Fogbuster

And if you think Saddam was better than what there is now -- and what will be even MORE if the damned Democrats stay the crap out of the way in Iraq -- under the Bush leadership, you are the retard and sheep. Check in five years, ten years, twenty years.

Remember the Killing Fields of Cambodia: because the U.S. gave up, millions died.

I haven't changed one freaking thing. I've said the same thing since day one, and I say it again now: we've gotten rid of dictatorial brutality in Saddam Hussein, and now we've got a democratic government. Protect it or we will send a message of defeatism that will produce a rebound effect like when you stop taking your antibiotics half-way through: the infection will become ten times worse. We've got to go all the way or not only will Iraq become a terrorist home base, but they will surely hit the U.S. much harder than before. Clinton had his chance to stop bin Laden and Saddam, and Clinton and the Dems failed. Let Bush finish the job or everybody is going ot suffer the consequences of half-assism.





//

maverick4

1. Except in this case, the UNITED STATES armed and put Saddam in power in the first place, and said nothing for 2 decades while he did those things. So your whole moral crusade justification for Iraq doesn't really fly with me, sorry.

2. Right now there is a huge civil war going on in Iraq, which Saddam kept under control by being ruthless. Also, Iran is poised to have lots of influence in the region now, which is something Saddam helped check. So millions of innocent civilians have been killed indirectly recently because we took Saddam out, and by giving Iran an open door to the region, we have maybe screwed ourselves in the Middle East for the next 50 years by invading Iraq.

Fogbuster

Hello?? Are you even listening to anything, or just knee-jerking???

The U.S. set up Saddam to fight the Soviet entry into the Middle East. The U.S. knew Saddam would not allow the Soviets into the ME so they backed him. Later Saddam turned against those who had backed him, the United States.

People change. People go bad. Happened to Saddam, happened to Ho Chi Mihn, happens to a lot of people when they get supreme political power. THEIR mistakes, not the U.S. for backing them.



//

maverick4

Russia continues to support Iran, and Saddam used to keep Iran in check by controlling a unified Iraq, but now there is a huge vacuum there and soon the entire Middle East is going to be under Iranian influence, anti-American, and all of our interests will be lost.

So tell me again, WHY are we better off having invaded Iraq and toppling Saddam?

Fogbuster

Because the U.S. is supporting a multi-religious, multi-ethnic composite representative government that will not unduly favor any particular sect or nationality. Shi'a, Sunni, and Kurd -- to name only the major players -- share the power and responsibility of Iraq. And the people are happier now than they have EVER been.

Iran has drawn world opinion against themselves by being so defiant on their nuclear program. They are NOT stronger than before; they are WEAKER. And they get weaker by the minute as Iraq's more representative government grows stronger. Abandoning Iraq would be a sin of monumental proportions that we and our children would regret for fifty years or more.



//

Harry Boy

__________________
Harry Boy (Genius)

In The Absence Of Law And Order Society Will Surely Destroy Itself

maverick4

Yes I am familiar with the official propaganda, thank you.

But unfortunately, Iraqis are NOT "happier than they have ever been". Seriously, are you delusional?

Abandoning Iraq will have huge ramifications, yes, but only because it was a boneheaded move to go there in the first place, and there is no easy way out. If we leave, the Middle East is lost to Iranians, but what else can we do, kill all the Muslims in the Middle East?

Fogbuster

Yeah, I"ve seen the U.S. "propaganda" on CNN and BBC, two of Geo Bush's biggest supporters. Right. Unfortunately for you and others who get only the U.S. edition of CNN you never see the good stories that are mounting day by day.

The only people who are being delusional are those who think it is "bad" to pursue those who want to further legitimatize the use of terror as a means to their ends. Such people cannot be allowed to continue to spread their poison. If you don't see that there is not point continuing.

"Killing all Muslims in the Middle East" is YOUR straw man. I certainly never said it, Bush never said it. Rumsfeld never did, nor does Cheney. Taking out the leaders of al qaeda and other terrorist organizations means some 1000 or so really bad guys. If they are out of circulation the Middle East will be safer than it's ever been in its history.

Too bad your delusions of hatred for Bush prevent you from seeing this fact of life.


//

patsfan13

He waited until information was available as to the scope and nature of the attack.

__________________
"Some guys play in all-star games, some guys don't. I don't know who picks all those all-star teams. In all honesty, I don't know who picks the combine, for that matter," Belichick said. "How does (Miami-Ohio offensive lineman Brandon) Brooks not get invited to the combine? How did Vollmer not get invited to the combine? I don't know. We can't really worry about that. We just have to try to evaluate them the best we can."

mr3putt

HMMMMM.....Did I not hear that this Administration signed a trade agreement with Vietnam? The domino theory was wrong then...and just as wrong now Foggy.