Please Help.... What do I say

  • Thread starter Thread starter AmyS
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

AmyS

Guest
You know how people can be when it comes to politics… this person believes that Bush and his colleagues should be tried as war criminals… Out of sarcacism I said they could share a cell with Suddam. I know the response I got is rediculous… Any thoughts tough?

Here it is:

Wasn’t Saddam the Iraq dictator that was young Bush II’s (as opposed to Bush I or Bush the old) main reason for the US to go to war with Iraq? Supposedly Saddam and Iraq posed an eminent threat to the US. There was the uranium (yellowcake) that Saddam was buying from Niger and all of those other WMD that Saddam had. Then there were the torture chambers that Saddam was running. I guess the torture chambers were not so bad since the US is now hiring the same people Saddam used in his torture chambers to interrogate the “insurgents”. Do you think that the British called the Americans that opposed the occupation of America and who fought against the loyalists “insurgents” in 1776?

end:

Is it even worth responding to?
 
40.png
AmyS:
You know how people can be when it comes to politics… this person believes that Bush and his colleagues should be tried as war criminals… Out of sarcacism I said they could share a cell with Suddam. I know the response I got is rediculous… Any thoughts tough?

Here it is:

Wasn’t Saddam the Iraq dictator that was young Bush II’s (as opposed to Bush I or Bush the old) main reason for the US to go to war with Iraq? Supposedly Saddam and Iraq posed an eminent threat to the US. There was the uranium (yellowcake) that Saddam was buying from Niger and all of those other WMD that Saddam had. Then there were the torture chambers that Saddam was running. I guess the torture chambers were not so bad since the US is now hiring the same people Saddam used in his torture chambers to interrogate the “insurgents”. Do you think that the British called the Americans that opposed the occupation of America and who fought against the loyalists “insurgents” in 1776?

end:

Is it even worth responding to?
Click to expand...
Sounds like a thouroughly top chap who knows what he’s talking about if you ask me Amy!

😉
 
40.png
AmyS:
You know how people can be when it comes to politics… this person believes that Bush and his colleagues should be tried as war criminals… Out of sarcacism I said they could share a cell with Suddam. I know the response I got is rediculous… Any thoughts tough?

Here it is:

Wasn’t Saddam the Iraq dictator that was young Bush II’s (as opposed to Bush I or Bush the old) main reason for the US to go to war with Iraq? Supposedly Saddam and Iraq posed an eminent threat to the US. There was the uranium (yellowcake) that Saddam was buying from Niger and all of those other WMD that Saddam had. Then there were the torture chambers that Saddam was running. I guess the torture chambers were not so bad since the US is now hiring the same people Saddam used in his torture chambers to interrogate the “insurgents”. Do you think that the British called the Americans that opposed the occupation of America and who fought against the loyalists “insurgents” in 1776?

end:

Is it even worth responding to?
Click to expand...
Why bother on the most of it. There are some leftist isolationist types that you can have a conversation with and agree to disagree. He/She doesn’t sound like one…

But with regard to whatever the British called us during the the Revolution, who cares and how is it relevant? Our cause then and the cause of the resistance in Iraq now are markedly different as are the tactics employed. It’s only in the sad, twisted and limited leftist world that a comparison can be made.
 
40.png
AmyS:
You know how people can be when it comes to politics… this person believes that Bush and his colleagues should be tried as war criminals… Out of sarcacism I said they could share a cell with Suddam. I know the response I got is rediculous… Any thoughts tough?

Here it is:

Wasn’t Saddam the Iraq dictator that was young Bush II’s (as opposed to Bush I or Bush the old) main reason for the US to go to war with Iraq?
Click to expand...
The reasons we went to Iraq are summed up by the United States Congress, here:

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
Supposedly Saddam and Iraq posed an eminent threat to the US.
Click to expand...
No that was not one of the reasons. Read the link below. The President, nor congress ever said Iraq posed an eminent threat. Maybe he can find a quote where they said that, but I doubt it.
There was the uranium (yellowcake) that Saddam was buying from Niger and all of those other WMD that Saddam had.
Click to expand...
Yellowcake was brought up as one example in a speach. It was subsequently corrected. That is not one of the major reasons (again see the link above).

There is no doubt Saddam had WMD. The question was did he have any that was hidden from the UN. There were tons of stuff that the UN knew about.
Then there were the torture chambers that Saddam was running.
Click to expand...
No doubt there, we have video.
I guess the torture chambers were not so bad since the US is now hiring the same people Saddam used in his torture chambers to interrogate the “insurgents”.
Click to expand...
As far as I know, this is not true
Do you think that the British called the Americans that opposed the occupation of America and who fought against the loyalists “insurgents” in 1776?
Click to expand...
Don’t know, and I suspect the author doesn’t either.
end:

Is it even worth responding to?
Click to expand...
Sounds kinda rambling to me. Your call, but it may not be worth it.
 
