Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 61

Thread: Saddam: you've always been a bad man

  1. #21
    [QUOTE=kennyo7][B][/B]


    I never said it was a fact. The poll of Iranians has not been conducted. But ill bet if it was , id be right[/QUOTE]


    No, YOU'RE wrong, Sport. You stated, "This represents the opinion of the shia majority." That is a statement of your home made fact... not an opinion. Keep living in your dream world.

  2. #22
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]Wrong sport. The Dems were merely going along with W and what he presented to the American people. They are guilty of not questioning or analyzing the intelligence carefully. I never called Bush a liar. I also dont think he coerced agents to come up with or fix the intelligence. What I do blame him for is cherry picking the intelligence to support his cause. I also blame him for not presenting the entire case re Iraq. There was intelligence that contradicted the talking points he brought forward including questions surrounding the sources of what he was presenting to the world (for example he knew the info obtained from al-libi was not reliable yet he kept saying "we know without a doubt"). That may be acceptable in politics. But its not acceptable when our soldiers lives are put on the line[/QUOTE]


    So you assume (lol... you do that a lot) that the Democrats didn't question or analyze the intelligence carefully. You then assume, because it's Bush, that he mislead, NOT that he didn't question or analyze intelligence enough. See your unfairly one sided wing view of things there? See why it's worthless to have an intelligent conversation with you?

  3. #23
    [QUOTE][B]You then assume, because it's Bush, that he mislead, NOT that he didn't question or analyze intelligence enough. See your unfairly one sided wing view of things there? See why it's worthless to have an intelligent conversation with you?[/B][/QUOTE]


    Why do I assume that of Bush????

    Maybe its because it is well documented that Bush and his administration have long wanted to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam (as early as 1998). Maybe its b/c the Bush Co. all signed letters asking Clinton to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam. Maybe b/c they are all followers of the PNAC and believe in using military might to shape the ME the way they see right?


    Jeez! Maybe thats why we dont trust Bush was sincere in his reasons given for the invasion of Iraq

  4. #24
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]Why do I assume that of Bush????

    Maybe its because it is well documented that Bush and his administration have long wanted to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam (as early as 1998). Maybe its b/c the Bush Co. all signed letters asking Clinton to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam. Maybe b/c they are all followers of the PNAC and believe in using military might to shape the ME the way they see right?


    Jeez! Maybe thats why we dont trust Bush was sincere in his reasons given for the invasion of Iraq[/QUOTE]


    Once again... your on sided view... it seems that even the most left of the left also wanted to address the growing Iraq problem. Don't blame this solely on Bush. AND, by the way, the Democrats have given us just as much reason not to trust them as the Republicans. Please TRY to keep an open mind.

  5. #25
    My statement:

    [QUOTE][B]This represents the opinion of the shia majority.[/B][/QUOTE]

    Was in reference to the Liberman article where he claims "Two-thirds say they are better off than they were under Saddam, and a resounding 82% are confident their lives in Iraq will be better a year from now than they are today. "

    Liberman was visiting a Shia dominated region. This is not disputable. Most Iraqi Shia feel life will be better with Saddam out of power and the Shia controlling Iraq. This is obvious. The Sunnis will disagree. The Kurds dont care cause they have sights on creating a seperate Kurdistan (to the shagrin of our "allies" in Turkey).

    But thanks for making my point. Even you cant distinguish between the Shia of Iraq and Iran. Thats b/c soon we all will learn there is [U]no[/U] difference

  6. #26
    [QUOTE][B]Once again... your on sided view... it seems that even the most left of the left also wanted to address the growing Iraq problem. Don't blame this solely on Bush. AND, by the way, the Democrats have given us just as much reason not to trust them as the Republicans. Please TRY to keep an open mind.[/B][/QUOTE]

    Iraq was not a problem, just a small nuisance, until we made it a problem by invading them. Now its a huge problem.

    Sure I blame the Dems for lacking leadership when Bush made the call for war. But ultimately the Buck stops at the President's desk. Bush made the decision to invade Iraq, not the Dems. They were cowards for not speaking up then.

    I do have an open mind, thank you. When will you open yours and realize that Bush had his eyes on Iraq long before 9/11.

  7. #27
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]My statement:



    Was in reference to the Liberman article where he claims "Two-thirds say they are better off than they were under Saddam, and a resounding 82% are confident their lives in Iraq will be better a year from now than they are today. "

    Liberman was visiting a Shia dominated region. This is not disputable. Most Iraqi Shia feel life will be better with Saddam out of power and the Shia controlling Iraq. This is obvious. The Sunnis will disagree. The Kurds dont care cause they have sights on creating a seperate Kurdistan (to the shagrin of our "allies" in Turkey).

    But thanks for making my point. Even you cant distinguish between the Shia of Iraq and Iran. Thats b/c soon we all will learn there is [U]no[/U] difference[/QUOTE]

    I don't think there IS much of a difference between them. If that was your point then... ok. The point of my post was that you made a statement that was an opinion... even if it was an opinion of Liberman. You treated it as a fact.

  8. #28
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]Iraq was not a problem, just a small nuisance, until we made it a problem by invading them. Now its a huge problem.

