Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

"What gain does the US get out of invading Iraq other than removal of an enemy?"

wait wait wait....did he actually say that? lol...i actually had to read that twice to make sure....son, i would love to believe that the US' intentions in the region are honourable...but....you really want to know the top reasons for invading Iraq?...

okay...1. Saddam would not let the US set up military bases on it's soil of course (unlike a lot of other countries in the region). The US has the biggest foothold on the worlds greatest known oil reserves now that Iraq is under their control...3 words Operation Iraqi Liberation, what the operation was originally called before it was quickly changed....2. The administration knew that OPEC was using the euro, and was worried that OPEC would make the euro as a type of international oil currency, further devaluating the dollar and making oil more expensive for their war machine, so to avoid that possibility, invading a country that proves an easy target that one could convince enough of the population to support, in some way, by lying and saying that Saddam supports Al Queda or whatever it may be, invasion and occupation of said country would give the dollar a higher basis on the international market.....too bad Bush is a fool who never was tought basic economics that exports should exceed imports in order to have a stable economy.

"The Federal Reserve's greatest nightmare is that OPEC will switch its international transactions from a dollar standard to a euro standard. Iraq actually made this switch in Nov. 2000 (when the euro was worth around 80 cents), and has actually made off like a bandit considering the dollar's steady depreciation against the euro." (Note: the dollar declined 15% against the euro in 2002.)"

kill 2 birds with one stone

---

anyways....i'm done with this....i have more important things to do, than to fuel fires and feed divides...

i respect you all, and your opinion, i just hope that you can respect mine....

just remember quotes from your country's forefathers. They were very brilliant, and deserve more actual coverage than they get. Then again most of the US doesn't know it's own constitution....brilliant reading....it should be seen as a total shame to see what the government has done to it, i know i see it that way

thank you *smiles*

---

At 8/20/07 03:59 AM, Reignspike wrote: What's my point? Democrats and Republicans are people. People in power. Power corrupts. It does so equally.

The only REAL solution, here, is to remove the dualist monopoly we have in the two-party system. As monopolies, they don't feel the need to answer to anyone. Who else could we really choose? We should apply Free Enterprise to our government.

I could not agree any more to that statement....very well put....where most democratic countries have 3 parties or more, the US has 2....very well put....power always corrupts, which is the need for checks and balances, there is no such thing as "renegade judges", there is a difference in interpretation, to say such a thing is to undermine the very fabric of the government and very treasonary to the US....

and i'm done for sure now...i promise lol....i just had to comment on your post *smiles*

(and sorry for all the posts.....i can't find an edit button lol)

---

At 8/20/07 04:03 AM, wompie wrote: okay...1. Saddam would not let the US set up military bases on it's soil of course (unlike a lot of other countries in the region). The US has the biggest foothold on the worlds greatest known oil reserves now that Iraq is under their control...3 words Operation Iraqi Liberation, what the operation was originally called before it was quickly changed....2. The administration knew that OPEC was using the euro, and was worried that OPEC would make the euro as a type of international oil currency, further devaluating the dollar and making oil more expensive for their war machine, so to avoid that possibility, invading a country that proves an easy target that one could convince enough of the population to support, in some way, by lying and saying that Saddam supports Al Queda or whatever it may be, invasion and occupation of said country would give the dollar a higher basis on the international market.....too bad Bush is a fool who never was tought basic economics that exports should exceed imports in order to have a stable economy.

I'm afraid I'm a bit too simple to understand something that complex. Do you mind expanding it a bit and going slower? You lost me right in the first sentence. Can you cite sources?

"The Federal Reserve's greatest nightmare is that OPEC will switch its international transactions from a dollar standard to a euro standard. Iraq actually made this switch in Nov. 2000 (when the euro was worth around 80 cents), and has actually made off like a bandit considering the dollar's steady depreciation against the euro." (Note: the dollar declined 15% against the euro in 2002.)"

The Federal Reserve is not a part of the government per se and has no say in what actions the government should take. But let's assume that it does. HOW would this affect us in any way? If the dollar loses value we're losing the same whether they use Euros or Dollars. I'm a pretty strong economist, and I'm not seeing this. Sources?

---

I warned you. This time no nicities...

At 8/17/07 04:48 PM, wompie wrote: *sigh*....it was a bipartisan post, but w/e....but you know...what the person said was in response to the original topic, 'should the world thank the US for their efforts etc etc'...and it was proper to say, what is there to thank for? the answer was saying the truth, and the truth being that terrorism has increased after the US started their 'war on terrorism'....what is there to thank for? nothing...the US assume a protectorate role in the question to what he/she was responding to

OF COURSE! IT WAS A BIPARTISAN POST! How could I have missed it? Perhaps it was the following text from the first post...
""The world owes a debt to the United States for its leadership in the fight against international terrorism, Prime Minister Gordon Brown has said."

