Conservative answers Iraq criticism

[Cruddy]

Re: Re: Re: Conservative answers Iraq criticism

Originally posted by TCO


Why does it chap your ass? this is not a Civ game. If we waste money here. The Euros waste it on their farmers. Oops we do that too,

Seriously, who cares. Does it make your schwantz any smaller?

How many Raytheon shares have you got then?

I find it hiliarious that people can talk up the US defence budget without considering who the winners are of such actions.

It sure isn't the enlisted people.

[TCO]

Originally posted by mrmitchell




If I remember correctly, and it was only about six months ago so I should, the only reason for going to war was being shoved down our throats--he was a madman with WoMD. No other reasons were touted near so much as the holy WoMD, for by it thou might convince Americans that war is a good thing; ....



Remember? The ultimatum was that Saddam destroy whatever weapons of mass destruction he had; apparently HE DID! Give it up with the trolls already.

The idea of America as a hyperpower to guide the world is possibly the most threatening thing humanity has ever faced. NEVER should so much power be concentrated in one entity. It's simple common sense.

As for your actual 'defend the world' argument, i'm terribly sorry, but no one ever elected America as the world's policeman. The only body elected to do that is the United Nations; which, however inefficient it may be, is better than some nightmare juggernaut crashing dictatorships and whatnot at its every whim and fancy.

1. You remember incorrectly. THere were a series of reasons given. But then again you are stupid. WE can't help it if you only notice one thing.

2. Saddam was told to comply with inpsections. All agreed that he ahd not. If he destroyed the WOMD and didn't compy, he is an idiot. We can't rely on his good will. We KNOW that he has a history of cheating. The impetus was on him to comply with inspecitons. Not toss inspctors out , refuse entrance to palace sites, etc.

[TCO]

Originally posted by mrmitchell


Yes...if Iraq started it, I would gladly support a war against the little bastards despite my general rule of "stay out of it"...the Middle East, much as we hate the thought, is terribly concerning for the United States.

But we started it under some "pre emptive" bull****, so now it's turning into a quagmire where we're losing millions of dollars a day and so far more than a hundred soldiers IIRC...

In case you don't remember the libearal Democrats (85% of those in the Senate) voted against authorizing the war, even after the Presient made his case in 1991.

[TCO]

Originally posted by mrmitchell


Wasn't there videos of his weapons being dismantled? IIRC there was some kind of proof that was tossed aside...well, of course, it's obvious now that they're all gone.

Why didn't he allow access to the palace sites and why did he throw out inpsectors in 1998 and obstruct them quite a bit before.

He had a HISTORY of cheating. If he didn't this time, it is too bad. The impetus was on him to show the truth. We couldn't trust him.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Sandman


They've got your weapons and a huge pile of money. The Iraqis wouldn't have stood a chance.

They have their own money. But the important thing is our implied protection. If we had not come in in 91, Saddam would have rolled through SA. As it was, we fought a battle on Saudi territory. Something of which you are probably ignorant, idiot.

[TCO]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Conservative answers Iraq criticism

Originally posted by Cruddy


How many Raytheon shares have you got then?

I find it hiliarious that people can talk up the US defence budget without considering who the winners are of such actions.

It sure isn't the enlisted people.

Don't let it worry your head. Like I said, it's not your country.

[Solly]

It's the first sign of madness.

[Sandman]

They have their own money. But the important thing is our implied protection. If we had not come in in 91, Saddam would have rolled through SA. As it was, we fought a battle on Saudi territory. Something of which you are probably ignorant, idiot.

The article implies that America was still 'protecting' Saudi Arabia from a basket-case Iraq up until the invasion.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Sandman


The article implies that America was still 'protecting' Saudi Arabia from a basket-case Iraq up until the invasion.

What the hell do you think we were doing in Riyad and the non-fly zone. Einstein?

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by mrmitchell
warning: communist != totalitarian

Are you saying the Soviet Union was not a totalitarian state ???

[Sandman]

What the hell do you think we were doing in Riyad and the non-fly zone. Einstein?

Protecting the Shi'ites? The fact that you were there doesn't invalidate my point. Demonstrate to me how the technologically superior Saudis were at risk from being conquered by a crippled Iraq, if American units hadn't been there.

[mrmitchell]

But then again you are stupid.

My God, Fez broke into TCO's account!

[TCO]

Originally posted by Sandman


Protecting the Shi'ites? The fact that you were there doesn't invalidate my point. Demonstrate to me how the technologically superior Saudis were at risk from being conquered by a crippled Iraq, if American units hadn't been there.

We didn't do **** to protect the shiites. They got slaughtered. We were there to protect the Gulf oil states. And SA IS a Gulf Oil state.

Gawd, you are a moron.

[Sandman]

You've still not provided an explanation as to how the bedraggled Iraqi military would have been a threat to the Saudis.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Sandman
You've still not provided an explanation as to how the bedraggled Iraqi military would have been a threat to the Saudis.

Do you know anything about the Ibn Saud? Iraq has way more military heft than the Saudis. They needed a protector. They weren't too crazy about the Iranians either.

You moron.