ratbastid

Republicans appear, despite all evidence, to believe that. Nobody else does. Whatever terrorists he may or may not have supported, he and his regime had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Bush and company have admitted as much themselves.

mirevolver

He gave financial support to terrorist orginizations in the West Bank and the Gaza strip. That is undenaible.

Democrats seem to want to mothball the war on terror and reduce it down to just a war on Al-Qaeda. But this is a war on terror and we are fighting terrorists and the supporters of terrorists. Al-Qaeda just happens to make up a large part of the overall war, they are not the entire war.

__________________
Aside from my great plans to become the future dictator of the moon, I have little interest in political discussions.

Coppertop

I suppose you support invading every country around the globe until there is only peace and love and the American way? Yeah, that'll happen. Humans fuck each other over everywhere. You cannot force the world to live up to your ideals.

Coppertop

Oh, a war on terrorists. Well then I cannot wait until it is over and there are no more terrorists. Just like the war on drugs. Oh, wait...

Lasereth

Whenever a country is obviously defenseless against a dictator such as Hussein then I believe someone needs to take action. Standing by and letting people be terrorized by a maniacal leader is ignorant whenever there's a chance to remove the threat. It's the entire world's duty to everyone else to uphold decency. There was a chance to take out Hussein and make an attempt to restore Iraq to a reasonable place to live. The US Government took it. Iraq isn't under the control of Hussein, he's out of power, and now Iraq will have a democracy. I think the US Government made the correct decision.

I don't think that the US should "invade every country around the globe until only peace and love and the American way" is upheld, but I think it's the duty of <I>those able</I> to remove threats from defenseless people. The US isn't the issue here...it's the issue of whether removing a threat from defenseless people is the right thing to do. I believe it is whether the US takes action or another country takes action.

-Lasereth

__________________
"A Darwinian attacks his theory, seeking to find flaws. An ID believer defends his theory, seeking to conceal flaws." -Roger Ebert

Coppertop

Wouldn't sending in someone or a team of someones to remove him have been much more effective and less bloody? Would you have supported that action?

So you would support an invasion of North Korea to remove Kim jong Il, who sits high on his throne of plenty while many of his people starve?

Iran? Libya? Cuba? Where is the line drawn and who draws it?

NegativeNine

Lasereth

This is what I was asking for! I just wanted to know an alternative to the war from the people who are against it. I would definitely support this action but that's either a hit or miss. If the team fails then Hussein is aware that the US is trying to capture him. If an invasion begins, a team failing isn't the end of the line, only the end of a single mission. If the single team could get the job done (I hear that it almost happened in 1990) then I'm all for it. If there's a large chance of failure then the tides are turned, however.

Like I said before, the decision was made because Hussein showed an opportune chance of capture. The US <I>was able</I> to invade Iraq and get rid of Hussein. Hussein's power threshold is relatively small compared to the examples you listed. I believe the other examples you listed would be a very bad idea for the US Government to pursue. Hussein is a single dictator with a relatively small amount of power compared to the rest. The other examples are either not under the control of a single dictator or are under the control of a dictator that has a hold on the entire country who has also proven that testing Nuclear Warheads is his favorite Weekend Activity.

-Lasereth

__________________
"A Darwinian attacks his theory, seeking to find flaws. An ID believer defends his theory, seeking to conceal flaws." -Roger Ebert

Shpoop

couldnt have said it better myself...


couldnt have said it better

K-Wise

I just think people have an agenda against Bush. He can't win...if he didn't invade Iraq everyone would called him spineless and a coward etc etc. He did and everyone hates him still. There are even some people who supported the invasion and now hate him because of it. What did they expect to happen? A white flag? Granted this is very much like America to think they have to help everyone out. Don't get me wrong I think it's great that we do I'm proud of it but America has it's own problems right here. Maybe what the Iraqui's need is a revolutionary. Someone to stand up against the terrorists like Pancho Villa did in mexico, or Che Guevara. Pretty unlikely though. Asside from the war should be the real reasons why or why not to support Bush. I mean I don't know if Gore had been elected if he wouldn't have wanted to do the same thing when 9/11 happened.

Asta!!

__________________
"I love music and it's my parents fault (closing statement)." - Me..quoting myself...from when I said that...On TFP..thats here...Tilted Forum Project

It ain't goodbye, it's see ya later! I'll miss you guys! - Asta!!

Coppertop

But don't you see, picking and choosing who we invade makes us look to all the world like a bully. We hit Sadaam because in all reality he couldn't really hit back. North Korea can, so now we forget our moral imperative to rid the world of this dictator? Hence the real reason of us invading is not that he's a bad guy. For fuck's sake we've put worse men than him in power in the past. So why Iraq? I have an idea, and it might have something to do with the fact that the US is now a de facto member of OPEC.