Thanks Gilliam and Stu… That helps… I know what to say, I just have a hard time writing it. These people are people I can’t really reason with… You are the best!

and

Fighting Fat! 😛
 
No that was not one of the reasons. Read the link below. The President, nor congress ever said Iraq posed an eminent threat. Maybe he can find a quote where they said that, but I doubt it.
Click to expand...
Obviously you didn’t listen to Colin Powell when he addressed the UN.
Yellowcake was brought up as one example in a speach. It was subsequently corrected. That is not one of the major reasons (again see the link above).
Click to expand...
The Yellow cake story was shown to be a complete fabrication.
There is no doubt Saddam had WMD. The question was did he have any that was hidden from the UN. There were tons of stuff that the UN knew about.
Click to expand...
I wonder how many times this has to be refuted. Where are they? who found them? where’s your evidence? The western powers were told by Saddams brother in law that he destroyed them all after the first gulf war,we didn’t believe him and yet ALL the evidence proves he was telling the truth.
No doubt there, we have video.
Click to expand...
No argument there, but, if that is a justification for war why aren’t we in … say… Zimbabwe or North Korea or even China? Why didn’t we invade during Pol Pots reign in Cambodia or intervene in the genocide in Central Africa? It is exactly those double standards that lead to a great number of the problems we now face.
As far as I know, this is not true
Click to expand...
Must admit I can’t figure what that has to do with anything!!!
 
40.png
walstan:
The Yellow cake story was shown to be a complete fabrication.
Click to expand...
The yellowcake story was not shown to be a fabrication. Only Democrat operative Joe Wilson said that Iraq was not pursuing yellowcake.

Wilson has been thouroughly busted for his lies to Congress and others.

The link below breaks down some of Wilson’s lies.

powerlineblog.com/archives/007135.php
 
You can try what my youngest son did once when a little girl kept bugging him during his sister’s volleyball meet.

She wouldn’t leave him alone. She was just being friendly, but he kept turning away from her, taking seat far from hers, and nothing would deter her.

Finally he stuck his tongue out at her. No anger, just a display.

I was aghast, but in stitches at the same time. He was maybe four, and I knew he had better manners than that but at least I was glad he did that instead of hitting the little girl, which I would have been tempted to do.

I don’t exactly remember what I did about it, though. I think I pretended I didn’t see it, so I could avoid having to admonish him for something I personally thought was hysterical. I really wasn’t sure I could “tell him off” and sound sincere at the same time. 😛

Alan
 
gilliam said:
Read Colin Powell’s address for yourself. He never said anything about Iraq being an eminent (actually, imminent) threat. As far as I know the only people who used that term were Democrats.
Click to expand...
Nothing points more clearly to Saddam Hussein’s dangerous intentions and the threat he poses to all of us
Click to expand...
The gravity of this moment is matched by the gravity of the threat that Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction pose to the world.
Click to expand...
These and other assertions by Colin Powell, extracted from your link, refer to WMD’s that, despite America’s confidence in their infalible security and which they were so positive existed before they invaded couldn’t be found when they were actually on the ground.

Now I (and most Brits) find it very suprising that they can see from 10 miles up with a sattelite, they can listen from 10,000 miles away to internal phone calls but, when they get into the country, a country whose communications were the first things to be disrupted, they can’t find zip. And the White house, even to this day still maintains that WMD’s exist, even though their greatest ally, the Brits have accepted they didn’t exist in the first place. Now whose kidding whom I wonder.

What you are asserting is that a country invaded by an overwhelming force, a country whose communications have been totally disrupted, a country where any sensible person (and even the Baath party had some who could think) kept their heads well down, a country that was full of people who resented Saddam and who could see the end coming, was still capable of moving, hiding and/or sneaking out of the country EVERY shred of evidence that WMD’s existed.

Ooops, got to go… the Tooth Fairy is at the door!!!
 
40.png
AmyS:
You know how people can be when it comes to politics… this person believes that Bush and his colleagues should be tried as war criminals… Out of sarcacism [sic] I said they could share a cell with Suddam [sic]. I know the response I got is rediculous [sic]… Any thoughts tough?
Click to expand...
Do you think he should be tried as a war criminal? If not, why not? Answer that, and you’ll have your response to this person you’ve been debating.
 
I am not asserting anything except to point out that Colin Powell didn’t say Iraq was an immenent threat which is what people in this thread said he said. Which he didn’t say. 🙂 You are free to infer whatever you want from whatever anyone says, as we are free to infer whatever we want from what you say, but we are not free to misquote someone.
 
