Quote:
Originally Posted by Truth Detector
the Iraqi people have elected a government,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hatuey  One that is weak and can't support itself or grow the balls to fight for it's own land. Expecting American soldiers to do what Arabs seem to be too retarded to do. |
A specious argument in that it presumes that a country that has been under dictators and despots for centuries should suddenly become experts at freedom and Democracy.
I am sure the same things were espoused by the ill-informed when America won its independence. It took us over 200 years and we are still figuring it out. We fought a horrible civil war 100 years after our independence. But I am sure we will ALL agree that a Democracy beats the hell out of a dictatorship run by a megalomaniac psycho.
Quote:
rid themselves of a murderous dictator who caused the death of millions of his own people not to mention the millions of his neighbors from two unnecessary wars, they are enforcing their laws, violence is at an all time low and the terrorists are on the run.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hatuey THEY rid themselves of a murderous dictator? Who is THEY? Last time I checked it was U.S. helicopters, tanks and soldiers going through the streets of Baghdad fighting Iraqi troops. It was U.S. troops that were looking for Saddam. |
A false argument in that the Iraqi's and their own courts were the ones who tried Saddam, condemned him for his crimes against the Iraqi people and hung him. We had very little to do with it. I guess you missed the fact.
Quote:
But of course in your definition, it would have been a much better political solution to ignore the threat Saddam continued to pose, to ignore his outright defiance of continuous UN resolutions and to ignore the corruption of the UN oil-for-food program.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hatuey It's been proven that Saddam posed about as much a threat as Mugabe. The only reason his country was still around was because oil is good money. That's not the reason we went to war but can you show what made Saddam a threat to the U.S.? His non-existent WMDs? Or was it the war he couldn't start because he was being kept in check by other Arab nations? |
How has this been proven? To Liberals like you who desperately want a reasdon to hate your own country and its efforts to rid the world of a psychotic dictator who invaded neighboring countries and caused the deaths of millions? A dictator who attempted to arm himself with WMDs and had used them on his enemies and his own people?
If Saddam was such a non-threat, why then did the UN vote nearly unanimous on numerous resolutions to disarm him and continually failed to neutralize him?
If Saddam was such a non-threat, why did the previous administrations make the same arguments the Bush Administration about what a threat he was to the region, the world's oil supply and our allies?
If Saddam was such a non-threat, why did the Saudi's agree to allow us to stage our military on their land?
The only one's who profess such nonsensical and specious arguments are those with a Liberal political agenda.
Again it begs the question; why do Liberals make such specious arguments when Saddam had proven on numerous occasions what a threat he was to stability and his violent attempts to control the Middle East Oil supply by invading Iran and Kuwait?
It begs another question; why do Liberals make such specious arguments against our own nation, this Administration and defend or even excuse the actions of despots and terrorists?
Quote:
Once again, failure as defined by you and the corrupt intellectually weak blather from the Left in this country is this; because you say so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hatuey Failure is defined by the fact 'we' can't leave until 'we' fix what the Iraqis won't do fix for themselves. Like children they have to have everything done for them. That Iraqis won't step up to the plate and take off their uniforms the second they're hit with anything stronger then a 9MM is a sign of how big a failure this war has been. |
Again, your argument begs the question; what is your point?
We made a decision to go into Iraq to enforce the UN resolutions he defied for a decade. It was a bi-partisan agreement about his defiance and threat to the region and our allies. We went in and we have established a self governing Democracy which over 67% of the Iraqi people at risk of personal harm went to polls, voted and dipped their fingers into ink and proudly displayed their defiance to the thugs who threatened them for choosing their own leaders.
What makes your weak arguments so specious is that the alternative is to run away from the obligation we all agreed on when the overwhelming majority in the Congress and Senate voted for the Joint Resolution.
What is readily apparent from such weak and specious arguments professed by people like you is that they are made in a empty void of the facts, truth and historic record of what occurred. It is also apparent that the ONLY solution offered by Liberals and their Democrat pals in the congress is to attack the Commander and Chief, impugn the efforts of our military, impugn the character of the members of this administration and those in congress who believe that success in Iraq is a better strategy.
It's sickening to watch the desperate attempts by a major political party in this country to make us more vulnerable and force us to withdraw from Iraq before the job is done and make Osama Bin Laden's prophesy about the American will come true for no better reason than political opportunism.
It's patently stupid, pathetic and should insult the intelligence of thinking Americans to watch this party attack their own rather than the despots, thugs, murderers and terrorists who are attempting to thwart our efforts to assist the Iraqi people in their desire for a democratically elected Government.
Linear Mode
Main
Extras