Well, what has the US done good to the world...
hmm...
- bombed iraq and Afghanistan and killed tonnes of civillians
- Help Israel with their massacre of the innocent Palestines
- Claimed credit for themselves for WW2
- opened Guantamino bay
- Secretly transported prisoners to torture camps...
how is this good? the US government is a terrorist government itsef. how is it helpful?

Discuss"

Short version: Everything the US does is crap.
So you have two sides here:
1. TEH USA IS TEH TERRORISTZORS.
2. America may have it's faults, but we are the best chance for freedom in the world and always have been.

Guess which group is right? Number 2 of course,
You're defending the idiots who blame Israeli citizens for being in the way of those animalistic suicide bombers, As such...I think you're scum. You're no better than those who defend rapists because their victims...had on a short skirt. Piss off.

it was a post directed at everyone enjoying the flame war, thank you...i only quoted the post that made me feel something should be said

Gotcha. So, you're just too fucking stupid to debate any points I made. So instead of contributing anything, you cry about the lack of civility. How are you useful again?

actually i have contributed to the thread, but i'm not about to join in a flame war, because of the fact that it serves no purpose, and i usually ignore a post that slanders another because of a difference in opinion, or that one thinks they know everything...

Blah blah blah. Call it whatever you want. You're just too fucking stupid to actually offer anything other than "hey, you all need to be nicer!" The last resort of a fool is to claim his opponents aren;t nice. Guess what, chuckles? The world isn't nice!
So until you offer anything worth listening to, and stop pretending that you have something valuable...shut up. You have no clue what you're talking about, One side is right. One is wrong. And you're just too damn stupid to tell the difference. And then yyou deride those of us who get it?

Shove it.

yeap....and i'll never be reading your posts again, and i'm sure a lot of people have already lost respect for you and your posts for 'declaring war' on someone who wants peace...bravo

Yea yea. You're chamberland. Good for you.
Thank God, no one's put you in charge of anything.

and you have made points, good points...never said that you didn't....but the flaming is just ignorant..

Liberals are like Islamists. They respond to force. No one respects the perenial "nice guy". Unless you're willing to back up your ideas with force, or even angry responses, no one cares.

P.S.
if the US gov really cared about genocide, they'd be totally up in arms about Darfur...but no, they aren't...Darfur is about the killings of hundreds of thousands, while Iraq is the killing of thousands....not that i don't agree that i'm happy saddam is gone

AH. AND HERE WE COME TO THE CRUX!

Let's pretend to be Bush for a moment shall we?
Ok, I invaded Iraq because ALL (100%) of the Dems told me to...the UN agreed, Germany, France, and Britain all agreed, Saddam has WMDs. So, I took him down. After a year, the bastards turned on me and called me a liar for instigating a war that THOSE BASTARDS had been hyping since 1992. I wonder what'll happen if I invade Darfur as they tell me to...

Darfur is unfortunate. I wish we'd intervene. But we won't.
However, Darfur has crap to do with whether or not Iraq was legitimate. Darfur is awful, but (unfortunately) there's no national interest at stake in Sudan, and we have a President who would NEVER get the approval of a Dem Congress to invade Sudan. The VERY SAME PEOPLE who are trying to get us to withdraw from Iraq (which while spawn a genocide which will dwarf Darfur), cry about the plight of the people (Christians) in Sudan.
You can't have it both ways.

P.P.S
I am sorry if i belittled you Wolven...that wasn't my true intent, i was expressing my feelings at how angry people are getting to one another, and not being respectful...one does not have to call another an idiot to get a point across, one calls another an idiot to belittle and slander, to make their argument seem shallow and unimportant.

If we leave Iraq, hundreds of thousands will get murdered. Anyone who can't get passionate about that is a piece of garbage. Darfur is a tragedy as well, and people should get passionate.

Anger is a byproduct of important issues, On these things one side is right and one side is wrong. The wrong side (withdrawl from Iraq) will leave hundreds of thousands dead. The thought of a genocide to gain political power disgusts me, and I have no problem treating those who are trying to get said genocide enacted...like the scum they are.

---

At 8/17/07 05:10 PM, tony4moroney wrote: except it was self-defeatist and ALWAYS was considering it was known to be an unstable region. the invasion triggered the current situation and iraq has now become a haven for terrorist and terrorist organizations. you don't go 'oh hey he's a bad man if i kill him the world's a better place the end' at a total disregard for the REPERCUSSIONS of that action.

