Boy Who Cried Iraq

[89240sx]

and saddam did HORRIBLE things to the kurds and other muslim religious groups

With our training and weapons, and we did horrible things to the native americans and other religous groups... that doesnt really pertain to the situation.

[89240sx]

89, I have to be so far to the left just to balance you and Vimy out Someone has to do it! I'd be reasonably happy if there could be some middle ground found, I just dont think it's possible. I'd venture to say it's even impossible to make 50% of the world happy.

you mean to the right.....

and in a time of war there really isnt a middle ground ... I mean either you agree, don't agree or just don't care.

[Onizuka]

ahh but saddam and iraq is the subject at hand, historical refrences are always good though.

[89240sx]

im not talking about the start of the war, im talking about stopping iraqies from killing iraqies (a big problem in case you havent noticed)

you know who else has a big problem of their people killing their people? Americans... we have probably one of the highest homocide rates in the WORLD.

Now should someone invade us and install a government that is synonymous to one that doesnt have the equal amount of murders?

[Nathan]

Well, when I mistake left from right...it's bedtime...g'night everyone!

[Onizuka]

nah, iraq has us toped in that catagory right now, with 1,519 deaths(as of augest 31st) in bagdad alone caused by other iraqis since the end of the war. Thats about 10 homicides a day in one city.

[89240sx]

nah, iraq has us toped in that catagory right now, with 1,519 deaths(as of augest 31st) in bagdad alone caused by other iraqis since the end of the war. Thats about 10 homicides a day in one city.

And what was the rate before the war?

[Onizuka]

probably the same because of saddams secret police crushing all oposition against him.

[89240sx]

You have to remember they have no knowing of their future and they are under martial law right now. Considering these points I would say they are exempt from that.

[89240sx]

probably the same because of saddams secret police crushing all oposition against him.

That sounds like speculation ... there isn't any proof of that, and yes i know he had secret police .... so does the US

[Onizuka]

pure speculation, im tired of doing reseach and im going to bed in a few minutes.

How many american people get imprisoned and torture and eventually executing for saying "i would rather someone else be in office than president bush"? You have the freedom to say that, the iraqi people did not have the freedom to speak against their leader.

[89240sx]

I'm not arguing for the sake of an argument .... I just wish people wouldnt take things so easily as truth and by me on here speaking what I feel helps someone than i've acomplished what I set out to do.

And I think what shows the most in all this is the fact that Bush came out as the liar about the threat and Saddam was actually telling the truth for a change.

[89240sx]

pure speculation, im tired of doing reseach and im going to bed in a few minutes.

How many american people get imprisoned and torture and eventually executing for saying "i would rather someone else be in office than president bush"? You have the freedom to say that, the iraqi people did not have the freedom to speak against their leader.

I completely agree that the Iraqi's deserved better what I do not agree with is making false accusations to go into a preemptive war and cause killing for the sake of stopping killing.

EDIT: I'm sorry that is wrong... he went in cause of a threat of WMD not killing but now he is trying to justify his false accusations with a humanitarian effort when he never cared in the first place.

[Onizuka]

im not saying that is why we went in, but that was/is my personal grevence with saddam hussein staying in power. I was arguing with when you said that the US has secret police like saddam's government

[89240sx]

im not saying that is why we went in, but that was/is my personal grevence with saddam hussein staying in power.

I see but there are far worse countries than Iraq was at treating their people poorly. Should we invade all of them?

[89240sx]

Like I said there are better ways to handle humanitarian efforts than war

[Onizuka]

posibly, if they dont rectify the situation themselfs. (although i belive in UN sanctioned intervention)

[89240sx]

posibly, if they dont rectify the situation themselfs. (although i belive in UN sanctioned intervention)

But UN sanctions tend to hurt the people more than the government. And also that is what we WERE doing with IRAQ.

[Eswift]

Yes

2nd

[Team503]

im not saying that is why we went in, but that was/is my personal grevence with saddam hussein staying in power. I was arguing with when you said that the US has secret police like saddam's government

We don't need them. See, Bush had these things passed, these laws. They're called the Patriot Acts. They singlehandedly remove just about every protection in the Constitution.

I hate Bush (irrelevant of my stance on Iraq, I have always hated him politically). If I were to form a group of people to come over to my house, sit, and discuss why we hate Bush, and call ourselves the Anti-Bush League, we would go to jail. Why? Because the Patriot Acts give broad and sweeping power to sanction political speech that is "non-patriotic".

9-11 was horrible, but we as a country got VERY stupid following it.

My .02 on Iraq? Pretty straightforward. While I severely disliked SH, who's going to replace him? Any instituted democracy will crumble shortly (why do you think we haven't pulled out?) and be replaced with yet another dictatorship. Catch is, with SH, at least we had a known quantity that we had a bit of control over. Now, it's anyone's game.

And we have certainly stooped to their level - just because we don't like him anymore, we destroyed his regime. Nevermind that it was a UN resolution, and should have been UN enforced, or that we've been kicked off the Human Rights Committee because we're the worst current offender.

Cliff Notes: Patriot Acts remove almost all Constitutional rights. I hate Bush, and did before 9-11. Iraq was a bad idea for sheer practicality reasons.

[89240sx]

:Werd

I'm with you on the Patriot act,.... It should be removed Immediately!!!

[Jesda]

Most people havent read the Patriot Act. Yes, its long.

Ashcroft and Ridge need new jobs... at Wal-Mart. Bush is doing a pretty decent job.

[big jon's 240]

We don't need them. See, Bush had these things passed, these laws. They're called the Patriot Acts. They singlehandedly remove just about every protection in the Constitution.

