|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Tiger Beer
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 9:27 pm Post subject: Mitt Romney & Mormonism |
 |
|
The media adores Republican Presidential runner Mitt Romney.. and he's Mormon.
Thoughts on this.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 10:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The media likes him because he's fairly good-looking, he was a popular Republican governor of Massachusetts, he's from a fairly famous political family, and the Mormon angle makes for lots of good news coverage (every time some cracker politician makes a foolish criticism of what is no more of a cult than what they believe in...)
Last edited by Rteacher on Wed Jun 06, 2007 11:23 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
insam
Joined: 17 May 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 10:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| the 'can do' white corporate body is a menace, plain and simple. it is most perfectly represented in mormons (e.g. the investment bankers interested in mormon businesses) but also represented in most mainstream political/business agendas. until there's an actual choice in the major parties, i won't vote. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
contrarian
Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Location: Nearly in NK
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 10:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This may be a double post, if so "mi an ham nida.
The Evangelicals don't like him because he's a Mormon. The Mormons are the competition to Evangelical prosleyting.
On the other hand many of them would rather have Satan than Obama or Hillary. Falwell is dead, it may be a new ball game where Romeny is all they have on the anti-abortion, anti gay marriage issues. He is not quite as far out as McCain on immigration (McCain is right but unpopular in this area).
Romney is about as scandal proof as any politician in US History. This too breeds mistrust - there must be something wrong somewhere in the thought. He may be considered to be part of the right wing conspiracy.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 11:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| insam wrote: |
| the 'can do' white corporate body is a menace, plain and simple. it is most perfectly represented in mormons (e.g. the investment bankers interested in mormon businesses) but also represented in most mainstream political/business agendas. until there's an actual choice in the major parties, i won't vote. |
Why not vote for another party? Not voting simply sends the message to those who rely on votes that you don't care, no? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
insam
Joined: 17 May 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 11:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| good point, but realistically.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
insam
Joined: 17 May 2007
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 8:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Had it whispered in my ear that Romney made a goofy gaffe in the debates and said the Iraq war wouldn't have happened if Saddam had not kicked the inspectors out of the country. It's the other way around. The inspectors asked for more time and Bush kicked them out.
Very few media sources even seem to have noticed.
From Slate :
Romney got around to asserting this view, but he meandered. He compounded his error by saying if Saddam had allowed IAEA inspectors into the country, there wouldn't have been a war. Saddam did let them in. For the rest of the debate Romney didn't leave much of an impression.
Why did no one call him on it? Most of the Uglicans have been dropping identical little rabbit pellets for years. It's a lie, one repeated many times. Truth is, Bush didn't want the inspectors to finish the job, because if they had, they would have told the world that Saddam HAD no WMDs.
Which is something we all know right now, of course. The pretexts for the war were just that, pretexts. In other words, lies.
And the media - most of it- is silent because they know their own complicity in all this, for not asking the right questions at the time it would have done the most good. And it looks like most of them have not learned a thing ...
Here an official-looking web page seems to back up the truth of it, dated 14 February 2003 :
International Atomic Energy Agency
We have to date found no evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear or nuclear related activities in Iraq. However, as I have just indicated, a number of issues are still under investigation and we are not yet in a position to reach a conclusion about them, although we are moving forward with regard to some of them. To that end, we intend to make full use of the authority granted to us under all relevant Security Council resolutions to build as much capacity into the inspection process as necessary.
Polite bow to EFLtrainer, who seems to be under temp ban at the moment, but is still allowed to pm ... thanks for the link, dude.
Smiles. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 7:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Saddam would not have let inspectors unless the US put tens of thousand of troops in his face. and when they left he would kick them out again.
Containment allows Saddam Hussein to control the political climate of the Middle East. If it serves his interest to provoke a crisis, he can shoot at U.S. planes. He can mobilize his troops near Kuwait. He can support terrorists and destabilize his neighbors. The United States must respond to these provocations.