What are you trying to argue here?
The region aint perfect? Ok, I'll bite.
OHHHHH. That means that since they ain't us perfect white folk they don't get a chance to live free?
Got it!
You fucking racist.

oh yeah it's definitely irrelevant. buddy what planet are you living on?

Of course it's irrelevant. Innocent casualties are a realityof war you halfwit.
There were casualties during every war of human history.That the casualities in this war are 99% responsible to our enemies TRUELY makes us the good guys.

except that the circumstances were completely different. hitler was a genuine threat to the world and allied nations. saddam, not so much. also the allied forces responded to hitler's regime - they weren't the catalyst for the war whereas bush's invasion was. key difference.

Blah blah blah. You keep trying to create differences where none existed. We had ZERO reason to involve ourselves in WW2, yet we did. We had a little reason to take out Saddam.
Oh, and Saddam was shooting at our planes for a decade. Just to be truthful, we could've bombed the hell out of Iraq for that alone (as Clinton did once...as I remember).

yeah if only the world were roses and berries right? never mind the current situation with russia, iran, international relations, the economy, islam and the middle-east, gross over-expenditure, wealth disparity, expanded federal govt. and executive powers. bush killed a bad person therefore it's better, right? fuck that's so ignorant.

YEa. Way to try and change the frame of debate...cause quite frankly none of that has shit to do with Iraq...but I'll still smote the fuck out of your stupid ass.
Russia: Was trading illegallly with Iraq! We stopped that! YAY US!
Iran: Are now trying to take control of Iraq and are clearly our enemy. We should attack them. Are you with me?
Yea I didn't think so.
International relations are awesome as since post Iraq the following govt's have become MORE conservative: Englans, France, Australia, India, Canada.
The economy: awesome, thanks for asking.
Islam in the ME: Cause that's never been a problem before...yawn....
Expenditure: has crap to do with the war and has been goingon since the 20s
wealth disparity: AGAIN, has shit to do with anything...but is entirely a product of socialism
expanded powers: any person with an IQ above 5 knows the govt has been expanding powers since 15 years after it was formed.
You don't give two shits about Congress trying to take war powers but BUSH taking powers granted to him by Cngress...INEXQUISABLE! Buffoon.

1. remove saddam, sacrifice civil liberties, compromise constitutional rights, catalyze a civil war, destabilize the region, expand executive powers, aggravate russia and iran.

Hmm, How did that happen? It's ok if you don't have a single example.
Because the act your stupid ass is citing was written TWO YEARS before we invaded Iraq. Next?

or
2. don't remove saddam, accept his past heinous crimes which he committed WHILST AN ALLY to the united states and with weapons he PURCHASED FROM REAGAN. the opportunity cost bearing only positive developments i.e none of the former but leaving iraq to be ruled by a dictator.

ahh can't be bothered with the rest of your response

Who the fuck cares what he did while Reagan was in power? Does that have anything to do with anything? I thought not.
Of course Reagan screwed up and sold Saddam weapons (and also Iran don't forget that).

What the fuck does that have to do with today? Because a President called it wrong 20 years ago, teh CURRENT president has to let it slide? That let's the wind out of every argument you have to present from here on out. As I doubt there's not an argument I can't debate from teh Clinton standpoint alone.

God you're an idiot.

---

At 8/20/07 04:49 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 8/17/07 05:10 PM, tony4moroney wrote: except it was self-defeatist and ALWAYS was considering it was known to be an unstable region. the invasion triggered the current situation and iraq has now become a haven for terrorist and terrorist organizations. you don't go 'oh hey he's a bad man if i kill him the world's a better place the end' at a total disregard for the REPERCUSSIONS of that action.

What are you trying to argue here?
The region aint perfect?

the rundown

some dude: iraq war was bad
you: youre stupid how can it be bad? we killed bad people therefore it clearly is good
me: except the purpose was to eliminate terrorism and stabilize the region. by invading a civil war has erupted and there is more widespread terrorism and terrorist networks are growing. - self defeatist. bush killed bad people = good neglects the fact that there were repercussions that came with those actions which in this case are worst considering it's caused more casualties, more terrorism and more instability.

Ok, I'll bite.

unto a cake of irrelevancy

OHHHHH. That means that since they ain't us perfect white folk they don't get a chance to live free?
Got it!
You fucking racist.

see?

how the hell did you get racism out of any of that?

oh yeah it's definitely irrelevant. buddy what planet are you living on?

Of course it's irrelevant. Innocent casualties are a realityof war you halfwit.

but wait get this.. when youre talking about the viability of a war. whether the war is/ was justifiable casualties or the possibility of them should be taken into account.

yes i know embrace this moment of enlightenment.

