• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Worst President Ever!!! Approval Rating Drops!!!

Originally posted by GySgt:
OK...who should we invade? If not Saddam and the image he projected to every Arab leader in the Middle East...who should we invade to kick start change in the Middle East?
Nobody. We shouldn't invade any country, unless that country attacks us first. Article 51 of the UN Charter would make those circumstances a legal invasion. And for me, that would be a moral invasion as well. What we have done regarding Iraq, is neither legal, nor is it moral. Yeah, war is hell, but we don't need to export it to a country that did nothing to us militarily. I don't care how bad their leader was. But our leader ain't no prize either. He's not that bad, but he's far from good.
 
Billo_Really said:
Nobody. We shouldn't invade any country, unless that country attacks us first. Article 51 of the UN Charter would make those circumstances a legal invasion. And for me, that would be a moral invasion as well. What we have done regarding Iraq, is neither legal, nor is it moral. Yeah, war is hell, but we don't need to export it to a country that did nothing to us militarily. I don't care how bad their leader was. But our leader ain't no prize either. He's not that bad, but he's far from good.


So you suggest that we sit by and continue to look the other way as the Middle Eastern leadership continue to oppress and create hatred towards America as we receive our oil and just react to every terrorist act that will come. Even though that means that one day, your family could be on the wrong plane at the wrong time?

This is where our foreign policy is culpret. Our willingness to stand idly by and look the other way as we receive our oil and line the pockets of the Arab elite with money is our role in the creation of Islamic extremism.
 
Last edited:
RightatNYU said:
Iraq didn't attack us openly (Aside from shooting at our planes and funding suicide bombers) or directly, just like Germany didn't. That's the point. If it was okay to attack Germany, why not Iraq?
Here's a mjor difference for you! Germany declared war on Russia, France, Britain etc. way, way before the US entered what was already a war.

Iraq was fighting no one, had no capabilities to fight, and as far as I can tell, no intention to fight.

How you or anyone can relate WWI to the Iraq war amazes me! IMHO to do so is an outrageously poor analogy and in fact is flat out wrong, so that's "Why Not Iraq".
 
Paul said:
If he used Chemical Weapons against his own people what would he do to us? Should we have waited until he had nuclear weapons?
With all due respect, your post is, IMHO, rabble rousing and not based on any facts whatsoever. You're writing Bush talking points, almost all of which have been discredited, so why are you using them again here?

Saddam had zero WMDs, zero capabilities for a nuclear weapon, and was not at all an immediate threat to the USA, which was the bullshit that he used to justify this war.

Here's where I think your talking points fail:

You argue that Saddam intended to use WMDs and Nukes against us but in reality he didn't have the capabilities to do so. He wasn't getting closer, and he was incapable of using the weapons your using to justify our invasion. It was all a crock of $hit, and sadly good people like you have been duped into believing what Bush says because you sincerely believe he is telling the truth.

However, again IMHO, one needs to separate what you want to believe and what is the truth. No matter how much you want what you've written to be fact the truth is that it is fiction.

Intent vs. Capability, that is my point, my argument, my rebuttal to all the people who claim that Saddam was a ticking time bomb.
 
26 X World Champs said:
Here's a mjor difference for you! Germany declared war on Russia, France, Britain etc. way, way before the US entered what was already a war.

Iraq was fighting no one, had no capabilities to fight, and as far as I can tell, no intention to fight.

How you or anyone can relate WWI to the Iraq war amazes me! IMHO to do so is an outrageously poor analogy and in fact is flat out wrong, so that's "Why Not Iraq".

So cases can be made for "why" and cases can be made for "why not." This is a war against terrorism. To combat this, one must understand terrorism and the issues behind it. After you have studied this mentality and the region from which they come from, you will find a diseased civilization full of oppression and abuse. You will find an entire region where education and the free flow of information is no where near a priority and in many cases seen as a crime against Allah. Until this is dealt with, Islamic terrorism will continue to escelade and we all know who they blame for their own societal failures and their own digression from the rest of the world. To deal with this region while ignoring Saddam's role within this civilization is ludicrous.