Worse, containment forces the United States to keep large conventional forces in Saudi Arabia and the rest of the region. That costs much more than money.
The existence of al Qaeda, and the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, are part of the price the United States has paid to contain Saddam Hussein.
The link is clear and direct. Since 1991 the United States has had forces in Saudi Arabia. Those forces are there for one purpose only: to defend the kingdom (and its neighbors) from Iraqi attack. If Saddam Hussein had either fallen from power in 1991 or fulfilled the terms of his cease-fire agreement and disarmed, U.S. forces would have left Saudi Arabia.
But Iraqi defiance forced the United States to stay, and one consequence was dire and direct. Osama bin Laden founded al Qaeda because U.S. forces stayed in Saudi Arabia.
This is the link between Saddam Hussein's defiance of international law and the events of Sept. 11; it is clear and compelling. No Iraqi violations, no Sept. 11.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A13019-2003Mar11?language=printer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 7:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Saddam would not have let inspectors unless the US put tens of thousand of troops in his face. and when they left he would kick them out again. |
It was Bush who kicked the inspectors out, not Saddam. Woulda been harder for him to have his war if the inspectors had looked everywhere and decided there were no WMDs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 10:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Bobster wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Saddam would not have let inspectors unless the US put tens of thousand of troops in his face. and when they left he would kick them out again. |
It was Bush who kicked the inspectors out, not Saddam. Woulda been harder for him to have his war if the inspectors had looked everywhere and decided there were no WMDs. |
What got Saddam to accept the inspectors? Did he like welcome them? Or was in 100,000 US troops in his face?
What was Saddam going to do when the inspectors left? Remember Saddam Hussein deceived the IEA big time in the late 1990s when Hans Blix in fact was in charge. He would act up again and force the US to send thousands of troops to the mideast. Then he would back down . And it would go on forever.
Romney said it wrong but his main point is correct . but if Saddam had given up his war then there would have been no war.
He had 12 years to cooperate and quit his war but he never did. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 6:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Romney said it wrong |
Got that right, but it's ONLY thing you got right.
1. BUSH kicked the inspectors out, not Saddam.
2. There never WERE any WMDs.
3. If the American people had been told that, it's possible they would not have allowed Bush to have his disastrous adventure.
4. Bush knew the "evidence" of WMDs was spurious and fabricated, like the documents later found to be forgeries.
5. Therefore, we can say with near certainly that Bush kicking the inspectors out was premeditaed, done so he could move militarily on a country that several sources indicate he had wanted long before 9/11.
Question : Did Romney make a mistake, or is he just perpetuating a lie that's been out there, rewriting history, so to speak? And why did no one jump on this in the debate, and why have so few in the media even noticed it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 5:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Bobster"]
| Quote: |
| Romney said it wrong |
Got that right, but it's ONLY thing you got right.
1. BUSH kicked the inspectors out, not Saddam.
| Quote: |
2. There never WERE any WMDs. |
In the 1980s there were and more importantly Saddam was not in complacence and according to the US chief weapons inspector Saddam intended to rebuild his WMD programs.
Also Bush also could not kick out WMD inspectors only the UN take them out.
| Quote: |
06 October 2004
Chief U.S. Inspector Says Hussein Sought to Break Sanctions
Congressional Report, October 6: Iraq Survey Group Report
Washington -- Former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was aggressively plotting to subvert U.N. sanctions as part of a plan to produce illicit nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, according to the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq.
Hussein was actively pursuing illegal financing and procurement efforts to undermine U.N.-imposed sanctions that prevented him from reconstituting weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs after the 1991 Persian Gulf War, Chief Inspector Charles A. Duelfer testified October 6 before the Senate Armed Services Committee. That effort included influencing certain permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, he said.