There were casualties during every war of human history.That the casualities in this war are 99% responsible to our enemies TRUELY makes us the good guys.

except when we're the cause for their uprising+ existence.
it's not cops and baddies. it isn't hollywood. i'm sorry if that's what you thought.

Blah blah blah. You keep trying to create differences where none existed. We had ZERO reason to involve ourselves in WW2, yet we did.

oh ok so japan declaring war on us courtesy bombing pearl harbor is a-ok by you. and the fact remains, we weren't the catalyst for our involvement in ww2 whereas in iraq bush was the aggressor, he was the invader. and if youre going to draw a comparison between ww2 and iraq then at least acknowledge that the threat of nazism was far more real then those wmds.

Oh, and Saddam was shooting at our planes for a decade. Just to be truthful, we could've bombed the hell out of Iraq for that alone (as Clinton did once...as I remember).

except they didnt do anything to justify BUSH going to war unless you want to be pedantic about sanctions with which he was found to have satisfactorily complied with and offered to comply with future investigations.

yeah if only the world were roses and berries right? never mind the current situation with russia, iran, international relations, the economy, islam and the middle-east, gross over-expenditure, wealth disparity, expanded federal govt. and executive powers. bush killed a bad person therefore it's better, right? fuck that's so ignorant.

YEa. Way to try and change the frame of debate...cause quite frankly none of that has shit to do with Iraq...but I'll still smote the fuck out of your stupid ass.

wow ok clearly youre an idiot if you think none of that was related to iraq and im not gonna lecture you on basic knowledge.

Russia: Was trading illegallly with Iraq! We stopped that! YAY US!

no they werent

Iran: Are now trying to take control of Iraq and are clearly our enemy. We should attack them. Are you with me?

no they arent

International relations are awesome as since post Iraq the following govt's have become MORE conservative: Englans, France, Australia, India, Canada.

actually blair stepped down, sarkozy becoming president had nothing to do with us, australia was always an ally, india and canada's politics have nothing to do with our relations.

if youve read some polls or news youd realize international relations were at an all-time low and most people believe bush is the biggest threat to world peace.

The economy: awesome, thanks for asking.

no it isnt

Islam in the ME: Cause that's never been a problem before...yawn....

the entire middle-eastern region werent always breeding terrorists and keen on obliterating the u.s from the face of the world.

Expenditure: has crap to do with the war and has been goingon since the 20s
wealth disparity: AGAIN, has shit to do with anything...but is entirely a product of socialism

ahahahahahaahahahahahaahahhaahahahahah

expanded powers: any person with an IQ above 5 knows the govt has been expanding powers since 15 years after it was formed.

see from this ill take it youre joking and im hoping so for your sake. which is why i wont dignify your response with any thorough answers but as youll realize this determinination was made prior to this point, but will be cemented by it.

You don't give two shits about Congress trying to take war powers but BUSH taking powers granted to him by Cngress...INEXQUISABLE! Buffoon.

what? congress.. take.. war.. powers.. ?? thats a new one..

1. remove saddam, sacrifice civil liberties, compromise constitutional rights, catalyze a civil war, destabilize the region, expand executive powers, aggravate russia and iran.

Hmm, How did that happen? It's ok if you don't have a single example.
Because the act your stupid ass is citing was written TWO YEARS before we invaded Iraq. Next?

civil liberties are continuing to be compromised due to iraq. executive powers were also expanded post-invasion, it did destabilize the region which the cia said would most likely happen and it has aggravated iran and russia putin claiming bush has sparked a new arms race by surrounding russia with nuclear capable weapons in eastern europe.

or
2. don't remove saddam, accept his past heinous crimes which he committed WHILST AN ALLY to the united states and with weapons he PURCHASED FROM REAGAN. the opportunity cost bearing only positive developments i.e none of the former but leaving iraq to be ruled by a dictator.

ahh can't be bothered with the rest of your response

Who the fuck cares what he did while Reagan was in power? Does that have anything to do with anything? I thought not.

uhh yes considering after bush couldnt find any wmds he resorted to the fallback - 'spreading democracy and removing the tyrant' and a justification for this was the kurdish massacre.

---

Overexaggerating again?

You never fail to amaze.

At 8/20/07 05:08 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

what? congress.. take.. war.. powers.. ?? thats a new one..

ie. Troop withdrawl.

---

At 8/20/07 05:08 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

At 8/20/07 04:49 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

some dude: iraq war was bad
you: youre stupid how can it be bad? we killed bad people therefore it clearly is good
me: except the purpose was to eliminate terrorism and stabilize the region. by invading a civil war has erupted and there is more widespread terrorism and terrorist networks are growing. - self defeatist. bush killed bad people = good neglects the fact that there were repercussions that came with those actions which in this case are worst considering it's caused more casualties, more terrorism and more instability.

