Sen. Lieberman says force may be needed in Iran

[lester1/2jr]

So what? They have synagogues?

yeah. and they are thriving as well as one can in a country like iran which has a horrible economy and is relatively backward compared to , say , england. They aren't in concentration camps

Al qaeda didn't exist until after the Soviet-Afghan War. What you are talking about in the mujahadeen, who we were right to support against Soviet aggression. Al qaeda didn;t form until August 1988

Al qaeda isn't a Palestinian organization, nor does it have Palestinian members

so what? I don't disagree with any iof these facts or see what they have to do with what we are tlaking about. al queda formed out of the ashes of the mujahadeen. bin laden was part of the resistence to the soviet occupation. No one questions that.

al queda is a muslim organization that has all kinds of members. my point was about terrorism. palestinians aren't blowing themself up to establish sharia law they are blowing themselves up because they think the israelis stole their land.

9/11 wasn't an attempt to take over the united states and establish sharia law here. it was typical indigenous people vs occupier terrorism except instead of being at our embassy it was in our country.

if there was no such group as al queda, muslms would still be opposed to our foreign policy. that a group called al queda exists doesn't mean that anyone who is opposed to us is a terrorist. you don't have to be with us or with the terorists as george bush dumbly said. you can be opposed to terrorism AND interventionism.

I highly doubt it, and I bet the difference will be even larger in 5-10 years when Iraq is free of violence and is a thriving democracy

it's not now. would you travel to iraq now? would you have traveled there in 05? that's a lot of years wasted in anarchy and chaos

His position is not pro Iran, he just doesn't want another full scale war, which no one wants, no one at this juncture is suggesting a mass invasion of Iran, at most, people are suggesting strategic strikes on nuclear facilities if they do acquire weapons

he doesn't suggest that. he said he doesn't want iraq to be used as any kind of base against Iran and he has no opinion on irans nuclear program.

as far as defense, Iraq doesn't have much of a defense program they are still in tough shape from the occupation.

if you don't think that the us invasion of iraq has been hugely beneficial to iran you are nuts.

but don't you dare try to attribute that backwards ideology to most Iraqis. The reason you hate my polls is because they don't confirm your stereotypes about iraqis being a single bloc of anti-

being a conservative muslim isn't being an islamist. if a woman wears a veil by choice she isn't an islamist she's a muslim. if there weren't attacks on women there wouldn't be polls asking people how they feel about attacks on women. we brought that to them.

d Allawi and Maliki's coalitions.

right, in that article he is meeting with allawi. to decide if he is going to put his 39 seats behind him insteadof al maliki. obviously alawi thought he was important enough to meet with in order to try and get his support. I don' tthink he would meet with me to gtet my support.


think about this: all the people who died in iraq and the thousands who have ptsd and missing limbs could be back with their families and we would be just as if not more safe than if we had gone into iraq qith the effect it has had on our security. threats haven't subsided because we "showed force" in iraq. there are still attacks on us at home and abroad. they are still blowing themselves up and blowing each other up.

the iraq war has not made a dent in terrorism. if iraq becomes the most propserous nation in the middle east, they will still not support our foreign policy and still not lke israel and there will still be terorrism against us for supporting israel, egypt and the others in the region.

it didn't work

 

[Brian4Liberty]

You didn't answer my question, or at least fully. You merely provided nations who have sought nuclear weaponry, but the clear qualifier was nations that had called for the destruction of other nations. Even the communists, to their credit, never called for the destruction of other nations...

All of those nations had people who called for the destruction of the US. We have been at war with all of them. Khrushchev wanted to "bury" us, and from later accounts, cooler heads at the Kremlin stopped him from launching on us. Castro constantly called for our demise. Heck, if England would have had nukes during the American Revolution, they might have used them on us.

Pre-emptive war is necessary in the modern world. I think the founders were right on a policy of non-intervention outside of the western hemisphere(they still supported intervention in the Americas, see the Monroe Doctrine). But the world is vastly different now than it was then, and we are no longer a fledgeling nation that was at risk of being overrun by the French or British army. The reason we were non-interventionist in the affairs of Europe at the time was because if we intervened we could have been conquered. But you cannot have a policy of non-intervention with radical islamists who want to kill you because you exist as a non-islamic entity).

