[simonjames]

Thanks for that Suhail - I am interested in reading your posts on the recent history of the area.

You sound like an expert - I once read that the Iraqi parliament was bombed (many years ago) by Western forces - killing approximately 2,000 people. Do you know if this is true?

[itai195]

It seems to me that posting "histories" of the middle east that only focus on the US, UK, and Israel is a little narrow in scope. The USSR was highly involved in the region as well, for decades. During the cold war, US action in the region was justified to the public under the banner of containment, much as this potential war is being justified under the banners of democracy and security. Remember how the American media tried to portray shock and horror towards the soviet invasion of Afghanistan? Yet somehow an American invasion of Iraq is more justified, hey, we'll do some nation building and liberate the Iraqis after all (just as the soviets promised to do for the afghanis).

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
You missed my point entirely.

You made the comment about non-petrol cars; the point I made was that MOST cars in the world would STILL use petroleum, which made your point about bush pushing for non-petroleum cars moot.

You obviously didn't get the reason why I posted that then. To show Bush was trying to get away from needing oil, not trying to get more oil. With me?

See, thing is, you COULD have in the early 90's - but the crisis wasn't nearly as bad as it is now.

I don't know about the wholesale prices of oil, but in Australia, petrol prices have nearly doubled since the early 90's.

Not here in the US. Same thing in 98. We didn't get the oil then either. What about then?

[suhail]

Originally posted by itai195:
It seems to me that posting "histories" of the middle east that only focus on the US, UK, and Israel is a little narrow in scope. The USSR was highly involved in the region as well, for decades. During the cold war, US action in the region was justified to the public under the banner of containment, much as this potential war is being justified under the banners of democracy and security. Remember how the American media tried to portray shock and horror towards the soviet invasion of Afghanistan? Yet somehow an American invasion of Iraq is more justified, hey, we'll do some nation building and liberate the Iraqis after all (just as the soviets promised to do for the afghanis).

That's right, USSR was involved; however, the U.S. "outsmarted" them in some areas, by supplying weapons to their enemy (Afghanistan). The troubling part is that the USSR now may feel belittled by the U.S.
The USSR also has blood stained oil on their hands though, called Chechnya.
Read this article written back in 1995. While reading this document keep in mind that, currently, USSRs richest oil monger is only about $5 Billion rich.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
You obviously didn't get the reason why I posted that then. To show Bush was trying to get away from needing oil, not trying to get more oil. With me?


Not here in the US. Same thing in 98. We didn't get the oil then either. What about then? [/B]

Ugh.

Yes, they're trying to get away from oil. The US is a first world country.

1. The adoption rate in non-first-world countries will be LOW. The US, by having the oil, can bring them to their knees. Whether the US needs the oil or not doesn't matter.

2. The adoption rate even in first-world countries will be low. Your datemark of 2010 is totally irrelevant. By the time alternate-fuel vehicles have been widely adopted, we could be OUT of oil entirely. You just don't seem to get it.

In 1998? Clinton was in office, no? He doesn't really seem to be a warmonger... and anyway, that was hardly an invasion

A few missiles, a few planes... and you think the country could be overrun? Please.

[theolein]

No, but I think ANY COUNTRY confronted by the amount of rhetoric and threats as Iraq is now would eventually seek a means to retaliate.

In plain speech: If Iraq has or had any bio- chemical- or nuclear weapons , the current level of threats against them (no way out) would very possibly help them decide to pass some of those weapons along to groups who definitely have it as a goal to spread death and destruction in the US, namely Al-Qaida.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by theolein:
No, but I think ANY COUNTRY confronted by the amount of rhetoric and threats as Iraq is now would eventually seek a means to retaliate.

In plain speech: If Iraq has or had any bio- chemical- or nuclear weapons , the current level of threats against them (no way out) would very possibly help them decide to pass some of those weapons along to groups who definitely have it as a goal to spread death and destruction in the US, namely Al-Qaida.

Absolutely.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by itai195:
It seems to me that posting "histories" of the middle east that only focus on the US, UK, and Israel is a little narrow in scope. .

I hope he's not planning to edit out France's involvment as well.

