Dang, choco, did you just wake up from a coma? You have glaring gaps in your understanding.

Gassing Kurds was evil. Invading Kuwait was evil also, but not what I was addressing. Iran? Would we risk lives of our soldiers to protect a nation that kidnaps our people? Not your best suggestion.
——-
“I’m pretty sure he was cooperating 100 percent with the UN. Did the UN weapons inspectors have complaints?”

You’re pretty wrong. He put off the inspectors at almost every turn. Yes, the inspectors had complaints. I will only provide one link because you need to learn on your own.

“Iraq has not cooperated sufficiently with the United Nations weapons inspectors, and we will impress the seriousness of the situation to them”
Chief U.N. arms inspector Hans Blix to reporters in Cyprus
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/04/world/main527977.shtml
——
“If we went it to “inspect” for WMD, why did bush suddently change the ultimatum to “saddam must leave the country”… if we came to look for WMD, why change the subject?”

Odd definition of “suddenly” you have there, bud. Saddam had ample opportunity and was playing the world for a fool knowing that the wimpish U.N. would do nothing.
——

so what does define victory?

Saddam is gone and the search for WMD’s was completed, which was the original goal. The fact that Bush didn’t choose to leave when we should have doesn’t change the fact that the goal was achieved.
——

basically, I’m saying “wait for proof to act”.. what your saying is “unless you can proove with 100 percent certaintly that something is not occuring, you should act on it”.

I’m saying Saddam should have been made to do what the U.N told him to do since he was being sanctioned and refused to comply.
——
“Ah ok.. so we give them democracy, and then if we dont like what they do with it, we leave and bomb, right? is that what your saying?”

You know as well as I that that isn’t what I’m saying, but I’ll spell it out for you again. We leave them to themselves as we should have long ago. If they choose, in the future, to support terrorists who attack us or our allies, we bomb any terrorist targets we can find. After all, I keep hearing libs saying if we leave them alone, they’ll leave us alone. ;)
——

>Hopefully, the camps wouldn’t be located in the middle of a school playground, but you never know with cowardly terrorists, eh choco?

They are massively outgunned. Please name one massively outgunned group of fighters that has lined neatly up for a superior force to slaughter them in history?
Comment by Chocolate Jesus — September 5, 2007 @ 1:15 pm

That’s the best response you have for terrorists hiding among civilians? Got anything better for the ones who put kids in cars to get by check points with car bombs? That almost sounds like you are saying what the terrorists are doing is ok. I must be mistaken, though. ;)

Here’s an idea. How about not engaging in guerilla warfare at all. How about working with their fellow citizens to rebuild their country. How about letting all their citizens share in the wealth of their oil profits instead of just the folks who kept the minority in power and terrorized the rest of the populace. Or did you think that the average Iraqi had a fine standard of living before the war as long as they weren’t one of the ones chosen for torture and or murder. ;)

Ok,.,,, so after we’ve bombed them for not doing what we want with their “freedom”.. what do we do then? We keep bombing them until they choose a government we like? Right? We keep killing them until they do what we want? And this differs from Saddam, how, exactly? Oh wait, Saddam isnt the point, its the oh so dangerous anthrax that could kill several, perphaps even dozens in one strike.

Let me just get this point straight….

“Give them democracy, then bomb them if we dont like what they do with it?”

Do you think we should warn them about that first? Its only fair right?

So basically, what we tell them is… “use your freedom how you want, but if you use it in a way we dont like, we will kill you”

And this differs from what Saddam said to them how exactly?

Its funny, because frighteningly enough, I think something similar to this is really and truly what the 20 percenters beleive…

Nice conclusory statement. Why? explain? You know he didnt attack us, right? He invaded kuwait.
“Us” is not kuwait. We had no mutual defense treaties with them. We attacked Iraq.

Explain why saddam attacking Kuwait was “evil” and attacking Iran wasn’t?

>We went in to determine whether there
>were WMD’s since Sadaam refused to
>follow U.N. orders to give inspectors full
> and immediate access.

Wow. Cite please? I’m pretty sure he was cooperating 100 percent with the UN. Did the UN weapons inspectors have complaints? Did the U.N. authorize the resolution the Us wanted just before the war? If they had prior authorization, why did they insist on trying to pass an aborted resolution through the U.N?

If we went it to “inspect” for WMD, why did bush suddently change the ultimatum to “saddam must leave the country”… if we came to look for WMD, why change the subject?

> it has nothing to do with whether we’ve achieved victory.

so what does define victory?

> all you libs are foolish for saying that the inspectors had
>determined that there were no WMD’s.

this is a minor distiction… inspectors, after much inspection, had found there was no PROOF of WMD’s… now.. basically… they were performing an investigation. they found no proof on which to act, so they didnt act.

basically, what you are asserting is that not acting because you beleive there is a 99 certainty something isnt occuring (U.N) is the logical equivalent of acting because there is a 1 percent chance something IS occuring.

basically, I’m saying “wait for proof to act”.. what your saying is “unless you can proove with 100 percent certaintly that something is not occuring, you should act on it”. Basically, I think being 99 percent sure something isnt occuring is enough to assume its not. You claim that without 100 percent certainty its not happened, we should act as if the event isnt occuring. Basically, my threshold for action is much much higher than yours… 99 percent vs, 1 percent.

the justification to invade need only be as strong as the justification not to invade, right?

>If Iraqi’s choose to be governed as you say
> and support terrorists,
> then we would just have to take
>whatever action we could to deal with it.
> Terrorist training camps make good targets for bombers.

