<p>haha, funny how i offered conservatives that chance to repond to my post regarding Bin Laden (its in bold). As i thought, they have no choice but to divert the topic of debate.</p>
<p>and illbeback, i knew you were conservative from just that cc name.</p>
<p>"would u rather have iraqi's under Saddam?"</p>
<p>haha thats probably the only campaign used by conservatives.</p>
<p>i have a question to ask YOU:</p>
<p>Dont you want Bin Laden to be caught? Dont you want TERRORISM to be ended? Well if you do, you wont get it from Bush. GUARANTEED!!!</p>
<p>haha funny how nahfrafsa seens to ignore Bush's two quotes that I have posted about Bin Laden.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Dont you want Bin Laden to be caught? Dont you want TERRORISM to be ended?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Aww 16-year-old liberals. What will they say next?</p>
<p>"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- George W. Bush, 3/13/2002</p>
<p>And this is his stupid response in the presidential debate about this:</p>
<p>"Uhh Gosh, I.. don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those, uhh, exaggerations."
- George W. Bush, 10/13/2004</p>
<p>ummm..... that doesnt look like exaggerating to me. Haha, and uc_benz says bush is the lesser of the two evil. Its actually dumber of the two evils to be accurate.</p>
<p>hahah. Looks like the conservatives are OWNED!!! They now have two choices- either to stay silent in shame for voting for this man OR to divert to another topic as they usually do. But i would LOVE an explanation from conservatives as to why Bush is ignoring our main enemy when he said those quotes while allowing for the deaths of thousands of Iraqis (racist) and American people. Is is because he's the ultimate terrorist? hmm.....</p>
<p>And Maize, just because you cant justify or provide a valid argument doesnt mean you have to mention Michael Moore. Moore is not a terrorist nor is he dumb like our president!!</p>
<p>Nahra, I don't think there was a Democratic party back in the 1860s. All presidents were republicans back in the day. I am pretty sure the two-party system currently in existance in the US is a product of the 20th century. From what I understand, today's Democratic party is more conservative that the Republic party of the 1930s and 1940s. </p>
<p>As for liberating Iraq, Bush did nothing of the sort. Close to 15,000 Iraqi citizens have been confirmed dead as a result of the American bombing of Baghdad. That is a very conservative estimate. Some say as many as 150,000 perished. Hundreds of thousands more will perish over the next few years and Iraqis will live in fear of terror. Iraq, like any nation, would have been best served had it become a democratic society at its own pace rather than be forced prematurely down that path. Iraq is not ready. Saddam was horrible, and Iraq's current situation is, in many ways, no worse than it was under his tyranical reign of terror. But in many other ways, things are worse.</p>
<p>so we'd rather have Saddam drain rivers and gas his own citizens to death eh alexandre?</p>
<p>Or do we want 150, 000 Iraqis murdered in a war for liberation in their own country?</p>
<p>150,000? who gave u that stat? kerry?</p>
<p>well, conservatives say its 15,000. thats still alot of iraqis compared to Iraq's condition under Saddam!</p>
<p>I wonder who gave Saddam that gas? And do you think the situation is any better now? Over the last year, an average of 30 Iraqi civilians have been murdered daily by the those cowardly b@stard terrorists. Did you see what happened in Algeria in the 1990s? The problem with you is that you have no idea what the Middle East is like. Are you an Arab? HJave you lived among Arabs your entire life? I am an Arab and I tell you, what Bush has done in Iraq is not good. Iraqis are indeed free, but they are also under siege.</p>
<p>Its funny how the conservatives are consistently trying to avoid the sin fault of their leader. let me repeat:</p>
<p>Ok, I took the initiative to look for the quote where Bush himself confesses of neglectling Bin Laden: Here it is:</p>
<p>"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- George W. Bush, 3/13/2002</p>
<p>And this is his stupid response in the presidential debate about this:</p>
<p>"Uhh Gosh, I.. don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those, uhh, exaggerations."
