Sources 10 Report Share Posted February 11, 2008 [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Canada does not have a ruler that is killing innocent people every day just because they do something that he doesnt like. Canada is not a threat to any country that I know of so no there would be no reason to go to war with them. The things that were going on in iraq needed to be taken care of and now they are. The people of iraq and the US will be a little better off after all of this is finished. [/ QUOTE ] I hate to tell you this but if we're invading countries for the sole reason of stopping genocide then we're way behind because this happens all over the world, Darfur for example, and the US hasn't raised a legitimate finger to help those people. [/ QUOTE ] Wrong. they have had troops over there on the ground for awhile now. almost two years ago, (feb 16 2006) President Bush called for 7000 troops to go in and help NATO and the african troops... dont believe me? here is the link... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/17/AR2006021701935.html so i guess this disputes the rest of your argument as well... [/ QUOTE ] So you're saying sending in 7,000 troops to help in a mass genocide that has killed approximately 200,000 to 400,000 people and left several million homeless since 2003 is a legitimate effort? You're more than welcome to dispute the other points in my post as well such as finding no WMD in Iraq and the rising demand of oil in the next 20-30 years. I'd be more than willing to read any information you would provide that could disprove these points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhschamps04 15 Report Share Posted February 11, 2008 well heres a start ill see what else i can find for ya buddy. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sources 10 Report Share Posted February 11, 2008 [ QUOTE ] well heres a start ill see what else i can find for ya buddy. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html [/ QUOTE ] "The weapons are thought to be manufactured before 1991 so they would not be proof of an ongoing WMD program in the 1990s." --------------------------- "Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions. "This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war." These can all be found within the context of that article. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhschamps04 15 Report Share Posted February 11, 2008 But they were Weapons it may not have been the ones we were looking for but they did have them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sources 10 Report Share Posted February 11, 2008 [ QUOTE ] But they were Weapons it may not have been the ones we were looking for but they did have them. [/ QUOTE ] Seriously, if you can't back your viewpoint up and admit when you have no ground to stand on even when I've used your own source to disprove you, then you need to sit down and let the adults discuss these matters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vthokies4life 10 Report Share Posted February 11, 2008 [ QUOTE ] yes I realize that. As far as this election goes, Obama isnt my man. You are my man, Tail, if anyone. I just think we need someone who isnt an elephant. A republican is that last thing this country needs. Another fool to dig us into more and more debt. So if anyone were to get my vote, it would be Obama simply because I will not cast Republican because I feel our country cant handle anymore. [/ QUOTE ] Take a look at John McCain. One more thing, political affiliation is a poor reason to (not) vote for someone. I definitely appreciate how liberally conservative McCain is. He will definitely be able to light a fire under Congress's ass and get stuff done. Also, he has a very realistic view on the situation in Iraq. So for all you doubters, he won't neglect the situation over there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GetMoney55 11 Report Share Posted February 11, 2008 political stance does play a roll in this election. the fact that nearly all elected republican officials are backing out on a republican president says something. Another elected Republican would only bring more debt into this country and with that I believe we would see the downfall of the United States as an empire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluefieldRocks 14 Report Share Posted February 11, 2008 Bush = Douchebag... end of story.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trublue 939 Report Share Posted February 11, 2008 [ QUOTE ] The people of Sudan are experiencing things 10 times worse than what Hitler was doing to Jews and others. . [/ QUOTE ] Money, I know you've posted some persuasive arguments on this site....and appear to be well read and informed, however, I don't think you can compare the Sudan horrors to the Holocaust. To me that's like comparing "apples and oranges." How can atrocities be compared......they're both human evil. The Holocaust was carried out by the Nazi regime in Germany, a modern, civilized country that wanted to exterminate an entire human race, the Jews, not just in Germany, but the entire world. That is, also, still a predominate desire in the Middle East today, the annihilation of a whole country, Israel, ask Ahmedinejah of Iran. Sudan is a third world country and the atrocities are just as evil but you can't compare evilness on any level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JJBrickface Report Share Posted February 11, 2008 Here is a question for some to ponder. If you are the President of the United States and the director of the CIA comes to you and says "We know that Hussein has WMD's, its a slam dunk." What do you do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhschamps04 15 Report Share Posted