It doesn't matter who was on those planes. It doesn't matter that we we haven't found WMD's. Were their any Syrians and Iranians on those planes? Were WMD used in our embassies and New York? The attack on 9/11, Bin Laden, Saddam, and every Mullah and leader in the Middle East that uses muscle to enfore rulership or uses God to exact punishment are mere symptoms of decay. Until this decay is addressed, nothing we do will be absolute to an end. It will just be appeasement and ignorance towards something that inevitably will have to be dealt with after enough cities and airplanes and embassies and naval ships and American civilians have been hijacked, wrecked, destroyed or murdered.
 
Last edited:
RightatNYU said:
interesting.

www.husseinandterror.com

The Hoover Institute at Stanford would disagree.
Jesus! You're citing a totally biased report by a reknowned right wing reporter who works or worked for for Rupert Murdock, Ronald Reagan, Orin Hatch & The Washington Times!

Not to mention that his "report" is chock full of inaccuracies and blatant lies. For example he cites: "Czech officials insist 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta
met with an Iraqi diplomat five months before piloting
American Airlines Flight 11 into One World Trade Center."


Murdock worked "on the 1980 and 1984 Reagan for President campaigns and worked for U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah)" and was "a communications consultant to Steve Forbes' 2000 presidential campaign."
Source: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Deroy_Murdock

Imagine if I used a source from a reknowned left wing writer, what would you say then?:spin: :spin:
 
He may be right-wing, but that only matters when he reports an opinion. I've seen nothing but facts on that page. Political affiliation does not undermine facts. But it may mean he left out certain facts, in which case I'd like to see what he left out, if anything.

Where are these inaccuracies and blatent lies you're talking about?
 
aps said:
I will check that out later. I never said that Hussein had nothing to do with terror--he had NOTHING to do with September 11th. If this website shows me otherwise, I won't believe it. Sorry.

Good to hear you're openminded and always willing to learn new information.
 
FinnMacCool said:
IS this news? Sounds like it belongs into the history section imo.

Also that website I have already been to and while it has supposedly reliable sources, firstly I don't see how any of this means we should invade Iraq. I also cannot help to be a bit catuious about the site because, of course, this guy on the site is extremely biased and tries to get his point crossed in a particular way that makes me think he might be strecting the facts. None of those are completely reliable.

Of course not, every reporter has an inherent bias. I don't present this because I think Deroy Murdock saying something makes it so, I present this because it's an incredibly well documented, very thoroughly researched report brought by a fellow at the Hoover Institute at Stanford. Don't believe it because of the writing style, believe it because of the facts.
 
26 X World Champs said:
Here's a mjor difference for you! Germany declared war on Russia, France, Britain etc. way, way before the US entered what was already a war.

Iraq was fighting no one, had no capabilities to fight, and as far as I can tell, no intention to fight.

How you or anyone can relate WWI to the Iraq war amazes me! IMHO to do so is an outrageously poor analogy and in fact is flat out wrong, so that's "Why Not Iraq".

So? Russia, France, and Britain are not us. Why should we have gotten involved?

Ohhhh, I see, you're part of the interventionist school of thought. So you would support attacking those who attack our allies? Now, I wonder if that's a uniform belief for you, or if you apply it selectively in whatever way you feel will best justify your point. Hmmmmm.

Iraq had no capabilities to fight? But they shot at our planes, threatened us if we invaded them, and were aiding and abetting the actions of neighboring regimes. And they had no intentions of fighting? And yet they were trying their damndest to build up their military. Interesting how what you say and what the facts are part ways rather quickly...
 
galenrox said:
Yeah, in international relations there's a school of thought called Wilsonianism, to which Bush subscribes.
You claiming that in this war we were attacked first is kind of proposterous. How many Iraqis were on any of those planes?

I know, I like Wilsonianism. Idealist foreign policy at its best.

We were attacked first, in the larger scale of things. Iraq had attacked us before, and there was and is to this day irrefutable evidence that they were aiding terror in the middle east and abroad. For me, that falls underneath "We will make no distinction between those who commit terror and those who offer aid and comfort to them."
 
