FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB General Discussion Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 02:40 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-09-2003, 07:14 PM   #71
Ion
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 2,817
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by debater10
The two main objectives of the Iraq invasion were liberation of the Iraqi people from a totalitarian regime ...
When did Bush state this before the war?

Never.

The fool lied about WMDs in Iraq, sincerely believing he would find them in spite of U.N.'s claims, impressing the world with these WMDs, and secretely loot Iraq.

See how he had to resort after not finding WMDs in Iraq to 'liberation' of Iraq, and actually improvise it now by asking money in Congress because he didn't think about this 'liberation' possibility.
Ion is offline  
Old 08-09-2003, 07:15 PM   #72
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Deployed to Kosovo
Posts: 4,314
Default

So you make outlandish claims in other threads without providing references, and yet when I refer to things mentioned on the major news outlets (everything I mentioned I saw reported on ABC World News Tonight for crying out loud) you scream "References, references!" :boohoo:
Daggah is offline  
Old 08-09-2003, 07:18 PM   #73
Ion
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 2,817
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by debater10
I need references, people!
...
The guerilla war in Iraq is in today's newspapers, and in everyday's newspapers for many months now.

Given this guerilla war, how come you and Bush claim 'liberation'?

Won't you go and fight the guerilla war?
Ion is offline  
Old 08-09-2003, 07:18 PM   #74
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lynchburg, VA, USA
Posts: 106
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Daggah
So I would be correct in assuming that you support invading North Korea, China, Cuba, and many other countries around the world, right?

Right?
If that had anything to do with this discussion...

The fact is that I am not familiar with what may be going on in those countries. North Korea has confessed to having Nuclear weapons, but is working things out in talks with the UN, NATO, and the US. Economic action may be the better solution for the HR abuses in China. Cuba is an area with which I am unfamiliar an therefore cannot say one way or the other.

I realise what you are trying to lead me to. You have this stereotype in your head of all conservatives thinking that the US should invade at-will any country that it disagrees with. That, unfortunately, is a wrong assumption, most likely a product of so much propaganda.

Instead, I look at the situation of Iraq. Unwilling to work with anyorganizations, and the organizations being to finacially invested in the country to want ot do anything. The options were limited, and countless civilians were dying every day.

No crusades... no US hegemony pushes... no looting and plundering... just doing what was in our power to stop the abuses to human rigths when all those around us were complacent.
debater10 is offline  
Old 08-09-2003, 07:21 PM   #75
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lynchburg, VA, USA
Posts: 106
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Daggah
So you make outlandish claims in other threads without providing references, and yet when I refer to things mentioned on the major news outlets (everything I mentioned I saw reported on ABC World News Tonight for crying out loud) you scream "References, references!" :boohoo:
I don't watch TV, I'm afraid to say. And, if I could point out, I offered an explanation for the tactics in an above post.

But, I imagine that this may offer an answer.

http://www.arabtimesonline.com/arabt...p?ID=883&cat=b

hmmm... we are not alone with the tactics.
debater10 is offline  
Old 08-09-2003, 07:26 PM   #76
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Corn rows
Posts: 4,570
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by debater10
Not that he wanted us to attack him. He knew that the attack was inevitable. He was cutting his losses, hoping to have an ally in one of the non-coalition members after the dust settles and the US doesn't find what it was looking for.
If we can agree on one thing I think its that Saddam knew he was 100% fucked as soon as Bush was given the keys to the Whitehouse.
Hubble head is offline  
Old 08-09-2003, 07:31 PM   #77
Ion
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 2,817
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by debater10
I don't watch TV, I'm afraid to say. And, if I could point out, I offered an explanation for the tactics in an above post.
...
How do you get your news?

Newspapers?

Can you talk from newspapers?

As of now, from newspapers, Bush lied about:

1) knowing of WMDs in Iraq;

2) Hussein link to September 11;

3) Hussein link to al-Qaeda;

4) Hussein link to Niger for nuclear;

5) when going to war and killing Iraqis, saying it 'liberates' Iraq while trying to hide his looting of the oil.

Note:

there is no French possible diversion by debater10 in 1) thru 5), but 1) thru 5) show how Bush alone fabricates the war.
Ion is offline  
Old 08-09-2003, 07:36 PM   #78
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lynchburg, VA, USA
Posts: 106
Default

Look, I've answered all of this and given you sources that prove my point. I'm sorry if the evidence does not say what you want it to. If you are going to insist that I need to provide you with newspaper resources as opposed to electronic ones, then you are trying to avoid the issue. As soon as you have actual evidenced arguements, I will acknowledge them with a response.

And, yes. Saddam knew he was screwed as soon as Bush entered the office. He was hoping for a President (ahem... Gore) that would be just as willing as France, Germany, and Russia to shed a blind eye on his activities.
debater10 is offline  
Old 08-09-2003, 07:44 PM   #79
Ion
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 2,817
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by debater10
Look, I've answered all of this...
...
You didn't.

I went over the previous page, and all questions remain unanswered by you.

For example:

.) where are the 'imminent' threat WMDs, worth breaking up with U.N. and war?

.) where are the 'enthusiastic' photos of 'liberated' Iraqis, that are not fake?

.) why is there a guerilla war?

.) like Daggah asked, why U.S. defended the Ministry of Oil and not museums?

.) why newspapers speak about Exxon's contracts?

.) how come Bush gets away with lies with you and people like you?
Ion is offline  
Old 08-09-2003, 07:47 PM   #80
Ion
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 2,817
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by debater10

...
And, yes. Saddam knew he was screwed as soon as Bush entered the office. He was hoping for a President (ahem... Gore) that would be just as willing as France, Germany, and Russia to shed a blind eye on his activities.
You know how good that would have been?

.) 7,000 Iraqi civilians saved;

.) thousands of Iraqi army saved;

.) thousands prevented from being maimed;

.) 200 U.S. soldiers saved;

.) $74 billion of taxpayer money saved;

.) U.S. maintaining credibility in the world;

.) U.N. monitoring like in the past ten years and better than that (with U.S.' candid input), Hussein.

Moral:

do respect U.N., as the will of the international community.
Ion is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:15 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.