February 11, 2008 Ill will admit that iraq did not have what we went after.But still there was cause for this war. The people over there needed help its not like we are the only country taking part in this war. If this was something that didnt need to happen then those that are over there with us wouldnt be there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GetMoney55 11 Report Share Posted February 11, 2008 I made that statement as if to say that we stepped in with the holocaust of Europe, why not with Sudan? I understand that the UN has sent some 7,000 troups there to make some impact but it isnt working. The fact of the matter is, we didnt storm Europe to stop the extermination of the Jews. We got into that mess to stop Hitler from controlling the world. If the issue of the Sudan holocaust were to involve a dictator set on controlling the planet, we would have already been there. Being a third world country shouldnt matter. If the United States is set on helping people and wants to send out the image of the good Samaritan, which we still do with WWII in saying that we intended to save an entire human race, why not jump into and attempt to take some control over what is going on right now in Africa? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trublue 939 Report Share Posted February 11, 2008 [ QUOTE ] We got into that mess to stop Hitler from controlling the world. If the issue of the Sudan holocaust were to involve a dictator set on controlling the planet, we would have already been there. Being a third world country shouldnt matter. [/ QUOTE ] Being a third world country or a fourth, fifth or whatever doesn't matter.... but, the US can't police every atrocitity in the world....that's why we have the "great" (lol).... U.N. Remember we're a very young country compared to most... and you're probably right we've entered into most "conflicts" when world domination has probably been the underlying thread. Now, I realize many don't believe that was the reason for the attack on Iraq but many do....the previous admin.(b4 Bush) believed they possessed these WMD also. Now, ppl can argue that fact "until the cows come home" but it's not gonna change which side ppl come down on. I could post "much" on my thinking of why we did the right thing in going into Iraq but that's not gonna convince any on the other side and frankly, that's not my aim. As, I said, the only reason I responded was I don't think you can compare atrocities and you explained your reason why you did. If we could solve all the evils of the earth....this forum would have a great start. 'Til another day ladies/gentlemen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluefieldRocks 14 Report Share Posted February 12, 2008 [ QUOTE ] Here is a question for some to ponder. If you are the President of the United States and the director of the CIA comes to you and says "We know that Hussein has WMD's, its a slam dunk." What do you do? [/ QUOTE ] Send in the proper people, the UN and others and see if he truly does... and if he does then have at it and blow that country back to the stone age....but guess what? he didnt did he? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JJBrickface Report Share Posted February 12, 2008 [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Here is a question for some to ponder. If you are the President of the United States and the director of the CIA comes to you and says "We know that Hussein has WMD's, its a slam dunk." What do you do? [/ QUOTE ] You see that is where you forget! The UN went into Iraq many times and he defied them. Also in this case we DID go to the UN, and if you remember we even gave Saddam a deadline to step down as president or we would take action. Going into the war we had a lot of countries on our side but once it started to go bad they pulled out. The UN is bs, there is no way we can rely on them to handle our national security. Send in the proper people, the UN and others and see if he truly does... and if he does then have at it and blow that country back to the stone age....but guess what? he didnt did he? [/ QUOTE ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BEAVERTAIL Report Share Posted February 12, 2008 i post that we have sent 7000 people to Sudan, and suddenly everyone loves that fact and uses it to go against the US... but you are forgetting that Africa has sent in numerous troops in, along with the NATO and the UN... its not just like the 7000 US troops are in there... they have plenty of support right now. Also, it is in the hands of the UN right now, they control what anyone does in Darfur. Anyone who wants to do anything must have it authorized by the UN security council... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GetMoney55 11 Report Share Posted February 12, 2008 I have used that fact, simply because I didnt know the exact number of people sent in. thanks bud. :] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BEAVERTAIL Report Share Posted February 12, 2008 its no problem, but i think the US is doing all they can right now... If we ever thought of sending more troops into darfur the nation would be in a uproar, just because of the fact that more troops are leaving... The sad thing is, most people dont know the situation with what is happening in that area of Sudan, and as soon as they hear, "more troops are being sent to darfur" they would say its another meaningless fight, when to me its not... although there are some groups who want to stop it, and send in troops. However, most of the policians are sitting on the fence on this one... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.01bb665814ffc257795fe158cb2045c7.png.8a531ac878a82772b21014d7a6167582.png){kind=logo}
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.