Quote from: 3Peat on November 17, 2005, 01:40:37 PMHitler was definitely not crazy, but a far greater threat than Saddam nonetheless.not the point. People use the words crazy and evil interchangeably
Hitler was definitely not crazy, but a far greater threat than Saddam nonetheless.
Quote from: be10dwn on November 17, 2005, 01:47:20 PMQuote from: 3Peat on November 17, 2005, 01:40:37 PMHitler was definitely not crazy, but a far greater threat than Saddam nonetheless.not the point. People use the words crazy and evil interchangeablyMaybe so, but there is a clear distinction. Wait, didnt the US and Iraq have an amicable relationship during the Iran-Iraq war, including during the gassing of the Kurds? I guess evil is only evil if it doesnt suit your interest.
When we supported Iraq, it was a lesser of two evils situation. If we had supported Iran, Democrats would have accused us of siding with a regime that killed Americans (look at what they did during the Iran-Contra scandal). As for the chemical weapons being used in Fallujah, I think most people are forgetting this fact: They were terrorists!By the time the battle of Fallujah was raging the civilians had largely left. We gave then ample warning, most people knew months before that there was an invasion coming. The people left were Islamic terrorists, waiting to fight against the Americans. I find it interesting that the media has forgotten that. But then again, waht does one expect. The media is trying once again to rebuild their image as freedom-fighters in order to remain "independent". This is sedition. Besides, if Fallujah had been completely bombed out, then terrorists would not have escaped. But then there would have been more media outcry. For some reason, (v.s) the potential media outcry almost always has an inverse relationship with the effectiveness of military policies. To those idiots who would support bombing schools, hopsitals, and innocent civilians for no apparent reason, I say this: "They got what was coming!"This is war aganist Islamic terrorism and its supporters. My primary concern is what happens to Americans. I would also like to limit civilian causalties. But, I have no sympathy for Islamic terrorists.
this war is not about fighting islamic terrorism. it's about establishing the credibility of the US in terms of doing what we'll say we do. i'm sick and tired of this these neoconservative liberals (no that's not a goddamn oxymoron) who are convinced that spreading democracy around the world will solve our problems.where have all the realists gone? where? where? bring back kissenger, i say.
Quote from: Thikighoros on November 17, 2005, 02:30:46 PMTin-pot dictatorships around the world are scared stiff of the implications of what we are doing. therefore they are pouring their resources into developing/acquiring nuclear weapons technology as a deterrent while the US military is busy in iraq.afghan helped our credibility. iraq helped it a bit but then hurts it also because it shows the degree to which we can be bogged down in insurgencies where we don't have enormous advantages.democracy is not the sole determinant of whether or not we will come into conflict with these people. islamic terrorists attacked us. fine and dandy, but war on terror and war in iraq began as two separate issues. war on terror only provided the will to fight in iraq. this is not to say that iraq invasion was not justifiable, but it is in many respects a separate war.
Tin-pot dictatorships around the world are scared stiff of the implications of what we are doing.
Yes, this war is a war of ideals. We have to win hearts and minds if we are going to defeat the support for the terrorists. Torture and using chemical weapons is not going to cut it.
Page created in 0.413 seconds with 17 queries.