That is not the reason we were non-interventionist. Maybe to a few war-mongers and wanna be Empire builders, but not to the majority of the Founders.

So we should wield the power because we have it now? Power corrupts. That's not just a saying, it's a basic law of human nature. Pre-emptive war is nothing more than starting a war. The bad guys start wars. The US shouldn't be the bad guys. Like I said before, it's about paranoia. Don't be afraid of whatever the talking heads say to fear. At some point, you will likely become angry at the people who are manipulating you.

I agree with you fully on Immigration. No argument there.

It's not an irrational fear if it is already taking place!

Once again, look at manipulation. The powers that be tell you to fear something that has not happened, and yet tell you to ignore something that is already happening. Follow the profits...

 

[AmericaFyeah92]

You guys might as well be debating Bill Kristol. There's no hope of convincing this guy - pure neocon

 

[The Patriot]

All of those nations had people who called for the destruction of the US. We have been at war with all of them. Khrushchev wanted to "bury" us, and from later accounts, cooler heads at the Kremlin stopped him from launching on us. Castro constantly called for our demise. Heck, if England would have had nukes during the American Revolution, they might have used them on us.



That is not the reason we were non-interventionist. Maybe to a few war-mongers and wanna be Empire builders, but not to the majority of the Founders.

So we should wield the power because we have it now? Power corrupts. That's not just a saying, it's a basic law of human nature. Pre-emptive war is nothing more than starting a war. The bad guys start wars. The US shouldn't be the bad guys. Like I said before, it's about paranoia. Don't be afraid of whatever the talking heads say to fear. At some point, you will likely become angry at the people who are manipulating you.

The Soviet Union already had weapons when they made the statement, they weren't trying to acquire weapons. Had they been trying to attain weapons when they made such menacing statements, an attack on their nuclear facilities would have been fully justified. But once again, you failed to provide an example of a nation using destructive rhetoric and trying to attain nuclear weapons

That was the primary reason we were non-interventionist. Had we intervened, we'd risked destruction as a nation. If you watched the John Adams miniseries, Adams was adamant about non-intervention for the fear of invasion by America by say France.

I disagree, I think good people can start wars against bad people, your statement is too simplistic.

 

[The Patriot]

yeah. and they are thriving as well as one can in a country like iran which has a horrible economy and is relatively backward compared to , say , england. They aren't in concentration camps

See, this is why there can't be a rational discussion with you. You are insane, you compare England and Iran in regards to religious freedom and economic prosperity. Comparing those two countries shows how ignorant you are of the facts. And just because they aren't in concentration camps doesn't mean they aren't persecuted. It isn't either they have freedom or they are in concentration camps, there are varying levels of religious persecution.

 

[The Patriot]

it's not now. would you travel to iraq now? would you have traveled there in 05? that's a lot of years wasted in anarchy and chaos

Find me proof that more people travel to syria than Iraq, please, go ahead.

I wouldn't travel to any middle eastern country, most of the countries are total pits and Israel is under the constant threat of terrorism. The only middle eastern country I would visit is the UAE and Dubai. By general rule of thumb is to not travel south of Sicily or east of Greece.

 

[The Patriot]

y

right, in that article he is meeting with allawi. to decide if he is going to put his 39 seats behind him insteadof al maliki. obviously alawi thought he was important enough to meet with in order to try and get his support. I don' tthink he would meet with me to gtet my support.

So what? He could have easily have gotten those seats from say Kurds, the Kurds have just as many seats as your anti-imperialist man Al Sadr. Al Sadr doesn't control anything, and elections can be won without him, clearly. Sadr didn't put his votes behind anyone, and lost miserably. They were nothing more than talks. And you have failed miserably in presenting Al Sadr as a powerbroker.

 

[The Patriot]

there will still be terorrism against us for supporting israel, egypt and the others in the region.

/QUOTE]

And we will fight it and destroy it everywhere. We have destroyed Al Qaeda in Iraq, humiliated them, and have driven them out of Afghanistan, and will beat them wherever we find them. We will kill their leadership, destroy their bases, eliminate their men, and eliminate their capacity to wage war.