"The fact that [Hussein] had the intent and capability, and that he was trying to undermine the sanctions that were in place is very disturbing," White House press secretary Scott McClellan told the Washington Post October 6. "And I think the report will continue to show that he was a gathering threat that needed to be taken seriously, that it was a matter of time before he was going to begin pursuing those weapons of mass destruction." |
http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2004&m=October&x=20041006172041dmslahrellek0.8735468
| Quote: |
3. If the American people had been told that, it's possible they would not have allowed Bush to have his disastrous adventure. |
maybe on the other hand after 9-11 if he said the middle east as it is was a threat to the US then maybe not.
| Quote: |
4. Bush knew the "evidence" of WMDs was spurious and fabricated, like the documents later found to be forgeries. |
how do you know that?
It was the opinion of the CIA and many around the world that Saddam did have WMDs .
Woodward: Tenet told Bush WMD case a 'slam dunk'
Says Bush didn't solicit Rumsfeld, Powell on going to war
Monday, April 19, 2004 Posted: 9:34 AM EDT (1334 GMT)
| Quote: |
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- About two weeks before deciding to invade Iraq, President Bush was told by CIA Director George Tenet there was a "slam dunk case" that dictator Saddam Hussein had unconventional weapons, according to a new book by Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward.
That declaration was "very important" in his decision making, according to "Plan of Attack," which is being excerpted this week in The Post.
|
what is your evidence that Bush though Saddam didn't have WMDS?
though WMDS were not the real reason for the war
And if Bush thought Saddam didn't have WMDs then he would have come up with another reason for attacking Iraq.
| Quote: |
5. Therefore, we can say with near certainly that Bush kicking the inspectors out was premeditaed, done so he could move militarily on a country that several sources indicate he had wanted long before 9/11. |
Bush decided to get Saddam after 9-11 not before 9-11.
| Quote: |
O'Neill: 'Frenzy' distorted war plans account
Rumsfeld: Idea of a bias toward war 'a total misunderstanding'
WASHINGTON (CNN) --Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said Tuesday his account of the Bush administration's early discussions about a possible invasion of Iraq has been distorted by a "red meat frenzy."
The controversy began last week when excerpts were released from a book on the administration published Tuesday in which O'Neill suggests Iraq was the focus of President Bush's first National Security Council meeting.
That started what O'Neill described to NBC's "Today" show as a "red meat frenzy that's occurred when people didn't have anything except snippets."
"People are trying to make a case that I said the president was planning war in Iraq early in the administration," O'Neill said.
"Actually, there was a continuation of work that had been going on in the Clinton administration with the notion that there needed to be regime change in Iraq."
The idea that Bush "came into office with a predisposition to invade Iraq, I think, is a total misunderstanding of the situation," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told reporters at the Pentagon.
Bush administration officials have noted that U.S. policy dating from the Clinton administration was to seek "regime change" in Iraq, although it focused on funding and training Iraqi opposition groups rather than using military force. (Full story)
Retired Army Gen. Hugh Shelton, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he saw nothing to indicate the United States was close to attacking Iraq early in Bush's term.
Shelton, who retired shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, said the brass reviewed "on the shelf" plans to respond to crises with the incoming Bush administration.
But in the administration's first six months, "I saw nothing that would lead me to believe that we were any closer to attacking Iraq than we had been during the previous administration," Shelton told CNN.
O'Neill, former CEO of aluminum producer Alcoa, sat on the National Security Council during his 23 months as treasury secretary.
He was pushed out of the administration in December 2002 during a dispute over tax cuts and growing budget deficits, and was the primary source for author Ron Suskind's book, "The Price of Loyalty: George Bush, the White House and the Education of Paul O'Neill."
"From the start, we were building the case against Hussein and looking at how we could take him out and change Iraq into a new country," O'Neill is quoted as saying in the book.
"And, if we did that, it would solve everything. It was about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it -- the president saying, 'Fine. Go find me a way to do this.'"
But Tuesday O'Neill said, "I'm amazed that anyone would think that our government, on a continuing basis across political administrations, doesn't do contingency planning and look at circumstances."
