SADDAM TO BE HANGED IN NEXT 48 HOURS...

[cwallace]

Who stepped onto US soil?

9/11 is when they stepped on US soil. However you want to look at it the middle east is one big lump of trouble. Bin Laden (behind 911) and Saddam are as good as one in the same. It might be a stretch of an opportunity, but as I said before...wether it was 20 years ago or now...it is still justifiable...

Chris

Well by that logic we should invade every country in the middle east. That would be fun to watch!

I wouldn't be against taking out all the groups that could potentially harm US for now reason whatsoever. I know there is a fine line in saying things like that, but if someone walks into a crowded area and blows themself up to 'make a point' there is something just wrong about that mentality? Can I at least say we agree on that part? Seriously...would YOU do something like that?

Where we have evolved into a country that WILL sit down and 'talk things out' we are quickly being put in danger by radical extremists that take advantage of that 'weakness'.

If we can't sit down and 'trust' the person on the other side of the table then something has to me done...sad that we would have to stoop to THEIR level, but I would rather 'stoop' than die any day...

In the perfect world we would all love to sit down and work things out...I wouldn't mind that...wouldn't mind being able to sleep at night without the fear of someone killing me or my family...but until that day comes we do what we have to do.

We don't need to go on any offensive unless it is to remove a BAD seed that would go on the offensive without even being provoked...

As far as the WMD go...everyone KNOWS they had them...used them...admitted they were a threat...there has even been evidence found. They also did a good job of covering their tracks over the years...the democrats have admited to the threat and never acted on it...now they are spiing it AGAINST the republican party as if the republicans made it up...that is just bad politics...not to say the republicans don't play dirty a lot of the time as well...but either party to point fingers and blame the other is just stupid...they are both at fault in some regard...

Chris

[Morphine Child]

I wouldn't be against taking out all the groups that could potentially harm US for now reason whatsoever. I know there is a fine line in saying things like that, but if someone walks into a crowded area and blows themself up to 'make a point' there is something just wrong about that mentality? Can I at least say we agree on that part? Seriously...would YOU do something like that?

High School kids walk into high schools and shoot up a dozen kids sometimes. Should we destroy all high schoolers? Christians sometimes blow up Abortion clinics and kill doctors (pro-lifers murdering doctors! It's a hoot! - Bill Hicks). Should we kill all the Christians? Those groups are a threat to innocent U.S. citizens as well. Though we haven't declared war on them. Granted, it's too a lesser extent, but it's still true. And no, I wouldn't do that. I disagree with a lot of people and refrain from killing them. The same way that billions of other people in millions of different groups do.

Where we have evolved into a country that WILL sit down and 'talk things out' we are quickly being put in danger by radical extremists that take advantage of that 'weakness'.

We've never been a country to only "sit down and talk things out". We've been doing crazy sh*t to people we deemed as a threat well before 9/11. Clinton fought back covertly against the Taliban. Why don't we know that? Because we didn't declare war on them. We bombed a medical facility that was supplying them with nerve gas. What was that, forth page news back in 1997? That's just one example...

If we can't sit down and 'trust' the person on the other side of the table then something has to me done...sad that we would have to stoop to THEIR level, but I would rather 'stoop' than die any day...

We don't trust a lot of countries. We didn't trust the Soviet Union for over 50 years, but we learned to coexist (as far as not going to war at least).

As far as the WMD go...everyone KNOWS they had them...used them...admitted they were a threat...there has even been evidence found.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/03/31/ ... index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/19/powell.un/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14767199/
Non biased? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3718150.stm

Apparently our Senate and Congress had as much trust in the information that was being provided to them by the Bush administration as we, the general public did. Besides, who would make crazy stuff like that up? oops...

[Morphine Child]

but either party to point fingers and blame the other is just stupid...they are both at fault in some regard...

Chris

That, I can agree upon.

[cwallace]

We would be a better nation if we COULD sit down and talk about it..We can't be blamed for being a little proactive in some regard at times...wrong at times...hind sight is 20/20...imagine what would have happened if we hadn't stepped in with WWII or something...we didn't want to take a proactive approach to eliminating an evil dictator...

Were we wrong to get involved there?

Vietnam...another screw up...we were just disorganized there.

We are gonna be right sometimes...and wrong others...but to sit back and do NOTHING is just wrong to start with.