 

[The Patriot]

al queda is a muslim organization that has all kinds of members. my point was about terrorism. palestinians aren't blowing themself up to establish sharia law they are blowing themselves up because they think the israelis stole their land.

9/11 wasn't an attempt to take over the united states and establish sharia law here. it was typical indigenous people vs occupier terrorism except instead of being at our embassy it was in our country.

if there was no such group as al queda, muslms would still be opposed to our foreign policy. that a group called al queda exists doesn't mean that anyone who is opposed to us is a terrorist. you don't have to be with us or with the terorists as george bush dumbly said. you can be opposed to terrorism AND interventionism.

Hamas wants a singular palestinian state, and the elimination of jews in the region, those are known facts, and they have already established sharia law within the area they govern.
http://utbnewsdesk.wordpress.com/2009/01/09/hamas-institutes-sharia-law-in-gaza/

And no one ever suggested 9/11 was an attempt to establish sharia law, but if you read their manifesto, and bothered to read the passage I cited, their goal is a worldwide islamic caliphate and the elimination of America and Irael. You are merely making strawmen because you have no ground to stand on intellectually. They clearly attacked America to cripple our economically and kill our people.

I agree, Al Qaeda would exist independent of our intervention in say East Timor or in say Kuwait, no argument there. As I have stated before, they are not an "anti-imperialist" organization.

 

[The Patriot]

being a conservative muslim isn't being an islamist. if a woman wears a veil by choice she isn't an islamist she's a muslim. if there weren't attacks on women there wouldn't be polls asking people how they feel about attacks on women. we brought that to them.

I agree, you said they were, you said Iraqis were islamists who condoned attacks on unveiled women. I am glad you are coming around to my position that they oppose terrorism, and believe in free expression for women.

 

[The Patriot]

y





he doesn't suggest that. he said he doesn't want iraq to be used as any kind of base against Iran and he has no opinion on irans nuclear program.

as far as defense, Iraq doesn't have much of a defense program they are still in tough shape from the occupation.

Yes, he does suggest that, what I said is 100% correct.


Iraq wants to insure that defense with an alliance form their greatest western ally America. They realize, that when the chips are falling, they would rather have America's guarantee of safety rather than a pat on the back from the mullahs in Iran for isolating themselves from America. He is clearly not pro Iran, he just opposes a ground war, and would rather avoid it. And I agree with him 100%

 

[lester1/2jr]

Yes, he does suggest that

where?

Iraq wants to insure that defense with an alliance form their greatest western ally America.

that's pure speculation on your part. "iraq" is whoever is elected the next president and it may well be iyad allawi, who jus met with muqtada al sadr in syria. if sadr supports alawi he will get something out of it and that something is not going to be warmer relations with the US.

. He is clearly not pro Iran, he just opposes a ground war, and would rather avoid it.

?? would rather avoid it?? he said he doesn't want iraq to be used as a base. that could be a ground war or any kind of war.

you are simply making up these opinions. show me where he says "I don't support Iran, I support the US and it's mission in the middle east"


and you seem to forget there are people in these countries. I don't agree with Obama on alot of things. Obama isn't "america". the shia people in iraq and the shia people in iran and lebanon have alot more in common than american people and iraqi shias. like we say god and country, not the other way around.

I wouldn't travel to any middle eastern country, most of the countries are total pits and Israel is under the constant threat of terrorism. The only middle eastern country I would visit is the UAE and Dubai. By general rule of thumb is to not travel south of Sicily or east of Greece.

so you admit iraq is "the pits".

Find me proof that more people travel to syria than Iraq, please, go ahead.

so it's your contention that as many western tourists go to iraq as syria? Look I'm not saying alot of poeple go to syria but I don't think many tourists go to iraq is all. unless soldiers count as tourists. I can't locate any tourist figures but the point is iraq is not a popular tourist destination and you yourself would never go there.

where do you think you would be safer in iran or iraq?