Several Democratic presidential candidates seized on O'Neill's comments to argue that the Bush administration misled Americans about the drive to war with Iraq, where nearly 500 American troops have been killed since March.
Democratic front-runner Howard Dean used them as a jumping-off point to attack three rivals -- Rep. Dick Gephardt and Sens. John Kerry and John Edwards -- who supported a congressional resolution authorizing Bush to act against Iraq.
"I would remind Iowans and others that a year ago, I stood up against this war and was the only one to do so of the individuals I have mentioned," said Dean, whose opposition to the war helped propel him to the top of the pack.
Bush repeated his position Monday that his administration turned to war with Iraq only after the September 11 attacks changed the way U.S. officials viewed Baghdad's suspected weapons programs.
That Iraq was a concern before that time was evident in July 2001, when national security adviser Condoleezza Rice told CNN that Saddam "is on the radar screen for the administration," and senior officials met at the White House two days later to discuss Iraq.
During the same time, Iraq began dispersing aircraft and air defense capabilities in preparation for more aggressive U.S. airstrikes to enforce the "no-fly" zones over northern and southern Iraq.
A senior administration official told CNN that early Bush administration discussions regarding Iraq reviewed existing policies and plans.
Officials were particularly concerned with enforcement of the "no-fly" zones, where Iraqi air defense forces had been taking potshots at U.S. and British warplanes since late 1998.
Rumsfeld said Tuesday that Iraq was the only place in the world where U.S. forces were being fired upon "with impunity," and "clearing it was something that needed to be addressed."
Richard Perle, a leading advocate of war with Iraq and a member of the independent Defense Advisory Board that advises Rumsfeld, told CNN the review was still under way when the September 11 attacks occurred.
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/13/oneill.bush |
Probably , but he also thought that if US troops left Saddam would rearm.
Furthermore it was US policy before 9-11 to have smart sanctions on Iraq.
Bush only decided to go after Saddam after 9-11.
Question : Did Romney make a mistake, or is he just perpetuating a lie that's been out there, rewriting history, so to speak? And why did no one jump on this in the debate, and why have so few in the media even noticed it?[/quote]
The fact is Saddam never gave up his war.
| Quote: |
That this�his pro-American moment�was the worst Moore could possibly say of Saddam's depravity is further suggested by some astonishing falsifications. Moore asserts that Iraq under Saddam had never attacked or killed or even threatened (his words) any American. I never quite know whether Moore is as ignorant as he looks, or even if that would be humanly possible. Baghdad was for years the official, undisguised home address of Abu Nidal, then the most-wanted gangster in the world, who had been sentenced to death even by the PLO and had blown up airports in Vienna* and Rome. Baghdad was the safe house for the man whose "operation" murdered Leon Klinghoffer. Saddam boasted publicly of his financial sponsorship of suicide bombers in Israel. (Quite a few Americans of all denominations walk the streets of Jerusalem.) In 1991, a large number of Western hostages were taken by the hideous Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and held in terrible conditions for a long time. After that same invasion was repelled�Saddam having killed quite a few Americans and Egyptians and Syrians and Brits in the meantime and having threatened to kill many more�the Iraqi secret police were caught trying to murder former President Bush during his visit to Kuwait. Never mind whether his son should take that personally. (Though why should he not?) Should you and I not resent any foreign dictatorship that attempts to kill one of our retired chief executives? (President Clinton certainly took it that way: He ordered the destruction by cruise missiles of the Baathist "security" headquarters.) Iraqi forces fired, every day, for 10 years, on the aircraft that patrolled the no-fly zones and staved off further genocide in the north and south of the country. In 1993, a certain Mr. Yasin helped mix the chemicals for the bomb at the World Trade Center and then skipped to Iraq, where he remained a guest of the state until the overthrow of Saddam. In 2001, Saddam's regime was the only one in the region that openly celebrated the attacks on New York and Washington and described them as just the beginning of a larger revenge. Its official media regularly spewed out a stream of anti-Semitic incitement. I think one might describe that as "threatening," even if one was narrow enough to think that anti-Semitism only menaces Jews. And it was after, and not before, the 9/11 attacks that Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi moved from Afghanistan to Baghdad and began to plan his now very open and lethal design for a holy and ethnic civil war. On Dec. 1, 2003, the New York Times reported�and the David Kay report had established�that Saddam had been secretly negotiating with the "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-il in a series of secret meetings in Syria, as late as the spring of 2003, to buy a North Korean missile system, and missile-production system, right off the shelf. (This attempt was not uncovered until after the fall of Baghdad, the coalition's presence having meanwhile put an end to the negotiations.) |