I hate Bush (irrelevant of my stance on Iraq, I have always hated him politically). If I were to form a group of people to come over to my house, sit, and discuss why we hate Bush, and call ourselves the Anti-Bush League, we would go to jail. Why? Because the Patriot Acts give broad and sweeping power to sanction political speech that is "non-patriotic".

Really? if that is the case, than why are you not in jail? Honest people have nothing to fear from the patriot act. Id like to hear one way your life has changed since the act's passing.Quote » 9-11 was horrible, but we as a country got VERY stupid following it.

My .02 on Iraq? Pretty straightforward. While I severely disliked SH, who's going to replace him? Any instituted democracy will crumble shortly (why do you think we haven't pulled out?) and be replaced with yet another dictatorship. Catch is, with SH, at least we had a known quantity that we had a bit of control over. Now, it's anyone's game.

And we have certainly stooped to their level - just because we don't like him anymore, we destroyed his regime. Nevermind that it was a UN resolution, and should have been UN enforced, or that we've been kicked off the Human Rights Committee because we're the worst current offender.[/quote] Yeah were horrible offenders (yeah right) yet the same committee has Cuba and many other models for human right. The human rights committee, and the whole UN for that matter, are a joke.

Quote » Cliff Notes: Patriot Acts remove almost all Constitutional rights. I hate Bush, and did before 9-11. Iraq was a bad idea for sheer practicality reasons. [/quote] Im turning you in.

[Onizuka]

I will not digify the exsitance of this thread or similar threads by replying any more because political posts have no place on Nico, all they do is seperate members who are here for other reasons.

I first clicked on this thread hoping to understand the other side of the argument, instead I read a website full of absurd hypocritical propoganda and learned why all the people i know hate fanaticle liberals (with exception to Phax, whos arguments contained a rational clearly absent from other replies). Anybody who belives that you can equate bush to hitler has the liberal stick firmly planted 3 feet up their a** and is loving every minute of it.

I was called a "conservative jingoist flag thumper" earlier in this thread, i wasnt before but god-damnit i am now. I'll wave the red white and blue until you pry it from my cold lifeless hand. Through thick and thin, right and wrong, i will support the United States of America and my brave countrymen fighting the good fight in iraq. If another country invades ours because of our actions, i will fight to the death defending it, all of you who arnt with me can go run to canada and pretend you were never american.

Im going to make a website called "www.The fanaticly liberal conspiracy theorist who blames the world's problems on bush.com" to continue the rest of my political opinions that have no place on NICO.

Have a good day

-matt:patriot

[Aztek72]

By the way, J-Spec, it's "fanatical" not "fanaticle." Just thought I'd point that out.

See I love political argument, we're exercising an important aspect of being American- the right of speech and the right to disagree.

I don't think anyone really wants to go "gloves-off" but it's almost inevitable for political discussions to degrade into mudslinging contests. Why do we all have to be so mean-spirited when it comes to politics? Afterall, the goal of discussion is to interchange a civil, reasonable discourse.

That said, I love my country with every ounce of my being and I've dutifully served my country in times of war.

I also love my wife and like two mature adults, we point out eachothers' faults and are constructively critical when needed. That's the same love I have for my country. Some will denounce my criticism as being un-American, but so be it.

[big jon's 240]

I dont have any animosity towards any of the "left" opinionated peple here (even if you are wrong ).I too love political arguement Aztek72 (my wife tells me i just like to argue period), but why people cant argue without getting out of hand, is beyond me. So i say we start a Honda bashing thread so we will all be on the same side!:ylsuper

[NY94J30]

I'd prefer not to wade into the polititical aspects of this thread, however I'd like to offer an international law/relations perspective.

The Charter of the United Nations (to which the US is party), in article 2(4) proscribes the use of force, except in national defense, or in collective defense as santioned by UN resolution (Article 51). The doctrine of preemption (preventative self-defense) is a shaky doctrine at best, and at worst (and more likely) is wholly contrary to Article 51 of the UN Charter (which gives the right to armed defense only "if an attack occurs"). Absolute imminence might give way to an exception (The Caroline Case) - though here it is clear, not only in hindsight, that there was no imminence.

And though UNSCR 1441 cl. 13 did remind Iraq of possbile "serious consequences," in cl. 14 the SC declares their seizure of the matter - precluding unilateral action and General Assembly debate until the Security Council has revisited the issue.

The problem with the doctrine of preemption and unilateral action w/o SC approval - besides the illegality - is that we invite others to do the same. Moreover we begin on a slippery slope toward humanitarian pretext for our, as well as other nations', interventions anywhere in the world.

If we do not live by the rule of law, nor will others.

[MaineExport]

I never claimed to be enlightened I just claimed to question the half *** authority in this country. Something I suggest all of you start doing or else you will turn into puppets.

You are sooooooo much wiser than the rest of us... Puh-leeeeze:rolleyes

Who's the puppet... you're ignorant enough to believe that you're not. Open YOUR eyes and maybe you'll see the carrot on a string that leads your easily influenced melon.

[MaineExport]

J-spec, you're funny. Congress voted to go allow bush to invade Iraq based on the fear of the mushroom clouds the president said where on the horizon.

So you think that all your representatives in Congress are just slag minded lemmings that were scared into voting for it. Haha... as if to say that you are smarter and more "in the know" than they are. It was a nearly unanimous decision to support the war, so all your little liberal buddies were apparently stupid enough to go along with it and be manipulated into compliance.

It cracks me up when people think they know more than those that have privileged access to the WHOLE story... not just the "facts" they picked up from internet rag-sheets.

[MaineExport]

And I think what shows the most in all this is the fact that Bush came out as the liar about the threat and Saddam was actually telling the truth for a change.

Thankfully, you are the only person I've heard that actually believes that.