Bush Or Kerry

[Ziegfried]

holy crap.

Go to www.dictionary.com and look up "sarcasm". Then get the hint.

If you were serious about the last bit of what I quoted... No comment necessary.

[Xaenn]

When someone is making up flawed arguments about their political agenda's, it's my role (and other's) to try my best and set them straight.

You know...as long as we are going on this huge international campaign to end terror, we might as well start at home and try to end crime....we'll just kill all the criminals and it'll be over.

All I can say is...that will never work. Keep on killing and killing, and you'll make yourself much worse than the terrorists. If your idea of peace is killing the enemy, then you might as well start a nuclear war and kill everyone. That's the only way you're going to have your peace this way.

It's impossible to have a defense strong enough to be impervious to the attacks of those who hate you. It's much less of a challenge to make the world not hate you...

Even if they both left, it needed to be said.

[Mason]

AND IT WILL function as a normal country when the elections are done in January. If not, it's because of Saddam loyalist who are disturbing the peace, much like they are now.

Uh, no. It won't be functioning like a normal country in January. It won't be functioning like a normal country for many years to come. These people have been under the rule of Saddam for a couple of decades; they're not going to suddenly change their minds in less than a year just because elections are being held.

BTW, did you know France and Germany went against the oil-for-food program. They traded with Iraq AGAINST U.N. RESOULTIONS. If we suck because we didn't listen to the UN, whats France and Germany? Why do we need THEIR praise anyway?

Actually as far as I know they were within the confines of the Oil-for-Food program, however many would agree that the program was corrupt. Anyway, (even assuming that they weren't abiding by the OFF program) there's a slight difference between trading with a country against UN resolutions and attacking a country against UN resolutions. And let's face it, that's exactly what the US did. We attacked Iraq.

[Paladin_Hammer]

Go to www.dictionary.com and look up "sarcasm". Then get the hint.

If you were serious about the last bit of what I quoted... No comment necessary.

I know, I wasn't being serious either. Calm down, Calm down. You don't need to throw that site at me. (Every day I see that thing, on any forum.)

[Kosmo Yagkoto]

Uh, no. It won't be functioning like a normal country in January. It won't be functioning like a normal country for many years to come. These people have been under the rule of Saddam for a couple of decades; they're not going to suddenly change their minds in less than a year just because elections are being held.



Actually as far as I know they were within the confines of the Oil-for-Food program, however many would agree that the program was corrupt. Anyway, (even assuming that they weren't abiding by the OFF program) there's a slight difference between trading with a country against UN resolutions and attacking a country against UN resolutions. And let's face it, that's exactly what the US did. We attacked Iraq.

First you are making it sound like the people of Iraq wanted Saddam to be in control. The US doesn't have to change the Iraqis minds about anything. Most of the Iraqis hated Saddam.

WE attacked Iraq because they didn't do what they were told. France and Germany traded with Iraq and that goes against UN policy. So that would make the French and Germans helping a terrorist. WE took out a terrorist, which is worse again? Taking out a terrorist or helping a terrorist?

[Ziegfried]

First you are making it sound like the people of Iraq wanted Saddam to be in control. The US doesn't have to change the Iraqis minds about anything. Most of the Iraqis hated Saddam.

WE attacked Iraq because they didn't do what they were told. France and Germany traded with Iraq and that goes against UN policy. So that would make the French and Germans helping a terrorist. WE took out a terrorist, which is worse again? Taking out a terrorist or helping a terrorist?

Good job on twisting the guy's words.

/me gives leatherman a gold star.

[Mason]

First you are making it sound like the people of Iraq wanted Saddam to be in control. The US doesn't have to change the Iraqis minds about anything. Most of the Iraqis hated Saddam.

WE attacked Iraq because they didn't do what they were told. France and Germany traded with Iraq and that goes against UN policy. So that would make the French and Germans helping a terrorist. WE took out a terrorist, which is worse again? Taking out a terrorist or helping a terrorist?

Depends how you look at it. At least with Saddam things were stable. That country is anything but stable now.

Lots of countries don't do what they're told; we don't attack them. And actually it wasn't against UN policy to trade with Iraq, that's why the whole Oil-for-Food program was there. It wasn't just food, btw, it also included medical supplies and various other products. Although, exactly what all that list was supposed to include is debatable.

I'd also be careful with the word "terrorist." Saddam and his agents weren't the ones terrorizing the US, that was Osama. And there's not much of a link between the two.

[GundamGuy]

It's impossible to have a defense strong enough to be impervious to the attacks of those who hate you. It's much less of a challenge to make the world not hate you...

Very well said.

Depends how you look at it. At least with Saddam things were stable. That country is anything but stable now.

Lots of countries don't do what they're told; we don't attack them. And actually it wasn't against UN policy to trade with Iraq, that's why the whole Oil-for-Food program was there. It wasn't just food, btw, it also included medical supplies and various other products. Although, exactly what all that list was supposed to include is debatable.

I'd also be careful with the word "terrorist." Saddam and his agents weren't the ones terrorizing the US, that was Osama. And there's not much of a link between the two.

Also very well said...

I wish i could convey my ideas as well as you two.

[Xaenn]

Thank you very much.

[Kosmo Yagkoto]

Depends how you look at it. At least with Saddam things were stable. That country is anything but stable now.

Lots of countries don't do what they're told; we don't attack them. And actually it wasn't against UN policy to trade with Iraq, that's why the whole Oil-for-Food program was there. It wasn't just food, btw, it also included medical supplies and various other products. Although, exactly what all that list was supposed to include is debatable.

I'd also be careful with the word "terrorist." Saddam and his agents weren't the ones terrorizing the US, that was Osama. And there's not much of a link between the two.

Yeah the US could make Iraq stable if they used Saddam's tactics of enforcement and torture.

A lot of countries don't do what they are told, yeah i suppose thats true, and we didn't attack France and Germany for making tons of money off of the Oil for Food program.

A terrorist terrorizes anyone, so that would make saddam a terrorist.

[Xaenn]

Don't try and make a terrorist into a complex definition.

I would say most simply stated it would be someone who uses coercion to promote their political agenda.

[Stark]

The war in Iraq can be used for and against bush, the for being he toppled an evil man and brought freedom to iraq, this freedom costing the lives of i think over 1000 people.

[Xaenn]

Way over 1000 people, you gotta remember that not just Americans count.

[Kosmo Yagkoto]

terrorism is a system of government that uses terror to rule. Thats just one of the definitions but it is the one that applies to what i said. Thats straight from the dictionary. I don't think it was too complex a definition, do you?

[Stark]

Way over 1000 people, you gotta remember that not just Americans count.

you're right, thats just the soldier death toll, think how many people in iraq must appreciate this "freedom"