1. Saddam shot at US planes.
2. Saddam was not in compliance
3. Saddam continued to threaten Kuwait.
| Quote: |
In the years since, Saddam has tested our response capabilities with feints against Kuwait. In October 1994, he moved 70,000 troops and 1,000 tanks to the Kuwaiti border well before we could respond. According to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, several days elapsed in which Iraq could have once again taken Kuwait and made a run at the Saudi oil fields. This has only reinforced the notion among our likely adversaries that they can accomplish at least their initial military objectives before we can stop them. And, since surprise provides the attacking side such enormous military leverage, we must assume that any future US adversary is likely to do everything possible to mount "a bolt from the blue" attack. History shows that no matter how much you spend on intelligence, you will always be vulnerable. |
http://www.afa.org/magazine/dec1996/1296storm.asp
4. Saddam tried to kill a US president.
5. His regime supported terrorists , taught hate and incited violence
Let the record show that Saddam never gave up his war.
If that was Romney's point then he was correct. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2007 1:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's been years, joo. Learn to use the quote function, or don't bother. Looks like you are saying things I was saying, and neither of us wants that. I can't even tell anymore ...
You are wrong everywhere, and it looks like you are the last to know it.
ONE :
| Quote: |
| In the 1980s Saddam was not in complacence |
I think you mean "compliance," an I'm not making fun of your grammar or vocabulary, though buddha knows I could if I wanted to, but I made a promise to respect you ...
Reagan and Saddam were friends back then. In the 1980s. There are famous photos of Hussein and Donald Rumseld shaking hands. We were all busy shooting airbuses of Iranian children out of the sky who were on their to Mecca for the weekend ... I think you are thinking of another decade, aside from the spelling errors.
TWO:
| Quote: |
| Also Bush also could not kick out WMD inspectors only the UN take them out. |
Um, I guess you could just tell the inspectors "we're going to start bombing in two days or a week." Same difference. It's in the realm of history, now ...
THREE:
| Quote: |
| Chief U.S. Inspector Says Hussein Sought to Break Sanctions |
Is this a big surprise? If your country, ANY of our countries were under any kind of sanctions, OF COURSE you'd try get out fom under them. That's natural. Does it mean Saddam was evil? No, OTHER things he did make him evil. We all know this. He was just like three dozen other despots scattered around the globe.
Does it show he was a threat to America? Not at all. Not even a little.
FOUR:
| Quote: |
| maybe on the other hand after 9-11 if he said the middle east as it is was a threat to the US then maybe not. |
But nobody said that, and if they had, then we could all have had a little talk about whether it's true. And whether, if it's even a little true, then maybe bombing people who never hurt us, sacrificing thousands of our sons and daughters, invading a country that was never any threat to us, and possibly bankrupting our economy for the next 40 years or so is the best idea.
Discussions like that are part of a little thing some of us like to call democracy. I sort of like democracy. Do you like democracy? I think it's one the best things about America, offhand ...
Democracracy. Let's all think about it.
FIVE:
| Quote: |
| Tenet told Bush WMD case a 'slam dunk' |
You are so brave, to post a story from 3 years ago, when Tenet has recanted the whole "slam dunk" thing, and looks to be making a little money out of a book by doing it.
| Quote: |
| WMDS were not the real reason for the war |
We know that now, because now we know there WERE not WMDs. That's what I'm talking about. THAT's why Bush wanted the inspectors out of Iraq before they finished looking. Therefore, we agree that our govt sent our soldiers to die, and continues to do so, on the basis of a lie.