Ah ok.. so we give them democracy, and then if we dont like what they do with it, we leave and bomb, right? is that what your saying?

>Hopefully, the camps wouldn’t be located in the middle of a school >playground, but you never know with cowardly terrorists, eh choco?

Right, how rude of them to not line up neatly in rows with bright red hats, to let us know who they are.

They are massively outgunned. Please name one massively outgunned group of fighters that has lined neatly up for a superior force to slaughter them in history?

Its guerrila warfare dude, stop whining.. you dont want to fight guerillas, dont climb in the cage with them.. very simple…
>

word to the wise ….you can’t proove a negative…

Comment by Chocolate Jesus — September 5, 2007 @ 11:55 am

You kind of like that phrase , eh buddy? ;)
With that reasoning, the U.N. was awfully foolish for wasting all that time and money in the first place and all you libs are foolish for saying that the inspectors had determined that there were no WMD’s. That’s the loon’s main argument, bud. Don’t create trouble for your fellow lefties just because you can’t control your temper, choco. ;)

Morning choco. Why the name change? ;)
Remeber a certain hostage situation involving Iran? Sadaam wasn’t attacking our people at that time, making him the lesser of two evils, at that time. Later, he proved to be a greater evil.

“Another quick question… Let’s say Iraq democratically chooses to be run by Mullahs and have a government like Iran. They choose to support hamas and hezbollah with thier tax dollars. And they democratically choose to sell their oil only to Russia and CHina. Is that “victory” for us, or not?”
Comment by Chocolate Jesus — September 5, 2007 @ 11:52 am

We went in to determine whether there were WMD’s since Sadaam refused to follow U.N. orders to give inspectors full and immediate access. Our troops made sure they are gone now, whether they were at the time or not. Since oil had nothing to do with our mission there, it has nothing to do with whether we’ve achieved victory. If Iraqi’s choose to be governed as you say and support terrorists, then we would just have to take whatever action we could to deal with it. Terrorist training camps make good targets for bombers. Hopefully, the camps wouldn’t be located in the middle of a school playground, but you never know with cowardly terrorists, eh choco? ;)

they were GONE.. destroyed and/or inert. there was NO misuse…

your basically insisting invading iraq was a good thing because “we can’t proove he didnt currently have WMD”.

word to the wise smart cunt….you can’t proove a negative…

Uhhh huh. Iran and Iranian influence DOES still exist you know? So please explain what occured that caused Iran and Iranian influence to become a lesser evil than Saddam?

Another quick question… Let’s say Iraq democratically chooses to be run by Mullahs and have a government like Iran. They choose to support hamas and hezbollah with thier tax dollars. And they democratically choose to sell their oil only to Russia and CHina. Is that “victory” for us, or not?

Comment by barfly — September 5, 2007 @ 12:34 am

I generally ignore foolishness. Your other points appeared to say that, if the weapons came from the U.S., we have no business dealing with the misuse of them. We were doing the Iraqi people and the world a service in getting rid of Sadaam and making sure there were no WMD’s, since he wanted to play games about it. Our mistake was in not leaving soon after.

And who armed them? Your logic is loopy. If someone arms a criminal (or dictator) they are culpable in the deaths. You don’t want to deal with the fact that Reagan not armed them.

Remember, “who did it” extends to who sold them weapons.

Like I said: “What I find humorous is the fact that you think it matters where the weapons originated. Just forget about all those dead folks and who did it. They aren’t nearly as important as an opportunity to criticize your opponents. Now that is funny.” ;)

Actually, your desperation is quite predictable, give the fact those dead folks were sacrificed to Reagan’s delusional belief that arming terrorists and dictators furthered American interests. What it did, was reveal to terrorists how cowardly and opportunistic republicans were/are, and how willing traitors like Reagan were to sacrifice the safety of american citizens for his own personal gain. His actions spurred further hostage-taking, and all the blood spilled in the Iran/Iraq war stains his memory, making any victories ring hollow.

And then his ideological spawn (just like you) used the dead Reagan helped kill as justification for invasion, convieniently forgetting their own party’s role in the war.

It’s all just a game to you. The truly pathetic, and disgusting thing is soldiers are fighting the fight you’re too afraid, and too intellectually elitist to fight…

Yup, those folk would be just as dead, and republicans would still use the deaths for their own cynical opportunism.

Comment by barfly — September 4, 2007 @ 4:15 pm

What I find humorous is the fact that you think it matters where the weapons originated. Just forget about all those dead folks and who did it. They aren’t nearly as important as an opportunity to criticize your opponents. Now that is funny. ;)

Comment by bilbobaggins — September 4, 2007 @ 4:35 pm

I’m looking forward to that day, too, bobo. If Hill wins, will she feel the need to pay Bill back for his actions, or will she take the high road since she is female? If Obama wins, will he invade Pakistan? Or will we just see more of the same with little substantial difference beyond the war no matter who wins? One thing is for certain. Libs won’t have the excuse of Republicans standing in the way of their creation of Utopia. ;)

Comment by BobsYourUncle — September 4, 2007 @ 7:27 pm

Now, boob, please exercise a little self control. Why get angry with me when it was your fellow lib that accused our troops of murdering the Iraqi people based upon the actions of a few bad apples. ;)

You’re a little b!tch, why do you hate our troops so much, downright stupid? ;)

Comment by bilbobaggins — September 4, 2007 @ 3:18

Lure you in? Too late, bud, you did that all on your own. Ya’ll really need zoo around here. She is always good at reining folks in when they head that direction. ;)