Not only was France one of the mandatory powers, in charge of Lebanon, Syria, etc., but it has also remained highly involved in the wider region. Following the overthrow of the previous US/UK supported Hashemite monarchy, France was Iraq's closest western ally. The Soviet Union, of course, was Iraq's overall closest ally. But France was the source of much of the Iraqi's high technology. The Osirek nuclear power station that the Israelis bombed is the best known example. The French knew perfectly well that its purpose was more to create weapons-grade nuclear material more than it was civilian electricity. There are other examples, such as the selling of Mirage jet fighters to the Iraqis. There is also a lingering question of whether the invasion of Kuwait was planned by using French SPOT satellite imagery.

In contrast to France and the Soviet Union, the US had no diplomatic relations with Iraq after the Ba'ath Party came to power until Reagan tilted towards Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war. That was a mistake, but it was a mistake made in a wider context. The US/UK's closest ally in the region was Iran until the Islamic Revolution. In the early 1980s, everyone was scared to death of the Islamic revolution spreading. Secular Iraq seemed to many to be a counterweight. Iran, however, seemed to be about to overwhelm the Iraqi army using human waves, rather as the Chinese did the US troops in Korea. The west (mainly the US, France, West Germany, and the UK) therefore started supplying just enough support to prevent an Iraqi defeat. The west never did supply so much as to give the Iraqis victory, and the Gulf War eventually ended in stalemate.

Context matters. Hindsight is also 20/20. It's especially so when 20/20 hindsight is shorn of context such as focussing on the US/UK involvement and mistakes in the region, while understating, or flat out deleting France and Russia's.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I hope he's not planning to edit out France's involvment as well.

Not only was France one of the mandatory powers, in charge of Lebanon, Syria, etc., but it has also remained highly involved in the wider region. Following the overthrow of the previous US/UK supported Hashemite monarchy, France was Iraq's closest western ally. The Soviet Union, of course, was Iraq's overall closest ally. But France was the source of much of the Iraqi's high technology. The Osirek nuclear power station that the Israelis bombed is the best known example. The French knew perfectly well that its purpose was more to create weapons-grade nuclear material more than it was civilian electricity. There are other examples, such as the selling of Mirage jet fighters to the Iraqis. There is also a lingering question of whether the invasion of Kuwait was planned by using French SPOT satellite imagery.

I'm no fan of Ollie North, so I'm just relating something he said (on Fox, of course) in case anyone is interested: he claims that France is withholding its approval of an invasion until it has had time to help the Iraqis destroy evidence of France's complicity. He claims that the day France is done destroying the evidence, it will agree to a resolution and the invasion will begin.

Again, Ollie North gives me the creeps so I'm not endorsing this theory, just repeating it in case anyone has any thoughts on it.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Again, Ollie North gives me the creeps so I'm not endorsing this theory, just repeating it in case anyone has any thoughts on it.

I don't have any information about that. But it seems to me that if Iraq really does have that kind of blackmail material, the last thing they would do is destroy it. If I were Iraq, I'd hang on to it for dear life.

There was an article I linked to a few months ago by a German Marxist (I forget his name) who has been working with humanitarian groups in Iraq who said that he thought the German government is terrified about what would happen if the archives in Iraq were ever opened. Again, I don't have any way to verify the comment.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I don't have any information about that. But it seems to me that if Iraq really does have that kind of blackmail material, the last thing they would do is destroy it. If I were Iraq, I'd hang on to it for dear life.

It didn't make sense to me either, but what do I know. North seems to inhabit a different world than the rest of us.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by Hawkeye_a:
Yes we do now. But when we control the oil feilds, mark my words, oil prices in the US will fall drastically...which will lead to more ppl here buying SUVs, which could get the economy going again.

The situation is a lot more complicated than you imagine. The current spike in oil prices has more to do with instability in Venezuela. A war in Iraq wouldn't do anything to move that problem closer to resolution. If Saddam sets fire to his oil fields the way he did in Kuwait, Iraq won't be a factor in the world oil market for quite a while. People buying SUVs are what will get the economy moving again? Uh, no.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:

Context matters. Hindsight is also 20/20. It's especially so when 20/20 hindsight is shorn of context...

Man, I hate that comment. It implies that there really isn't any way to predict the consecuences of one's actions, so one should just do what is best for one's own interest and hope everything won't go haywire.
Interestingly, here hindsight would be 0. Ugh.

[chabig]

Iraq develops nuclear weapons --> Iraq supports Al Qaida --> Al Qaida uses them against its sworn enemy, the U.S.