As I said, you are wrong, everywhere.
I sort of think 5 examples of how wrong you are enough of my time.
Just remembered some people started this thread to alk about Romney's Mormonism. Sorry it got away from that.
JFK was Catholic. Lots thought that was important, that maybe he'd be on the phone to the Pope every day before deciding what to do. That's bogus, and history shows it, and so this is the typical rightwing religious intolerance about Romney's Mormonism that we've gotten used to in so many other instances .... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2007 10:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| You are wrong everywhere, and it looks like you are the last to know it. |
Sorry Bob you are.
| Quote: |
In the 1980s Saddam was not in complacence
I think you mean "compliance," an I'm not making fun of your grammar or vocabulary, though buddha knows I could if I wanted to, but I made a promise to respect you ... |
I don't care. What I said is still in fact true.
| Quote: |
| Reagan and Saddam were friends back then. In the 1980s. There are famous photos of Hussein and Donald Rumseld shaking hands. We were all busy shooting airbuses of Iranian children out of the sky who were on their to Mecca for the weekend ... I think you are thinking of another decade, aside from the spelling errors. |
Here are the facts on the airbus incident.
1. It was full of a a lot of people.
2. It was an accident.
3. The US paid compensation.
Anyway
Saddam was not in compliance even in 2003. He had lots of what he was not allowed to . That is a fact.
Just for that the US would have been justified in hiting him.
Tell us Bob why did Clinton Bomb Saddam in 1998? Answer that.
Where is your evidence that Bush knew that Saddam did not have WMDs?
| Quote: |
| Um, I guess you could just tell the inspectors "we're going to start bombing in two days or a week." Same difference. It's in the realm of history, now ... |
Sort of ok. Lets call it as you said it as long as you say it the way you did. That is the only thing that you are sort of correct about here.
THREE:
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Chief U.S. Inspector Says Hussein Sought to Break Sanctions |
Is this a big surprise? If your country, ANY of our countries were under any kind of sanctions, OF COURSE you'd try get out fom under them. That's natural. Does it mean Saddam was evil? No, OTHER things he did make him evil. We all know this. He was just like three dozen other despots scattered around the globe. |
Break sanctions and rearm- post completed.
Saddam was planning to rearm. That by itself was cause to go after him.
He didn't give up his war. If he didn't give up his war then the US was justified in hitting him.
Saddam continued to threaten Kuwait. This again shows Saddam didn't give up his war. If he didn't give up his war then the US was justified in hitting him.
That means that Saddam had not decided to Kuwait Saddam was also worse than most evil leaders but this is an another subject.
| Quote: |
| Does it show he was a threat to America? Not at all. Not even a little. |
The middle east as it was was a threat to the US. Saddam was part of that.
| Quote: |
| But nobody said that, and if they had, then we could all have had a little talk about whether it's true. And whether, if it's even a little true, then maybe bombing people who never hurt us, sacrificing thousands of our sons and daughters, invading a country that was never any threat to us, and possibly bankrupting our economy for the next 40 years or so is the best idea. |
You are making the same point as Michael Moore
The fact is Saddam never gave up his war.
In World War II and in Korea the US killed civilans doesn't that make those wars wrong?
Futhermore taking down Saddam saved lives. That counts too. Not in your book but it does count.
