Bush Speech

[Giancarlo]

Can I ask those who oppose if they would like to die a death from a ****ing chemcial or biological weapon? I didn't think so. So start using damn common sense and support the removal of Saddam Hussein. If he held a gun to the head of a family member and executed them, like he does with his own people and even his own family, who then would you support? I hope you are not that blind.

I don't give a crap about UN or international mumble jumble law, this man has to go. The UN can or cannot help. It doesn't matter. The man is going. If you are so blind to say no, then go to your nearest library and do a damn research project on nuclear/biological or chemical weapons... and see the after effects of them. Since Saddam has proven he is willing to use against the Iranians and Kurds, I wouldn't count on him not using them again. Now get some damn common sense for a change you anti-war fanatics and start using logic. 2+2=4. 2+2 does not equal 5. It just doesn't. In drawing adequate parallels you are claiming it does. Take this equation: Iraq + Saddam = Misery, Death, and possible WMD strike against 1st world countries). This equation is so damn true it is unbelieveable. Now take into mind.

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Originally posted by Fez
It was an excellent speech and I hope the misled anti-war crowd will finally see their faults and swithc over

[DanS]

"Dubya makes yet another speech? Surely he loves the limelight no doubt."

Looked at another way, this guy is impressively persistent.

[GePap]

How many times has Iraq used WMD against hapless and helpless enemies? 2- Iran and Kurds.

How many times has Iraq used WMD aganist enemies with the ability to hit back harder than he can? 0.

Can you get that math Fez? Or is it too difficult for yah. here's some help:

US + 6000 nukes > Iraq + 1.
US with 6000 nukes> iraq + Anthrax, VMX, Sarin, Mustard Gas, so forth + 1 nuke.

I loved the part of the US trying war criminals! Under what legal pretext? Would the US give the case to that evil ICJ? Yeah, some Iraqi general, who most liekly would be imprisoned or killed in a post Saddam Iraq wil not do what saddam wants cause the US wil label him a war criminal. If you belie that, raise your hands! OK, no the ones that did, do the genepool a favor and jump out a window.

Again, it was a well given speech, and for the masses, it works. Is it great speech that will change the minds of anyone? You look at the poll.

[David Floyd]

Can I ask those who oppose if they would like to die a death from a ****ing chemcial or biological weapon?

No.

If [Saddam Hussein] held a gun to the head of a family member and executed them, like he does with his own people and even his own family, who then would you support?

Well, duh, he isn't executing Americans. If the Iraqi people wish to depose him, fine, but it's their problem.

I don't give a crap about UN or international mumble jumble law, this man has to go.

So the US should violate treaties it willingly agreed to whenever it feels like it, without first legally withdrawing from them?

The UN can or cannot help. It doesn't matter. The man is going. If you are so blind to say no, then go to your nearest library and do a damn research project on nuclear/biological or chemical weapons... and see the after effects of them.

Yes, the first book I'll look up would be those showing pictures of the aftereffects of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Don't give me your ****, Fez. Stop using emotion-filled nonsense and rhetoric and state some facts for once.

Since Saddam has proven he is willing to use against the Iranians and Kurds, I wouldn't count on him not using them again. Now get some damn common sense for a change you anti-war fanatics and start using logic. 2+2=4. 2+2 does not equal 5. It just doesn't.

GePap already gave you a nice lesson in math. See his post and study hard. All I can add is that still haven't proved the case that Iraq will use WoDs against the US in the absence of US provocation.

In drawing adequate parallels you are claiming it does. Take this equation: Iraq + Saddam = Misery, Death, and possible WMD strike against 1st world countries). This equation is so damn true it is unbelieveable.

Unbelievable - yes I'll go with you on that one

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Originally posted by GePap
How many times has Iraq used WMD against hapless and helpless enemies? 2- Iran and Kurds.

Iran ? Helpless ?

[Kontiki]

Iran? Able to strike back hard?

edit: The Iranians had about the same ability to counter attack the Iraqis as the Kurds did/do.

[Saint Marcus]

you all do know that the west supplied Sadam with the technology to fight Iran, don't you?

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
you do know that the west supplied Sadam with the technology to fight Iran, don't you?

If you're talking to me, of course I do. Which is exactly why Iran had no ability to strike back hard.

[Amadan]

Originally posted by Fez
I won't demonize you Kepler. I just am angry at the people who don't want to take action.

Some of us don't oppose action, we just oppose arrogant unilateral action garanteed to alienate the majority of our allies (except for Blair, who is starting to be called a 'pretty poodle' and a lapdog by the British press).

I also am more inclined to listen to those who have actually served in the military who suggest that we wait for mulitlateral agreements before acting.
(Link to the Washington Post story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true )

[Saint Marcus]

If you're talking to me

sorry, didn't mean it at you personally, but to all people here. edited it now.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Roland
Well Imperial Rome used to destroy potential powers if they could. But they failed with the Parthians, the Sassanides, and even with Marbod due to the illyrian insurrection.

In the end imperial overstretch made it impossible to win decisive victories against all enemies.

Sound familiar ?

Roland, except for a few instances after the Republic, the Empire went into a defensive shell. It no longer ran a preemptive foreign policy. The exceptions were Claudius's conquest of Britain and Trajan's conquest of Dacia. I think this defensive posture in the end doomed them because they allowed large powers to grow on their borders that eventually destroyed the Empire: the Germans, Goths, Persians and Arabs.

So long as the policy of pre-emption was in place, the Empire grew and prospered.

While Saddam is an easy case, there does appear to be a growing view, if not a consensus, here that the United States must pursue a policy of pre-emption to ward off further 9/11 attacks. We have found that our surrounding oceans are no longer sufficient protection from terrorism. We must therefore actively seek out terrorist bases and destroy them. But as terrorism cannot succeed without the shelter and support of nations, we are forced to take out terrorist nations as well.

I think even after Iraq you will see America much less "forgiving" of nations that harbor anti-American terrorists. We will expect full suppression of terrorist bases and an end to support of terrorists - or else.

Let's begin marking the gun handle.

I - The Taliban
II - Saddam Hussein

Who is III?

[Saint Marcus]

It no longer ran a preemptive foreign policy.

The Empire launched several invasions into Parthian and Sassanid lands, with mixed success, long after the end of the Republic.

[Saint Marcus]

Who is III?

some other plucky third world nation

The US wouldn't dare to attack China, or Pakistan (who both have WomDs, who both are dictatorships, and the Pakistani support terrorism). Hypocracy.

[Ramo]

Let me guess Shrub still hasn't revealed his incredibly brilliant and righteous plan about what to do after Saddam is gone.