That's the number one reason Iraq is a threat to the U.S. Case closed.

Those who ignore this threat simply have their heads in the sand, or else they politically oppose Bush. There are many people in the U.S. who are willing to sell out our security for political gain. Oil has nothing to do with it.

As an opinion writer in my local paper said, ignoring the threat Iraq poses is like finding a rattlesnake in the baby's crib, and leaving it alone because it's not coiled to strike.

[theolein]

If I remember correctly the US supplied both sides in the Iran-Iraq war. According to FAS it was Donald Rumsfeld, who one of the people organising things so that Iraq could buy and set up equipment for bio- and chemcal weapons. The Iraqis used nerve gas liberaly on Iranian troops in order to stem the tide of the war. At the same time Oliver North, Admiral Pointdexter (strange how they have been rehabilitated isn't it?) and others organised the sale of weapons to Iran, through israel of all places, in order to finance the Contras in Nicaragua.

The French sold as many Mirage F1's and Excocet missiles to the Iraqis as they could, because France has a record of selling their weapons to any comers, regardless of origin. Mostly, they sold to those who they thought would buy the most. France was involved in a lot of political scullduggery in the world, mostly in Africa, and there is a big case about their support of the Hutus in Rwanda who eventually massacred around 1 million people of the Tutsis in their own country. This was all very much business as usual until the end of the Mitterand years. The round of corruption cases in France in the late 90's against many previous ministers seems to have reduced this somewhat. But it doesn't make France's record any cleaner.

Likewise, the UK and the US have been meddling in Gulf politics for as long as oil has been important. They are fairly to blame for what happened in Iran, after supporting a coup against the previous elected PM there, Mossadeq. Britain's instituting of an unwanted monarchy certainly made them no friends in Iraq. Indeed, if the area had been made into 3 seperate countries, as it was 3 seperate provinces under the Ottomans, there would probably have been a lot less strife in that part of the world today, but they didn't and the rest is history, as they say.

I don't know the real reason for Germany and France's reluctance to support the US in this coming war. I sometimes think it is partly about getting support from the populace, and sometimes I think itis purely out of resentment, especially in Germany's case, for having to pay for the last war. Germany, Saudi Arabia and Japan paid for about 90% of the costs of the US military effort in the last Gulf war and perhaps, given that the German economy is a mess, they want to avoid being railroaded into paying for the next. Perhaps they're simply tired of all these instabilities and think that more instability would only make the world more unstable and dangerous than it is now. Perhaps France simply resents the US's superiority in the world, who knows?

But I think it is all mainly about the controll of oil. I suspect that Germany and France, who depend mainly on middle eastern oil are frightened what would happen if the US were suddenly to be in control of Iraq under a "temporary" military regime. Could they trust the US to not raise prices or use that oil as a tool of blackmail in trading relations with Europe? Given that the US unilaterally raised steel import taxes around 30% instead of restructuring the steel industry I don't think so. Being in control of Iraq and the oil there might well have been part of the deal the US has made out with some European countries that support the war. I think those countries might find out that playing Faust is not a good idea in the long run, but in the short term it might look very tempting.

Personally, I think the current Franco-German proposal to basically turn Iraq into a UN protectorate would have been a very good idea as an alternative to theUS laying waste to Iraq in an all out war if it had come much earlier and had had the support of the US in a coordinated plan. i.e. The UN takes control of Iraq and if the Iraqis don't like it the US invades. I think the US anger at these proposals is partly because it would undermine future US control of the region.

In the end, it simply makes one tired. If the US is so absolutely Gung-Ho about invading Iraq then they should finally do it. I don't think Russia and France will veto the US in the UN and the US seems mostly to be playing only lip service to the UN in any case in order not to make too many enemies in the world, so they should just go ahead and invade and get it done with. After that I expect all sorts of hell to break loose, but I think that's going to happen any way so fukk it.

[Zimphire]

77 votes? heh, I wonder how many double or triple IPs voted.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally posted by chabig:
Iraq develops nuclear weapons --> Iraq supports Al Qaida --> Al Qaida uses them against its sworn enemy, the U.S.

That's the number one reason Iraq is a threat to the U.S. Case closed.

Those who ignore this threat simply have their heads in the sand, or else they politically oppose Bush. There are many people in the U.S. who are willing to sell out our security for political gain. Oil has nothing to do with it.