Here is the to the Michael Moore arguement.
| Quote: |
| That this�his pro-American moment�was the worst Moore could possibly say of Saddam's depravity is further suggested by some astonishing falsifications. Moore asserts that Iraq under Saddam had never attacked or killed or even threatened (his words) any American. I never quite know whether Moore is as ignorant as he looks, or even if that would be humanly possible. Baghdad was for years the official, undisguised home address of Abu Nidal, then the most-wanted gangster in the world, who had been sentenced to death even by the PLO and had blown up airports in Vienna* and Rome. Baghdad was the safe house for the man whose "operation" murdered Leon Klinghoffer. Saddam boasted publicly of his financial sponsorship of suicide bombers in Israel. (Quite a few Americans of all denominations walk the streets of Jerusalem.) In 1991, a large number of Western hostages were taken by the hideous Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and held in terrible conditions for a long time. After that same invasion was repelled�Saddam having killed quite a few Americans and Egyptians and Syrians and Brits in the meantime and having threatened to kill many more�the Iraqi secret police were caught trying to murder former President Bush during his visit to Kuwait. Never mind whether his son should take that personally. (Though why should he not?) Should you and I not resent any foreign dictatorship that attempts to kill one of our retired chief executives? (President Clinton certainly took it that way: He ordered the destruction by cruise missiles of the Baathist "security" headquarters.) Iraqi forces fired, every day, for 10 years, on the aircraft that patrolled the no-fly zones and staved off further genocide in the north and south of the country. In 1993, a certain Mr. Yasin helped mix the chemicals for the bomb at the World Trade Center and then skipped to Iraq, where he remained a guest of the state until the overthrow of Saddam. In 2001, Saddam's regime was the only one in the region that openly celebrated the attacks on New York and Washington and described them as just the beginning of a larger revenge. Its official media regularly spewed out a stream of anti-Semitic incitement. I think one might describe that as "threatening," even if one was narrow enough to think that anti-Semitism only menaces Jews. And it was after, and not before, the 9/11 attacks that Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi moved from Afghanistan to Baghdad and began to plan his now very open and lethal design for a holy and ethnic civil war. On Dec. 1, 2003, the New York Times reported�and the David Kay report had established�that Saddam had been secretly negotiating with the "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-il in a series of secret meetings in Syria, as late as the spring of 2003, to buy a North Korean missile system, and missile-production system, right off the shelf. (This attempt was not uncovered until after the fall of Baghdad, the coalition's presence having meanwhile put an end to the negotiations.) |
1. Saddam shot at US planes.
Is this true or false?
2. Saddam was not in compliance in 2003
Is this true or false
3. Saddam continued to threaten Kuwait.
Is this true or false?
4. Saddam tried to kill a US president.
Is this true or false?
5. His regime supported terrorists.
Is this true or false?
6. His regime taught hate and incited violence
Is this true or false?
Saddam never gave up his war. If he didn't give up his war then the US was justified in taking him down. Saddam didn't have a right to his war.
| Quote: |
Discussions like that are part of a little thing some of us like to call democracy. I sort of like democracy. Do you like democracy? I think it's one the best things about America, offhand ...
Democracracy. Let's all think about it. |
Sure , on the other hand telling all the reasons for the war would have made it much harder to get mideast nations to go along with what the US was demanding when it comes to going after AQ.
| Quote: |
FIVE:
| Quote: |
| Tenet told Bush WMD case a 'slam dunk' |
You are so brave, to post a story from 3 years ago, when Tenet has recanted the whole "slam dunk" thing, and looks to be making a little money out of a book by doing it |
.
Has he recanted ? No he did not . If you have proof show it. . Most of the world thought Saddam had WMDs.
And Saddam still had lots of stuff that he was not allowed to have. He was not in compliance.
| Quote: |
| We know that now, because now we know there WERE not WMDs. That's what I'm talking about. THAT's why Bush wanted the inspectors out of Iraq before they finished looking. Therefore, we agree that our govt sent our soldiers to die, and continues to do so, on the basis of a lie. |
Do you have any proof that Bush knew there were no WMDS? Come on Bob put up or shut up.
| Quote: |
| As I said, you are wrong, everywhere. |
Just cause you say it doesn't mean much at all.
| Quote: |
| I sort of think 5 examples of how wrong you are enough of my time. |
Go through it all again. Cause you were not sucessful with your argument.
Saddam never gave up his war. That is a fact.
Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Sat Jun 09, 2007 10:59 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