Ok, except here's how it really went!
You: Bush lied our way into Iraq!
me: Of course he didn't. Clinton said the same thing.
You: But Clinton didn't invade. He only shot missles!
Me: What does that have to do with anything?
You: Our invasion was a terrible idea!
Me: Well, you're TOTALLY convincing me so far by making stupid ass declarations that Bush lied while excusing Clinton from "lying", even though he said the same thing.

Now you're off on some other worthless tangant. Of course we're better off for removal Saddam. We didn't "create terrorism" in Iraq, it was already there. And we surely didn't make it worse, as when we originally invaded, several of our enemies disarmed out of fear.

Short version: As I've said all along, you have no clue what you;'re talking about.

see?

Then WHAT was your point? Basically you said "shit's hard, leave em to slaughter."
You tout the same stupid Euro BS that every worthless anti-war protester does. It's no different than when good Frenchie Jacques said "Iraqis don't want freedom."

how the hell did you get racism out of any of that?

Cause you touch yourself at night!
No seriously.
You are debating, that since the region is backwards, we shouldn't help them out. The inherent racism in that is staggering. Either that or you're just too damned stupid to make your point...

but wait get this.. when youre talking about the viability of a war. whether the war is/ was justifiable casualties or the possibility of them should be taken into account.

Really? Why?
Since, AGAIN, you don't know what you're talking about, please expound.
Casualties are a part of war, and this war is no exception. People die. Our soldiers included.
Please show me a nation other than the US who has EVER cared about THEIR casualties.
Yea, that's right. We're so great we worry about the other guy when we invade. Shut your trap.

except when we're the cause for their uprising+ existence.

Yea, no we're not. Al Quida is killing the people. And Al Quida is responsible.
You're really stupid, so let that sink in.

it's not cops and baddies. it isn't hollywood. i'm sorry if that's what you thought.

No, it's soldiers and baddies. We're debating Saving Private Ryan, not Bad Boys.
Who the hell brings up COPS in a war zone. God you're an idiot.

oh ok so japan declaring war on us courtesy bombing pearl harbor is a-ok by you. and the fact remains, we weren't the catalyst for our involvement in ww2 whereas in iraq bush was the aggressor, he was the invader. and if youre going to draw a comparison between ww2 and iraq then at least acknowledge that the threat of nazism was far more real then those wmds.

Actually, as I've proved 3000 times on this board, and twice in this thread, the WMDs were real.
As for Iraq, we weren't the catalyst there either.
Oh and, FYI, we'd involved ourselves in WW2 before Japan bombed us.

except they didnt do anything to justify BUSH going to war unless you want to be pedantic about sanctions with which he was found to have satisfactorily complied with and offered to comply with future investigations.

Except Hanz Blix said he wasn't complying (for the fifth time). Refer to earlier posts where I reprinted Blix's testimony about Iraq not complying.

wow ok clearly youre an idiot if you think none of that was related to iraq and im not gonna lecture you on basic knowledge.

Our economy is NOT related to Iraq. I'm sorry, I won't be lectured by a child here.

Russia: Was trading illegallly with Iraq! We stopped that! YAY US!

no they werent

Of course not.

Iran: Are now trying to take control of Iraq and are clearly our enemy. We should attack them. Are you with me?

no they arent

Yea, they are.

actually blair stepped down, sarkozy becoming president had nothing to do with us, australia was always an ally, india and canada's politics have nothing to do with our relations.

Blair's successor is an ally. Sarkozy ran on being an ally to the US and won. Canada has, since the Iraq war, voted in more conservative US friendly politicians.
My point is still valid. Anyone who matters has become MORE pro-US, not less. I never claimed it was Bush's doing. But at the same time, I can still DEFINITIVELY prove he hasn't made the world hate us more.

---

if youve read some polls or news youd realize international relations were at an all-time low and most people believe bush is the biggest threat to world peace.

Yet, France is more pro- US, as is Canada, as is Britain than before Bush. Your thesis doesn't begin to hold water.

The economy: awesome, thanks for asking.

no it isnt

Yea, it is. Unemployment is at an all time low. Inflation is low. The stock market has hit all time highs. By any standard the economy is booming.

the entire middle-eastern region werent always breeding terrorists and keen on obliterating the u.s from the face of the world.

Of course it has. Even under the most ridiculous scenerios, that started during Carter (which is vastly unfair to Carter). Islamic terror has been going on for decades. Try again.