You are insane, you compare England and Iran in regards to religious freedom and economic prosperity.

lol. why can't I compare england with iran in regards to those things? that makes no sense. I say england has more religous freedom and a better ecommy than iran and you say that's insane to say?

why is it insane?

and why do you keep calling me names? you are probably another one of these guys who is tough guy on line yet couldn't bring themselves to go to iraq and fight for the war they think is the greates thing ever. someone should sue you guys for false advertising.

And we will fight it and destroy it everywhere. We have destroyed Al Qaeda in Iraq, humiliated them, and have driven them out of Afghanistan, and will beat them wherever we find them. We will kill their leadership, destroy their bases, eliminate their men, and eliminate their capacity to wage war.

lol

I agree, Al Qaeda would exist independent of our intervention in say East Timor or in say Kuwait, no argument there. As I have stated before, they are not an "anti-imperialist" organization

I didn't say that al queda wold exist independent of our intervention. I said muslims would still be anti american and anti israel if there wasn't a group called al queda doing terrorism. al queda didn't invent and doesn't have the pattent on hatred of us intervention in the middle east, a guy named ron paul has been of the same view for just as long as them. and many others.


and that stuff abut hamas intituting sharia law comes from a israeli right wing editorial I need a little more substantion than that.

the resistenc to israel has been going on since the begining of zionism in the 19th century. read "jerusalem 1913" it's 80 years before hamas and any of that stuff.

I am glad you are coming around to my position that they oppose terrorism, and believe in free expression for women.

again, you are construing being anti america with being a terrorist. I'm saying most muslims are anti american intervention and anti terrorist. I am anti american interventionist and anti terrorist. ron paul is anti american interventionism and anti terrorism

guess so, I liked arguing on a forum. If you didn't have me, it would just be total conformity, with mindless lemmings(liberty star, devil, not everyone) just parroting the same opinion. It wouldn't be exciting

this is rather tedious actually

 

[The Patriot]

where?




that's pure speculation on your part. "iraq" is whoever is elected the next president and it may well be iyad allawi, who jus met with muqtada al sadr in syria. if sadr supports alawi he will get something out of it and that something is not going to be warmer relations with the US.



?? would rather avoid it?? he said he doesn't want iraq to be used as a base. that could be a ground war or any kind of war.

you are simply making up these opinions. show me where he says "I don't support Iran, I support the US and it's mission in the middle east"


and you seem to forget there are people in these countries. I don't agree with Obama on alot of things. Obama isn't "america". the shia people in iraq and the shia people in iran and lebanon have alot more in common than american people and iraqi shias. like we say god and country, not the other way around.




so you admit iraq is "the pits".





so it's your contention that as many western tourists go to iraq as syria? Look I'm not saying alot of poeple go to syria but I don't think many tourists go to iraq is all. unless soldiers count as tourists. I can't locate any tourist figures but the point is iraq is not a popular tourist destination and you yourself would never go there.

where do you think you would be safer in iran or iraq?



lol. why can't I compare england with iran in regards to those things? that makes no sense. I say england has more religous freedom and a better ecommy than iran and you say that's insane to say?

why is it insane?

and why do you keep calling me names? you are probably another one of these guys who is tough guy on line yet couldn't bring themselves to go to iraq and fight for the war they think is the greates thing ever. someone should sue you guys for false advertising.



lol



I didn't say that al queda wold exist independent of our intervention. I said muslims would still be anti american and anti israel if there wasn't a group called al queda doing terrorism. al queda didn't invent and doesn't have the pattent on hatred of us intervention in the middle east, a guy named ron paul has been of the same view for just as long as them. and many others.


and that stuff abut hamas intituting sharia law comes from a israeli right wing editorial I need a little more substantion than that.

the resistenc to israel has been going on since the begining of zionism in the 19th century. read "jerusalem 1913" it's 80 years before hamas and any of that stuff.



again, you are construing being anti america with being a terrorist. I'm saying most muslims are anti american intervention and anti terrorist. I am anti american interventionist and anti terrorist. ron paul is anti american interventionism and anti terrorism



this is rather tedious actually

No, it is pure speculation, or rather hope on your part, that an irrelevant politician, is going to somehow take over the country. The election can be easily won without him, and Allawi, the secular pro american candidate, obliterated al-sadr's party in the elections. It wouldn't hurt to have al sadr's support, that is why he is asking for it, but he certainly doesn't need it, and sadr has zero chance of ever becoming prime minister.

