Troops in Iraq: Protecting our Freedom?

[BigDog]

LMAO......

yeah, because those radical muslems have shown throughout history that they are very concerned with complete and sudden death.

LMAO.

dont look now.....but they have a custom of BLOWING THEMSELVES UP.

I dont think they are real concerned about dying.

Again, you mistake individuals for governments, as if they are the same. Ask yourself if Saddam was predisposed to pass on wmds, why didn;t he do so when he had some? Again, CATO asks a very profound question: "why are we still alive?" Clearly, he knew better. You've only been sold a fearful bill of goods and are not using the any critical thinking skills in analysizing it. The entire argument for passing on wmds ignores not only history, but reason.

 

[ProudAmerican]

Again, you mistake individuals for governments, as if they are the same. Ask yourself if Saddam was predisposed to pass on wmds, why didn;t he do so when he had some? Again, CATO asks a very profound question: "why are we still alive?" Clearly, he knew better. You've only been sold a fearful bill of goods and are not using the any critical thinking skills in analysizing it. The entire argument for passing on wmds ignores not only history, but reason.

those individuals are supported and sponsored by governments.

to think a government that paid terrorist families money would never take the next step and offer them weapons is ignoring reason.

 

[BigDog]

those individuals are supported and sponsored by governments.

to think a government that paid terrorist families money would never take the next step and offer them weapons is ignoring reason.

YOu seem to be refering to Saddam giving money to familes. BTW, he gave the money after the fact, but not after the bomber blew himself up. No, not then. He gave to familes who had their homes destroyed because a family member blew themself up. So, there is a disconnect in your reasoning and not mine. BBC and other news agencies reported that homes were built. So, the connection you are trying to make is much weaker than you think.

And that doesn't speak at all to working with Al Qeada. And I think that is always a strange little leap war apologists always make. We're talking about Saddam working with AL Qeada, and all the sudden paying Palistinian families crops up. Go figure.

But, you'll have to do better to justify the cost of this act of aggression on all sides.

 

[ProudAmerican]

YOu seem to be refering to Saddam giving money to familes

ya think?

BTW, he gave the money after the fact, but not after the bomber blew himself up. No, not then. He gave to familes who had their homes destroyed because a family member blew themself up.

I seriously think you try to deviate from my original point because you simply have no way to debate it.
who gives a flying fawk when he gave them the money. if you dont think the fact the man paid the families of suicide bombers encouraged more suicide bombing then you arent worth the time its taking me to type these responses.

So, there is a disconnect in your reasoning and not mine. BBC and other news agencies reported that homes were built. So, the connection you are trying to make is much weaker than you think.

no, its a strong connection. but one thing is for sure. your style of debate continues to hold true. simply make an unfounded, opinionated statement that there is no evidence....and bam. end of discussion.

And that doesn't speak at all to working with Al Qeada.

more brilliance. did I ever say it did?

And I think that is always a strange little leap war apologists always make. We're talking about Saddam working with AL Qeada, and all the sudden paying Palistinian families crops up. Go figure.

nothing strange about it at all. the debate style I love is the anti war fanatics way of MAKING SURE they SPECIFICALLY mention al queda, because they KNOW DAMN WELL the man supported terrorism. and somehow, in your small little world if it wasnt SPECIFICALLY al queda, somehow it doesnt count.

do you think its ok for states to sponsor terrorists, as long as they arent al queda members?

a simple yes or no will suffice on that last question.

 

[cherokee]

Where are all the patriots?

hmm another bs troll job...:roll:

 

[BigDog]

I seriously think you try to deviate from my original point because you simply have no way to debate it.
who gives a flying fawk when he gave them the money. if you dont think the fact the man paid the families of suicide bombers encouraged more suicide bombing then you arent worth the time its taking me to type these responses.

It makes all the difference. The implication is he was contributing to sucide bombings when in fact he was playing to his home crowd for political reasons. Makes him look friendly to Palistine without risking anything. Not understadnding this makes you come to false conclusions.

Now, you seem preoccupied with my debate style. I see nothing important in it, but yes and no questions are often asked when tryig to hide something. I might ask do only beat your wife on Thursdays. Yes or no. And then declare that you won't answer a simple yes or no question. Ask a valid question and you'll get a valid answer. But make pretenses and jumps and logic and I'll continue to dispute your claims.

Saddam was a small time player with no ability to threaten anyone. And the evidence supports that. No wmds, not working relationship with Al Qeada, no means to do anything.

 

[ProudAmerican]

It makes all the difference. The implication is he was contributing to sucide bombings when in fact he was playing to his home crowd for political reasons.

LMAO. its not an "implication" man. ITS A FACT. if I donate money to an abortion clinic, am I contributing to abortions?

Makes him look friendly to Palistine without risking anything. Not understadnding this makes you come to false conclusions.

the false conclusion is the one that says giving money to the families of suicide bombers in no way contributes to terrorism.

