Quote:
Originally Posted by maze51";p="
...and most of the left's truth is that you all hate Bush more than Saddam, and you are absolutely venomous in your conclusions. The first thing was he had 17 UN resolutions giving the United States the power to take aggressive action on multilateral scale. Secondly, this would have never, ever occurred if Saddam had just been open enough to let the inspectors do their job without his shenanigans. Thirdly, he had 2 years prior to our invasion, to move or sell any or all the weapons he wanted to. The naiveté that I hear from people on this forum just blows my mind. You have such compassion (as you should) for those that are being killed by the hand of the United States including our own soldiers, but no compassion when you see with your own eyes the horrible annihilation of millions of innocent people at the hands of these despots, that want nothing more than to destroy all life as we know it. Is there something about these terrorists that you find the least bit of kindness for? This is a war against everything humanly sacred, our freedom, our democracy, and our basic human rights. These are not people we are fighting, they are the lowest form of parasitic scum on the planet earth. It is high time for all of us to come together and fight this global jihad. The hammer has already fallen, this war has started, make no mistake about that. You can point to every little nuance of political hyperbole on this wars justification, but all you will be doing is aiding the enemy. Yes wars are horrible, I myself fought in Viet Nam, and it was ugly. There is no turning back now, we must move forward and eradicate this vermin from the earth, or it (I used the word 'it' on purpose because the word 'they' would infer they were human) will surely destroy us.
|
As usual, lots of name calling and claims, but no facts.
17 UN resolutions. Yes, but the UN did NOT sanction unilateral or multilateral action. So the UN wouldn't sanction the war, why should they be used as your justification. YOu see the UN had a different plan that WAS working. That is why the intelligence is showing that the inspections were working.
Saddam wouldn't let the inspector do their jobs? NO it is President Bush that would npt let the inspectors do their jobs. UN inspectors had been allowed in and were conducting unfettered inspections wherever they wanted, including Saddams palaces. They were given less than 3 months before they had to flee from our invasion. Their previous work has been shown to have been a major detterent and they were containing Saddams programs without killing thousands.
2 years prior to invasion to move/sell WOMD. Have you even read the intelligence that has been coming out since the war. Numerous sources say that all the WOMD were destroyed in the mid 90's. There has not been a single intelligence claim or document to show that Saddma actually had WOMD and moved or sold them. But is is much more convienent for you to ingnore the intelligence reports that have been made public and just assume things that justify your support of war without any facts.
Annihilation of millions? You can call them them or it wor whatever you want. what you can't do is show that the war in Iraq has stopped a single terrorist act. What you can't do is show a link from Saddam to terrorism against America. What you can';t do is show a link from Saddam to 9/11. Did he kill his own people, yes he did. Like I said, thsi is revisionist history if you are going to claim this was the justification for war prior to us not finding WOMD. This is just grasping at the only legitmate benefit of the war and then trying to expand that as the proper justification. Do you honestly think that if the Bush administration went before the congress and UN adn said that Saddam was a bad guy that ruked his people with fear, murder and torture, taht the congress would have approved $100 Billion and a war that was going to cost hundreds of American lives. They would not have and you know it. That is why I call this grasping at the only good to come form the war as revisionist history. Because it is not sufficient justification on it's own.
Niavete. I would call niavete believing everything this President says when none of the facts support his claims. You cna CLAIM and Bush can CLAIM that Iraq was part of the war on terror. But without any evidence of WOMD and without any evidence of link to Al-qeada and such those are just that CLAIMS. Talk is cheap. The FACTS are that much evidence has been gathered that shows the WOMD were destroyed in the mid 90's. The FACTS show that Saddam and Bin Laden did not like each other and would almost certainly not work together.
Everyone agrees that we need to fight terrorists and terrorism. The right claims that you are niaeve or stupid or something is you actually want some evidence that there is a link to terrorism before killing well over 10,000 people. I personally think it is stupid and gullible to believe that this administration had such a proven link that they just can't seem to find anymore.