Expenditure: has crap to do with the war and has been goingon since the 20s

Thanks for not even trying to debate this.

wealth disparity: AGAIN, has shit to do with anything...but is entirely a product of socialism

ahahahahahaahahahahahaahahhaahahahahah

Or this. Just laugh.
You're out of your league here little man.

expanded powers: any person with an IQ above 5 knows the govt has been expanding powers since 15 years after it was formed.

see from this ill take it youre joking and im hoping so for your sake. which is why i wont dignify your response with any thorough answers but as youll realize this determinination was made prior to this point, but will be cemented by it.

What I'll take it as is one more clue you can't be bothered enough to stop sucking leftists and look at what's going on.
Marbury vs Madison (1803). The Supreme Court gave itself the power of judicial review.
You're clueless. Go back to the sandbox, junior.

what? congress.. take.. war.. powers.. ?? thats a new one..

Wow, haven't watched the news or read the newspapers?
Congress has tried to set troop redeployment terms.

Which is a BLANTANT violation of powers.

civil liberties are continuing to be compromised due to iraq. executive powers were also expanded post-invasion, it did destabilize the region which the cia said would most likely happen and it has aggravated iran and russia putin claiming bush has sparked a new arms race by surrounding russia with nuclear capable weapons in eastern europe.

In turn...
Civil liberties rights violated? Still don't have an example.
Executive powers were expanded PRE-invasion. And except for the new FISA act, have not been significantly expanded since.
It DIDN'T destabilize the region, as there has been no new outbreak of "Iraq violence" anywhere else in the region, and in fact Libya disarmed after our invasion
Putin is a REAL civil rights violator, who is trying to provoke war.

Next?

uhh yes considering after bush couldnt find any wmds he resorted to the fallback - 'spreading democracy and removing the tyrant' and a justification for this was the kurdish massacre.

Trying to reframe the debate again are we?
You like ignoring important things when they hurt you and jumping on unimportant things when they help you huh?

Hence this bullshit that Blix never said Iraq had Wmds, and yet clinging to some Reagan era crap.

You're a worthless debater.

---

At 8/14/07 02:41 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 8/13/07 09:06 AM, bcdemon wrote:

At 8/12/07 04:40 PM, WolvenBear wrote:

By using war (which ultimately kills innocent civilians) to coerce a governments actions, GW Bush is a terrorist. And if the world is better off with Bush, it should be easy for you to prove, right? So go ahead.

By taking out the Taliban (who killed innocent people),

Sure, they killed innocent people, but I'm willing to bet that the Unocol pipeline (Central Asia Pipeline) had more to do with the removal of the Taliban than their human rights abuses did. Considering the guy the USA installed as president of Afghanistan is an ex Unocal consultant, and one of his first tasks as president was to sign Afghanistan on to the CAP deal.

and Saddam (who killed innocent people),

If taking out Saddam because he was a murdered was so monumental, then where were you back in 1988 when he actually did the killing? Oh that's right, you were supporting him when he bombed Halabja.

and al Zarqawi (who killed innocent people), to name a few, the world is a better place. That was relatively simple.

A National Intelligence Estimate released last year "says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse,". So you removed two governments that you used to support (when it was handy for you) and Al Zarqawi, but in turn you have made the overall terrorism problem around the world worse. You could try to argue that Afghanistan and Iraq are better off, but the world is definitely not better off.

That war kills innocent people is irrelevant. No one would deny that innocents were killed by World War 2. Did that make the allies terrorists for standing up to the genocidal Hitler? Of course not. And here, we're tracking down monsters who deliberately target innocents, and we're either killing the inhuman child murderers, or we're imprisoning them. Thus, the world is MUCH better off for Bush's policies.

The allies weren't considered terrorists because they didn't threaten Hitler with war if he did not leave his own country, dumbass. I'll agree that your in Iraq killing terrorists, the same terrorists that never would have existed in Iraq without your invasion of it.

It's not the removal of Saddam I complain about, it's the thousands and thousands of innocent people that have been killed due to Bush's war mongering. Not to mention turning Iraq as a country upside down.

Of course it's the removal of Saddam you're complaining about stupid.

Can you link to where I specifically complained about the removal Saddam?

If the surge, which was to improve security issues, was going insanely well, there would be less civilian deaths today than there were before the surge began, which is not the case. CBS reported on July 30 that civilian deaths were down by 1/3. But according to the Iraq Body Count numbers, civilian deaths in the past 5 weeks are up 18% from time last year. On average over 80 civilians die each day in Iraq, how in the hell do you figure this surge is working?

I figure it's working well because:
Al Anbar province, which was currently anarchy, is now slowly becoming safer and orderly.

So one province is a bit safer now, but what about on a national level?

The same can be said for Baghdad.

Again, some parts of Baghdad may be a bit safer, but as a whole, it's about as bad as it's been.

