You definitely have artistic talent. But, in another 10 - 15 years when Iraq is one of the most modern middle eastern countries, you're going to feel like a fool.
Think about it. You're defending a brutal dictator. It's no different than defending Hitler.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
You're the one looking like a fool, Eric. It would take 2-3 times less years for Saddam to die anyway. Also, try explaining your concept of "how democracy should come to be" to the families of the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis.
I pity the foo'.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Eric, if you want to find a defender of Saddam Hussein's tyrannical rule, look no further than the United States and allies who offered him some crucial support before, during and even after the Iran/Iraq War.
Grandpa h.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Grandpa H, The U.S. gave Iraq weapons so Iran wouldn't win the Iran-Iraq war(1980 - 1988), thus preserving a balance of power in the region. Why should this fact prevent us from removing a brutal and oppressive dictator?
I wonder, are you against any U.S. foreign intervention or just when a Republican does it? I'm sure you supported Clinton when he attacked Bosnia for human rights violations. Why was it o.k. to attack Bosnia but not Iraq??
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Grandpa H, The U.S. gave Iraq weapons so Iran wouldn't*
win the Iran-Iraq war(1980 - 1988), thus preserving a*
balance of power in the region.*
It preserved Saddam's balance of power as well, as he probably used WMD's sold to him to gas the Kurds. The Iran/Iraq war devastated two Iran and Iraq and didn't make these countries less brutal. And the sanctions against Iraq punished Iraqis far more than they punished Saddam.
Why should this fact prevent us from removing a brutal*
and oppressive dictator?*
What facts justify giving oppressive dictators military aid?
I wonder, are you against any U.S. foreign intervention or*
just when a Republican does it?*
I'm sure you supported Clinton when he attacked Bosnia for*
human rights violations.*
No, I didn't support any such efforts.
You, BTF and others I've debated with obvioiusly gather many of your opinions from the same place.
No, I did not support Bill Clinton's militarism.
I've said that probably a hundred times by now (I'm serious, it must be getting close to that).
I've said these exact same words before, and I'll say them again:
Every President, Republican or Democrat, has
followed a remarkably similar routine of how to handle the Middle
East, and Clinton was among them.
Why was it o.k. to attack Bosnia but not Iraq??*
I never said it was. I am against military expansionism.
I've heavily criticized it on a very regular basis.
Grandpa h.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Okay GH, so if you won the presedency in 2000, this is what we'd hear:
CIA Exec: Sir, Saddam has just broken another U.N. resolution for the 18th time. Intelligence reports he's trying to obtain nuclear material from south africa and most world intelligence agencies agree he has WMD's. He's also been caught funding suicide bomber families and is harboring at least 2 major terrorist camp headquarters. He's also listed as a major human rights violator.
Grandpa H: Listen CIA dude, did you know we gave Saddam weapons over 20 years ago for the Iran-Iraq war?? We really ****ed up. Now we have to let Saddam do whatever he wants. I don't care how many people he kills or oppresses. We should've never done that.
Grandpa H: Now don't bother me with anymore foreign affair stuff or you're fired.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
CIA Exec: Sir, Saddam has just broken another U.N. resolution*
for the 18th time.*
That's a matter of priority for the United States for what reason?
We are allied with some pretty awful human rights abusers.
Intelligence reports he's trying to obtain nuclear material from south*
africa and most world intelligence agencies agree he has WMD's.*
That's what "dead wrong" intelligence reports said.
I was sketpical of those at the time and it turned out I was right.
He's also been caught funding suicide bomber families and is*
harboring at least 2 major terrorist camp headquarters.*
He's also listed as a major human rights violator.*
So are Turkey, Indonesia, Uzbekistan, Pakistan and Israel human rights violators.
We should not be allied with them. We should worry about preventing human rights abuses in the United States instead of killing thousands of Iraqis.
Grandpa H: Listen CIA dude, did you know we gave*
Saddam weapons over 20 years ago for the Iran-Iraq*
war??*
We really ----ed up.*
Not only that, but some people in our government should pay serious legal penalties for aiding a vicious dictator. Our government sold him chemical weapons and that is a terrible thing to do. It's also terrible and idiotic when we sell any foreign military conventional weapons.
Now we have to let Saddam do whatever he wants.*
I don't care how many people he kills or oppresses.*
We should've never done that.*
Damn right we shouldn't have sold Saddam Hussein, or anyone else, weapons.
And your message to me is this:
"Now we have tolet the United States do whatever it wants.
I don't care how many people it kills or oppresses."
Same damn thing.
Grandpa H: Now don't bother me with anymore foreign affair*
stuff or you're fired.*
Yeah, that's basically it. It shouldn't be our business what goes on overseas and it we shouldn't kill innocent Iraqis and support dictators. Foreign entanglements suck.
Grandpa h.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
[/img]