Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - The hypocrisy that sickens the decent opinion of making

Endymon32 · 12-27-2003, 01:38 PM

We attacked Iraq, cause we had the legal right to do so. He was in violation of 17 un resolutions. He failed to provide proof that he destroyed the very weapons he was confirmed to have. He was supposed to comply, with out interference, to inspectors. For 12 years he didnt comply, and accourding to the terms Saddam signed, we took him out.

You are right Mr Buck, it is about oil. Since Saddam had oil, nations like France, China, Germany, and Russia, were willing to let him violate the UN as long as they could sell him weapons for oil, Saddam knew he had all the wiggle room he needed. With France and Co on his side, Saddam could flout the UN ( as France, CHina and Russia are UN security council nations) and continue to interfere with inspections, and attack when he was ready.
The US had the guts to stand up to these Hypocritical Nations and call bullshit on Saddam. We gave him a chance to surrender and he didnt.
So we took out Saddam with minimal loss to life, and infrastructure. Making the year of the war the year with the least violent deaths since Saddam came to power.
Then Bush forced out these hypocritical nations of post Iraqi deals and in responce they forgave Iraqi debts, thus making Iraq and even better place.

And the Kay report clearly shows that Saddam was pursing biological weapons and had a bevy of Frence, Chinese, and Russian ordinance.
So far the only thing Bush said that remanes unfounded is that Saddam had links wo Al queda. But Saddams ties and sponcership of other terrorists is well documented.
Only those out of touch, like Howard Dean, and France, still argue that the Iraq War was a bad move.

Why dont we attack N Korea? Two reasons, China and South Korea. I assume you think that diplomacy is not a good idea? Cause that is what Bush is using. You argue that diplomacy in Iraq but war for N Korea. If your stance only contrairy due to you not liking Bush or do you really think that war is the only option in Korea?
Anyway if we attack N Korea, all the plans show that our allie, South Korea, will suffer civillian causualties in the hundreds of thousands. Is this reason enough for Bush to continue to use diplomacy? Or is the pretense of compassion only used for the 5000 deaths in Iraq ( but not for the 100,000 per year that we stopped due to the war)?
So far, Bush has used every option that cost the fewest lives, while his vocal critics argue for compassion and options that would cost more lives. It just doesnt make sense.

12-27-2003, 01:38 PM	#15 (permalink)
Endymon32 Banned	We attacked Iraq, cause we had the legal right to do so. He was in violation of 17 un resolutions. He failed to provide proof that he destroyed the very weapons he was confirmed to have. He was supposed to comply, with out interference, to inspectors. For 12 years he didnt comply, and accourding to the terms Saddam signed, we took him out. You are right Mr Buck, it is about oil. Since Saddam had oil, nations like France, China, Germany, and Russia, were willing to let him violate the UN as long as they could sell him weapons for oil, Saddam knew he had all the wiggle room he needed. With France and Co on his side, Saddam could flout the UN ( as France, CHina and Russia are UN security council nations) and continue to interfere with inspections, and attack when he was ready. The US had the guts to stand up to these Hypocritical Nations and call bullshit on Saddam. We gave him a chance to surrender and he didnt. So we took out Saddam with minimal loss to life, and infrastructure. Making the year of the war the year with the least violent deaths since Saddam came to power. Then Bush forced out these hypocritical nations of post Iraqi deals and in responce they forgave Iraqi debts, thus making Iraq and even better place. And the Kay report clearly shows that Saddam was pursing biological weapons and had a bevy of Frence, Chinese, and Russian ordinance. So far the only thing Bush said that remanes unfounded is that Saddam had links wo Al queda. But Saddams ties and sponcership of other terrorists is well documented. Only those out of touch, like Howard Dean, and France, still argue that the Iraq War was a bad move. Why dont we attack N Korea? Two reasons, China and South Korea. I assume you think that diplomacy is not a good idea? Cause that is what Bush is using. You argue that diplomacy in Iraq but war for N Korea. If your stance only contrairy due to you not liking Bush or do you really think that war is the only option in Korea? Anyway if we attack N Korea, all the plans show that our allie, South Korea, will suffer civillian causualties in the hundreds of thousands. Is this reason enough for Bush to continue to use diplomacy? Or is the pretense of compassion only used for the 5000 deaths in Iraq ( but not for the 100,000 per year that we stopped due to the war)? So far, Bush has used every option that cost the fewest lives, while his vocal critics argue for compassion and options that would cost more lives. It just doesnt make sense.