26 X World Champs said:
With all due respect, your post is, IMHO, rabble rousing and not based on any facts whatsoever. You're writing Bush talking points, almost all of which have been discredited, so why are you using them again here?

Saddam had zero WMDs, zero capabilities for a nuclear weapon, and was not at all an immediate threat to the USA, which was the bullshit that he used to justify this war.

Here's where I think your talking points fail:

You argue that Saddam intended to use WMDs and Nukes against us but in reality he didn't have the capabilities to do so. He wasn't getting closer, and he was incapable of using the weapons your using to justify our invasion. It was all a crock of $hit, and sadly good people like you have been duped into believing what Bush says because you sincerely believe he is telling the truth.

However, again IMHO, one needs to separate what you want to believe and what is the truth. No matter how much you want what you've written to be fact the truth is that it is fiction.

Intent vs. Capability, that is my point, my argument, my rebuttal to all the people who claim that Saddam was a ticking time bomb.


Your whole post can be summed up as "Knowing what we know now, Saddam didn't have WMD's, and he didn't appear to be able to attain them quickly"

That's all well and good, but what about his support for terror?
 
26 X World Champs said:
Jesus! You're citing a totally biased report by a reknowned right wing reporter who works or worked for for Rupert Murdock, Ronald Reagan, Orin Hatch & The Washington Times!

Not to mention that his "report" is chock full of inaccuracies and blatant lies. For example he cites: "Czech officials insist 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta
met with an Iraqi diplomat five months before piloting
American Airlines Flight 11 into One World Trade Center."



Source: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Deroy_Murdock

Imagine if I used a source from a reknowned left wing writer, what would you say then?:spin: :spin:

I'm well aware of what Deroy Murdock does. He also writes for National Review. Are you simply discounting the dozens of facts and sources that he provides because they were compiled by someone who is to the right of you? I don't immediately discount factual reports filed by fellows at prestigious institutions at one of the best universities in the nation simply because I don't immediately agree with their political leanings...

Let's see where you disprove his report, point by point. Because for me, any one of them is enough.
 
RightatNYU said:
That's all well and good, but what about his support for terror?
You keep writing this as if that justifies a WAR? :funny Why don't we attack the Palestinians then? They've supported terrorism far, far more than Saddam ever did! We even invite their leaders to Camp David! We made Arafat out to be responsible!

Saddam was NOT a threat to the USA and it is false to suggest that he was. Iran and North Korea and even Saudi Arabia had / have the potential to be much more of a threat than Saddam ever was or would have been.

Show me the instances where Saddam attacked the USA OUTSIDE of Iraq?

I think Bush cooked the books in order to justify his and his fellow Neocon's agenda as stated in the PNAC manifesto from 1997.

Recall that Bush said Saddam was an IMMEDIATE threat to the USA? That he posed an immediate danger to us. He was unwilling to allow the UN weapon inspectors to complete their mission because he claimed we were all in danger. The UN inspectors were doing a great job, and everything they reported was true. Bush and his co-conspirators ignored them because they didn't want to believe them since their agenda was already being put in action.
 
Originally Posted by RightatNYU:
We were attacked first, in the larger scale of things. Iraq had attacked us before, and there was and is to this day irrefutable evidence that they were aiding terror in the middle east and abroad. For me, that falls underneath "We will make no distinction between those who commit terror and those who offer aid and comfort to them."
I sure hope you do yoga before attempting stretches like your preceding comments.
 
RightatNYU said:
Your whole post can be summed up as "Knowing what we know now, Saddam didn't have WMD's, and he didn't appear to be able to attain them quickly"

That's all well and good, but what about his support for terror?

What support for terror? I keep hearing about this.

How did he support terrorists?

