Reply With Quote
Actually the Sudanese Muslims have been killing and enslaving Sudanese Christians for years.
Actually, we've done it before. Unless you think the US can't do it.Let the UN do it...they know how to do it the right way...oh wait.
Think of the dead babies....
Actually the Sudanese Muslims have been killing and enslaving Sudanese Christians for years.
At the moment we can't do it as we are in two other countries and there are a bunch whining anti war protestor conspiracy theorists making those jobs difficult enough as it is.
Let the UN do it...let them be relevant for a change. If they backed us in defending ourselves, we might have the manpower available, but since they didn't we don't.
For the 1 trillionth time...
Iraq lost a war. They signed a cease fire agreement...The UN passed a resolution allowing war if they violated that resolution.
Technically, we were officially at war with them again when they shot at British and US planes enforcing the no fly zone that were conditions of Saddam's surrender.
And if that's not enough, he violated the UN resolution that gave us just cause to take him out.
Those other countries haven't signed a cease fire agreement, and had UN resolutions passed that allow for war, after losing a war in which they invaded another country.
It's not like Iraq is just another country, the entire world declared war on them in the early 90's and they never lived up to the conditions of their surrender.
But we want the UN to pay for rebuilding Iraq now, so what?
I'm so glad were helping the Kurds 20 years too late just in time to let all the African Sudanese die too.
At least we're consistent.
Yes, Republicans on CH deserve blame for not tackling the Sudan, but I haven't seen any Senators standing up and calling for intervention.
Similarly, the clowns at the UN aren't doing jack squat about it either. Perhaps if they got a couple of billion in bribes (like some got to back Hussein against the US) they'd suddenly have a spine to say and do something about it.
Perhaps that because we pay for the ing UN too.
I'm so glad were helping the Kurds 20 years too late just in time to let all the African Sudanese die too.
At least we're consistent.
This war not about the Kurds...that a side issue...the importance of that issue is showing you what kind of life those people faced under Saddam.
The reason for this war to take out a potential opportunity for nuclear weapons to meet terrorists and be used against us.
This war is for our own defense, but all you guys screaming about the deaths of innocent civillians need to look at what was going on before we were there.
That condition was chronic, this war won't be.
That worked out really well -- we didn't even guard the equipment that was there.The reason for this war to take out a potential opportunity for nuclear weapons to meet terrorists and be used against us.
Got those oilfields protected though....You underestimate the resolve of the enemy.That condition was chronic, this war won't be.
And WTF with this?http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/sudan/darfur.htmlUnder pressure from China, the U.S. eases its threat of oil sanctions against Sudan, revising its motion to the Security Council to say the UN "shall consider" punitive action, rather than "will take."
You lose the right to make that complaint if you also argue Saddam wasn't a serious threat to us. The only ones allowed to complain about both are democratic presidential candidates who are politicizing the war to get elected.
Also, if all we are worried about is Oil then why didn't we take Saddam out the first time?
And why did we first try to go through the UN this time?
That's called multilateral cooperation with the great liberal nations of the world. You should be happy.And WTF with this?http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/sudan/darfur.html
Now if we can just get France and Germany on board, like China, they might be willing to work with us now that their oil for food scam has gone to pot.
If the oil is right...they might be willing to join the coalition of the coerced and bribed.
He certainly wasn't the imminent threat we were led to believe he was.You lose the right to make that complaint if you also argue Saddam wasn't a serious threat to us.We were afraid of chaos in large parts of the region like that kind that is happening now.Also, if all we are worried about is Oil then why didn't we take Saddam out the first time?Knuckling under to communists makes you happy? You suck.That's called multilateral cooperation with the great liberal nations of the world. You should be happy.
The neither is the missing equipment and therefore why are you mentioning it?
So we were afraid of it then but not now? What changed?We were afraid of chaos in large parts of the region like that kind that is happening now.
Telling them to off when they veto our ability to defend ourselves makes you unhappy? You suck worse.Knuckling under to communists makes you happy? You suck.
Here's an excerpt from an earlier post I made, in another thread...
English please, ducks.The neither is the missing equipment and therefore why are you mentioning it?You tell me.So we were afraid of it then but not now? What changed?I never said so. We'll always do what we want, or so we thought....You said China was a great liberal nation. That's horrible.Telling them to off when they veto our ability to defend ourselves makes you unhappy?
IMHO, you can always find a reason for war but finding a reason for peace eludes many of us.
From this same article:
This was when Saddam was our de able ally. This is just another rationalization for this war after the massive stockpiles of WMDs failed to materalize. We should invade ourselves because we met with Saddam, and so we must have collaborated with him to mass murder Kurds. And if we didn't collaborate, we certainly had the capability to do so. This makes more than enough reasons for us to make war on ourselves.The mass grave was being excavated near Hatra, a village in northern Iraq with a large Kurdish population. US-led investigators have located nine trenches so far containing hundreds of bodies, believed to be Kurds killed during the repression of the [b]Eighties[\b]. The bodies had been bulldozed into the ground.
It was plain english. If Saddam wasn't a threat than neither is the missing equipment. You can't have it both ways. Either he posed no danger or he did.
Yes you did. And I'm asking you.You tell me.I never said so.
And what we want is consistently more fair and just than what any other country wants.We'll always do what we want, or so we thought
I agree liberals are horrible, and kinda dumb as well. I mean surely you realize you stand on the same side of this war as China? And France and Germany. And Russia. Oh and the terrorists as well.....You said China was a great liberal nation. That's horrible.
A regular who's who of the worlds great liberal nations and causes in history. Enjoy your company. I hear they have parties where they see how many jews they can exterminate, how many personal freedoms they can take away, how many cuts of the knife it takes to remove a bound mans head.... Maybe shoot a few female and adolescent Iraqis with a single shot to the head..and I hear the finale is great, they reenact the destruction of the World Trade Center. Right up the liberal alley.
I think conservatives are dumb.
No immediate threat. Not a one.It was plain english. If Saddam wasn't a threat than neither is the missing equipment. You can't have it both ways. Either he posed no danger or he did.I stand on not killing my friends unnecessarily. Sue me, .I mean surely you realize you stand on the same side of this war as China? And France and Germany. And Russia. Oh and the terrorists as well.
Get the terrorists first, dumbass. They are the immediate threat. Not Saddam's decades away at best phantom nukes. You bought into this hook, line and sinker because you didn't want to feel as impotent as you did after 9/11. Anger is fine, but it completely clouded your judgment.
If my friends are going to die, I want them fighting the immediate threats -- not some guy who has been under our thumb and bombs for over a decade.
Whottt:
This thread started with an article which described some of the attrocities committed by Saddam's Regime. The le of the thread implies that the Iraq war is justified on that basis.
My point is that the war is not justified on the basis that totalitarian regimes, such as Saddam's, should be deposed. If this were a good enough reason, as I said before, the US should go after Cuba (hey, I'd love to see that bearded SoB toppled!).
The other reasons given by you and by Yonivore are debatable. I think they are not enough to go to war. But that is my opinion.
And Whottt, don't make me kick your ass like I did in the "Rugby" thread!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