    Sure I blame the Dems for lacking leadership when Bush made the call for war. But ultimately the Buck stops at the President's desk. Bush made the decision to invade Iraq, not the Dems. They were cowards for not speaking up then.

    I do have an open mind, thank you. When will you open yours and realize that Bush had his eyes on Iraq long before 9/11.[/QUOTE]


    I never said Bush DIDN'T have his eyes on Iraq prior to 9/11. I only said he wasn't the only one... the way you make it seem. Most of our elected officials on both sides of the aisle believed Iraq to be a growing problem and wanted it addressed. You only suggest that Bush was the only on and had some sort of vendetta against Hussein.
    YOU?! OPEN MIND?! You admitted a few weeks ago that your viewpoints are slanted well left. Anyone with opinions slanted to that degree in either direction clearly does not have an open mind.

  9. #29
    [QUOTE][B]I never said Bush DIDN'T have his eyes on Iraq prior to 9/11. I only said he wasn't the only one..[/B][/QUOTE]

    Thats right, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Libby, Wolfowitz all signed that letter and are founding member of the PNAC!


    [QUOTE] [B]Most of our elected officials on both sides of the aisle believed Iraq to be a growing problem and wanted it addressed. [/B] [/QUOTE]

    Thats also true,champ. Difference is they did not want to put ground troops in Iraq, use military force to overthrow saddam, or get into the business of nation building. They knew as did Papa Bush , that approach would open a Pandoras Box of problems.

    [QUOTE][B]You only suggest that Bush was the only on and had some sort of vendetta against Hussein.[/B][/QUOTE]

    I never siad he had a vandetta against hussein. I saidd he belonged to a group whos philosophy was to use Military might to influence events in the ME. Iraq was the easiest target from a military standpoint, but the jackass didnt realize it was probably the most difficult from a political (Iraqi poltics , that is) standpoint

  10. #30
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]Thats right, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Libby, Wolfowitz all signed that letter and are founding member of the PNAC!




    Thats also true,champ. Difference is they did not want to put ground troops in Iraq, use military force to overthrow saddam, or get into the business of nation building. They knew as did Papa Bush , that approach would open a Pandoras Box of problems.



    I never siad he had a vandetta against hussein. I saidd he belonged to a group whos philosophy was to use Military might to influence events in the ME. Iraq was the easiest target from a military standpoint, but the jackass didnt realize it was probably the most difficult from a political (Iraqi poltics , that is) standpoint[/QUOTE]


    Now name all of the Democrats that go along with Cheney, Rumsfield, Libby, etc...
    Papa Bush's only error was to leave Iraq alone when he did. He left that country in the same position we left Afghanistan in years ago. Sr should have finished the job.
    I said you SUGGESTED that Bush had a vendetta against Hussein. IMHO I believe that military force was the only way left to address the issue. Hussein flipped his finger at the joke we call the UN and at the rest of the world. To say we didn't try using diplomatic means would be pathetic. If everyone thought he was a problem... and we tried diplomatic means... what other option do we have?

  11. #31
    [QUOTE][B]Now name all of the Democrats that go along with Cheney, Rumsfield, Libby, etc...[/B][/QUOTE]

    Lets see uhhh, i dont know of any Dem who signed on to the PNAC nor can I recall a single Dem who wanted to invade and take over Iraq when Clinton was president. Maybe you can help with this one.

    [QUOTE][B]Papa Bush's only error was to leave Iraq alone when he did. He left that country in the same position we left Afghanistan in years ago. Sr should have finished the job.[/B][/QUOTE]


    Your wrong. Bush was very smart in not toppling Saddam. Unlike Bush the junior, Papa Bush had some experience in global politics and intelligence. He (and most educated folk) know that Iraq is not a real country. Its 3 tribes who dislike each other and have seperate agendas (of which none is aligned with our interests). It took a vicious dictator like Saddam to hold them together and keep the nation from dissolving.

    1. The Kurds in the north seek independence. They are looking to recreate Kurdistan. This will cause problems for Turkey (our "allie" and a "moderate" islamic country) since the Turkish Kurds in the east will look to join the Iraqi Kurds to form a united independent Kurdistan.

    2. The Shias in the south, controll the oil rich land. They were victims under Saddam. But when given independence, they will form their own country which will (as it now appears) be run by a group of clerics. The Shia have had strong ties with Iran in the past and have gotten alot of support from Iran as well (including now). The last thing papa bush wanted is to create an oil rich islamic theocracy with strong ties/good relations with Iran.

    3. Finally the Sunnis. They are the minority, but for all these years they controlled all of Iraq. The Baathists were by all means a secular group. But after years of oppressing everyone else and ruling with an iron fist, the time for payback has come. With the majority Shia out for revenge and the backing of Iran, who will the Sunnis turn to for help??? Oh yeah, "dim terrrrrissss". Thats right now the sunnis will look for help from groups like AQ for support. they may have disliked each other in the past, but at least they share the same religion but more importantly, the same enemies-> the shias,the Jews (of course) and ..... oh yeah US!

    Before all 3 factions split completely and form independent nations, they will have to fight an all out bloody civil war in order to divy up the land!


