Womd

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by paintballguy429
Kuwait was 10 years ago, that doesn't have anything to do with him being a threat today. David Kay is an extremely biased, militaristic, patriotic man who I would not trust. Terrorists found in Baghdad have nothing to do with Hussein, they prove nothing. It's like saying the US supports rape because there are rapists in the country.

Actually, it has everything to do with today. He signed a cease fire after that war. He violated it. Hostilities then recommenced, even though we hadn't acted on it previously.

David Kay is presenting factual evidence gathered at a number of sites that has been independently confirmed. Even if he was inclided to lie it really isn't possible with the level of scrutiny on him.

Yes, but terrorists found in Baghdad living off the state and meeting with Iraqi officials does mean they have something to do with Saddam.

[paintballguy429]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Albinonewt

Originally posted by paintballguy429
Compare the figures of how many Israelis have been killed by terrorist attacks and how many innocent Palestinians have been slaughtered by Israeli raids. The latter is at least 5 times higher. Just a couple days ago Israel ordered 15 Palestinians to be turned over. They weren't, so Israel raids Gaza, killing 8 people and leaving 1,500 homeless.

So maybe next time they'll hand over the terrorists. I'm sorry that people get killed and have homelessness inflicted on them but they chose a side in a war. When you harbor terrorists you choose their side. If they wouldn't do that, HELL if they HELPED instead, the whole process would have moved along years ago.

How was Sadaam appeased? He wasn't, you are just firing off idiotic conservative rhetoric and trying to compare this case with the Nazis. We had sanctions against Iraq.

He was left in power for more then a decade and allowed to continue his brutal treatment and murder of his people for that time with little or no interfernce from anyon else despite his clear violations of the cease fire he signed.

Sounds like he was appeased to me.

It is pretty similiar to Hitler. Not exactly the same, Saddam didn't have quite the same ability to amass a conventional army. But he does bear many similiarities to Hitler and his conquest.

OMG could you be any more immature. The people that are killed often have NOTHING to do with terrorists and are often children! A response like "Maybe next time they'll learn their lesson" is immature and sheer stupidity. These people are innocent and do not deserve to die.

Hitler was a threat to all of Europe and with its alliance with Japan, more than half of the world. Iraq was a threat to no one.

[paintballguy429]

Originally posted by Albinonewt


Actually, it has everything to do with today. He signed a cease fire after that war. He violated it. Hostilities then recommenced, even though we hadn't acted on it previously.

David Kay is presenting factual evidence gathered at a number of sites that has been independently confirmed. Even if he was inclided to lie it really isn't possible with the level of scrutiny on him.

Yes, but terrorists found in Baghdad living off the state and meeting with Iraqi officials does mean they have something to do with Saddam.

I think it's ironic that we apply international law to countries to Iraq as a justification for invasion, when in reality the US has broken many UN arms agreements aswell as Israel. If you want to use UN law as reasoning for attacking a country, at least apply it equally.

As for the terrorists in Baghdad, show some proof.

[-Carnifex-]

Originally posted by Albinonewt


I can't count the times that you chime into a debate with the current popular media tagline to have either Deadeye or I run right back at it and then you say "Well, I don't know much about it".

You've done it for WMD, Bush, and the French (remember when I had to explain Degaulism to you). Learn a little before chiming in. An uninformed opinion is just heresey

Uhh, you may have me confused with someone else. I haven't stated my opinions about anything but why I think we were going into the war and stuff about the French. I never said mine was fact. If you want a real debate don't do it over a public forum. I have every right to say something and I also stated that I knew little about the subjects so that no one would give much weight to my opinion.

I've yet to debate anything with Deadeye.

Can you possibly believe that liberals are the only ones who use propaganda?

I do, however, agree that it was a good choice to liberate the Iraqies (?), though I believe Bush, maybe no intentionally, mislead people to a degree. Sorry I don't have proof of this, it's merely my opinion.

[Miscue]

Originally posted by paintballguy429


Iraq was a threat to no one.

<img src="http://www.klauswilleke.de/nyc_world_trade_center_attack_09-11-01_1_small.jpg">

[paintballguy429]

Okay, would you like to support that?

Give me proof that Hussein had ties with the terrorists who orchestrated 9/11? Or was Iraq responsible for 9/11 simply because they are Arab Muslims? Honestly, show me some proof.

[Collegeboy]

Miscue, that is probably the worst thing I have ever seen anyone post. How dare you use the deaths of over 2,000 people in order to justify an event that has nothing to do with them. How dare you trivialize their deaths.