As an opinion writer in my local paper said, ignoring the threat Iraq poses is like finding a rattlesnake in the baby's crib, and leaving it alone because it's not coiled to strike.

U.S. military develops bio/chem/nuclear weapons --> U.S. uses these weapons against people --> There are no consequences for the U.S. for unleashing these weapons.

Even Al Queda hasnt used these weapons against the U.S. (remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki), yes completely different scenario, but does it justify the fact that the U.S. used those weapons ? AND still has those weapons !?!? There's no one, not even the U.N. who can keep this kind of insanity within our borders, if WE want to use those weapons, no one can, and no one will stop us.
Even if Iraq has chemical/biological/nuclear weapons, they havent used it, and neither has Al-Queda for that matter. You keep talking about threats , take a step back from your ethno centric view of the world and imagine what it must have been like in Afghanistan, Panama, Vietnam, Korea, Somalia, Japan and now Iraq. imagine who the threat to those populations are. do you honestly beleive that the people around the world are estatic at the fact that a foreign nation has destroyed thier country and invaded ? grow up....how would u feel ? if say canada invaded the US to save it from itself ? would you greet them with open arms and wave their flag ? well...u might....cause if you dont ur a threat and they would probably kill you. But dont be such an idiot and think people want the U.S. to invade cause if you do, you are horribly mistaken.

And you know what is the best way to prevent furher attacks ? it's called defending your country, by protecting your borders, not invading other countries u nitwit. There's a reason why people hate Americans, they arent just born with the desire to kill americans, u know ? and invading even more countries dosent solve anything. it increases hate....and suffering, and that is not justifiable.
Im not a fan of Saddam, heck i remember taping up my windows in 1990 when Iraq invaded Kuwait, but if there is to be a change of regime, it should come from within iraq, just like the French, American, Indian, South Africans won their 'freedom'.

[theolein]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
77 votes? heh, I wonder how many double or triple IPs voted.

I gather you're refering to your teenage multiple personality disorder friend of Al-Qaida fame here? The one who was recently banned for his obnoxious behaviour.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Hawkeye_a:
Im not a fan of Saddam, heck i remember taping up my windows in 1990 when Iraq invaded Kuwait, but if there is to be a change of regime, it should come from within iraq, just like the French, American, Indian, South Africans won their 'freedom'.

Iraq doesn't have the resources or ability to do such a thing. Saddam makes sure of that.

[Hawkeye_a]

theolein, your observations, assumptions and predictions are preety much the same as mine. . Everyoe else should abide by the U.N., but the U.S. of course is exempt, and can do what it wants, cause it's 'right'.

"geeee....i wonder why everyone hates Americans." "i cant figure it out, they must just be 'evil'."

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Hawkeye_a:
"geeee....i wonder why everyone hates Americans." "i cant figure it out, they must just be 'evil'."

Only if evil means jealousy

[chabig]

U.S. military develops bio/chem/nuclear weapons --> U.S. uses these weapons against people

This might be a valid argument except for the fact that the US hasn't used nuclear weapons against people since WWII. And we don't have bio or chem weapons. You make it sound like we're running around the world nuking people.

how would u feel ? if say canada invaded the US to save it from itself ? would you greet them with open arms and wave their flag ?

I would if my country were run by a megalomaniacal dictator who ruled by terror, murdering his own people.

And you know what is the best way to prevent furher attacks ? it's called defending your country, by protecting your borders...

So I take it you're in favor of national missile defense? If so, that's good news, because most of the people who are opposed to removing the threat of Iraq are also opposed to domestic efforts to protect ourselves from ballistic missiles.

[NosniboR80]

Why is everyone so caught up in the inner motivations of a single political person as a justification for or against what that person's country does?

Let's assume the worst here for a moment (in regards to intentions).

Bush really doesn't care about Iraqis at all. He only hopes to use this situation for a reelection campaign (ie oil price drops help the industrial and consumer markets, political leadership *seems* to be his forte, he potentially emerges as an International Relations expert being able to manipulate the UN and all, and distracts voters from the rising budget deficit).

After the campaign, he intends to force heavy regulations on oil production in favor of the US economy and possibly at the expense of France and Germany.

He really also hopes to just get the US troops in Saudi Arabia out of the country so that he doesn't have to pay lip service to them anymore after 9/11 half-asses support.

etc
etc

You know all of that could be true. If so, I really don't have any respect for him as an individual - maybe some as a politician.

