To say that it is human nature to change one's mind is not a very solid defense. It is also human nature to lie, cheat, and steal, so should we have a president do all that in the white house, oh wait, we did, and for two terms none the less.
Clinton
More Kerry Issue Flip Flopping
Really? You mean I missed election day! OH NO!!!! yes he lost. I thought I might continue the discussion.Sorry Nolano, Kerry lost.
Also, its kinda strange that you respond only to my second point. not my first. probably cause you know I have a completely valid point.
And about the lying thing, cbo56, if you think the president we currently have isnt a liar, you have a nother thing coming. Notice his entire argument for going to war if to "stop them from giving terrorist WMD's". what was it the UN said again? Oh yeah, THERE WEREN'T ANY!! Iraq should have been the least of our worries. Iran, and North Korea are much more dangerous than Iraq was before we invaded. Hmm... also that one guy we should have gotten rid of before moving on to something else.... what was his name? osam... osama! Bin Laden! I remember now! The guy who was responsible for the deaths of 3000 americans! I think he should have been a priority over Iraq.
And Clinton was a good president. notice he got us out of debt, and reduced unemployment? thats a lot more than a certain C- yale cheerleading graduate can say.
The president didnt not get us out of debt, could not. In fact, the president cannot even place us in debt. Why, the Constitution forbids it, the president has no power over the economy, congress does.
Saddam can be considered a WMD, although I will say that is a weak counter argument.
Saying the president lied about Iraq is stretching it just a little, his advisors told him that there were WMDs in Iraq, he acted upon what he believed to be true.
The UN is a joke, the only real power in it is the United States itself.
Saddam can be considered a WMD, although I will say that is a weak counter argument.
Saying the president lied about Iraq is stretching it just a little, his advisors told him that there were WMDs in Iraq, he acted upon what he believed to be true.
The UN is a joke, the only real power in it is the United States itself.
you do have a point. A president himself has no control over the economy. but his acts do. Notice the national budget plunged like dotcom stocks after we went to war? Thats what I am talking about. However, his advisors never told him that there was an imminent threat. I beleive, I may be wrong, but I believ e that they said that saddam may be a threat in the furture, I dont think the CIA mentioned WMD at all. And I do admit, that the UN doesnt have as much power as they should, IMO
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd ... t_2002.htmNolano wrote:I may be wrong, but I believ e that they said that saddam may be a threat in the furture, I dont think the CIA mentioned WMD at all.
Ok, you proved me wrong. But, maybe there would have been no need for us to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on this war just to find out there were no WMD, if bush hadnt jumped the gun and waited for the UN inspectors to do their f@#$ing jobs.Smartweb wrote:http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd ... t_2002.htmNolano wrote:I may be wrong, but I believ e that they said that saddam may be a threat in the furture, I dont think the CIA mentioned WMD at all.
How bad does attempted genocide seem compared to real genocide? this war has claimed at least 10000 lives. not just US Soldiers, but Iraqi's, innocent and not. And giving the inspectors another few months would be letting Saddam get away with attempted genocide? considering there were NO, count em, NO WMD's, I think that is a false statement. and Iraq had NO ties with Al Qaeda, either. Its also kinda funny how he was personnaly HANDED the report about the 9/11 attacks, but apparently, was too busy being on vacation to read them. I think Al Qaeda might be more distracted if we spent our time going after them, then after some dictator who had nothing to do with them.Smartweb wrote:But then Saddam Hussein would have gotten away with attempted genocide, and Al Qaida would not be occupied with Iraq and would be able to put its energy into planning a new attack on the United States.
You cannot rely on the UN to enforce anything. Why, well because the UN is corrupt. How is the UN corrupt, well the UN let Iraq embezzel millions of dollars is the oil for food program. That money was supposed to go to Iraqi civilians but instead went to Saddam. Now, if we would have let the UN handle the situation, then the fraud would still be going on and no one but the head of the UN and Saddam would be any wiser.
The USA is NOT the world police. It was none of our business whether Saddam was commiting fraud against his own citizens. I think that the fact that Saddam even let the UN in was an indication of the fact that he had none. In my opinion, this war is about as useless as vietnam. Iraq was in no way affecting us, nor did they have any ties with terrorists, like a few certain high up people led us(the gullible ones of us, anyways) to believe.
On the contrary, the US, as the #1 power in the world, is the world police to a certain extent and is responsible to see to it that there is peace in the world using whatever means we see as necessary. But we don't go to war because we are the "world police." We go to war when our national security is at risk. In the middle east right now, there are many terrorists scattered all over the place. Iraq is a strategically desirable location to be occupying right now because the terrorists have gone to Iraq (eg. Zarqawi and followers) to fight our soldiers. That makes fighting the terrorists all across the area easier, and if we don't get them there, we'll be fighting them here at home eventually. It also frees tens of millions of people from an evil dictator who attempted to clear the Kurds from the face of the Earth.
The US isn't the world police, but should it be?Nolano wrote:The USA is NOT the world police. It was none of our business whether Saddam was commiting fraud against his own citizens. I think that the fact that Saddam even let the UN in was an indication of the fact that he had none. In my opinion, this war is about as useless as vietnam. Iraq was in no way affecting us, nor did they have any ties with terrorists, like a few certain high up people led us(the gullible ones of us, anyways) to believe.
I could care less if a bunch of Iraqi's are killed, however, I think that it is honorable that the US had the gutso to stand up for the defenseless and take control of the situation.
I doubt you play much poker, just because you let someone in doesn't mean that you have nothing to hide, similiar to bluffing.
Comparing Iraq to Vietnam is completely off kilter, they are not a bit similiar, it's the leftist media promoting that they are similiar, if you look at the facts from a purely objective point of view, you will find that Vietnam had very little oil and Iraq has a lot of oil. Not to mention certain private orginizations run by the VP which profitted from it.
Iraq does affect us, where do we get oil from?
As to the no ties with terrorists, that is also a misconception promoted by the leftist media. Would you call someone who killed their own people a terrorist, if yes then Iraq had some serious ties with terrorists.
I agree that Saddam was an Evil dictator, and he should have been removed from power sooner. and that almost happened. it was called the gulf war. And I'm talking about Al Qaeda terrorists. the ones who bombed the world trade center, being led by bin laden, who had no ties with Iraq. And, incase you dont recall, the presidents main goal for going, wasnt to remove saddam from power, but to "keep Iraq from giving WMD to terrorists". I would call Saddam a terrorist, but not one who posed a threat to us. before we spend billions on fixing up other countries, I think we should fix up our own. Poverty should be a greater priority than a dictator thousands of miles away who poses no threat to us. I would say that the "ties with terrorists" is a misconcept, promoted by the right media, to hide the truth, which is that Iraq posed no theat to us. Afgahnistan should have been more important, as that is, after all, where many terrorists are hiding, including the ones responsible for taking thousands of US lives.
really? cause that was the only one GW quoted in the debate I mentioned earlier. Dont take this as a submission, but I am going to stop posting in this forum. I respect your opinion on the matter, as I hope you respect mine. I have many issues in my life, and this topic really messes with my moods. thanks for challenging my knowledge on the subject.
