Ok Boys!

[Shortfuse]

Originally posted by ktsnake
Bud, take the blinders off. Al Quaeda members used Saddam for medical treatment, they met with him, etc. There absolutely was a credible terrorist threat when WMD's came into being.

So our form of representative government doesn't work for everyone? You're saying that the Iraqi people are predisposed to wanting to live under bullying dictators? What makes you think this? Their current system isn't a hell of a lot different than what we had in Europe 200-300 years ago -- a monarch with a LOT of church interferance. Would you have said that Europeans are also not predisposed to having individual liberties? That's an ignorant statement you made and borderline racist.

How can it be an important victory? It destabilizes governments that support and shelter terrorists -- Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc. will all have a neighbor that is NOT a theocracy/dictatorship. Their people will suddenly be "have-nots" when it comes to rights. That's the best way to move a region towards democracy. Once the war in Iraq is won (and it'll be won), the region will follow in time. At least that's the theory.

As for your comment that Saddam is only dangerous to his own countrymen... How the hell did you come up with that? We are talking about Saddam Hussein, right? You know, the fella that's invaded or tried to invade most of the countries that border him? The guy that gassed his own people as well as his adversaries in Iran? Yeah, he's just a threat to his own country. You're totally right!

You never answered me, besides past misteps and miscalculations, what exactly about our current policy there do you oppose? Do you think we should just pack up and leave them to civil war? All I'm hearing you complain about are things that cannot be changed. Please be specific on what you disagree with that CAN be changed.

Saudi Arabia are harboring some of those terrorist as well as the Syrians (who were reponsbile for the bombing that Libya got blamed for), let's nto forget Egypt or Yemen.

I answered you. I said I'm totally against ALL OF THE OCCUPATION. There was NO JUSTIFICATION other than SPECULATION. But to clear it up for you, we can't leave now. My point is that we should've never been there in the first place. Trust me, if people got that tired of a type of rule it'd got changed. THEN and ONLY THEN would I be for American involvment. But you can't incite a revolution against a government and that is basically what we're NOW (now that there are no WMD) are doing.

Personally, I couldn't argue much with it (although i don't agree) if that was OUR MAIN REASON FOR BEING THERE. But it wasn't. WMDs were our reason. those soldiers died believing that they were getting rid of a guy who possess WMD and were going to use them. Not to free the Iraqis and not because we believe he'll HAVE them.

Nobody said Iraqis are used to having a dictator. But what works for the United States doesn't work for Great Britain or Saudi Arabia. What works for Scotland, WON'T work for the United States. Can't run a Run and SHoot offense if you only have one guy who can catch a football.

As far as gassing Irainians, it's funny Americans are so against but have no answer to the fact that the American government was actually shaking hands with Saddam while he was doing it. But I guess it help eliminate that pesky Iranian problem huh? Saddam is just as much threat to the United States as Howard's University football team is to the New England Patroits

Once again, just admit Bush was wrong.