Now, you seem preoccupied with my debate style. I see nothing important in it, but yes and no questions are often asked when tryig to hide something.

actually, yes and no questions are often dodged when trying to hide something.

I might ask do only beat your wife on Thursdays. Yes or no. And then declare that you won't answer a simple yes or no question

simple. I would say NO....and then explain I never beat my wife.

if you answer my questions in the same manner....I will have no problem.

Ask a valid question and you'll get a valid answer.

just like a liberal. always leave yourself an out. this way, all you have to do is declare my question invalid, and you dont have to participate. kind of like the "those sources arent valid" tactic you have used consistently.

But make pretenses and jumps and logic and I'll continue to dispute your claims.

my points are clear and logical. you simply avoid them.

Saddam was a small time player with no ability to threaten anyone.

the same would have certainly been said about Mohammed Atta on 9-10-2001

And the evidence supports that. No wmds, not working relationship with Al Qeada, no means to do anything.

this is where I show you links and you claim they are "spin" or "biased" or "invalid"

 

[BigDog]

LMAO. its not an "implication" man. ITS A FACT. if I donate money to an abortion clinic, am I contributing to abortions?

And if you donate money to build house, you are donating money to build houses. Your logic in action.


And I am still waiting for you to ask a valid question. I have answered you clearly on all points. If you are still confused, restate the question so as to make some logical sense.

 

[ProudAmerican]

And if you donate money to build house, you are donating money to build houses. Your logic in action.


And I am still waiting for you to ask a valid question. I have answered you clearly on all points. If you are still confused, restate the question so as to make some logical sense.

your logic in action is,

if I donate money to build a house, I am playing to my home crowd for political reasons.

:2wave:

yeah, you are about as clear as any other liberal ive ever met.

here is a simple, valid question (though I have no doubt you will dodge it in some form)

do you think giving money to the families of suicide bombers encourages more terrorists to use themselves as human bombs?

 

[BigDog]

your logic in action is,

if I donate money to build a house, I am playing to my home crowd for political reasons.

:2wave:

yeah, you are about as clear as any other liberal ive ever met.

here is a simple, valid question (though I have no doubt you will dodge it in some form)

do you think giving money to the families of suicide bombers encourages more terrorists to use themselves as human bombs?

No I don't. To allow your family to have their hoime and belongings destroyed, which can't be replaced with money, to run the risk of them being killed, having homes rebuild won't encourage that act at all. It merely helps victims, and family members are victims. Think about how it would be if you got punished for your relatives crimes.

 

[Iriemon]

LMAO. its not an "implication" man. ITS A FACT. if I donate money to an abortion clinic, am I contributing to abortions?

Hussein gave money to all Palestinian families who lost members in their fight against Isreal. It wasn't just suicide bombers. The money wasn't wasn't distributed directly by Hussein, but through the PALF (Palestinian Arab Liberation Front).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm

And it wasn't directed against the US.

The US has given assistance to the Palestinians too. So that means we are terrorrist supporters as well, I suppose. We give billions and billions to the Saudis, who export far more terrorism than Hussein ever dreamed of. But that's OK, because oil trumps all else.

The false conclusion is the one that says giving money to the families of suicide bombers in no way contributes to terrorism.

Not against the US.

 

[RightinNYC]

YOu seem to be refering to Saddam giving money to familes. BTW, he gave the money after the fact, but not after the bomber blew himself up. No, not then. He gave to familes who had their homes destroyed because a family member blew themself up. So, there is a disconnect in your reasoning and not mine. BBC and other news agencies reported that homes were built. So, the connection you are trying to make is much weaker than you think.

And that doesn't speak at all to working with Al Qeada. And I think that is always a strange little leap war apologists always make. We're talking about Saddam working with AL Qeada, and all the sudden paying Palistinian families crops up. Go figure.

But, you'll have to do better to justify the cost of this act of aggression on all sides.

Nope. Hussein specifically granted $25,000 to the families of those who blew themselves up, killing Israelis and Americans.

www.husseinandterror.com has pictures of cancelled checks.

 

[ProudAmerican]

No I don't. To allow your family to have their hoime and belongings destroyed, which can't be replaced with money, to run the risk of them being killed, having homes rebuild won't encourage that act at all. It merely helps victims, and family members are victims. Think about how it would be if you got punished for your relatives crimes.

you are wrong.

if I offer money to the family members of Al Queda terrorists, then most certainly the word would get out, and more and more terrrorists would flock to the cause in order to help their families.

its just that simple.

to show the families of terrorist suicide bombers as "victims" is certainly not un-liberal like though.