The various sects are joining together with us to force out al Quida.

This has absolutely nothing to do with your troop surge, good try though.

Training of Iraqi forces are proceding more rapidly and the forces are more combat ready.

I will give you this one.

You know, all of our goals.

But if deaths are up, then the goal of security is still lacking, unless overall security in Iraq is not one of your goals.

You haven't fucked up Iraq?? You have turned it into a cesspool of death and destruction. Infrastructure has gone down the perverbial toilet and half the government has quit and or is boycotting meetings. Yeah you're doing great things in Iraq, keep up the good work...

And this is why I call you stupid.
Yea, there was no murder under Saddam. Jeez, you're such an idiotic little twat. Leave the discussion to the grownups junior.

So because Saddam murdered people, that makes everything you do over there A-OK?. Scores of people have been murdered with both USA and Saddam in control of Iraq.

What plan have I advocated? Quotes and links will do just fine. Don't tell me what I do and don't care about, I fell hella sorry for Iraqi people and the coalition troops, they were sent into an unjust war that has seen almost 4000 of them killed, and close to 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians killed, and for what? The removal of Saddam Hussein, please. Oh, and nobody has to prove that Bush is a liar, the UN inspectors and subsequent lack of WMD in Iraq already did that.

Wow, where to start...
1) The UN agreed with Bush pre-Iraq. So at the very least you can argue he was wrong. He seems to have truly believed that Iraq had WMDs. And why wouldn't he? Hanz Blix certainly helped in telling the UN the following: he has rebuilt machines he used to make WMDs, he has built missles outside of the range we allow him, he has bought (and hidden) compenents to make VX and Sarin, and he is not complying with the resolutions. So I have definitively disproved your "lie" accusation.

Umm not really, when you consider in Feb 2003 Blix said stuff like 'we haven't found any evidence of WMD', and 'there's no evidence of a mobile chemical weapons labs', and no evidence of an underground storage and production facility. But yet Bush still insisted there were WMD and programs going on in Iraq. And when all the WMD bullshit failed to gain support for the war, Bush became a terrorist and demanded Saddam leave Iraq or his country and the millions of innocent Iraqis will face war.

Not to mention that I proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Saddam had WMDs. Whatever.

Did you? When and where? Link to real proof please.

2)The removal of Saddam who killed over a million Iraqis (and the body count going higher) was a noble goal. His support of terrorism and his making the UN look irrelevant certainly were also good reasons to get rid of him. Your dismal of the ridding of a man who has killed more than 10x what his al Quida allies have killed makes your claim to care about the Iraqis ring hollow.

How noble is it when your invasion leads to the death of a million people and displaces millions more? And if anyone made the UN look irrelevant it was the USA, when you ditched the UN for the Azores to sign your war pact.

---

At 8/21/07 08:13 AM, bcdemon wrote: Sure, they killed innocent people, but I'm willing to bet that the Unocol pipeline (Central Asia Pipeline) had more to do with the removal of the Taliban than their human rights abuses did. Considering the guy the USA installed as president of Afghanistan is an ex Unocal consultant, and one of his first tasks as president was to sign Afghanistan on to the CAP deal.

Reframing the debate proves that your argument sucks. "Bush never did good things for anyone!" Sure he did. He saved millions from tyrany! "Well, he likes oil...."

Assuming you're 100% right. So what? Does it negate the millions freed? Of course not.
That the Afghan gov't would benefit from the pipeline, of course, is also irrelevant.

If taking out Saddam because he was a murdered was so monumental, then where were you back in 1988 when he actually did the killing? Oh that's right, you were supporting him when he bombed Halabja.

I was 5. I was in preschool. Do you really think you were witty here?

And again, reframe the debate. Saddam never STOPPED murdering his own people. Your "reframe" ignores it and tries to whitewash that.

A National Intelligence Estimate released last year "says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse,". So you removed two governments that you used to support (when it was handy for you) and Al Zarqawi, but in turn you have made the overall terrorism problem around the world worse. You could try to argue that Afghanistan and Iraq are better off, but the world is definitely not better off.

The NIE estimate was, quite simply, wrong. The much hyped, by the right, report of Muslim support of suicide bombing shows that it is dropping. Al Quida's membership has plummeted. Libya disarmed after we invaded Iraq. The "we created more terrorists" crap is ridiculous.
Moreover, the report attributed homegrown violence in Pakistan and India to our actions in Iraq. Huh? So because we freed Iraq from a man who most terrorist groups considered an apostate...they decide to blow up Indians? (Buzzer sound.) Nope, try again.

The allies weren't considered terrorists because they didn't threaten Hitler with war if he did not leave his own country, dumbass. I'll agree that your in Iraq killing terrorists, the same terrorists that never would have existed in Iraq without your invasion of it.