The only stuff I've seen is pre-war claims that he gave money through a Palestinian group to surviving family members of those fighting Israel; an inactive terrorist named Nidal lived there before someone, probably the Iraqis, put three bullets in his head; Abu Abbis, who hijaked the Achilles Laureal, but who the Israelis let move throughout their terroritory throught the 90s because we was involved in the peace process, spend some time there; there was a claimed terrorist camp called Salman Pak that turned out was not being used for terrorist training; and there is claims about another terrorist camp being used in Northern Iraq by a Kurdish group, at a time when Kurds were operating independent of Hussein. There have been some disputed claims about whether Al-Zaqarwi went to Baghdad in 2002.

Of all the terrorist attacks worldwide that have occurred in the last 30 years, including 9/11, I have never heard anyone argue credibly that Hussein or Iraq was involved in one.

What was his big support for terrorists that so justified our action?
 
26 X World Champs said:
You keep writing this as if that justifies a WAR? :funny Why don't we attack the Palestinians then? They've supported terrorism far, far more than Saddam ever did! We even invite their leaders to Camp David! We made Arafat out to be responsible!

I'm glad we at least agree on what our next course of action should be...

Saddam was NOT a threat to the USA and it is false to suggest that he was. Iran and North Korea and even Saudi Arabia had / have the potential to be much more of a threat than Saddam ever was or would have been.

Show me the instances where Saddam attacked the USA OUTSIDE of Iraq?

I think Bush cooked the books in order to justify his and his fellow Neocon's agenda as stated in the PNAC manifesto from 1997.

Recall that Bush said Saddam was an IMMEDIATE threat to the USA? That he posed an immediate danger to us. He was unwilling to allow the UN weapon inspectors to complete their mission because he claimed we were all in danger. The UN inspectors were doing a great job, and everything they reported was true. Bush and his co-conspirators ignored them because they didn't want to believe them since their agenda was already being put in action.

Saddam wrote $25,000 checks to the families of those who blew themselves up with suicide bombings in Israel, killing Americans. His reward was announced before these bombings took place, and puts direct responsibility on his shoulders.

Not to mention the whole aid/succor thing that is brought up in the rest of the article.
 
Billo_Really said:
I sure hope you do yoga before attempting stretches like your preceding comments.

No, but I run, play soccer, and do ballroom dance.
 
Iriemon said:
What support for terror? I keep hearing about this.

How did he support terrorists?

The only stuff I've seen is pre-war claims that he gave money through a Palestinian group to surviving family members of those fighting Israel; an inactive terrorist named Nidal lived there before someone, probably the Iraqis, put three bullets in his head; Abu Abbis, who hijaked the Achilles Laureal, but who the Israelis let move throughout their terroritory throught the 90s because we was involved in the peace process, spend some time there; there was a claimed terrorist camp called Salman Pak that turned out was not being used for terrorist training; and there is claims about another terrorist camp being used in Northern Iraq by a Kurdish group, at a time when Kurds were operating independent of Hussein. There have been some disputed claims about whether Al-Zaqarwi went to Baghdad in 2002.

Of all the terrorist attacks worldwide that have occurred in the last 30 years, including 9/11, I have never heard anyone argue credibly that Hussein or Iraq was involved in one.

What was his big support for terrorists that so justified our action?

www.husseinandterror.com

"Claims that he gave money through a Palestinian group to surviving family members of those fighting Israel"

That's an interesting way to say "Offered a $25,000 reward for the family of anyone who would strap bombs to themselves and blow up Israeli and American civilians and children."

Pardon me, but your bias is showing.
 
RightatNYU said:
"Claims that he gave money through a Palestinian group to surviving family members of those fighting Israel"

That's an interesting way to say "Offered a $25,000 reward for the family of anyone who would strap bombs to themselves and blow up Israeli and American civilians and children."
I really thought you were better at this debating thing than your recent posts show?

I just can't believe that you're suggesting that we are justified in a starting a war in Iraq because it is alleged that Saddam paid Palestinians money to be suicide bombers in Israel! With all due respect, that is so weak it's laughable :2funny:

Now you ask me to dispute everything that is written in a very lengthy website run by Neocons / Right Wingers with a bias. Yikes!