What are you talking about, it is clear what Maliki wants, he doesn't want the United States using Iraq as a base to launch an invasion of Iran, he said nothing in support of Iran's nuclear program or anything against strikes, once again, wishful thinking on your part, because you want to see western interests in the middle east hurt. But no one at this point wants war, unless of course Iran obtains weapons, than they are asking for it. I am not making up anything. It is clear Maliki would much rather ally with us than with Iran, as he did through the security pact, against the wishes of Iran. He realizes we are a better friend than Iran could ever be(and probably realizes in ten years the mullahs will be gone and he won't want to be on the wrong side of history being allies with an evil regime).

The middle east, in comparison to the west, is a total pit, and that includes Iran and Syria as well. Only a nutjob would want to go there.

Once again, provide proof more tourists go to Syria than Iraq, if you can't, your claim is bunk more tourists travel to syria than Iraq

You are certifiably insane, you said Iran and England are comparable, there are no similarities, and I said England has a stronger economy and protects social freedoms. you are twisting things around. You are probably on some kind of medication.

But Al Qaeda, does exist independent of our intervention, their end goal is not to stop American secularization and democratic liberation, but to eliminate the western powers, kill westerners, and establish an Islamic caliphate. Even if tomorrow, we ended aid to Israel, gave aid to indonesia to reconquer east timor, and withdrew troops from Afghanistan and Iraq, they would still attack us, and this is clear in their manifesto. Yet you insist on closing your ears and refusing to accept that these people are irrational and that you cannot apply western rationality to them. They are insane, even more so than you.

And that is total bullshit, I know you are lying, and never read the article. There was no right wing israeli editorial mentioned. Confirmation of Hamas establishing sharia was given by Al-Hayat and Al-Arabiya, two major Arab news organizations. If you are going to try and make a case about somone else lying, you shouldn't lie yourself.

No, you are saying that because people are muslim that they condone terrorism, I am not misconstruing everything. And once again, you keep repeating falsehoods. The majority of iraqis supported democratic liberation.

 

[lester1/2jr]

It wouldn't hurt to have al sadr's support, that is why he is asking for it

we agree on that.

he doesn't want the United States using Iraq as a base to launch an invasion of Iran,

right

You are probably on some kind of medication.

this is what its come to folks.

Only a nutjob would want to go there.

EXCELLENT point. so why are we occupying two countries there?

Even if tomorrow, we ended aid to Israel, gave aid to indonesia to reconquer east timor, and withdrew troops from Afghanistan and Iraq, they would still attack us, and this is clear in their manifesto

I'm sure they think their civilization is superior to ours and want to kill us because we keep invading their countries but they didn't invade moscow after driving the commies out of afghanistan.

you've never heard the expression blowback before? it's pretty basic. I can't think of a more basic principle in foreign policy than that.

Once again, provide proof more tourists go to Syria than Iraq, if you can't, your claim is bunk more tourists travel to syria than Iraq

it's bunk? there isn't a war going on in syria. why would it be ridiculous to think more people would go to a country where there wasn't a war than one where there was?

Where would anyone here rather go a country that is in a war that has suicide bombings or one that doesn't?

anyone travel to rural pakistan lately? "hey how do you know more people don't go to waziristan than tehran?"

It is clear Maliki would much rather ally with us than with Iran,

?? do you know him? how can you possibly deduce that from the fact that we have a security pact with them? there are no iranian troops in iraq they wouldn't need a security pact with them. if there is war with iran al maliki wants no part of it. he has not stood shoulder to shoulder with us on Iran.

I don't doubt the people of iraq want democratic liberation. everyone wants democratic liberation. I'm sure the people of north korea want democratic liberation. I'd lke it here, doesn't mean I'd like it if China invaded and gave it to us.

have you ever seen Red Dawn?

 

[The Patriot]

we agree on that.



right



this is what its come to folks.



EXCELLENT point. so why are we occupying two countries there?