- George W. Bush, 10/13/2004</p>
<p>ummm..... that doesnt look like exaggerating to me. Haha, and uc_benz says bush is the lesser of the two evil. Its actually dumber of the two evils to be accurate.</p>
<p>Why do you keep repeating stuff? And I like how you report Canadian news sources.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I wonder who gave Saddam that gas?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I usually respect your opinion a lot Alexander, but that has to be one of the worst arguments ever. We should somehow be responsible for his actions because we 'gave' him gas? That's like saying if I let someone drive my car, and they run over someone then it's my fault. We gave Iraq weapons to defend themselves against Soviet invasion, but if they use them for different purposes then that is their OWN decision.</p>
<p>And I don't have to be an Arab to know my opinion on the war. My opinion is what it is based on the facts of the situation. I didn't have to be living during the Revolutionary War to know that I supported the war. I don't have to be German to know that I support World War II. I don't have to be Korean to know that I support the Korean War. Since you are an Arab, then I could very easily say that the Revolutionary War was a bad thing, and who are you to say it was a good thing since you're not an American? I hope you see where I am getting. This is not a matter of cultures here Alexander; what Saddam did transcends all cultural/ethnical barriers.</p>
<p>I will leave you with this quote from an Iraqi exile:
[quote]
There was a machine designed for shredding plastic. Men were dropped into it and we were again made to watch. Sometimes they went in head first and died quickly. Sometimes they went in feet first and died screaming. It was horrible. I saw 30 people die like this. Their remains would be placed in plastic bags and we were told they would be used as fish food . . . on one occasion, I saw Qusay [President Saddam Husseins youngest son] personally supervise these murders.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>"we don't know if iraq really doesn't have weapons of mass destruction"</p>
<p>no one has found anything..... NOTHING</p>
<p>"and just how bad was the condition of Iraqis under Saddam illbeback?</p>
<p>Much better than the current one IMHO"</p>
<p>disagree,
sure the water and electricity werent reliable(they still arent) but at least there was a sense of security, of not being afraid to drive to work for fear that you might become "collateral damage" caught in the middle of a suicide bomber.</p>
<p>The following is an example of stupidity</p>
<p>"Lincoln was a Republican "</p>
<p>someone sure dosent know their history of party alignments
during the civil war, republicans were the liberal northern party and democrats were the southern racists. This stayed pretty much the same up to Gilded Age when republicans became more fiscally conservative at the behest of their corporate donors(remember the silver controvery anyone?) the next realignment occured during the great depression when FDR's coalition included northern liberals and southern democrats. This continued until 1968 when Nixon used the Southern Strategy in order to convince southern racists to vote republican( this was due to northern liberal democrats passing civil rights legislation). After that, the southern white racists started voting more and more with the republicans and they left the democratic party which by this time had become northern and liberal. Examples of this are in George Wallace bolting from the Dems and running as the American Independent party. Eventually with the rise of evangelism in the 1970's these southern white racists came to represent the Republican's base from which they expanded out to represent their current majorities</p>
<p>so when somebody says that republicans are the party of lincoln(liberal and northern) that is a blatant lie!, even Newt Gingrich admitted this when he remarked that the liberal northern wing of the democratic party passed civil rights legislation in the 1960's.</p>
<p>"We should somehow be responsible for his actions because we 'gave' him gas'</p>
<p>reagan's administration authorized the sale of such weapons of mass destruction to Iraq so that they could use it against Iran. The wmd's were sold by a subsidiary of Halliburton.</p>
<p>Isnt it ironic that the only wmd's that Iraq had were ones that conservatives authorized and halliburton sold. Now, conservatives authorized a war to search for those weapons(which had been used up or disposed of LOOOOONNNNG ago) and once again, Halliburton is profiting. Its a good racket these conservatives have set up eh, the only problem is that americans are the victims of this fraud!!!!!!</p>
<p>No full WMD's were ever found. But even the weapons inspectors admitted that they could have started up their nuclear program in a very short period of time because they had all of the pieces necessary.</p>
<p>"they could have started up their nuclear program in a very short period of time "</p>
<p>with what, the nonexisent yellowcake</p>
<p>or maybe you mean the aluminum tubes. Last I checked aluminum tubes could be used for everything from pipes to bikes to aircraft etc etc</p>