However, his inner motivations do not determine whether or not this war is worthwhile!

I think people need to separate the issues here.

Iraq is an unstable/unreliable world actor. Its leaders are not subject to any domestic political forces - therefore freeing them to act as they see fit.

Though you can claim that Bush can act however he wants and that would be partially true, but he can only act within an electorate's approval if he expects to be elected again and have a good reputation in the future, ie legacy.

You will find that Iraqi leaders have a much larger freedom of decision and discretion (giving it a very nice name for their atrocities).

On top of being unreliable, Saddam and his henchman are actively pursuing a foreign policy not within human or world standards of decency.

Saddam has openly supported verbally and financially the suicide bombers in Israel. His country's report to the UN about its weapons program was full holes leaving out known and suspected weapons stocks.

Deterrence, the main weapon against Saddam for the past 12 years, has been effective in that he has not smuggled a WMD into the US yet, but we do know that he has supported and supplied others who would in an instant, given the chance.

Imagine an airplane dropping or a person leaving a ricin bomb in some large metropolitan area in Europe or America that leaves traces of Soviet, French or even Chinese handiwork, instead of back to Saddam, since his equipment could have come from any of those countries (heck, it might even be traced back to the CDC in Atlanta for all we know).

If Saddam believed for a second that he could do this, which he probably could, he would not hesitate for a moment. A fingerprint-less WMD would totally nix any positive effect of deterrence.

This conflict with Iraq is not about the citizens (if that's what you call the subjects of a dictatorship) being evil for supporting him or being complicit. This is about his use of force and fear to maintain his position of authority and to influence through fear and hatred the region and the world.

The UN cannot let any country do that, much less one that it has legally restricted from owning such weapons in the past.

[theolein]

Originally posted by chabig:
Iraq develops nuclear weapons --> Iraq supports Al Qaida --> Al Qaida uses them against its sworn enemy, the U.S.

That's the number one reason Iraq is a threat to the U.S. Case closed.

Those who ignore this threat simply have their heads in the sand, or else they politically oppose Bush. There are many people in the U.S. who are willing to sell out our security for political gain. Oil has nothing to do with it.

As an opinion writer in my local paper said, ignoring the threat Iraq poses is like finding a rattlesnake in the baby's crib, and leaving it alone because it's not coiled to strike.

If I remember the facts correctly the current standing on actual use of WMD is as follows:

1914-1918: Both sides use poison gas in huge quantities in WWI
1926: Italy uses poison gas in Ethiopia
1938-1945: Japan uses the plague as a weapon in it's war against China
1942-1945: Germany uses poison gas on Jews in the concentration camps
1945: The US uses atomic weapons on Japan in an effort to shorten WWII.
1950-1953:There is good evidence that the US used Anthrax against the North Koreans in the war there.
1965-1973:The US uses Agent Orange as a defoliant in the vietnam war, an agent that later turns out to be rather deadly.
1980-1989: There is evidence the Soviets used chemical weapons in Afghanistan
1980-1988: Iraq uses nerve gas on Iranian troops and it's own rebelious population in massive quantities during the Iran-iraq war
1991: The Western alliance uses Depleted Uraniam shells in the Gulf War, the resulting dust of which resulting in what is later known as the cause of Gulf war syndrome.
1999: Nato uses DP shells in Kosovo resulting in what is later known as the Kosovo syndrome
2001: Someone in the USA, probably an American as claimed by the FBI, uses Anthrax as a weapon in a letter borne attack against Americans in an attempt to throw suspicion on Al-Qaida. This case has never been solved.

While Al-Qaida would very probably use bio- , chemical- and nuclear weapons if they had them, it seems as if your chances of dying from them are about equal from Al-qaida or from some lunatic in your own society.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by NosniboR80:
Bush really doesn't care about Iraqis at all. He only hopes to use this situation for a reelection campaign.... snipped liberal propaganda trash

Yeah I read that in the latest Liberal Propaganda rag too.

Give me a break.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally posted by chabig:
This might be a valid argument except for the fact that the US hasn't used nuclear weapons against people since WWII. And we don't have bio or chem weapons. You make it sound like we're running around the world nuking people.



I would if my country were run by a megalomaniacal dictator who ruled by terror, murdering his own people.