I don't condone overtaking ANYONE...but an offensive defense is sometimes needed. If I see a possible threat I will investigate...if need be I will up my game...if need be I will destroy the threat...

If I am walking down the street and get suspicious of someone hanging close to me I take notice...if they start acting crazy and I feel I might be in danger and I 'subdue' them...and then it turns out they are no threat just crazy...I would rather be WRONG with my actions than be WRONG with my dismissal of the threat...

Chris

[bassjones]

Look Just because some of you people watched Fahrenheit 9/11 and drew conclusions on bush does not qualify you as educated enough to open your mouthes.

Saddam was thought to be a supporter of the terrorists and I think the insurgency proves this.

Just because some of you listen to Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly every day and draw conclusions on Bush does not qualify you as educated enough to open your mouthes.

The administration thought a lot of things about Saddam and his regime. There's a fine line - or should be when it comes to invading a country , over 30,000 people dying, the inevitability of a trillion dollars being spent - between having a thought and having irrefutable evidence when making a decision as big as this one was.

If I remember correctly, some of the better informed Bush supporters on here have even stated that the administration never even suspected Saddam to have anything to do with the parties involved in 9/11. Jones, did I get that right? Or did I mix something up...[/i]

Yes, in fact the administration said he was not DIRECTLY involved in the planning of 9-11. They did say he supported terrorism, which was and is true - he offered a $50K payout to the families of Palestinian terrorists for carrying out suicide bombings in Israel, amongst other offenses.

I'm glad he's dead and I hope we've learned something about aiding the enemies of our enemies without the foresight to determine that they're very likely to become our enemies as well at some point - but it doesn't look like it. We continue to support Pakistan for instance, even though they're very likely to be an enemy fairly soon. Same for Saudi Arabia.

As to Darfur. I personally would like to see Bush send in 50,000 troops and take care of the Janjawee (spelling?) right now, but that's not going to happen. It's of no strategic importance to us at all either. Iraq was, for a variety of reasons, including the suspected WMDs, their geographic location, their ties to terrorism, etc... Also, the Sudanese Govmt is providing some pretty good intel on Al Qaida and Bin Laden's whereabouts. This is one the UN should be handling, but just like Rwanda, they won't do a damn thing. Worthless organization in all respects.

[Sankofa]

I guess they just crossed the line and stepped on to US soil.

Who stepped onto US soil?

9/11 is when they stepped on US soil.

no

However you want to look at it the middle east is one big lump of trouble.

Yes and the US "intervention" has only served to further destabilize the region and increase membership in extremist, anti-US organizations.

Bin Laden (behind 911) and Saddam are as good as one in the same.

No.

It might be a stretch of an opportunity

It's not a stretch of an opportunity, it's opportunism in its ugliest and most broad-brushed form.

[Morphine Child]

We would be a better nation if we COULD sit down and talk about it..We can't be blamed for being a little proactive in some regard at times...wrong at times...hind sight is 20/20...imagine what would have happened if we hadn't stepped in with WWII or something...we didn't want to take a proactive approach to eliminating an evil dictator...

WWII started in 1939. We did not get involved until we declared war on Dec. 8th 1941. We didn't jump right into it because the people didn't want anything to do with it initially. That a country attacked us is a little less vague than a terrorist group. We can see the country of Japan, but there is no country of "terrorists" to disable. And with Germany, by the time we stepped in with that it was beyond a doubt what Hitler was doing. I'm not saying we should let something like that happen again or not intervene until sh*t has already hit the fan, but I don't see Hitler and Saddam on the same level. Not even close.

Were we wrong to get involved there?

In WWII the British and Russia were trying to stop a madman and we saw that we needed to step in. With Saddam we were the only country (other than Britain)that decided something should be done...not a lot of support there.

Vietnam...another screw up...we were just disorganized there.

You would think we would have learned something from that screw up.

We are gonna be right sometimes...and wrong others...but to sit back and do NOTHING is just wrong to start with.

I don't condone overtaking ANYONE...but an offensive defense is sometimes needed. If I see a possible threat I will investigate...if need be I will up my game...if need be I will destroy the threat...

As I said in an earlier post: in a situation where thousands of people are going to die and where were going to drop billions (possible a trillion) of dollars, we better be damn sure about it. But as you said, time will tell. Right now though, we have a war that we can't get a straight reason for from our administration, an accumulating war debt, a totally messed up disorganized country in Iraq, and over 30,000 people dead.

