A Conservative Reviews "Fahrenheit 9/11"

quote:

---

Please explain then how you see the connection then?

---

"Terrorist or tyrant, few may come to the Truth that both are poor choice."

cturtle...hello...your opening statement is EXACTLY how the terrorists manipulate their subordinate nim compoops.

AMEN Uhoosier, so glad to see you back in here.

BTW folks, I posted in current events the facts on Mikey Moore. and the reason I dismissed doing it in here is because it is NOT a debate...but what someone did to find all the LIES Michael made. And how his opinions are WRONG~O.

He takes the freedom ghe has to smear the freedom.

Yea, what a hero....NOT!

Your all so right....WE SHOULD JUST LET ALL THE TERRORISTS IN, AND HECK..we should just let em keep on keeping on.

Never mind Saddam probably has the WMD still...just well hidden.
C'mon...a sadistic man who hates even his own ppl...will pay attn to us?

Well, must be nice living in that fantasy....but someday reality will set in.

"Life is full of lemons, and the lemonade is sweet."

Patrish>

quote:

---

Never mind Saddam probably has the WMD still

---

quote:

---

seriously, he was never 'caught' nor prooven to lie. (in regards to Bush

---

quote:

---

is EXACTLY how the terrorists manipulate their subordinate nim compoops

---

quote:

---

And how his opinions are WRONG~O.

---

quote:

---

BTW folks, I posted in current events the facts on Mikey Moore. and the reason I dismissed doing it in here is because it is NOT a debate...but what someone did to find all the LIES Michael made.

---

quote:

---

Your all so right....WE SHOULD JUST LET ALL THE TERRORISTS IN, AND HECK..we should just let em keep on keeping on.

---

quote:

---

a sadistic man who hates even his own ppl...has the WMD still

---

quote:

---

but someday reality will set in.

---

"Hating everyone protects me from elitism."

Assumptions? Iraq having WMD was never an assumption. Not only did he have them, he used them. Ask any Kurd about WMD. As far as Bush lying, it is just propaganda to get people riled up. Unless one can prove it, one should state this as an opinion.

Ohhhhh...

so we attacked Sadam because he used WMDs on Kurds?

That's...rather...odd...since...we...gave...him..those....WMDs...

Anyone who is right in their mind would not try to state that we attacked Sadam for what he did to Kurds... we "theoretically" attacked him because he CURRENTLY had WMDs... which is not true, based on what we know thus far.

That is, unless, you give into propaganda. Which you obviously do not do.

"Hating everyone protects me from elitism."

quote:

---

Well, must be nice living in that fantasy....but someday reality will set in.

---

"Terrorist or tyrant, few may come to the Truth that both are poor choice."

Just where in my post did I state the reason for the invasion was Saddam using WMD on Kurds? They have courses that can teach understanding skills. The reason for the invasion was 17 resolutions that Iraq did not comply with, specifically, resolution 1441 which states that if they are in none compliance, all and necessary means can be taken.

quote:

---

where in my post did I state the reason . . .
Ask any Kurd about WMD.

---

quote:

---

reason for the invasion was 17 resolutions that Iraq did not comply

---

"Terrorist or tyrant, few may come to the Truth that both are poor choice."

As you well know, we went before the UN security council to get a consensus knowing it would not pass. We then went about building a 60 nation coalition for the invasion into Iraq.

Let's see, 60 nations. Sixty is such a big number. It must be the majority, right? Only 50 states. 60 is more. Must be the majority of people too, right? India, China, ... oops! Well, what is 60? Some magic number? It isn't a majority. Or does that only work in a DEMOCRACY? Other than a dictatorship or a monarchy, where is less than a majority the winner? (Answer: In the Bush White House!)

Comply? Remember Saadam's books of WMDs? Submitted to the investigators. He said he didn't have any WMDs. Did he comply? Was he right? Did he lie? Can anyone prove TODAY that he lied?

I remember the presidential campaign of 1964. President Johnson said that if we voted for Goldwater that there would be an escalation of the war, a huge increase in the number of troups sent to Viet Nam, many more deaths, and we would end up losing the war. Like a dummy I voted for Goldwater. Everything Johnson said would come to pass did.

"Popular dissidents are merely pacifiers given to us by the Government to keep us in line and thinking someone is making a ruckuss."

It can be proved that he did not comply with resolution 1441. Get a grip squatteam. Why are you asking questions that everyone knows the answer to. You know 60 countries is not a majority as well as the population. Do you think satire helps your cause? The point of 60 countries is that we did not go it alone.

How many of those countries even MATTER?
Spain, Poland, Italy and the UK. 4

How many went in, while their people were firmly against it?
Spain, Italy, UK (I honetly don't know about Poland).

In contrast to Gulf War 1 which only had 34 countries! The number is as MEANINGLESS as your 60, because those countries were :
AFGANISTAN, Argentina, Australia, BAHREIN, BANGLADESH, CANADA, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, EGYPT, FRANCE, GERMANY, Greece, Hungary, Honduras, Italy, KUWAIT, MOROCCO, The Netherlands, Niger, Norway, OMAN, PAKISTAN, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, SAUDI ARABIA, Senegal, South Korea, Spain, SYRIA, TURKEY, THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES, the United Kingdom and the United States.

Note, this coalition was much stronger given the aid of large rich countries like France, Germany and Canada. The coalition was LEGITIMATE because it featured major arab and muslim countries such as Egypt (the center of the arab world) and even Syria.

If nothing else, Bush Senior is a hundred times more competent then his son.

"Durch Nacht und Blut das Licht"
[  Edited by Angelfire at   ]

100 times more competent? I personally disagree. As far as a coalition is concerned, you are correct. Saddam needed to be ousted even without a coalition of 60 countries.

quote:

---

Saddam needed to be ousted even without a coalition of 60 countries.

---

"Terrorist or tyrant, few may come to the Truth that both are poor choice."

War is a perfectly good means. But it must be used skillfully.

Victory must be certain. And Junior gave us victory against the Iraqi state. But the war is not won.

If Junior had waited for the war. If he had gone in with some large Arab states as allies, no doubt the coalition forces would be stronger. But the insurgency would be much weaker because the coalition would have legitimacy.

Just as it did with Bush Senior.

"Durch Nacht und Blut das Licht"