[ERut]

I think the point was that no one considered the Taliban a direct threat to America either...

Anyway, I don't know what I was smoking with that 40% business.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2003-10/14/content_1121418.htm

My(conservitave) civics teacher threw that out and I thought I could believe him

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by ERut
I think the point was that no one considered the Taliban a direct threat to America either...

Anyway, I don't know what I was smoking with that 40% business.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2003-10/14/content_1121418.htm

My(conservitave) civics teacher threw that out and I thought I could believe him

Was the Taliban responsible for 911? I could have sworn it was Osama. All the Taliban did was ask for proof. We didn't think they would turn him over either way, so we invaded.

[Miscue]

CollegeBoy: "Miscue, that is probably the worst thing I have ever seen anyone post. How dare you use the deaths of over 2,000 people in order to justify an event that has nothing to do with them. How dare you trivialize their deaths."

This is proof that not only do you twist around words and distort a poster's intent... you cannot even avoid speculation and gross distortion when NOTHING IS SAID.

How do you know that is what I meant?

Humor me for a moment, and pretend that I am well aware of the evidence, or lack of evidence of a correlation between Iraq and terrorist groups.

Your interpretation of why I posted that picture is based off an assumption of my knowledge and disposition.

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by Miscue
CollegeBoy: "Miscue, that is probably the worst thing I have ever seen anyone post. How dare you use the deaths of over 2,000 people in order to justify an event that has nothing to do with them. How dare you trivialize their deaths."

This is proof that not only do you twist around words and distort a poster's intent... you cannot even avoid speculation and gross distortion when NOTHING IS SAID.

How do you know that is what I meant?

Humor me for a moment, and pretend that I am well aware of the evidence, or lack of evidence of a correlation between Iraq and terrorist groups.

Your interpretation of why I posted that picture is based off an assumption of my knowledge and disposition.

We all know what you mean by posting a picture of 911 right after a quote asking what danger does Saddam pose us.

You the one who condemned me of doing "trivializing" the deaths of 911 by saying I will morn them and all others who died in the world, and threatened banishment for that now just committed something unthinkable. The same thing you accused me of doing.

Humor me with how you work you way out of this one.

[Miscue]

You are filibustering the question.

How do you know? The non-answer you gave is "because we all know."

It's a very simple question. How do you know that was my intent?

Oh, and BTW... it wasn't me who condemned you for trivializing their deaths.

Now it all comes to light.

You accuse me of what others accused you of (confusing me with them). I did not ban you because of that.

[LaW]

Collegeboy, your not an expert on what everyone means.... And you certainly do not speak for all of us, "we all know what you mean"... yeah I made an assumption to what I thought miscue's post made but it wasnt anywhere close to your thoughts....

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by paintballguy429
OMG could you be any more immature. The people that are killed often have NOTHING to do with terrorists and are often children! A response like "Maybe next time they'll learn their lesson" is immature and sheer stupidity. These people are innocent and do not deserve to die.

You yourself said that they chose not to hand over the terrorists that Israel wanted. They made a CHOICE, and they had to live with the consequences of that choice. That's how the world works. Maybe next time they won't harbor terrorists and murderers.

And no, they don't deserve to die. But, no they are not innocent. They harbor and support the terrorist infrastructure. They've been taught since birth that evil scum Arafat and his government to hate the Jews and to destroy the Jews and only then will their suffering end. Little do they understand that they suffer because Arafat refuses to end the war. He's had the chance a dozen times and he won't do it.

Hitler was a threat to all of Europe and with its alliance with Japan, more than half of the world. Iraq was a threat to no one.

-Except the neighbors he invaded
-Except the hundreds of thousands of people he murdered
-Except the Ex-President of the US who he tried to assassinate
-Except for anyone that one day might be struck by terrorists trained and armed in Iraq.

Besides the entire globe, you're right. Nobody was threatened.

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by paintballguy429
I think it's ironic that we apply international law to countries to Iraq as a justification for invasion, when in reality the US has broken many UN arms agreements aswell as Israel. If you want to use UN law as reasoning for attacking a country, at least apply it equally.

Then I suppose you'd like to see China brought down as well? And the Palastinians? And North Korea? And Russia? And France? And Syria? And Yemen?

As much as I would like it to apply to everyone, if we pick out everyone that's broken a rule then we have nobody left to enforce them. So I'm willing to stick withthe most agregious offenders for now, and that's Iraq.

As for the terrorists in Baghdad, show some proof.

Link 1

Link 2

Link 3

Link 4