• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

who killed these babies ?

Yeah, pretty much the same for all others I would think.

you see l am accused of lying when l make similar comments about syria or other ME issues

they want to ignore teh fact that teh west has been arming these radicals if tahts me who claims it
 
Last edited:
Doing it in 1941 didn't get us in trouble. In fact, waiting until 1941 cost far more American lives.

There were vettable good guys in Iraq after Desert Storm. Did we support them? No. The Result? The invasion of Iraq in 2003.

There were vettable good guys in Iran a few years ago. Did we support them? No. The result? That remains to be seen, as Iran's nuclear capabilities grow everyday.

There were vettable good guys in Rwanda. Did we act? No. The result? Nearly a million innocent people were murdered.

The notion that we should turn a blind eye to EVERY crisis is naïve, at best.

While we can agree that Rwanda was a tragedy and the UN stood by and watched as millions were butchered, how would our interjection into their civil war furthered our interests? How did removing Hussain further our interests? What good is fighting in Afghanistan doing for our interests? One day we'll leave and they Afghanistan will return to being a nation of women abusing goat herders. I can understand military intervention to keep trade routs open. I can even understand taking revenge on groups that harm us. I don't understand how getting involved in Syria helps us. The use of chemical weapons is a savage act and one that no nation should support but unless Americans are threatened I personally don't think we should be involved.
 
you see l am accused of lying when l make similar comments about syria or other ME issues

they want to ignore teh fact that teh west has been arming these radicals if tahts me who claims it

Who is ignoring it? Everybody knows now. They even have Al Nusra on killing an FSA Commander. There is no getting round they took what they wanted too.
 
All sources are dubious when you're inclined to disbelieve the reporting - likewise, all sources are reliable when you're inclined to believe the reporting.

That is the sad state of affairs in the once proud profession of journalism and the depths to which it is sunk in the age of agenda news.

Who is not inclined to disbelieve the Castro regime? You think that source is legit?
 
Who is not inclined to disbelieve the Castro regime? You think that source is legit?

I don't know if the source of the story is legitimate or not - however, not all illegitimate sources get the story wrong all the time.
 
I don't know if the source of the story is legitimate or not - however, not all illegitimate sources get the story wrong all the time.

You think the Castro regime's state media is a legit source?
 
While we can agree that Rwanda was a tragedy and the UN stood by and watched as millions were butchered, how would our interjection into their civil war furthered our interests? How did removing Hussain further our interests? What good is fighting in Afghanistan doing for our interests? One day we'll leave and they Afghanistan will return to being a nation of women abusing goat herders. I can understand military intervention to keep trade routs open. I can even understand taking revenge on groups that harm us. I don't understand how getting involved in Syria helps us. The use of chemical weapons is a savage act and one that no nation should support but unless Americans are threatened I personally don't think we should be involved.

SOmetimes, you just have to do the right thing.
 
You've brought up an uncomfortable truth regarding Iraq's WMD. And you're correct to bring it up.


Iraq had no WMDs, remember? If they did have, I think it would be considered a comfortable truth. It would help to justify a war that most of the world was against. Of course most of the world agreed that there were no WMDs too.
 
I don't know if the source of the story is legitimate or not - however, not all illegitimate sources get the story wrong all the time.

Let's face reality. The Castro regime will gladly take the word of random terrorists if it is detrimental to the US.
 
Who is ignoring it? Everybody knows now. They even have Al Nusra on killing an FSA Commander. There is no getting round they took what they wanted too.

okay l am lying
 
No, I had to google it and use google translater for the wiki page. I don't think you knew you were using the Castro regime as a source.



When the Castro regime fails, run to RT? hahaha

there are lots of different sources including teh video

did you watch it ?
 
SOmetimes, you just have to do the right thing.

For whom? That's the issue. We are pulling out of Iraq and it's returning to the same Suni, Shia, Kurd separation that it had under Hussein but without a strongman to hold the country together. We have a puppet in Afghanistan who will be toast when we leave. In the mean time, all the money and lives we've spent there will only serve to teach us a valuable lesson. Nation building is impossible for outsiders. Nation building has to come from within.
 
For whom? That's the issue. We are pulling out of Iraq and it's returning to the same Suni, Shia, Kurd separation that it had under Hussein but without a strongman to hold the country together. We have a puppet in Afghanistan who will be toast when we leave. In the mean time, all the money and lives we've spent there will only serve to teach us a valuable lesson. Nation building is impossible for outsiders. Nation building has to come from within.

1) We're pulling out too early.

2) Though the country may still be a ****hole, there isn't an out of control crazy man threatening the region.

