Kerry: No Apology

1235»

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 96
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SilentEchoes

    Thats pretty much the point I am making. There are several facts that could lead you to believe either thing ( the war being worthless or not ) As for the intel this is not guilty until proven innocent, right now the fact is the intel said that there was WOMD, until they prove that it did not, its a fact it just happens to be a fact under fire but what ever.



    As for the fact about there being no WOMD, I never disputed that one, there was none, And your right, there was no threat to the US... Providing they where missiles, I think you would also have to be pretty stupid to think that Saddam could not have found one person and one way to get a suitcase bomb into the US. But none of that is what we are debating. We are debating if the war was worthless or not. I am simply giving you the facts I am using to draw my conclusion that it was not.




    Also what made this dictator worse and more important to take out than any of the other ones in the world?



    A lone terrorist isn't what Bush was implying.



    The only thing that got this war off the ground was the idea that Saddam and WOMD were a direct threat to us here. Now.



    Also there is the fact that several people tried to point out this was a stupid premise before the war started. This includes the inspectors who were already there.





    God I'm tired of going over this.



    I've got to go to work now.
  • Reply 82 of 96
    Quote:

    Originally posted by jimmac

    Also what made this dictator worse and more important to take out than any of the other ones in the world?



    A lone terrorist isn't what Bush was implying.



    The only thing that got this war off the ground was the idea that Saddam and WOMD were a direct threat to us here. Now.



    Also there is the fact that several people tried to point out this was a stupid premise before the war started. This includes the inspectors who were already there.





    God I'm tired of going over this.



    I've got to go to work now.




    Where the hell did all that come from? First we where talking about the war it self being worthless and now we are talking about what started the war? What does how it started have anything to do with what was accomplished during the war?



    I am not going to debate the reason of starting the war with you because I agree with you..
  • Reply 83 of 96
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SilentEchoes

    Where the hell did all that come from? First we where talking about the war it self being worthless and now we are talking about what started the war? What does how it started have anything to do with what was accomplished during the war?



    I am not going to debate the reason of starting the war with you because I agree with you..




    Well it sounded like to me you're saying the end justified the means and I don't agree with that. There was no reason to go to war with Saddam at this time but Bush made sure there was a reason.



    Even if there really wasn't a reason.



    If it had been a matter of a terrorist with a suitcase bomb that's better dealt with by internal intelligence not waging war on a country.



    Yes it's probably better that Saddam's gone. But there was no reason to do it when we did or even to make it mostly our responsibility. Lot's of other scenerios could have occured. He could have been ousted from power by the Iraqis themselves for instance.



    There was no pressing reason to do this in a time when we were having economic troubles already at home.



    And really what did it get us?



    We're still there spending money ( and it looks like we will be for sometime ) and there are many other dictators out there to take his place.



    So if you look at the logic of this how did it profit us considering our rather extreme investment?



    Peace in the middle east?



    Nope!



    An end to evil dictators everywhere?



    Nope!



    Freedom from Saddam's mushroom clouds?



    Ha!



    A clear conscience?



    Well since I sincerly doubt the motivations for this war had anything to do with the liberation of the iraqi people so I don't think you can count on that one either.



    Hell according to most reports they don't even like us being there.



    That's why I say it was worthless.
  • Reply 84 of 96
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Revenge for 911?



    Nope!



    An end to terrorism?



    Nope!



    Lower prices at the gas pump with all that lovely Iraqi oil ( as some insensitive dunderheads here suggested before the war )?



    Nope!
  • Reply 85 of 96
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    Quote:

    If you had had Edwards at least you would have a candidate who would focus strongly on the "underclass" and not just the oh so loved middle class. Kucinich would have touched a lot of the political tabooes in american politics. Perhaps they would have had a smaller chance of getting elected than Kerry but it would have been worth it.