Hyperbole.
We never GAVE Hitler the option to leave. We just went in. Your argument fails AGAIN.
And we created Zarqawi? Al Miliki? al-Sadr? Oh please. Spare me. So stupid.

Can you link to where I specifically complained about the removal Saddam?

Your argument is that our removal of Saddam has created terrorists and caused harm to Iraq. I told you before and I'll say it again. If you make the case for something, I'll call you on it. But hell, let's try this:

The allies weren't considered terrorists because they didn't threaten Hitler with war if he did not leave his own country, dumbass.

So, we're terrorists for removing Saddam. Piss off. You don't get to get by with making ridiculous claims then claiming you never made them. Not with me.

Again, some parts of Baghdad may be a bit safer, but as a whole, it's about as bad as it's been.

RIIIIIIIIGHT. That's why even Democrats admit the surge is working. Then use that to say we needto withdraw. Al Anbar was about 60% of all the violence in Iraq. If that violence decreased by 1/2, then overall violence goes down 30%

This has absolutely nothing to do with your troop surge, good try though.

Of course not. Nothing means anything. If we reduce violence, that's the result of freak chance. If it goes up, it's our fault. If they join us to attack al Quida (because we're now a viable force) that means nothing, but if 1 person joins al Sadr, it's cause we're a terrorist nation.

So much bullshit.

I will give you this one.

This is our PRIMARY goal.

But if deaths are up, then the goal of security is still lacking, unless overall security in Iraq is not one of your goals.

As an earlier poster noted, your numbers are old. From last year.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/1 4/iraq.main/index.html -Early surge
http://www.nypost.com/seven/08212007/new s/nationalnews/surge_working__but_too_la te__h.htm -NOW

So because Saddam murdered people, that makes everything you do over there A-OK?. Scores of people have been murdered with both USA and Saddam in control of Iraq.

Yea, but the "scores" of people (Which on average was 100,000 ppl a year under Saddam) is 80k under 4 years of us. And WE'RE not the ones killing them. Al Quida, the remnants of the Baathist party, al Sadr, and others are doing the killings. Do we blame the police for gang wars when they put violent gang lords in jail...nvm you probably do.

Umm not really, when you consider in Feb 2003 Blix said stuff like 'we haven't found any evidence of WMD', and 'there's no evidence of a mobile chemical weapons labs', and no evidence of an underground storage and production facility. But yet Bush still insisted there were WMD and programs going on in Iraq. And when all the WMD bullshit failed to gain support for the war, Bush became a terrorist and demanded Saddam leave Iraq or his country and the millions of innocent Iraqis will face war.

You can't be a terrorist by demanding a terrorist leave. You're going to stop using that.

And as I proved, Blix said otherwise.
And as I proved, they did.

So, since I can prove we've found weapons, and since I can prove Blix said Iraq wasn't complying, and since I can prove Britain told us he'd sought uranium in Niger, and since I can prove France told us the tubes were for uranium, and since I can prove Tenet (a Clinton throwback) stood behind the intel, you have nothing.

You show a speech from Blix in 04, ignoring what he said pre-invasion. You call Bush a liar and exonerate Clinton. You're a deceptive little partisan hack. You have as much commitment to the truth as Andy Dick does to the vagina.

How noble is it when your invasion leads to the death of a million people and displaces millions more? And if anyone made the UN look irrelevant it was the USA, when you ditched the UN for the Azores to sign your war pact.

A million? Try 80,000.

And sorry, but a pissant third world country telling the UN to dick off makes them look a hell of a lot more irrelevant than their bosses telling them that we're tired of their bunk.

---

At 8/24/07 01:44 AM, WolvenBear wrote: You show a speech from Blix in 04, ignoring what he said pre-invasion.

FEBRUARY 14 2003 which is pre-invasion Hans Blix said:

"How much, if any, is left of the Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and related proscribed items and programs? So far, UNMOVIC has not found any such weapons."

MARCH 14 2003 which is pre-invasion aswell, Blix said in regards to the mobile chemical and biological production facilities:

No evidence of proscribed activities have so far been found.

SO I have proved to you that BEFORE the invasion, Blix found no evidence WHATSOEVER of Iraqs WMD and ongoing programs to support them.

Shit, another 20 minutes of my life wasted.

---

ok ok lets review here

if not for the the US there would either be a swaztica or sycle and hammer over all of europe... you wanna say oh the usa acts as the worlds police men or is a terroist organization bull US ISNT PERFECT by now means but no single nation as done as much good for all of man kind

and the US has dismantled its entire chemical and biological weapons stockpiles