I'm sure they think their civilization is superior to ours and want to kill us because we keep invading their countries but they didn't invade moscow after driving the commies out of afghanistan.

you've never heard the expression blowback before? it's pretty basic. I can't think of a more basic principle in foreign policy than that.



it's bunk? there isn't a war going on in syria. why would it be ridiculous to think more people would go to a country where there wasn't a war than one where there was?

Where would anyone here rather go a country that is in a war that has suicide bombings or one that doesn't?

anyone travel to rural pakistan lately? "hey how do you know more people don't go to waziristan than tehran?"



?? do you know him? how can you possibly deduce that from the fact that we have a security pact with them? there are no iranian troops in iraq they wouldn't need a security pact with them. if there is war with iran al maliki wants no part of it. he has not stood shoulder to shoulder with us on Iran.

I don't doubt the people of iraq want democratic liberation. everyone wants democratic liberation. I'm sure the people of north korea want democratic liberation. I'd lke it here, doesn't mean I'd like it if China invaded and gave it to us.

have you ever seen Red Dawn?

I am glad you agree it isn't necessary, and there are numerous other coalitions the secular pro american allawi can form, but it wouldn't hurt, and that Sadr has no chance of ever becoming prime minister.

I am glad you agree, that Maliki doesn't want war, that America doesn't want war, that Maliki has never opposed airstrikes, and that Iraq has never supported Iran getting nuclear program

You probably are on medication, you continuously lie and can't keep your story straight.

We aren't occupying Iran or Syria...

No one ever talked about an invasion, what we have been discussing is that Al Qaeda would continue attacking America. And who is to say they wouldn't have attacked the Soviet Union if they didn't collapse? There is a very good chance they would have, considering they have aided those who attacked the Russian Federation and have attempted to launch attacks on the Russian Federation themselves.
http://english.pravda.ru/russia/kremlin/17-04-2009/107416-Al_Qaeda_Russia-0
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2006/11/chechen_alqaeda_emir.php

Once again, provide proof, or your claim is bunk. It is funny how you mention Syria and violence in Iraq in the same sentence, because several Islamist insurgents are harbored by the Syrian government. Syria is creating violence in Iraq
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5886-2004Dec16.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLJ457134
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0915/p06s01-woiq.html

I logically deduce that from our security alliance. No doubt, he is friendly with Iran to a certain extent, but they clearly value our defense alliance more than Iran's opinion on the matter. To his credit, Maliki is a political independent, and refuses to cower to Iran on the issue. He doesn't care if they disapprove, because he wants to do what is best for his country. His interests and Iran's interest are separate.

 

[lester1/2jr]

that Maliki has never opposed airstrikes

yes he has. he said he didn't want iraq being used as base for war against iran. striking nuclear facilitiesis an act of war

You probably are on medication, you continuously lie and can't keep your story straight.

lol this is very tacky . you should show more respect to people with whom you are debating things. others might not be as patient as I am.

And who is to say they wouldn't have attacked the Soviet Union if they didn't collapse?

the country russia is still there. in fact it's relatively democratic now, which al queda hates. if anything they would be more inclnied to attack russia now according to your logic.

Syria is creating violence in Iraq

so there IS violence in iraq. do you still want to being your familiy on a long vacation there?

His interests and Iran's interest are separate.

and independent from ours.

 

[The Patriot]

yes he has. he said he didn't want iraq being used as base for war against iran. striking nuclear facilitiesis an act of war



lol this is very tacky . you should show more respect to people with whom you are debating things. others might not be as patient as I am.



the country russia is still there. in fact it's relatively democratic now, which al queda hates. if anything they would be more inclnied to attack russia now according to your logic.



so there IS violence in iraq. do you still want to being your familiy on a long vacation there?



and independent from ours.

He said he wouldn't want Iraq being used as a base of war, but he has never said he opposed airstrikes by America against Iranian facilities, from let's say, Kuwait or Yemen. But once again, at this point, all major parties oppose war, unless Iran decides to make nuclear weapons

[personal attack removed]

They are attacking Russia, I just gave you links, they have aided chechen terrorists and planned to attack Russia themselves. But you don't even bother reading, because you don't want your fantastical world view being distorted by the facts, and have gone to the point of lying in the past about my links.