    Principals are not worth it. How many species have to die, how many National Forests cut down, before it is worth it? @#)%$(*@#&$ NADER!!! I hope he gets hit by a Crovair! I don't like the two party system either but you have to understand what Bush is doing. www.edf.org



    And don't forget those 500 Americans that died in Iraq. And the much much larger number of injured which is always sidelined. And would Spain have been bombed if we hadn't gone to war, with them supporting us? Probably not if it turns out it was Al Quaeda.
  • Reply 86 of 96
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Aquatic

    Principals are not worth it. How many species have to die, how many National Forests cut down, before it is worth it? @#)%$(*@#&$ NADER!!! I hope he gets hit by a Crovair! I don't like the two party system either but you have to understand what Bush is doing. www.edf.org



    And don't forget those 500 Americans that died in Iraq. And the much much larger number of injured which is always sidelined. And would Spain have been bombed if we hadn't gone to war, with them supporting us? Probably not if it turns out it was Al Quaeda.




    Lets not forget about the at-least 500 iraqies that wont die under Saddam or the 500 tortured. I supported this war, and if I got drafted, I would have still supported this war.



    You really think America is going to prevent another 9/11 by taking a defensive stance on the situation? Please.
  • Reply 87 of 96
    haraldharald Posts: 2,152member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by jimmac

    Revenge for 911?



    Nope!



    An end to terrorism?



    Nope!



    Lower prices at the gas pump with all that lovely Iraqi oil ( as some insensitive dunderheads here suggested before the war )?



    Nope!




    Change the pricing of Iraqi oil from euros back to dollars?



    Yep!



    Conflate enforced democracy in Iraq with 'stability' and therefore 'stability' of oil supply as we pass global peak oil production?



    Yep!



    Not listen to the local historians or experts on invasion, sideline anyone with a historical perspective or dissenting voice, have a guy at the top with no clue about the area prior to his enthronement making decisions based solely on gut feeling?



    Yep!















    Anyone else not feel any safer?
  • Reply 88 of 96
    chu_bakkachu_bakka Posts: 1,793member
    How can you count the number of lives supposedly saved by ousting Saddam and not count the dead civilians that were killed because of the war and killed or injured due to our presence there?
  • Reply 89 of 96
    chu_bakkachu_bakka Posts: 1,793member
    Here's another liar Kerry was referring to.



    Maybe he hasn't been rehabilitated.



    http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/



    No shame whatsoever.
  • Reply 90 of 96
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,544member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by chu_bakka

    Here's another liar Kerry was referring to.



    Maybe he hasn't been rehabilitated.



    http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/



    No shame whatsoever.




    Nice, credible, non-biased source you have there.
  • Reply 91 of 96
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SilentEchoes

    Lets not forget about the at-least 500 iraqies that wont die under Saddam or the 500 tortured. I supported this war, and if I got drafted, I would have still supported this war.



    You really think America is going to prevent another 9/11 by taking a defensive stance on the situation? Please.




    Yes but there are many more dictators to take his place so 500 people will still die somewhere.



    I don't think taking a defensive stance will do anything except breed more terrorism and make america more of a central target.
  • Reply 92 of 96
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    Wouldn't the classical Republican excuse me "conservative" thing to do be to take a defensive stance and let them take care of themselves? The GOP is increasingly becoming the opposite of conservative in almost every area. Environment? Don't conserve. Civil liberties, women's rights, gay rights yada yada, don't conserve. Other countries' problems? Jump right in. More people died because we invaded. It's simple. Al Quaeda wasn't there before the war. Now they are, killing us, civilians, looting the place, and all so Dick Cheney and his friends can drive Porsches. I think that stinks.
  • Reply 93 of 96
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,544member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by chu_bakka

    latest ARG Poll.



    http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/presballot/



    50% Kerry

    43% Bush



    In Feb it was:



    48% Kerry

    46% Bush





    Also it looks like as people become more undecided about Bush.,,

    they then swing to Kerry. The undecideds remain about the same 6-7% as Bush drops and Kerry rises.




  • Reply 94 of 96
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001





    Keep laughing. You'll need it.
  • Reply 95 of 96
    johnqjohnq Posts: 2,763member
    Does anyone have a link to a movie of the whole incident, including what the gentleman Kerry was responding to said?



    The news outlets have thoroughly whittled it down to just what Kerry said and not what initiated it.



    I'm sure he said something like "hang in there" or "don't let them get to you" or some such.
Sign In or Register to comment.