Clearly, this response to my pal Studiose warranted negative feedback. It just goes to show the character of some people from the land of snowcones.Quote:
Originally Posted by agwiii
Printable View
Clearly, this response to my pal Studiose warranted negative feedback. It just goes to show the character of some people from the land of snowcones.Quote:
Originally Posted by agwiii
And when the coalition forces got to look for themselves, what did they find? Nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
And will you please stop stating that those of us who are against the conflict in Iraq are in some way pro-Saddam. This is generalising of the highest order, and actually quite offensive. I find it very hard to take your arguments seriously when you persist with this idea, which suggests that you have not read the substance of many of the things I've posted, for a start.
(Oh, and I find it difficult to be lectured on foreign affairs by a native speaker of English who can't use apostrophes properly.)
Mark, I gave it serious consideration, but after one of Saddam's supporters pointed out that you "can't use apostrophes properly," I had to pass. :laugh: OMG, now we must deal with apostrophobes, as well as Saddamites and Fascists! You have opened Pandora's Box, my friend. :s mokin:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
Can you steer this thread it toward Cambodia? I want to see the supporters of the killing fields try to spin their tales here.
Why persist in childish accusation against people that are trying to make a reasoned point? Ben said that he finds it insulting to be referred to as a Saddam supporter and you choose to reiterate it in the very next post :(Quote:
Originally Posted by agwiii
How sad and childish.
Agwiii. I would suggest that virtually everyone on this forum is against the actions of Saddam Hussein. He was a tyrant and guilty of Genocide against the Iraqi people. I cannot see why anyone would defend him.
However, the way the "War" has been conducted, the systematic failure by the US and UK Governments to successfully resolve the issues, the absence of a suitable exit strategy and the jovial manner that Saddam was killed all add to exacerbate the conflict. It has lead Iraq to the brink, if not past the point of no return that ends in bloody civil war.
Where is there any just cause or defensible action in this conflict? What are we trying to achieve?
It seems that Bush and Blair cannot make their minds up on the reason we went in, the reason we are still there and the reason to stay. Is it WMD, removing a tyrant, the war on terror? All of these arguments ring false.
Was it, and is it still the need of Oil and to have a geographical staging post in the middle east? Seems more likely.
I was in favour of going into Iraq and removing the Dictator. I believed that he should have been tried for his War Crimes in the Hague and sentences appropriately although under Iraqi rule, I recognise that they have the death penalty and that they imposed it. The manner this execution was conducted was disgraceful and added weight to the cause of the insurgents in Iraq.
Can you not see this?
:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
'With Us or Against Us' is a False Dichotomy
I'd like to add to that: "With you but not under you".Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
I'm sure most of the world will stand with the US if they feel the cause and the means are just, but they don't like to be told by the US president what to do or how to think. If you want help, ask don't demand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
I have read the reasoned points have been made by Mark in Oshawa and Gannex. I've never accused either of them of anything other than logic and intelligence. In fact, I have often joined with them in support of some aspects of the arguments they presented. Some others do not fall into that category of making reasoned arguments. Some people even vandalize the original works of published authors and then try to justify their behavior. How sad and childish.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
Knock-on, that is an assumption. Making assumptions can be risky. Assumptions are either warranted or not. Reading the pro-Saddam posts here suggests that your assumption is not warranted.
I agree with you that I cannot see why anyone would defend him, but there are many that continue to support the Butcher of Bagdad.
During most, if not all wars in history, there have been Monday morning quarterbacks who -- despite not having enough information to make an assessment -- persisted in making public policy statements. War cannot be conducted by committee, or with 100% public disclosure. That would be handing the enemy a copy of your battle plan.
Can you not see this?
You list no flag on your profile, yet you criticize the conduct of President Bush and Prime Minister Blair. If you are American or British, then I suggest that you get involved in your government and work to advance your position. If you are somewhere else and live under some form of self-determination government, then I make the same suggestion. Get involved and make a difference. If this is a salient issue to you, do something. I do! This forum is read by very few people and ranting about foreign policy here has no effect upon policy.
Arrows! That was silly, but typical leftist Colorado talk when it was published six-years ago, and it is even more-so today.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
:laughs:
I agree with your post, BDunnell. Being against the war does not mean being pro-Saddam, and it is simplistic to suggest otherwise.
I also agree with you, Knockie, except for the following:
As I have argued before in this thread, I think the primary motivation for the war was not WMD, removing a tyrant, the war on terror, or even oil. The primary motivation, I believe, was the neo-conservative doctrine that can be called the "Reverse Domino Theory". This is the notion that if a democratic, peaceful, and prosperous nation could be achieved in the heart of the Arab world, other Arab peoples might see that there is a better alternative for them than living under brutal dictatorships with warlike tendencies. Freedom and democracy might spread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
It was overly optimistic, as we all now see so tragically proved, but well-intentioned and not anywhere near as reprehensible a war aim as getting cheap oil would have been. BDunnell and you, Knockie, are fed up with posters who over-simplify the arguments of those outraged by the US, but I think there is insulting over-simplification also (not from you two, but from some others) on the other side when critics claim that all Bush was after was cheap oil, money for Halliburton, revenge for the attempt on his father's life, and so on. There's enough caricaturing of the other side's views on both sides, is what I'm saying.
Nobody here supports or defends Saddam personally. We are defending international law and order. No government of any single country should have the right to try and depose the government of another sovereign country, no matter how bad they think it is. If you think they have that right, you must also admit that then the governments of Iraq, Iran, North Korea or China also have the right to try and depose the government of the US.Quote:
Originally Posted by agwiii