You've posted the same link today multiple times, it's become your generic answer to anyone who disputes your claims.

As weird as this sounds I get the feeling that someone is masquerading as your screen name because the Right @ NYU that I think I know is a whole lot smarter than what you've written in the last 24 hours? Has Navy Pride stolen your identity?
 
Last edited:
26 X World Champs said:
I really thought you were better at this debating thing than your recent posts show?

I just can't believe that you're suggesting that we are justified in a starting a war in Iraq because it is alleged that Saddam paid Palestinians money to be suicide bombers in Israel! With all due respect, that is so weak it's laughable :2funny:

Now you ask me to dispute everything that is written in a very lengthy website run by Neocons / Right Wingers with a bias. Yikes!

You've posted the same link today multiple times, it's become your generic answer to anyone who disputes your claims.

As weird as this sounds I get the feeling that someone is masquerading as your screen name because the Right @ NYU that I think I know is a whole lot smarter than what you've written in the last 24 hours? Has Navy Pride stolen your identity?


I'm posting that link because if I were to take the time to form an argument to persuade every single person who is ignorant of the facts, I wouldn't finish my work for tomorrow.

This is simply one example of many of how Saddam directly dealt with terrorists who were responsible for American deaths. This isn't the reason for war, and on its own, wouldn't be enough. Combine that with the threats that the intelligence community perceived, the rampant corruption and money laundering occurring through OFF, the refusal to allow inspectors unfettered access, the repeated ignoring of UN resolutions, and the utter mismanagement and mass murder of his people, and then you've got a case for war.
 
Originally Posted by 26 X World Champs
I really thought you were better at this debating thing than your recent posts show?

I just can't believe that you're suggesting that we are justified in a starting a war in Iraq because it is alleged that Saddam paid Palestinians money to be suicide bombers in Israel! With all due respect, that is so weak it's laughable
I was trying to think of that fallacy in logic where the person's arguement is more weak than the one he was argueing. I couldn't remember that, but I did find these:

At one time or another, I'm sure we are all guilty of one of these. But some are more guilty than others.

[RightatNYU has this one written all over this thread!]
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when an arguer distorts an opponent's argument for the purpose of more easily attacking it. This often happens when someone quotes another Debate Forum member out of context.

[I'm having a mental block on this one. Who would the reader think most aptly fits this description?]
Circular Reasoning occurs when stating in one's proof that which one is supposed to be proving.

[This is SKILMATIC's favorite.]
The Missing the Point fallacy occurs when the premises of an argument appear to lead up to one particular conclusion but then a completely different conclusion is drawn.

[This is the one neo-cons use every time they respond to someone criticizing Bush. They go into this you Bush-hater rant that has nothing to do with what you were debating. For me, I don't criticize Bush just because I hate Bush. I criticize him because I object to his policies (and what has resulted from) as President].
The Red Herring fallacy is committed when the arguer diverts the attention of the reader or listener by changing the subject to some totally different issue. Sticking to the topic of each individual folder will minimize the impact of this fallacy.

[This is Stu Ghatze favorite fallacy (and possibly fantasy as well).]
The Hasty Generalization fallacy occurs when there is a likelihood that the sample is not representative of the group.

[This is the most popular across the board.]
The Ad Hominem fallacy occurs when an arguer's post appeals to feelings or prejudices as opposed to logic. It also occurs when an arguer moves a discussion to a personal level through character assassination or personal attacks.

[This is the one used for defending the invasion of Iraq (are you listening GySgt, cnredd, SKILMATIC, RightatNYU, etc.)]
The False Cause fallacy occurs whenever the link between premises and conclusion depends on some imagined causal connection that probably does not exist.

[This is the one people throw at me a lot. But there are others that ask me to be more succinct, so I can tolerate the former bunch.]
The Amphiboly fallacy occurs when the arguer misinterprets a statement that is ambiguous, owing to some structural defect and proceeds to draw a conclusion on this faulty interpretation. Again, this can happen when someone is quoted out of context. If a statement seems unclear, ask the person about it.

