Ron Paul Correct yet again....

• Footwedge

  jmog wrote:

  bigmanbt wrote:
  
  Well, God has never shown me a damn thing, because he doesn't exist. I won't claim to talk to God directly, like good ole GW said he did, haha. But we'd have spared numerous American and Middle Eastern lives, saved massive amounts of money which would have kept the deficit down, and with an emphasis on a strong DEFENSE, pretty sure nothing would have happened. 2,900 civilians died in 9/11 (and it was horrible), over 100,000 civilians have died in Iraq since we've been there. We've had not attacks like 9/11 again, and it's not because we are fighting there, it's because we've secured our homeland better. 9/11 was a once in a century type thing.
  
  We can accomplish much more with peace than we can with war. ~Ron Paul~ We've done better with Vietnam and Korea since the wars than we ever did during the wars or shortly after. Peace works.

  1. 100,000 is just an estimate, not a count. It is also not just civilians, it includes enemy combatants and civilians killed by Iraqi's themselves with road side bombs, etc.
  2. One could make the argument that 100,000 Iraqi's dead is less than what would have been dead if Hussein was still in power since some estimates put his own number in his 23 years at 800,000 Iraqi's dead.

  100,000 is a very conservative estimate. The real number is probably over 600,000. Moreover, it is confirmed that 8% of their civilian population have migrated to neighboring countries. That's over 2 million citizens that are today, living outside of their native country and pretty much living like nomads.
  
  The US has never seen a major city blown to bits. With the exception of France, no post WWII European country has invaded with force and of deadly destruction. They have seen the brutal realities of war up front and close. The US experienced the horror of 9-11...which in comparison to the death and destruction war causes, is small, tiny potatoes.
  
  Over in Iraq, their people experienced a 9-11 every single week for years.
• SQ_Crazies

  

  LOL, I make no sense because I'm not trying to explain it to you. No matter what I said you'd have a different view so it's pointless, therefore my only argument is wait and see.
  
  I could say the same about you, but I won't. Someday you'll understand what I'm talking about.
• fish82

  

  I Wear Pants wrote:

  jmog wrote:

  ptown_trojans_1 wrote:
  
  Are you referring to chemical weapons then? Cause even that is not a justification for invading as Iraq did not have a delivery system to attack the U.S. Also, Iraq's chemical weapons were destroyed by UNSCUM. They didn't have a large stockpile after 93-94.

  They did have a delivery system to attack our allies.

  "He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours " -Colin Powell February 2001
  
  "We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt." -Condoleezza Rice July 2001
  
  Iraq was not a threat to us or even its surrounding countries.

  Clinton probably should have found another way then to divert attention from his impeachment than signing the Iraq Liberation Act.
  
  For future reference:
  
  Don't try and distract the country from your crank suckage by making regime change the official policy of the US Government, if there is a chance your successor might actually have the stones to go ahead and carry it out.
  
  Just sayin.
• SQ_Crazies

  

  Footwedge wrote: The US experienced the horror of 9-11...which in comparison to the death and destruction war causes, is small, tiny potatoes.
  
  Over in Iraq, their people experienced a 9-11 every single week for years.

  LOL, move to Canada.
• Footwedge

  SQ_Crazies wrote: It doesn't have shit to do with Iraq. Use your brains, I know you have them. WMD's were a way to justify surrounding Iran.

  SQ...you made the statement "that 100 "ragheads" are worth less than 1 American."
  
  It really does not make sense to debate this subject with you.
• SQ_Crazies

  

  Footwedge wrote:

  SQ_Crazies wrote: It doesn't have shit to do with Iraq. Use your brains, I know you have them. WMD's were a way to justify surrounding Iran.

  SQ...you made the statement "that 100 "ragheads" are worth less than 1 American."
  
  It really does not make sense to debate this subject with you.

  I suppose I should backtrack on my view there, I'd say if you're the American then the ratio is 1:1.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  SQ_Crazies wrote: LOL, I make no sense because I'm not trying to explain it to you. No matter what I said you'd have a different view so it's pointless, therefore my only argument is wait and see.
  
  I could say the same about you, but I won't. Someday you'll understand what I'm talking about.

  Try me. Explain it. Go ahead. I'll shoot it down, I guarantee it. I don't mind. In fact I'm interested, really.
  
  I have no idea what your rational is or the intellectual basis for your view.
• SQ_Crazies

  

  You don't get it. I don't even want to try and explain it to someone who fundamentally has a different view, if you follow the news it will explain itself in due time. You'll shoot down anything I say simply because you don't agree--regardless of how much sense it would make.
• Footwedge

  fish82 wrote:

  I Wear Pants wrote:

  jmog wrote:

  ptown_trojans_1 wrote:
  
  Are you referring to chemical weapons then? Cause even that is not a justification for invading as Iraq did not have a delivery system to attack the U.S. Also, Iraq's chemical weapons were destroyed by UNSCUM. They didn't have a large stockpile after 93-94.

  They did have a delivery system to attack our allies.

  "He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours " -Colin Powell February 2001
  
  "We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt." -Condoleezza Rice July 2001
  
  Iraq was not a threat to us or even its surrounding countries.