 

[ProudAmerican]

Hussein gave money to all Palestinian families who lost members in their fight against Isreal.

dont ya just love the spin.

thats code for "Hussein gave money directly to the families of suicide bombers that blew themselves up commiting terrorist acts against Israelis"

The US has given assistance to the Palestinians too. So that means we are terrorrist supporters as well, I suppose. We give billions and billions to the Saudis, who export far more terrorism than Hussein ever dreamed of. But that's OK, because oil trumps all else.

show me proof that AMeirca has given money directly to the family of Mohammad Atta and I will join you in a march on washington D.C. condemning it.

Not against the US.

I dont recall saying "against us" anywhere in my post. yep, im sure of it. I didnt.

this new leftist notion that everything must be directly aimed at America in order for us to get involved is pure nonsense.
its a good thing we didnt think that way when Europe was being terrorized in the 1940s

 

[ProudAmerican]

Nope. Hussein specifically granted $25,000 to the families of those who blew themselves up, killing Israelis and Americans.

www.husseinandterror.com has pictures of cancelled checks.

It will be more than commical to watch Bigdog respond to this one.

 

[zymurgy]

this new leftist notion that everything must be directly aimed at America in order for us to get involved is pure nonsense.
its a good thing we didnt think that way when Europe was being terrorized in the 1940s

I swear, todays republicans don't even bother studying history.

1) Isolationism is as old as our country. To call it new or leftist is just ridiculous.

2) We didn't enter the war effort in the 40's until we were directly attacked.

 

[ProudAmerican]

I swear todays liberals just dont get it.

1) Isolationism is as old as our country. To call it new or leftist is just ridiculous.

again, to wait untill after we are attacked is just stupid. in todays world of terrorism, PRO ACTIVE measures MUST BE TAKEN to preserve AMerican lives.

) We didn't enter the war effort in the 40's until we were directly attacked.

we could have easily only faught in the pacific theater. but that would have been idiotic. just like not stopping modern day terrorists BEFORE they attack is is idiotic.

exactly what date did Germany attack us?

 

[Iriemon]

show me proof that AMeirca has given money directly to the family of Mohammad Atta and I will join you in a march on washington D.C. condemning it.

Did Hussein?

I dont recall saying "against us" anywhere in my post. yep, im sure of it. I didnt.

No that was me pointing that out. Hussein never participated in a direct or indirect terrorist attack against America, that I know of. He had a beef with Isreal, which last I heard was not a state.

this new leftist notion that everything must be directly aimed at America in order for us to get involved is pure nonsense.

The new conservative (ie neocon) notion that we should get involved in wars that don't involve us is what is nonsense.

its a good thing we didnt think that way when Europe was being terrorized in the 1940s

We did think that way in the 1940s. America stayed out of the war until we were attacked. That is why it is neocon.

 

[ProudAmerican]

Did Hussein?

no relevance to the conversation. typical. I never said he did. But you have PROOF he funded terrorists directly. you dont have proof America did.

No that was me pointing that out. Hussein never participated in a direct or indirect terrorist attack against America, that I know of. He had a beef with Isreal, which last I heard was not a state.

more pointless rambling. before 9-11, mohammed atta had never harmed America either. did we have the right on 9-10 to prevent him from doing so? I think we did.

The new conservative (ie neocon) notion that we should get involved in wars that don't involve us is what is nonsense.

on 9-10 mohammed atta had never involved us in anything. too bad we didnt stop him before he did.

We did think that way in the 1940s. America stayed out of the war until we were attacked. That is why it is neocon.

when did Germany attack us?

 

[Iriemon]

Nope. Hussein specifically granted $25,000 to the families of those who blew themselves up, killing Israelis and Americans.

www.husseinandterror.com has pictures of cancelled checks.

Hussein supports Palestinians. I see no evidence he had any involvement in attacking Americans. If an American died in a Palestinian attack in Israel, the moral is don't go to places that are known war zones.

Here is a story of an American killed intentionally by the Israeli military.
http://www.ccmep.org/2003_articles/Palestine/031603_photo_story.htm
Same moral.

I see no reason to go to war in Iraq because it supported Palestinians against Israel. If that was the motive, we should have invaded Saudi Arabia, they give lots more money the the Palestinians.

 

[Iriemon]

no relevance to the conversation. typical. I never said he did. But you have PROOF he funded terrorists directly. you dont have proof America did.

I haven't seen proof he funded terrorists directly. Funding terrorist directly would be giving money and weapons to them.

more pointless rambling.

IMO it is not pointless whether a nation supported terrorism against America or not. If you think that that issue is pointless, no wonder you support Iraq.

before 9-11, mohammed atta had never harmed America either. did we have the right on 9-10 to prevent him from doing so? I think we did.

on 9-10 mohammed atta had never involved us in anything. too bad we didnt stop him before he did.

What does this have to do with whether Iraq represented a threat to us?

when did Germany attack us?

Germany declared war on us on Dec 11 41. We declared war back the following day.

