[Vanguard]

Originally posted by Cniinc


what are you talking about? where'd that come from? read my previous posts, and you'll see i wasn't for the protest, thank you.

WWII wasn't fought for poverty. It wasn't really for testosterone. It was to destroy a tyrant and stop him from controlling Europe. Ironically, though, the war with Japan was initially fought for oil. Funny how those things work out, itn't it?  Wars with good causes can have 'oil' as a cause in it somewhere.

1930's Germany, Italy, and Japan might disagree.

[Cniinc]

Originally posted by Vanguard


1930's Germany, Italy, and Japan might disagree.

True, and Saddam might disagree that he's a tyrant, but that doesn't change much, does it?

[Vanguard]

Saddam didn't fight for any good causes, or to liberate people.  Duh.

[Rictor]

Sure he did, at least according to the official state version of the story.
Which is exactly what the official US version of the story says, that the fight all wars not out of agression or greed but for moral causes.

Every government does it, remember that in war truth is the first casualty.

Though its funny how Saddam's worst crimes (far worse than gassing the Kurds or invading Kuwait) are not even known, much less condemned by the American people, namely the war with Iran during which several hundred thousand Iranians died and where Saddam did in fact use chemical weapons. But no one condems it because at the time Saddam was a close ally, and was backed by the US, who also played no small part in the decision to invade Iran.

[.::Tin Can::.]

Rictor cant let it go can he?

"Yeah, well US helped Sadaam TOO! Nah nah nah naaaaah nah!"

[vyper]

Tin, you're really beginning to piss me off.

You don't like what he's saying because you're either too stupid to understand it or too terrified to accept it so you stoop down to making it sound like he's trying to be akward.

[.::Tin Can::.]

I know it true, but I've already heard it only one thousand times!

If it hasn't been from Kaz, it's from him or someone else who can't stand keeping it in. They always got to throw the same damn argument on the table. I haven't denied it's true, but I'm sure everyone on the board is already educated enough to know we were once buddied with Sadaam. Got it?

[vyper]

If people are making arguments that someone can counter by discussing that relationship with Saddam, why shouldn't they?

Just because you don't like hearing about it doesn't make it any less a valid point.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
I know it true, but I've already heard it only one thousand times!

If it hasn't been from Kaz, it's from him or someone else who can't stand keeping it in. They always got to throw the same damn argument on the table. I haven't denied it's true, but I'm sure everyone on the board is already educated enough to know we were once buddied with Sadaam. Got it?

Then will you accept that the argument of going to war to remove Saddam is at best hypocritical and at worst a complete lie?  Because that's the counterpoint - how can you 'liberate' a people when you held a hand in their oppression in the first place?  If we invaded to punish Saddam, should we not also punish ourselves for supporting him, and for any damage which we may / will / have done in Iraq and during the 1st Gulf War?

[.::Tin Can::.]

Bush can't change the fact that America, in its past, helped Sadaam out. Is Bush at fault? No. Can we change it? No. Can we be reminded we did it? Yes. Constantly? Yes. Is it needed? No. It's not necessary if we all (and I mean all) already know about it.

[Bobboau]

anyone have a problem with us corecting an error we were resposable for?

[Knight Templar]

If you spill tomato juice on your shirt, you have a stain on it. Even if you give the shirt to someone else to wear, people will still see the shirt with the big ass tomato stain on it and laugh. Doesn't matter that the guy who is now wearing it didn't spill the tomato juice on his shirt, he's still wearing the stain.

It's not about correcting an error so much as changing our mind on what benefits us to the greater degree.

[vyper]

[q]anyone have a problem with us corecting an error we were resposable for?[/q]

You blew that chance at the elections...

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Bush can't change the fact that America, in its past, helped Sadaam out. Is Bush at fault? No. Can we change it? No. Can we be reminded we did it? Yes. Constantly? Yes. Is it needed? No.  

Yes.  It's absolutely and completely necessary - those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.

[Gank]

Thats the current secretary for defense on the left.

[Bobboau]

yup, that it is
I could probly get similar pictures of just about anyone you wanted
...or at the least make them

[aldo_14]

Hell, there's a video of Rumsfeld hugging Saddam somewhere - you'd have to be a complete blinding idiot not to realise the previous administation was a big fan of good ole' Saddam - or that quite a lot of said fans are now back in power.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Bobboau
yup, that it is
I could probly get similar pictures of just about anyone you wanted
...or at the least make them

It does make a mockery of Tin Can's comment that just cause Bush wasn't involved we should forget about it though doesn't it? While Bush himself might not have been involved members of his currently serving cabinet were.

If the current secretary for defence could get it so wrong in the past who's to say that some of the people he supports now won't turn out to be similarly bad choices when we look back 10-15 years later?

[Cniinc]

everything we do can be a bad choice 10-15 years later (let's not even bring in such controversies as affirmative action), but that doesn't mean that we should be indecisive and standby when people like Saddam are in power.

[MatthewPapa]

You guys will stop at nothing to bash Bush. If anything is wrong with America it has always got to be Bush. Geez, give it a rest. Kaz should have never started this thread....