  Clinton probably should have found another way then to divert attention from his impeachment than signing the Iraq Liberation Act.
  
  For future reference:
  
  Don't try and distract the country from your crank suckage by making regime change the official policy of the US Government, if there is a chance your successor might actually have the stones to go ahead and carry it out.
  
  Just sayin.

  "Regime change" would never have "sold" in the US. the war was sold on WMD's...in particular a potential nuclear attack.
  
  Had Bush or Clinton for that matter tried to sell invading Iraq on "regime change", the Congress, from both parties, would have told the president to get bent.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  SQ_Crazies wrote: You don't get it. I don't even want to try and explain it to someone who fundamentally has a different view, if you follow the news it will explain itself in due time. You'll shoot down anything I say simply because you don't agree--regardless of how much sense it would make.

  What afraid of my response? Come on, try me. I like a challenge.
  If it is an interesting view, I'll entertain the thought, but I doubt it.
• Footwedge

  SQ_Crazies wrote:

  Footwedge wrote: The US experienced the horror of 9-11...which in comparison to the death and destruction war causes, is small, tiny potatoes.
  
  Over in Iraq, their people experienced a 9-11 every single week for years.

  LOL, move to Canada.

  So because I share factually released evidence that destroys your irrational thinking, I should move to Canada? Um...OK.
• SQ_Crazies

  

  Hahaha, no see, you don't get it. The LAST reason is because I'm scared of your response.
• I Wear Pants

  SQ thinks that it's such a genius move because we now are on both sides of Iran.
  
  He's a warmonger, that's all.
• SQ_Crazies

  

  LOL, I'm not a warmonger at all.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Ok chief.
  Lamest argument I've ever heard about Iran/Iraq though. And I've heard some bad ones.
• SQ_Crazies

  

  That's funny because you didn't even hear an argument. I just said wait and see...so wait and see.
• I Wear Pants

  ^^^ New lamest argument about Iran/Iraq.
• fish82

  

  Footwedge wrote:

  fish82 wrote:

  I Wear Pants wrote:

  jmog wrote:

  ptown_trojans_1 wrote:
  
  Are you referring to chemical weapons then? Cause even that is not a justification for invading as Iraq did not have a delivery system to attack the U.S. Also, Iraq's chemical weapons were destroyed by UNSCUM. They didn't have a large stockpile after 93-94.

  They did have a delivery system to attack our allies.

  "He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours " -Colin Powell February 2001
  
  "We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt." -Condoleezza Rice July 2001
  
  Iraq was not a threat to us or even its surrounding countries.

  Clinton probably should have found another way then to divert attention from his impeachment than signing the Iraq Liberation Act.
  
  For future reference:
  
  Don't try and distract the country from your crank suckage by making regime change the official policy of the US Government, if there is a chance your successor might actually have the stones to go ahead and carry it out.
  
  Just sayin.

  "Regime change" would never have "sold" in the US. the war was sold on WMD's...in particular a potential nuclear attack.
  
  Had Bush or Clinton for that matter tried to sell invading Iraq on "regime change", the Congress, from both parties, would have told the president to get bent.

  The 2002 Joint Resolution on Iraq (H.J. Res. 1144) lists 10 separate and distinct justifications for the invasion...none receiving more play than the other. Among them, was the IRL of 1998.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  SQ_Crazies wrote: That's funny because you didn't even hear an argument. I just said wait and see...so wait and see.

  That's my point. You have no argument.
  
  It is basically someone saying I have a great idea, then when someone says what is it, the guy says you will just have to wait. How the hell do we know its a great idea? For all we know it could be complete and utter garbage.
  
  Wait and see, for what? How are we suppose to know we hit the glorious moment of sudden enlightenment? Is Jesus coming back to explain the reason? Are we waiting for an asteroid or the Angel Michael ?
  
  Like I said, lamest reason ever. Que the Simpsons Comic Book guy lol.
• SQ_Crazies

  

  Hahahaha, really man?
  
  I told you I wasn't going to bother presenting my argument and told you why...it's not that I don't have an argument. In fact, it's not an argument, it's the reason for all of this.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  SQ_Crazies wrote: Hahahaha, really man?
  
  I told you I wasn't going to bother presenting my argument and told you why...it's not that I don't have an argument. In fact, it's not an argument, it's the reason for all of this.

  and that reason is.........................
  and when will it "dawn" on all of people that don't get it.
• SQ_Crazies

  

  You aren't really this dense are you?
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  SQ_Crazies wrote: You aren't really this dense are you?

  Haha, just trying to figure out what the hell you are talking about.
• SQ_Crazies

  

  I told you I'm not going to waste time presenting my argument because it will be just that, a waste of time. Wait and see. I'm not going to change your mind, I already know this--why even try? All I'm saying is that someday you'll be glad we went into Iraq.
  
  Throwing my two cents in, not trying to have a pointless argument about politics. Arguing is pretty much useless, voting is the only real voice any of us have in politics and most of us are set in our ways. 99.9% of the time you won't change your stance on something that you disgaree with me on regardless of the argument I make...therefore it's pointless for me to try.
• I Wear Pants

  He doesn't even know. He just likes to say that G.W. was a genius and we'll all get it when we get it.
  
  If he had a real argument or point he would have said it by now.