<p>the only WMD's they ever had were the ones Reagan authorized and Halliburton delivered</p>
<p>meanwhile, North Korea actually has nuclear weapons and we arent doing anything about it .... why.... because there's no oil there!</p>
<p>ah but it wasn't an example of stupidity...i know my realignments :)...1860s, 1890s, 1930s, then the realignment of southern votes towards Republicans (not really a partisan realignment). I was just responding to primitive's absurd message stating
"all republicans are racist"...i was trying to remind him that Republicans are not intently racist...</p>
<p>Now...you know what...Osama Bin Laden can be anywhere now....literally anywhere....actually...there are good chances he's dead...he was suffering from kidney disease, which had progressed to critical levels. Now, I'm sure intellegence has been working slightly to track him down, but honestly, after Bush got involved in Iraq, he DID have more imperitive matters to attend to...Osama wasn't attacking our troops...radical Iraqi militants were...and with the constant pressure from the public and Congress, he had to work hard to ensure that Iraq underwent a stable transession of power...Bush had a plan that would work in an ideal situation...he'd liberate Iraq and then enstate democracy, expecting the ppl to accept their freedom and adapt right off....he also expected that, after the liberation of Baghdad, that the violence would lighten down....which obviously didn't work out........i mean OFCOURSE Osama Bin Laden wasn't our top priority then!!!....after pumping hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of American lives...i think your priorities change....what would you do if you were president?...go on a wild goose chase for one man in such a large area?...think about it...what are the chances he could find a single individual out of every Middle Eastern in the area?....and...Bush does have ties with the Bin Laden family (which disowned Osama when he went on his radical escapade).</p>
<p>Now....you're right...we never found WMDs.....but think back...after all the weapons testing Sadaam did on his own citizens...don't you think we had probable cause to expect him to posess WMDs?...yes we rushed in to things, and yes our plan didnt' go the way it was supposed to, but we were justified for going in....I supported the attack on Iraq in the begining, but as the fighting progressed, I quickly changed my mind...but, we got ourselves in to it, so we have to spend a sufficient amount of time fixing any problems that might have been caused by our invasion...but primitive...you CANNOT say that Iraq was better under Hussein's regime....he was a brutal murderer.....his opression went on for several years...he stopped caring about the well being of his citizens and started emphasizing on maintaining and expanding his power...he was abusing his position to the point that it hurt a majority of Iraqi citizens....you say we keep dodging the whole Bin Laden thing...you keep dodging questions like "would you rather have an Iraq ruled by Sadaam?"</p>
<p>oh...and we are doing something about north korea...we have a fleet stationed off the coast in the Pacific....we know they've been closing down nuclear plants and extracting pulonium ore from the reactors....and NK is about to come under heavy pressure from the international community....UN has already begun addressing the issue, and China and the U.S. are working on negotiations to make sure North Korea doesn't produce anymore nuclear weapons, and if they produce them, that they will not use them without being held accountable...if they begin testing, action will be taken.</p>
<p>UC Benz, I cannot believe you just said that. The US gave Saddam gas (Serin, VX, Ricin, Anthrax, Mustard among others). What possible use could any dictator like Saddam have for such toxic gases if not to use it on humans? To make matters worse, it was already well established that Saddam was a homocidal maniac in the late 70s. The US did not give him the gas until the early 80s. So yes, I should say the US is responsible for Saddam's having used Serin, Ricin, VX Anthrax and other lethal gases on his people. </p>
<p>And I never said you had to be an Arab to have an opinion on the Gulf war. I said you must have a good understanding of the region, its history and what has happened and is currently happening in order to form a well balanced and correct opinion.</p>
<p>Alexandre is correct...the U.S. had close ties to Sadaam pre-1985....but....the U.S. is NOT entirely responsible for what Sadaam did...a gun store can sell a man a firearm, but the storeowner is not responsible for what the individual does with it. </p>
<p>and yes...you do need an understanding of the culture and how groups are organized before you can articulate an argument on the political atmosphere of the state in question.</p>
<p>"man a firearm, but the storeowner is not responsible for what the individual does with it. "</p>
<p>if the gun store sells a gun to a crazy guy who is known to be having a fight with members of his "household" and a serious violent squablle with his neighbor.... then yes.... the gun store is responsible</p>