So I take it you're in favor of national missile defense? If so, that's good news, because most of the people who are opposed to removing the threat of Iraq are also opposed to domestic efforts to protect ourselves from ballistic missiles.

1. No one else has EVER used nuclear weapons, let alone nuclear weapons on civilians. And umm....yes the U.S. has quite a large stock pile of bio and chem weapons, we probably invented them to begin with. We have to defend freedom with the most high tech weaponrs, seeing how there are so many out there who dont want to be free....like us.

2. kinda like bush rallying the troops for war for no reason ? even though majority of the population are against a unilateral war with iraq. (and with even greater opposition from foreign nations.)

3.Missle defence. yes, im in favour of it...but there's a catch.... total and unconditional withdrawal of all U.S. military installations from all over the world...Japan, Afghanistan, Korea, Middle East, etc...and not being allowed to sell/donate arms and WMD to it's allies abroad. (who, like the U.K. seem more like sister-states than independant nations). Then yes, im all for a missile defence system.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Hawkeye_a:
1. No one else has EVER used nuclear weapons, let alone nuclear weapons on civilians.

They know better now.

And umm....yes the U.S. has quite a large stock pile of bio and chem weapons, we probably invented them to begin with.

Nope, the US didn't invent them.

We have to defend freedom with the most high tech weaponrs, seeing how there are so many out there who dont want to be free....like us.

Who doesn't want to be free?

2. kinda like bush rallying the troops for war for no reason ?

For no reason? Really?

even though majority of the population are against a unilateral war with iraq. (and with even greater opposition from foreign nations.)

Heh I would LOVE to see some proof on this. Actually the majority of the US supports Bush. Hell even Clinton supports Bush. Try again.

[daimoni]

.

[chabig]

And umm....yes the U.S. has quite a large stock pile of bio and chem weapons

This is false. The US is/has destroyed out inventory of chemical weapons.

even though majority of the population are against a unilateral war with iraq.

This is not true. The majority of Americans support the removal of Hussein. Also, there are plenty of other countries support the effort as well. It is a pure lie that this is a unilateral war. The left sincerely believes that if they repeat a lie often enough, it will come to be accepted as the truth. As Big Brother said in "1984"--"Ignorance is truth."

Chris

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by chabig:
This is false. The US is/has destroyed out inventory of chemical weapons.

Correct. We have been through this a bunch of times but for some reason nobody ever seems to listen. The US has witdrawn all chemical weapons from service. The US is also a member of the Chemical Weapons Convention, As a result, its chemical stockpiles destrction program is subject to international verification.

In addition, the US unilaterally ended its biological weapons program in 1969.

[deekay1]

Originally posted by chabig:
This is not true. The majority of Americans support the removal of Hussein. Also, there are plenty of other countries support the effort as well.

nope. most people living in these other countries are against an invasion of iraq for whatever reason, as i am sure are many many americans.

bush is quickly becoming the most hated political figure around the globe since adolf hitler.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by deekay1:
bush is quickly becoming the most hated political figure around the globe since adolf hitler.

yes, he's not as nice a guy as that Saddam Hussein fellow.

[deekay1]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
yes, he's not as nice a guy as that Saddam Hussein fellow.

actually, when it comes to personality, they're about on the same level.

each having the same goals in mind, with little variations in achieving them.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
yes, he's not as nice a guy as that Saddam Hussein fellow.

hating bush does not equal liking Hussein. I just hate Bush more than Hussein, not just cause of Iraq, but cause of most of his decisions, and the fact that he's riding his daddies coat tails..... seeing how he lacks proper pronounciation of english words, and dosent know how to read (dislexic (spell?)).

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by deekay1:
actually, when it comes to personality, they're about on the same level.

each having the same goals in mind, with little variations in achieving them.

Deekay, is this really the level of your analysis? You don't make a very credible case with idiotic statements like that.

[Zarqawi's Stump]

Originally posted by Hawkeye_a:
hating bush does not equal liking Hussein. I just hate Bush more than Hussein, not just cause of Iraq, but cause of most of his decisions, and the fact that he's riding his daddies coat tails..... seeing how he lacks proper pronounciation of english words, and dosent know how to read (dislexic (spell?)).

so he's not a good speaker. so the hell what? some people are, some aren't.

and I think you need to reevaluate your hate preference positions. Saddam is directly responsible for the torture, rape, and murder of hundreds of thousands. Your willingness to put Bush above Saddam in your scale of hate only shows you that your priorities and situational analyses need serious revision.