    None of this is good for us! Papa Bush knew that, and thats why he didnt "finish the job" (whatever that might mean- i dont think W will finish either). Georgie boy was not as sophisticated in his thinking and did not see the big picture. Thats why we are in this mess today and for the long haul.

  12. #32
    [QUOTE][B] Hussein flipped his finger at the joke we call the UN and at the rest of the world. To say we didn't try using diplomatic means would be pathetic. If everyone thought he was a problem... and we tried diplomatic means... what other option do we have?[/B][/QUOTE]

    I dont know, it appears that we had him pretty well contained. Maybe if we waited for the inspectors to finish their job, we would have realized this before commiting to war.

  13. #33
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]Lets see uhhh, i dont know of any Dem who signed on to the PNAC nor can I recall a single Dem who wanted to invade and take over Iraq when Clinton was president. Maybe you can help with this one.




    Your wrong. Bush was very smart in not toppling Saddam. Unlike Bush the junior, Papa Bush had some experience in global politics and intelligence. He (and most educated folk) know that Iraq is not a real country. Its 3 tribes who dislike each other and have seperate agendas (of which none is aligned with our interests). It took a vicious dictator like Saddam to hold them together and keep the nation from dissolving.

    1. The Kurds in the north seek independence. They are looking to recreate Kurdistan. This will cause problems for Turkey (our "allie" and a "moderate" islamic country) since the Turkish Kurds in the east will look to join the Iraqi Kurds to form a united independent Kurdistan.

    2. The Shias in the south, controll the oil rich land. They were victims under Saddam. But when given independence, they will form their own country which will (as it now appears) be run by a group of clerics. The Shia have had strong ties with Iran in the past and have gotten alot of support from Iran as well (including now). The last thing papa bush wanted is to create an oil rich islamic theocracy with strong ties/good relations with Iran.

    3. Finally the Sunnis. They are the minority, but for all these years they controlled all of Iraq. The Baathists were by all means a secular group. But after years of oppressing everyone else and ruling with an iron fist, the time for payback has come. With the majority Shia out for revenge and the backing of Iran, who will the Sunnis turn to for help??? Oh yeah, "dim terrrrrissss". Thats right now the sunnis will look for help from groups like AQ for support. they may have disliked each other in the past, but at least they share the same religion but more importantly, the same enemies-> the shias,the Jews (of course) and ..... oh yeah US!

    Before all 3 factions split completely and form independent nations, they will have to fight an all out bloody civil war in order to divy up the land!


    None of this is good for us! Papa Bush knew that, and thats why he didnt "finish the job" (whatever that might mean- i dont think W will finish either). Georgie boy was not as sophisticated in his thinking and did not see the big picture. Thats why we are in this mess today and for the long haul.[/QUOTE]


    I said that the Democrats also had Iraq and Hussein in their eyes and that is true.
    Iraq has not been a country for a long while because of Hussein. Hussein wasn't able to hold them together. He was exterminating anyone who didn't agree with him. Hussein believes he is a direct descendant of the prophet Muhammed. He believes his position was predestined by Allah. Only one of those three factions actually believes this along with him. The other two do not. His being in power did nothing but bring misery to thousands upon thousands of people. To say that Iraq is better off without him is IMHO just plain wrong. Yes, I believe Alawi is wrong on this too. I'm not sure what the answer is, but it's NOT Hussein. And, selfishly, Hussein in power is NOT what's best for the US.

  14. #34
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]I dont know, it appears that we had him pretty well contained. Maybe if we waited for the inspectors to finish their job, we would have realized this before commiting to war.[/QUOTE]


    lol... but the inspectors weren't allowed to BY HUSSEIN!

  15. #35
    [QUOTE][B]lol... but the inspectors weren't allowed to BY HUSSEIN![/B][/QUOTE]


    LOL! ..... are you high? Of course he let them in. Dont you remember he called Bush's bluff. Bush said if the inspectors were allowed to go in then he would not invade Iraq. Bush never though Saddam would allow this. But he did! Then Bush invaded Iraq anyway.

  16. #36
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]LOL! ..... are you high? Of course he let them in. Dont you remember he called Bush's bluff. Bush said if the inspectors were allowed to go in then he would not invade Iraq. Bush never though Saddam would allow this. But he did! Then Bush invaded Iraq anyway.[/QUOTE]

    If I were high I'd be laughing even HARDER at your posts. Yes he let them in... ONLY TO THE PLACES HE WANTED TO LET THEM SEE. Please stop.

  17. #37
    [QUOTE][B]If I were high I'd be laughing even HARDER at your posts. Yes he let them in... ONLY TO THE PLACES HE WANTED TO LET THEM SEE. Please stop.[/B][/QUOTE]

    What proof do you have to support this?
    This is just BS!

  18. #38
    [QUOTE][B]To say that Iraq is better off without him is IMHO just plain wrong.[/B][/QUOTE]


    :D
    You said it!

  19. #39
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]What proof do you have to support this?
    This is just BS![/QUOTE]


    History is my proof. It's reality.

  20. #40
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]:D
    You said it![/QUOTE]


    LOL! You knew what I meant.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us