy, quote:

"What I know is that when the dust has settled.. and it won\'t happen in 3 years when starting a war in a country of 25+ million people.. this world and certainly Iraq will be a better place."

Like in your debate with clips, this is as good as using hearsay. The counter-point is that Iraq may crumble after we leave and succumb to the vortex that is the Middle East. But neither of us have the facts to prove our argument and I think that\'s why this debate is so frustrating to so many.

I guess there is truth in the saying, "Only time will tell."

Ghettomath: I\'ve learned it\'s important in debate to argue your point or views without completely dismeaning your opponent. I know you\'re intelligent, I know clips and most everybody reading this thread are intelligent.. so I\'m not going to sit here and try to say that I\'m smart and everybody else is smoking chiba. I\'m not a concrete person, I have a "wait and see" attitude regarding many things. For example, religion.. I\'m an agnostic deist. I\'m a realist; I believe things when I see them.

Now to clarify some things..

While I no longer think you\'re an asshole

Well, thanks.. but.. it\'s too late for me.. son..

You did state that you don\'t care about the abundent loss of civilian life in Iraq, yet you say you care about their future and their freedoms as a democratic nation. How can you condone the killing of the nation you wish to liberate?

I made a rash statement later clarified by my overdue follow-up. It\'s not so much that "I don\'t care" that I was trying to get across, it\'s the point that it\'s irrelevant. It\'s irrelevant. I don\'t condone killing, but I have the mindset that understands and embraces the concept of threat detection/removal. Ignorance abounds in the souls of those who fought for Saddam and fascism, whether they realized what they were fighting or not.

Should civilians die? Should anybody really die in war, ideally? No, but idealism like this is unrealistic. If there were no insurgents that enjoyed their little male-dominated kingdom of sand, the death tolls would be microscopic. Idealistic.

History has taught us that war is hell, but the post-war dream often comes true. After we dropped an atom bomb on Hiroshima (after they dragged us kicking and screaming into WW2) and made Hitler forfeit his life.. the trauma of their defeat was enough to keep America\'s shores safe until September 11th, 2001. Almost 60 years.

I understand what your saying as it pertains to the bigger picture

Bigger is better. I have some other catch phrases that could pertain to male genitalia if anybody\'s interested.

but as for Vietnamese living in America - I think what the U.S. did in Vietnam is a greater blemish on America\'s history compared to your example of Vietnamese "living out the American Dream." Shouldn\'t they be living the "Vietnamese Dream?"

You know, I agree with you on this. I don\'t know the status of N/S Vietnam today, but the idea that they can even come to the US is a freedom that Iraqis really didn\'t readily have available before the war. What is the Vietnamese Dream? By "American Dream" I refer to the idea that universally people should be allowed the freedoms that Americans have. Like the freedom to pick your leader, and have him not be a psychopathic Dorito-loving Super Mario Brother in a beret.. among many others.

Your fade to black image of the future of Iraq is pretty rosy

I really enjoy using the formatics of film scripts like that. It makes things sound iconic.

Like in your debate with clips, this is as good as using hearsay. The counter-point is that Iraq may crumble after we leave and succumb to the vortex that is the Middle East. But neither of us have the facts to prove our argument and I think that\'s why this debate is so frustrating to so many.

True. The sad fact is that even after Iraq is 95% on its feet and most insurgents finally come around (which could take nearly a decade..) we\'ll still be posted there. Just like we\'re still in Bosnia and everyplace else.

I guess there is truth in the saying, "Only time will tell."

One of my favorite sayings, coincidentally.

My belief is that it\'s more conducive to progress.. to work towards a goal.. as opposed to fighting it because there have been costs.

Sometimes you have to make sacrifices to reach the plateau.

The fact of the matter is.. people are biased. Either they want the war or they don\'t want it. The media are people too, and they don\'t report incontrovertible truth unfortunately. FOX News will tell you one thing, CNN will go the other way, and MSNBC will do something else. All I know is what I\'ve seen and read, and the vast majority of it indicates that the situation in Iraq is not nearly as bad as some people want us to think.

[clips]

Originally posted by mm
...and that\'s how to properly put someone in thier place

/cheer

hardly......we both just have a difference of opinions....i could\'ve responded to a couple of his posts, but it just would\'ve ended up with us mindlessly goin back and forth....