40.png
AmyS:
You know how people can be when it comes to politics… this person believes that Bush and his colleagues should be tried as war criminals… Out of sarcacism I said they could share a cell with Suddam. I know the response I got is rediculous… Any thoughts tough?

Here it is:

Wasn’t Saddam the Iraq dictator that was young Bush II’s (as opposed to Bush I or Bush the old) main reason for the US to go to war with Iraq? Supposedly Saddam and Iraq posed an eminent threat to the US. There was the uranium (yellowcake) that Saddam was buying from Niger and all of those other WMD that Saddam had. Then there were the torture chambers that Saddam was running. I guess the torture chambers were not so bad since the US is now hiring the same people Saddam used in his torture chambers to interrogate the “insurgents”. Do you think that the British called the Americans that opposed the occupation of America and who fought against the loyalists “insurgents” in 1776?

end:

Is it even worth responding to?
Click to expand...
I have the same problem where I work. I remember explaining, in excrutiating detail, the rational for our war in Iraq. However they would just parrot the “Bush lied” mantra.

Many of the liberals I talked to were rational, and we could actually debate. If you can reason with your co-worker, then it could be beneficial to respond. There is nothing wrong with being against the Iraqi war.

However, once a co-worker says that Bush is a “war criminal”, reason has left the building. He will not let the facts get in the way of his/her opinion. It sounds as if your co-worker is using sound illogic, (even making stuff up) and he is not looking for an answer.

Sorry for the size of my post.
 
40.png
Adonis33:
I have the same problem where I work. I remember explaining, in excrutiating detail, the rational for our war in Iraq. However they would just parrot the “Bush lied” mantra.

Many of the liberals I talked to were rational, and we could actually debate. If you can reason with your co-worker, then it could be beneficial to respond. There is nothing wrong with being against the Iraqi war.

However, once a co-worker says that Bush is a “war criminal”, reason has left the building. He will not let the facts get in the way of his/her opinion. It sounds as if your co-worker is using sound illogic, (even making stuff up) and he is not looking for an answer.

Sorry for the size of my post.
Click to expand...
Thank you so much!
 
40.png
Adonis33:
However, once a co-worker says that Bush is a “war criminal”, reason has left the building. He will not let the facts get in the way of his/her opinion.
Click to expand...
Arguably, Bush is a war criminal. At Nuremberg, the Allies tried and executed people for starting a war of aggression. President Bush’s war in Iraq was a war of aggression, so, arguably, he is a war criminal.
 
40.png
Benedictus:
Arguably, Bush is a war criminal. At Nuremberg, the Allies tried and executed people for starting a war of aggression. President Bush’s war in Iraq was a war of aggression, so, arguably, he is a war criminal.
Click to expand...
I have to disagree with you. Bush only went into Iraq at the insistance of the people who were be persecuted. You will argue with me and that’s ok … we can agree to disagree. If you are looking for someone to agree with your view point, there are about 61.1 million people in France.
 
40.png
dhgray:
I have to disagree with you. Bush only went into Iraq at the insistance of the people who were be persecuted. You will argue with me and that’s ok … we can agree to disagree. If you are looking for someone to agree with your view point, there are about 61.1 million people in France.
Click to expand...
I hate the French, just like everyone else. I don’t even buy French wine anymore. I did agree with them that invading Iraq was a bad idea. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

I don’t recall plees from the persecuted being the primary motivations for going to war. I heard a lot about WMDs and terrorism, but it appears that there were no real stockpiles of WMDs and even Rummy has admitted that there was no connection between Saddam an al-Qaeda. There was certainly no substantial connection between Saddam and 9/11.

Yes, Saddam was a bad guy. I’m glad he’s in jail. But there are a lot of dictators out there who are persecuting their people, and I don’t think we can or should take all of them out.

I don’t think Bush is a war criminal, but I do think that a reasonable person could argue that he is.
 
40.png
gilliam:
Read:

**Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq **
Click to expand...
Yes, I’m familiar with that, but I still don’t recall the persecution of the Iraqis as being the motivation to invade. The invasion was billed as being part of the war against terror. We heard all about phantom WMDs.

I’ll admit that we did hear about how terrible Saddam was to his own people. Indeed, that is the only plausible reason to go to war, since no intelligent person still believes in the phantom WMDs or that Saddam was behind 9/11.

It is certain that our invasion has caused more harm to the Iraqi people than Saddam was capable of. Saddam was a murderer and tyrrant, but before the war, we had in place ways of protecting the Kurds and Shi’ites
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top