[People trying to link OBL with Hussein comes to mind reading this one.]
The Composition fallacy is committed when the conclusion of an argument depends on the erroneous transference of characteristic from the parts of something into the whole. In other words, the fallacy occurs when it is argued that because the parts have a certain characteristic, it follows that the whole has that characteristic, too. However, the situation is such that the characteristic in question cannot be legitimately transferred from parts to whole.

[GySgt loves this one. But he's not alone.]
The Suppressed Evidence fallacy is committed when an arguer ignores evidence that would tend to undermine the premises of an otherwise good argument, causing it to be unsound or uncogent.

http://www.midnightbeach.com/hs/fallacys.html
 
Originally Posted by RightatNYU:
No, but I run, play soccer, and do ballroom dance.
You're a "soccer-mom?" That's bullshit, dude!
 
26 X World Champs said:
With all due respect, your post is, IMHO, rabble rousing and not based on any facts whatsoever. You're writing Bush talking points, almost all of which have been discredited, so why are you using them again here?

Saddam had zero WMDs, zero capabilities for a nuclear weapon, and was not at all an immediate threat to the USA, which was the bullshit that he used to justify this war.

Here's where I think your talking points fail:

You argue that Saddam intended to use WMDs and Nukes against us but in reality he didn't have the capabilities to do so. He wasn't getting closer, and he was incapable of using the weapons your using to justify our invasion. It was all a crock of $hit, and sadly good people like you have been duped into believing what Bush says because you sincerely believe he is telling the truth.

However, again IMHO, one needs to separate what you want to believe and what is the truth. No matter how much you want what you've written to be fact the truth is that it is fiction.

Intent vs. Capability, that is my point, my argument, my rebuttal to all the people who claim that Saddam was a ticking time bomb.


Well usually when someone acts like Stalin, or Hitler you usually take them out before they get too powerful. Hussein's idol was Stalin and his favorite movie was the Godfather. He ruled by terror. He made people walk off buildings blindfolded for entertainment. He supported terrorists and was trying to get his hands on nuclear weapons to pay back the U.S for the Gulf war.

We shouldn't take him out when he doesn't have nuclear weapons , we should when he does have them , correct? :roll:

If you learn anything from history you should learn that people wait too long to fix problems. Just recently people ask "Why wasn't FEMA ready for the Hurricane?" or " Why did the Airplane companies let the hijackers on the plance with boxcutters?" Then they say "We should have done something before."

So we are doing something before we get attacked again on the HOMEFRONT, again and no one thinks it is justified. That is what is wrong with people in general. They cannot handle the truth.

Why don't you look at NYU's link, just because it's written by a republican doesn't mean it is factually wrong. Most media in the USA is left wing propaganda. ( CBS,CNN )

I think it is you that is naive. You won't look at the facts and you want to believe he was a nice dictator who worried about the economy of Iraq.
 
Originally posted by Paul:
Well usually when someone acts like Stalin, or Hitler you usually take them out before they get too powerful. Hussein's idol was Stalin and his favorite movie was the Godfather. He ruled by terror. He made people walk off buildings blindfolded for entertainment. He supported terrorists and was trying to get his hands on nuclear weapons to pay back the U.S for the Gulf war.

We shouldn't take him out when he doesn't have nuclear weapons , we should when he does have them , correct?

If you learn anything from history you should learn that people wait too long to fix problems. Just recently people ask "Why wasn't FEMA ready for the Hurricane?" or " Why did the Airplane companies let the hijackers on the plance with boxcutters?" Then they say "We should have done something before."

So we are doing something before we get attacked again on the HOMEFRONT, again and no one thinks it is justified. That is what is wrong with people in general. They cannot handle the truth.

Why don't you look at NYU's link, just because it's written by a republican doesn't mean it is factually wrong. Most media in the USA is left wing propaganda. ( CBS,CNN )

I think it is you that is naive. You won't look at the facts and you want to believe he was a nice dictator who worried about the economy of Iraq.
Hi Paul, I'm billo, I enjoyed reading your post. What's a "plance?"
 
Back
Top Bottom