[Montanan]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
yes, he's not as nice a guy as that Saddam Hussein fellow.

The two of them actually have a heck of a lot in common ... arrogance, lack of principle, a willingness to destroy thousands of civilian lives in an immoral quest to retain political power ...

[Zarqawi's Stump]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:


Deekay, is this really the level of your analysis? You don't make a very credible case with idiotic statements like that.

careful. The left-wingers will report you and get you banned if you criticise one of their own.

I was banned for their sins, yet I live again!

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Hawkeye_a:
and the fact that he's riding his daddies coat tails..... seeing how he lacks proper pronounciation of english words, and dosent know how to read (dislexic (spell?)).

LOL! You can't spell. How can you criticize Bush?

But anyway, even if he were as incoherent as you suggest (and he isn't), that has nothing to do with the merits of the Iraq policy. Basically, your arguments boils down to simple partisanship. Sorry, but that's not a very intelligent position to take on national security issues.

[deekay1]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:


Deekay, is this really the level of your analysis? You don't make a very credible case with idiotic statements like that.

what Montanan said.

(back at ya).

please think before making idiotic statements about others making idiotic statements.

[Zarqawi's Stump]

Originally posted by Montanan:
The two of them actually have a heck of a lot in common ... arrogance, lack of principle, a willingness to destroy thousands of civilian lives in an immoral quest to retain political power ...

holy cow, I thought you were more reasonable than that.

A lack of principle is not something I see in Bush. He is strongly faith-based, has overcome a drug and alcohol problem, and stands behind his conservative principles (though they may differ from your own principle).


Bush's term in office is limited to a maximum of two. Nothing he does will keep him in longer than 8 years, no matter how many civilians you think might be killed in military action. He does not torture, rape, or murder American citizens in his quest for reelection in '04. Saddam, the Butcher of Baghdad, does all that and more. I am surprised and disappointed to see such comparisons from you.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Did anyone else catch "Face the Nation" this morning? Madeline Albright was being interviewed. Tim Russert played a very hawkish clip of Clinton from 1998, where he warned about the need to tackle Iraq and the perils of allowing Iraq to get weapons of mass detruction. Clinton said if Iraq were allowed to get them, then one day Saddam would surely use them. Then Russert showed a quote from Albright herself from the same time that was just as hawkish. You should have seen her face!

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by deekay1:
please think before making idiotic statements about others making idiotic statements.

I stand by what I said. Comparisons of elected leaders of democratic states to Hitler are idiotic. If you want to oppose Bush's policies, by all means do so. But you would make a better case without the dumb comparisons. A Hitler comparison is always the sign of a person who can't come up with a better argument.

[Zarqawi's Stump]

Originally posted by deekay1:
please think before making idiotic statements about others making idiotic statements.

regardless, simey's comments are accurate. You attacked Bush personally in an effort to discredit and demean his Iraq policy. Really lame, deekay.

[deekay1]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Comparisons of elected leaders of democratic states to Hitler are idiotic.

i wasn't doing that...

[deekay1]

Originally posted by Zarqawi's Stump:
regardless, simey's comments are accurate. You attacked Bush personally in an effort to discredit and demean his Iraq policy. Really lame, deekay.

accurate??? wtf are you talking about?

both are leaders of their countries hell bent on on pushing through their political agenda, regardless of civilian casualties, regardless of international objections...and both are doing their work in the name of freedom, justice and doing the "right thing", each from their own pov of course.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by deekay1:
i wasn't doing that...

Oh really?

Originally posted by deekay1:
actually, when it comes to personality, they're about on the same level.

each having the same goals in mind, with little variations in achieving them.

Seems like a comparison to me.

[deekay1]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Oh really?



Seems like a comparison to me.

weren't you talking about elected leaders?

[daimoni]

.

[Developer]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I stand by what I said. Comparisons of elected leaders of democratic states to Hitler are idiotic. If you want to oppose Bush's policies, by all means do so. But you would make a better case without the dumb comparisons. A Hitler comparison is always the sign of a person who can't come up with a better argument.

A comparison of an elected leader of a democratic state with Gaddafi and Castro is always fine on the other hand.