 

[ProudAmerican]

Hussein supports Palestinians. I see no evidence he had any involvement in attacking Americans. If an American died in a Palestinian attack in Israel, the moral is don't go to places that are known war zones.

Germany never attacked America. using your logic we should have never gotten involved. after all, it was only the Europeans that Germany threatened. Not America.

Here is a story of an American killed intentionally by the Israeli military.

strange. first you state its ok if an AMerican dies because its a warzone. then you post a link trying to stir up anger from those of us that consider Israel a friend.
For once I agree with you. its a warzone and peace activists shouldnt be there. if they die....tough.

I see no reason to go to war in Iraq because it supported Palestinians against Israel.

its a good think America didnt have that attitude towards Germany. They never attacked us. There was no reason to fight a country that supported the Nazis terror against Europe.

 

[Iriemon]

Germany never attacked America. using your logic we should have never gotten involved. after all, it was only the Europeans that Germany threatened. Not America.

Germany declared war on us. That kind of is a threat. If Iraq declared war on us then I'd have had no problem with a military response.

strange. first you state its ok if an AMerican dies because its a warzone. then you post a link trying to stir up anger from those of us that consider Israel a friend. For once I agree with you. its a warzone and peace activists shouldnt be there. if they die....tough.

I didn't say it was OK, but when you travel to a known dangerous area, you take risk.

I see no evidence that Hussein intentionally targeted Americans or even supported groups directly or indirectly that intentionally targeted Americans. It would make a difference to me if he had.

its a good think America didnt have that attitude towards Germany. They never attacked us. There was no reason to fight a country that supported the Nazis terror against Europe.

GERMANY DECLARED WAR ON US. Jeez, how much more do you need?

Nazi Germany represented a real threat to the United States, not some petty dictator in the ME whose forces we destroyed in about 36 hours.

You guys trying to compare Iraq with Nazi Germany to justify the Iraqi war is just inane.

 

[ProudAmerican]

I haven't seen proof he funded terrorists directly. Funding terrorist directly would be giving money and weapons to them.

see post #162. the evidence is there. but you will ignore it and claim it isnt valid.

IMO it is not pointless whether a nation supported terrorism against America or not. If you think that that issue is pointless, no wonder you support Iraq.

i simply feel we can be pro active and prevent things before they happen. like we did with Germany.

What does this have to do with whether Iraq represented a threat to us?

its clear you simply do not want to see my point. I will try to get it accross, though im sure you will simply feign ignorance.

what it has to do with is this. on 9-10 you could have never convinced anyone mohammed atta was capable of such an act. had we tried to stop him on 9-10 , people such as yourself would have been screaming that he had rights, and we were violating them. then, once he was in prison, you would have claimed we had no right to put him there because he had never directly attacked America.

if you dont see the similarities....well, I cant help you.

go ahead. tell us its not relevant and feign more ignorance. its kinda cute. but it does get boring after a while.

Germany declared war on us on Dec 11 41. We declared war back the following day.

Did Germany ever directly Attack the United States? the answer is simple. yet we pro actively made sure they would not.

you think it was ok then.....but its not ok today. strange.

 

[ProudAmerican]

Germany declared war on us. That kind of is a threat. If Iraq declared war on us then I'd have had no problem with a military response.

LMAO @ "kind of is a threat" .

too bad for your side in todays world countries dont always "declare war" before they do something. its this kind of narrow minded thinking that is dangerous.

I didn't say it was OK, but when you travel to a known dangerous area, you take risk.

I agree.

I see no evidence that Hussein intentionally targeted Americans or even supported groups directly or indirectly that intentionally targeted Americans. It would make a difference to me if he had.

on 9-10 you would have seen no evidence that mohammed atta wanted to intentionally target Americans.
you keep ignoring this very valid point and I will keep showing it to you.

BY THE TIME SADDAM INTENTIONALLY TARGETED AMERICANS IT WOULD HAVE BEEN TOO LATE. just like it was TOO LATE to stop 9-11.

GERMANY DECLARED WAR ON US. Jeez, how much more do you need?

everytime I make a point, you change the rules. how convenient.
you were claiming we had to be attacked first, untill I reminded you of Germany. Then you decided war must first be declared.
tomorroe, if Iraq declared war, you would change the rules again for sure. its typical liberal strategy.

the FACT IS Germany NEVER ATTACKED AMERICA. but we acted pro actively. you think it was ok to do it then.....but not ok to do it today.

the reason you think it was ok to do it then is because you have the luxury of hindsight. the same reason you think it was not ok to do it in Iraqs case.....hindsight.

I remember just before we went into Iraq. the entire country was united. both parties were united. Al Gore, John Kerry SUPPORTED it.
now you all have the luxury of hindsight and you change your stance.

the ultimate act of cowardice. turn tale and run, change your mind, when the going gets tough.