The W
Views: 100958161
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
28.11.07 1823
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Village Voice of reason
This thread has 2 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
(1741 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (10 total)
Eddie Famous
Andouille
Level: 90

Posts: 542/2182
EXP: 7013512
For next: 175124

Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 370 days
Last activity: 364 days
#1 Posted on 2.4.03 1155.13
Reposted on: 2.4.10 1159.01

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0314/hentoff.php

If you STILL think taking Hussein out is wrong after reading this, then I salute you for your enduring ignorance...
Promote this thread!
Jaguar
Knackwurst
Level: 107

Posts: 1429/3273
EXP: 12826339
For next: 265014

Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 235 days
Last activity: 36 days
#2 Posted on 2.4.03 1222.12
Reposted on: 2.4.10 1224.51
This one's already been done. It's in Moe's "This is what I think" thread.

-Jag
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 1216/4700
EXP: 21671122
For next: 165540

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1306 days
Last activity: 1102 days
#3 Posted on 2.4.03 1222.32
Reposted on: 2.4.10 1225.58
Uh...I think we've been there and done that already.
Eddie Famous
Andouille
Level: 90

Posts: 543/2182
EXP: 7013512
For next: 175124

Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 370 days
Last activity: 364 days
#4 Posted on 2.4.03 1257.43
Reposted on: 2.4.10 1257.45
Ugh. Yes. Well, still. So there.
Rocket
Braunschweiger
Level: 9

Posts: 11/13
EXP: 3076
For next: 86

Since: 12.2.03
From: Canada

Since last post: 4209 days
Last activity: 4163 days
#5 Posted on 3.4.03 1223.38
Reposted on: 3.4.10 1229.05
You know, I could have sworn the US was invading Iraq because it was sure there were illegal weapons there that Saddam was hiding. The invasion was meant to find and destroy these weapons before terrorists could get their hands on 'em.
Now, all of a sudden no-one talks about illegal weapons anymore. It's all about how the US is liberating those poor Iraqis. If the liberation was so important, why was it not the reason given for the invasion in the first place? Has the US government made a single true statement about this whole business yet?
Bizzle Izzle
Bockwurst
Level: 50

Posts: 363/561
EXP: 895141
For next: 52183

Since: 26.6.02
From: New Jersey, USA

Since last post: 119 days
Last activity: 119 days
#6 Posted on 3.4.03 1319.03
Reposted on: 3.4.10 1324.52

    Originally posted by Rocket
    You know, I could have sworn the US was invading Iraq because it was sure there were illegal weapons there that Saddam was hiding. The invasion was meant to find and destroy these weapons before terrorists could get their hands on 'em.
    Now, all of a sudden no-one talks about illegal weapons anymore. It's all about how the US is liberating those poor Iraqis. If the liberation was so important, why was it not the reason given for the invasion in the first place? Has the US government made a single true statement about this whole business yet?



Anybody want chemical weapons?

We got your chemical weapons right here: Click Here (New Evidence May Link Northern Iraq Militants to Al Qaeda)

more evidence of the IraQaeda connection
MoeGates
Andouille
Level: 88

Posts: 1200/2109
EXP: 6646254
For next: 4436

Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 8 hours
#7 Posted on 3.4.03 1357.40
Reposted on: 3.4.10 1359.02
First of all, the link's broken.

Second of all, even just by reading the headline you can see a) new evidence MAY link (not does) and b) Northern Iraqi militants (not Saddam Hussein's regime).

Grimis posted a link with a similar headline, and it turned out to be a story about an independent Islamic northern Iraqi group who might have ties to Al-Quada through Iran.

I'm not saying I'm ruling out that there might be something going on, but really, if this is the best evidence you can come up with, it's pitiful. As someone else in this forum so eloquently put it earlier "There were also people with ties to Al-Quada in the U.S. Should we bomb the fuck out of ourselves?"

Maybe Bush is telling the truth, but there is certainly no evidence to suggest this.
Bizzle Izzle
Bockwurst
Level: 50

Posts: 366/561
EXP: 895141
For next: 52183

Since: 26.6.02
From: New Jersey, USA

Since last post: 119 days
Last activity: 119 days
#8 Posted on 3.4.03 1501.43
Reposted on: 3.4.10 1503.08

    Originally posted by MoeGates
    First of all, the link's broken..
    . As someone else in this forum so eloquently put it earlier "There were also people with ties to Al-Quada in the U.S. Should we bomb the fuck out of ourselves?"



Maybe I screwed up the link in the post. I don't know if Grimis posted it or not, I don't recall seeing the same thing from him.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83047,00.html

And that's not eloquent, that's silly. Sure there's Al Qaeda here, but we don't need to bomb them/us since we own THIS territory. We just need to put a bullet (or two or twenty) in their heads, which is something we can't do in Baghdad until we control it. (which is why we are "bombing the fuck" out of them now).
MoeGates
Andouille
Level: 88

Posts: 1201/2109
EXP: 6646254
For next: 4436

Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 8 hours
#9 Posted on 3.4.03 1521.30
Reposted on: 3.4.10 1524.57
It's not the same article, but it's the same story.

Key points: KURDISH-CONTROLLED Iraq. Recieving help from IRAN. It's like rationalizing invading Tel Aviv because you want to root out Hamas.

I'm not saying the war isn't a good idea. I'm really on the fence when it comes to this. But when the Bush administration presents such obvious grasping at straws as reasons for invading a country, it not only reinforces the view that these guys are corrupt, have some kind of motive to hide, and are putting that motive above the good of the country.
PalpatineW
Lap cheong
Level: 77

Posts: 616/1528
EXP: 4100494
For next: 90654

Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2866 days
Last activity: 2709 days
AIM:  
#10 Posted on 3.4.03 2319.42
Reposted on: 3.4.10 2326.49

    Originally posted by Rocket
    You know, I could have sworn the US was invading Iraq because it was sure there were illegal weapons there that Saddam was hiding. The invasion was meant to find and destroy these weapons before terrorists could get their hands on 'em.
    Now, all of a sudden no-one talks about illegal weapons anymore. It's all about how the US is liberating those poor Iraqis. If the liberation was so important, why was it not the reason given for the invasion in the first place? Has the US government made a single true statement about this whole business yet?



It's because looking for weapons isn't enough reason to go to war for a lot of people. Personally, I think the humanitarian angle is just to get the Brits and the Left to go along with it, or at least tolerate it. Do I think Bush is lying when he says we are liberating Iraq? No. But I do think the primary motive for this is terrorism-related, and he focuses on the positive humanitarian effects of the war to persuade his political adversaries.
ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE
Thread ahead: The Onion rules
Next thread: How'd you like this guy to teach your kid?
Previous thread: The end of war arguments?
(1741 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Village Voice of reasonRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.174 seconds.