3) WW2 taught us that sitting back and hoping things will work themselves out doesn't work. We could have waited another 20 years, but we would have gone into Iraq, sooner or later, only by then things may be so out of control that it would cost us 40,000 lives rather than 4,000.
 
you must be anti american

if l make the same statement


l have to be accused of being a hater

these japanese babies were not ass

a little heart

The Japanese leadership was given a choice to surrender or be nuked. We all know what they chose for their people, not once but twice.

It potentially saved thousands of American lives not having to invade Japan.

They started it, the US ended it.

Nothing heartless about that.

"War is Hell."
William Tecumseh Sherman
 
:laughat:

Iraq had no WMDs, remember? If they did have, I think it would be considered a comfortable truth. It would help to justify a war that most of the world was against. Of course most of the world agreed that there were no WMDs too.

Where have you been?

W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” — From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” — Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” — From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

“Saddam’s goal … is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed.” — Madeline Albright, 1998

“What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad’s regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs.” — Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

If The Bush Administration Lied About WMD, So Did These People — Version 3.0 | Right Wing News

snopes.com: Weapons of Mass Destruction Quotes
 
1) We're pulling out too early.

2) Though the country may still be a ****hole, there isn't an out of control crazy man threatening the region.

3) WW2 taught us that sitting back and hoping things will work themselves out doesn't work. We could have waited another 20 years, but we would have gone into Iraq, sooner or later, only by then things may be so out of control that it would cost us 40,000 lives rather than 4,000.

I don't disagree with you that, like most things, Obama is not doing the work he should be doing in Afghanistan and Iraq. I maintain however that we cannot nation build.

Reagan was able to work with Hussein. Granted he was a tyrant. He was someone else's tyrant however. Our military could have taken out Iraq's government at any time with relative minimal effort, as far as war goes if there is such a thing. Being an oil producing nation, at the time, the only reason to go into Iraq was for oil if they stopped production. As it is, most of Iraq's oil goes to the far east because logistics are easier than routing it through Rotterdam. That wasn't the issue at the time however. Going there was a mistake.

We entered WW2 because Germany was interfering with our trade with Europe and trade routs to Europe. It was in our national interest to defeat Germany and keep our trading partners free. I see no such national interest being served at this point in time in Syria. Muslims have killed more Muslims in the world than anyone else. During the Viet Nam era they used to say, kill them all and let God sort it out.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1062232323 said:

Out of the bubble the U.S. created within the U.S. Leading up to that war news agencies and experts around the world were refuting the WMD claims by the U.S. Govt. The press within the U.S. were not questioning anything. Did anyone in the U.S. wonder why they could not get countries around the world onboard with the Iraq invasion? With the exception of Britain, all the countries that went with the U.S. to Afganistan and to Iraq I, refused this time. What was the response of the American citizens? Was it to wonder why? No, it was to rename french fries and french toast. It was to decide not to vacation in Canada.

The U.S. Americans :) (love that quote) were inundated with false information and the press did their best to support the bad info. So most Americans supported the war (Dems and GOP).
It was another case of propoganda working, another case of the big Lie.


A link you posted said "If The Bush Administration Lied About WMD, So Did These People - " That is just silly. I tell a lie to you and convinced you I am telling the truth because I have irrefutable evidence. You repeat the lie and present it as fact to another. Did you lie? A Lie requires an intention to decieve.
The quotes you present show no such intention. All they really show is Democrats supporting the Government of the day on a matter considered to be bi-partisan.

In your response to me you tried to show me that Democrats supported the war. There is no question, that is true. Not supporting the war became the most unAmerican thing you could do.

I can only hope that this is a mistake that America will not be repeat in the future. I fear that hope is futile though.
 
Let's face reality. The Castro regime will gladly take the word of random terrorists if it is detrimental to the US.

Not to be too flippant, but I've seen US regimes taking the word of some pretty shady characters when it's beneficial to their cause or goals.
 
Iraq had no WMDs, remember? If they did have, I think it would be considered a comfortable truth.
You may want to read the entire thread.
It would help to justify a war that most of the world was against.
I wasn't in favor of the second Gulf War. Yet, most of the world was. Maybe you should look at the number of countries that were in agreement that Saddam had WMD's.
Of course most of the world agreed that there were no WMDs too.
Read previous post. Even France. The one "allied country" that was against going in with the second Gulf War, also believed that there were in fact WMD's there.

Like I said, read the rest of the thread for a more in-depth discussion about the WMD's that Saddam had at one point.
 
If the reporting turns out to be accurate, then yes, it's a legit source.

So if a truther website gets something correct, about anything, it's a legit source?
 
So if a truther website gets something correct, about anything, it's a legit source?

Yes, it is, on the "something" they got correct. It's not that hard a concept to grasp. If the "Castro" website claimed the sun rises in the east, would you say that's nonsense, the source can't be believed?
 
Back
Top Bottom