Plus, the US government gave him a deadline to peacefully leave the country and he declined. (blade)

blade we\'ve both stated what we had to say and i respect your feelings, but i just have a problem with that statement....didn\'t you think the u.s. was just bein\' just a wee bit ridiculous and arrogant asking saddam to leave his country? ..that\'s like asking bush to leave the white house...and i know oil wasn\'t the ultimate goal here, but i know that it was a factor in the back of some in the bush adminstration, iraq is like the 2nd largest supplier of oil if i\'m not mistaken....but eh like you said, some people are for the war and some are not....

it just would\'ve ended up with us mindlessly goin back and forth

Well, not.. not mindlessly.. but yeah. Which is why you rarely see me in political threads.

didn\'t you think the u.s. was just bein\' just a wee bit ridiculous and arrogant asking saddam to leave his country?

Oh, definitely.

The difference between him and Bush (besides the mustache and the Doritos.. Bush likes Rold Gold..) is that Saddam broke UN rules involving weapons. He messed around with weapon inspectors. US intelligence (which has been "proven" faulty) insisted that he had weapons that to date we haven\'t really found.

That, and it\'s been known for a while that Iraq is a shithole to live in with very restrictive laws and a fascist dictator in office.

The US thought it was doing the right thing, and as Ghettomath said.. only time will tell.

Originally posted by clips
but again if the u.s. is so big on liberating the iraqi people they need to liberate about 100 african nations from the atrocities that are goin\' on over there,...oops!...i guess those people over there don\'t need to be "liberated" :rolleyes:...

You mean like this African country?

http://www.breitbart.com/news/na/051113184937.bl8o13wd.html

Sudanese President Omar al-Beshir threw cold water on US efforts to promote peace in his war-torn country, just two days after US Assistant Secretary of State Robert Zoellick left Sudan.

The US official spent four days in Sudan trying to shore up a January peace deal that ended more than two decades of north-south war and pressing for a solution to the devastating conflict in the western region of Darfur.

"We don\'t need Zoellick to resolve our internal problems," the official SUNA news agency quoted Beshir as saying.

The president made the comment after receiving proposals from members of his ruling National Congress for a regional conference bringing around the same table all the parties involved in Darfur.

"The solution to the root causes of the problem lies with the people of Darfur themselves," Beshir said.

Up to 300,000 people have died since ethnic minority rebels rose up against the Arab-dominated regime in Khartoum in early 2003, according to a British parliamentary report.

[/i]

We also tried that in Somalia didn\'t we Clips?  Screw Africa - they don\'t want or deserve our help.

[clips]

Originally posted by GigaShadow
You mean like this African country?

http://www.breitbart.com/news/na/051113184937.bl8o13wd.html

[/i]

We also tried that in Somalia didn\'t we Clips?  Screw Africa - they don\'t want or deserve our help.

i read the article but i think it\'s a wee bit misleading...you can correct me if i\'m wrong. From what i\'m getting from the article is that it\'s an arab dominated country, meaning in my eyes that the arab\'s are runnin\' the show over there while the citizens themselves who are black are bein oppressed...as far as somalia is concerned, yea i agree with you on that, but the point i was trying to make is that yea even tho the u.s. does assist and give huge amounts of relief to african nations, all i\'m sayin is that even tho they see what atrocities are goin on over in those african nations, they are not forcefully kickin\' out those dictators over there(as compared to iraq)...that was the comparison i was tryin to make....i mean those countries over there are violatin\' human rights and breakin\' rules that both the u.s. and u.n. hold them accountable to correct?...

Saddam is a bigger fish and apparently had WMD\'s. Iraq is also part of the UN, as are Somalia and Sudan.

Not every country in the world wants US intervention. Certainly not every suffering country in Africa.

They have more Oil too

True.

Doesn\'t mean oil was our main reason for war, like the dirty hippies were saying. Clean your feet, people.

[clips]

Originally posted by Blade
True.

Doesn\'t mean oil was our main reason for war, like the dirty hippies were saying. Clean your feet, people.

eh, but you can\'t say that it wasn\'t a part of it,..it\'s like buyin a brand new house, that comes with a benz...:fro:

That\'s a house I\'d want.

Clinton talks sense:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20051130/D8E6QUUOD.html

Originally posted by hyper
Clinton talks sense:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20051130/D8E6QUUOD.html

Talks sense?  No more like politics as usual.  This is nothing insightful or unique.  Clinton and the Dems know the plan the adminstration has and are attempting to spin it as their idea.

What the Dems are trying to do is make our impending withdrawl as something that they forced so they can make even more mileage out of it. The other Dems like Murtha who are saying our military is broken etc, are briefed on the plan and are well aware of the current status of the Iraqi military and are willing to sell our soldiers short so they can gain more votes in the upcoming elections.

The truth is and has been for quite some time that we will withdraw once Iraqi forces are able to take control of the situation on their own.  This has been the plan all along.