IControlThePast
Member
- Jan 20, 2005
- 470
- 21
- 16
Kathianne said:As Biden said to Europe, "Get over it..." 9/11 changed it, no longer innocent until proven guilty on the international front.
Don't make our founding fathers roll over in their graves. You can't defend yourself if you have to prove innocence. We could accuse any country of having WMDs and attack them. If we don't find any evidence they must have moved them and are still guilty. This is just a warhawk's logic that can be applied to claim justification for attacking any country they so desire. What about 9/11 would change innocent until proven guilty?
sitarro said:Gee , I could have sworn that the pile of camel shit known as Saddam , the same guy you want to prop up as innocent , is the same guy that agreed to a ceasefire agreement in 91 . This innocent sweetheart murdered 100s of thousands of truely innocent people and tortured(really tortured) thousands more not to mention the total destruction of the Marshlands in Southern Iraq(a huge ecological disaster for the planet but mostly for the Marsh Arabs that depended on it for centuries). Then there are the 700+ oil wells that he ordered blown up that burned and spewed oil for 9 months .
Why do you clowns ignore these facts?Why are you so quick to offer this asshole the benefit of the doubt and then turn around and shit on President Bush and his administration (a group of admiral , heavily educated and experienced people) ? You idiots have no credibility here , go to Democrits Underground you'll find more willing minds there.
The US props him up as innocent over the WMDs. This post needs another . Saddam did not kill hundred of thousands of people. He killed in the ten thousands at most. You have no source for your statistic as well. Many of his horror stories were actually hyperbolic and completely fictional accounts from the PR firm Hill & Knowlton hired by an Isreali PAC. The rest of your post is reduced to generalized ranting where you list no specific situations. I "shit" on Bush because he did not offer Saddam that doubt for WMD, that's why. Ecological disaster, he's bad. Number of people Saddam killed, he's bad. But there are much much worse atrocities have been commited out there, which our involvement with Iraq prevents us from dealing with. I know you might prefer that I leave you to have a conservative jackoff session, but I am here to learn. If you can convince me of something through debate you can bet I'll remember it. You seem to be the one having the problem here, maybe you should leave?