Anti-War 100,000 - Pro-War 400

If that's not what your suggesting then how is it relevant at all to the discussion? Are YOU really that dense

 

I love how every time we bring up the war and the WMD's and how many civilians have been killed immediately some dummy tries to twist it around with things like:

saddam killed his people
we're freeing the iraqis
we're spreading democracy
saddam was a bad guy!

It's getting old.. and it's really lame....and nobody with a brain is buying it either

 

I made it relevant

Though I'm not surprised you take no issue with it. Who would you die for?

 

You can't buy the truth

Yea, it's getting old, when some kid posts about Jimmy Massey, then has the nerve to talk about logic over emotion in another thread.

Who is "we?" Please don't include "me" in your "we." You admitted earlier in the thread you would sell out your country. I Don't want to be lumped in with traitors.

 

If it was the truth why was George Bush singing about WMD's to the nation and demanding Saddam dissarm or be invaded?

Why didn't he say "stop hurting your people" or get invaded?

Are you really that stupid?

 

You mean these wmd?

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=283676&postcount=4

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html

Read this post and ask yourself the same question.

 

If you don't understand the problem there is little hope you can fix the problem.

No there is not, but when we use something such as this for a reason for us to invade to give countries and their citizens a better life is it not a bit hypocritical to allow countries that do the same or worse be our allies?

 

Presuming all problems can be fixed. Some problems don't want to be fixed.

Might be a good question for you (not me) if we ever invade Iran. I don't seek moral equivalence with our enemies to justify their actions.

 

So then you would have been all for back in the old days in the US say the 1700's, early 1800's etc with slavery and other human rights issues going on, all for another country to invade us?

That pretty much completely ignored what I stated and somehow moved it a different direction.

So let me ask you this do you have no problem having an ally that stones their people to death, yet be willing to use it as a reason to invade another?

 

They should just change this thread to "I like to argue thread".

Everyone in this thread pretty much is adamant about their beliefs. It's not like anyone here is on the fence and is looking for more information to make an informed decision.

 

Are you kidding me? Gtech will support this administration even if they start to stone and cut the hands of people in the USA.

 

I don't buy that one, Gtech is a bit to the right of my beliefs on many things but don't think he's that bad

 

Didn't another country invade "us?" How do you suppose we are all here?

You asked, I supplied.

Re-read this post: http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=407764&postcount=2656

Do you always try to justify being against and for everything with moral equivalence? If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything. Surely you stand for something, without a "but" you wouldn't argue until the cows come home?

 

If they did start stoning and cutting hands off, would you suddenly become quiet about their actions like other countries?

 

Did they now? after the revolutionary war I am speaking of

Doesn't answer the question.

Speaking of being for something and standing for something I see you not practicing what you preach. Bashing and using a reason to invade one country, while it being ok for your allies is not standing for something.

Personally I'd be for helping the opressed in the middle east, but kind of hard to get on that band wagon while our allies in the region are just as guilty as others.

 

Wasn't is Winston Churchill who responded to criticism of his allying with Josef Stalin with something along the lines of "To defeat Hitler, I would have allied with Satan himself."

Politics is all about compromise. Often we must use one evil to defeat a larger evil. Then we use another small evil to defeat that evil and we keep working our way down.

 

While I do get what you are saying and do think it is somewhat relevant there are some major differences.

#1 it was a world war 2 enemies combining to take on one enemy that was actively invading or had attacked their countries directly.

#2 we use issues against those we have or wish to invade that our allies are actively guilty on. 'would be kind of like Germany was invading Britain, at the same time Russia was as well, but Britain decided to join with Russia during the time they were still actively invading their country.

#3 those gaining power in Iraq are exactly those who may go to Islamic based law, putting the exact same thing into place that others are arguing against in the first place.

 

Oh, it's conditional? I see

It did, you just don't see it. Takes care of the above paragraph as well.

So it's not possible to be for something without a but. As well, the post I referred you to takes care of your latest but as well. Who says we must agree with our allies values? Re-read the post, slowly and take in what I said.

Such trivialization over every little thing...

 

No just figured when I stated the US most people would or I had hoped get the idea of after we had become a nation.

I honestly am not seeing it, how it explains anything. If it does please rephrase it into such a way us youngins can understand, after all I believe it was Will who talked about wisdom to be passed down.

 

I can proudly say there have been a few issues I am starting to rethink my overall position on