Of course their is violence in Iraq, no one has ever disputed this, once again, strawmen. The ironic point is that you cite Syria, who is in fact harboring terrorists. But you have yet to provide any evidence suggesting more people go to Syria than Iraq. And we have gone over this, I wouldn't go anywhere in the middle east other than Dubai.

They are an independent sovereign nation, of course.

 

[lester1/2jr]

But you have yet to provide any evidence suggesting more people go to Syria than Iraq

the point of this conversation is not about tourism statistics. I have no idea who travels where more. my point was iraq, like its neighbors is the pits. you yourself wouldn't go there or anywhere else in the nieghborhood besides dubai. I have heard beirut is fun in some places but I probably wouldn't gothere either.

so why are we in iraq? why did thousands of our young people lsoe their lives and tens of thousands injure themselves and hsuffer from ptsd?

If saddam wasn't going to attack the united states with WMD and wasn't working with al queda like the taliban were, either openly and obviously what threat was he.

wether he was helping OTHER terrorists is besides the point. we don't invade cuontries because oeople help terrorists. we invade them because whatever is going on there was a threat to us. in ww2 we fought because we didn't want the nazis to take over the world.

saddam hussein was no going to take over the world any more than kim jung il or robert mugabe. would yo spend a trillion dollars and send tens of thousands of young men and women away from their families to take out mugabe?

we don't get paid to fight these wars. all the money to pay for it is taken out of yours and my taxes. I would hav preferred to spend the money somplace else or better yet keep it.

the middle east is going to be a hellhole for a long long time and theres nothign we can do about it.

 

[The Patriot]

the point of this conversation is not about tourism statistics. I have no idea who travels where more. my point was iraq, like its neighbors is the pits. you yourself wouldn't go there or anywhere else in the nieghborhood besides dubai. I have heard beirut is fun in some places but I probably wouldn't gothere either.

so why are we in iraq? why did thousands of our young people lsoe their lives and tens of thousands injure themselves and hsuffer from ptsd?

If saddam wasn't going to attack the united states with WMD and wasn't working with al queda like the taliban were, either openly and obviously what threat was he.

wether he was helping OTHER terrorists is besides the point. we don't invade cuontries because oeople help terrorists. we invade them because whatever is going on there was a threat to us. in ww2 we fought because we didn't want the nazis to take over the world.

saddam hussein was no going to take over the world any more than kim jung il or robert mugabe. would yo spend a trillion dollars and send tens of thousands of young men and women away from their families to take out mugabe?

we don't get paid to fight these wars. all the money to pay for it is taken out of yours and my taxes. I would hav preferred to spend the money somplace else or better yet keep it.

the middle east is going to be a hellhole for a long long time and theres nothign we can do about it.

No, the point of the conversation is tourism statistics, in fact, that is what your whole argument is predicated on, and you have yet to provide any evidence to back up your claim.

We have already gone over why Iraq was a justified and necessary war, we don't need to rehash that. Saddam supported Palestinian terrorism, harbored Al Qaeda operatives, harbored the man who made the bombs for the first WTC bombing, had WMDs, was trying to obtain nuclear weapons, committed genocide on kurds and shias, and politically repressed all Iraqis by killing and jailing political opposition.

If Mugabe had tried to obtain WMDs and/or supported terrorist elements, I would 100% support a military intervention. I 100% support sanctions, and I think Kissinger made a mistake(like he did in East Timor), in pushing for Ian Stuart's resignation as Rhodesia's president and putting sanctions on him during a time of Civil War with communist insurgents. I think Ian Stuart's roadmap to a full democratic system was superior to the one implemented, and would have prohibited radical communist anti white elements from gaining power in Rhodesia.

 

[AmericaFyeah92]

^Do you work in the intelligence/defense industry? Just wondering, because the policies you advocate would mean perpetual war, which means perpetual power/profits for those agencies and the companies that contract with them.

I don't believe that you feel truly threatened by Saddam Hussein, or Iran, or Palestinian terrorists. If you feel all this money and lives are worth it to stop people like the underwear bomber, you are a shithead

BTW, you realize the atrocities Saddam committed he usually committed with American weapons? He was our big friend until he decided to invade Kuwait, and then he became a convenient bad guy.