[cwallace]

Who stepped onto US soil?

9/11 is when they stepped on US soil.

no

However you want to look at it the middle east is one big lump of trouble.

Yes and the US "intervention" has only served to further destabilize the region and increase membership in extremist, anti-US organizations.

Bin Laden (behind 911) and Saddam are as good as one in the same.

No.

It might be a stretch of an opportunity

It's not a stretch of an opportunity, it's opportunism in its ugliest and most broad-brushed form.

I am glad you could come up with so many good points to contradict my statements...

They are as good as the SAME because they are BAD...and if it takes one to justify the death of the other then so be it...

What is YOUR solution? Talk it out? Yeah...walk right into that gun fight with your 'talk'...Would be a sad loss for us. I wish more of the intelligent people in this world would actually focus that intelligence properly...get over waiting out the fight...it will solve itself...yeah...when they decide to start moving directly into the US and killing US...then will it be time to start fighting back? Should we wait until they have pretty much taken over? Then will it be the right time? How about after we are all dead and gone...is THAT the time???

Give us a time...as for now...I will take my chances on being WRONG from time to time...in order to save myself and people around me that matter...including all of you who disagree with me on the point...

Chris

[Morphine Child]

Man, this scaremongering campaign has worked well.

[cwallace]

Man, this scaremongering campaign has worked well.

What does that mean? Serious questions posed and all we get are 'no' or 'because' or something lame..

You are about the only person that has attempted to defend the position...of course I am waiting to be accused of censoring someone in this debate so they can go cry boycott because they disagree with something said here...

It is time a lot of people got over themselves and learned how to interact and not cryass...

I am not trying to start anything with anyone here either...I am very curious as to what people have to say on this issue...

Have your opinon...I have mine...now let's 'talk' about it...

Chris

[Sankofa]

9/11 is when they stepped on US soil.

no

However you want to look at it the middle east is one big lump of trouble.

Yes and the US "intervention" has only served to further destabilize the region and increase membership in extremist, anti-US organizations.

Bin Laden (behind 911) and Saddam are as good as one in the same.

No.

It might be a stretch of an opportunity

It's not a stretch of an opportunity, it's opportunism in its ugliest and most broad-brushed form.

I am glad you could come up with so many good points to contradict my statements...

Your rationalization for saying Hussein stepped on US soil was to say he was the same as Osama. That your argument has such a foundation is enough of a statement that you'll accept whatever means necessary to support your beliefs.

[cwallace]

Well Japan bombed Pearl Harbor...not Germany...(unless you belieave everything you saw in Animal house)...

So why didn't we just go after Japan and ignore Germany?

When you align yourself with someone and stand behind them expect to be aligned with them in a fight as well.

Saddam and Osama are one in the same in their GOAL...terrorize...wether it be the world or their own country...they are both bad and need to be taken care of...one down one to go...

If GW decided to start killing innocent people I would HOPE that another country would step up and defend us if we couldn't...

That is all I am saying in regards to a level of justification...

Chris

[cwallace]

note: I am going to bed right now...I will be back tomorrow and hopefully get back to this one..

G'Night all and HAPPY NEW YEAR...

Chris

[Morphine Child]

Man, this scaremongering campaign has worked well.

What does that mean? Serious questions posed and all we get are 'no' or 'because' or something lame..

You are about the only person that has attempted to defend the position...of course I am waiting to be accused of censoring someone in this debate so they can go cry boycott because they disagree with something said here...

It is time a lot of people got over themselves and learned how to interact and not cryass...

I am not trying to start anything with anyone here either...I am very curious as to what people have to say on this issue...

Have your opinon...I have mine...now let's 'talk' about it...

Chris

I think that post was partially due to my exhaustive forum typing today. haha. I'll resume discussions tomorrow following work as well.

[Sankofa]

Saddam and Osama are one in the same in their GOAL...terrorize...wether it be the world or their own country...they are both bad and need to be taken care of...one down one to go...

North Korea with their Nukes was and remains a bigger threat.

As for the middle east, there's a lot more than one done one to go, especially with the heightened dischord created by the US invasion of Iraq. The US is already overextended from a military standpoint and the actions of our current administration have only weakened our ability to respond to imminent threats.