trollface
Quantum Scribe
Right, I'd forgotton how bad at debating you can be...
Ample proof that it doesn't do anyone any good if you stretch a metaphor too far. Saddam was constrained within his own boarders, as was his aggression. Remember, we are discussing Saddam's potential threat to the outside world at the time of the invasion.
I find myself having to ask a similar question to that I had to ask last post. Are you assuming that I had never spoken out about Saddam's practicies before it was mentioned by the US? Maybe you thouhgt he was a good guy back during the Iran-Iraq war, but don't assume that the same is true for everybody else.
You are the one who espoused the philosophy that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", not me.
And thatks to the Coalition he might be freed, put back in charge of his country with the US and the UK in his debt and it being nigh-on impossible for anyone else to ever challenge the legitimacy of his authority again. Thank you for helping me to make that point.
Saddam was deposed to weaken Arafat? Hmmmm...
Not only have I considered it, but it was the exact point I was making with regards to Saudi Arabia.
Yes, that's exactly what I was saying. Well done for exposing my anti-semitism for all to see.
"Statistically speaking?" I think it's a little more complex than that. Oh, and remember, the Iran invasion doesn't count - he was our ally who we actively helped acomplish that goal.
Rainman, Rainman, Rainman...I think you're forgetting one little thing. You are the person who is replying to the points that I am making in this discussion, not the other way around. If what you are saying is different in content and/or context to what I am saying, then it is you who is twisting my words around to "change the point".
As you even pointed out yourself, my point was that Saddam couldn't legitimately be compared to Hitler in terms of being an active threat to the outside world at the time of the Coalition invasion of Iraq. If you count addressing anything outside of that extremely narrow band of focus as "twisting words" and "changing the point" then it is you, my friend who is guilty of this crime and not me.
Cause-effect: US troops being present in Saudi was the cause, the threat to Saudi Arabia being neutralised was the effect.
Now grow up or this will be another instance where I'll simply have to stop replying to you, which'll be a shame, as you can make good points when you put your mind to it, and actually concentrate on the debate rather than whining that I don't play fair.
Going back to the murderer analogy, what you are saying is the equivalent to "Charlie Manson's still a threat to the outside world, it's just the prison walls and guards that are making him think twice about starting any trouble with the rest of Polanski's family". The US troops were the guards and walls. Saddam was contained.
Another way of saying "tactics". This post is your one and only warning - stop it and grow up.
"More secure"? The region is less stable than ever. You said as much about Iran yourself, and terrorist attacks in the region haven't exactly stepped down over the last year, have they. And that's before we even get onto the subject of boarder controls, civil unrest, anti-US sentiment, the rise of Wahhbism and so on...
Yes, now they're kidnapping and assasinating each other's leaders, desending into civil war as well as continuing suicide bombings and arbitrarily (and illegally) annexing each other's land, cutting hundreds and thousands of innocent civilians off from their only means of survival. Much better.
Ask the Irish whether they'd rather have the uneasy stalemate they have now, or whether they'd rather have out-and-out chaos.
I think you need to look up the definition of the word in a dictionary.
since the event happend, all the evidence has shown that the gassing of the Kuds was carried out by the Iranians. Both our governments even altered their forigen policy with regards to weapon supplies to Iraq (and Iran) as a result. Ever since the gassing, both of our governments have stated that those Kurds were killed on the deliberate orders of Saddam as part of an attempt at genocide. What word would you use to describe it?
To be fair he's hardly unique in that, though, is he? Care to comment on the US government's complicity in destroying the natural habitat of, say, the U'wa people of Colombia? A couple of links to get you started: http://www.ran.org/ran_campaigns/beyond_oil/oxy/
http://www.acad.carleton.edu/curricular/BIOL/faculty/pcamill/SLP00/nora/SLP.htm
As this is your opinion, I never want to hear you refering to resolutions sanctions or anything to do with the UN as legitimising the US' actions again.
Well, the first and most obvious was to let the inspectors do their work.
This is probably the most irrational you've got. I expect "we saved your asses in WWII" from rabid patroitic right-wing militant yanks when they've run out of real arguments, but to claim that the rest of Europe was doing nothing before America enterd the wars? Ludicrous and more than a little disrespectful to the more than 39 million Europeans who died in WWII alone, not including the millions of Jews and other innocents. Very tacky and tasteless, there.
The legitimacy, in this case, was bestowed by the US.
That does not explain why it couldn't have happened after the summer.
No, you are not.
And let us not forget the good old IRA.
Ample proof that it doesn't do anyone any good if you stretch a metaphor too far. Saddam was constrained within his own boarders, as was his aggression. Remember, we are discussing Saddam's potential threat to the outside world at the time of the invasion.
I find myself having to ask a similar question to that I had to ask last post. Are you assuming that I had never spoken out about Saddam's practicies before it was mentioned by the US? Maybe you thouhgt he was a good guy back during the Iran-Iraq war, but don't assume that the same is true for everybody else.
You are the one who espoused the philosophy that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", not me.
And thatks to the Coalition he might be freed, put back in charge of his country with the US and the UK in his debt and it being nigh-on impossible for anyone else to ever challenge the legitimacy of his authority again. Thank you for helping me to make that point.
Saddam was deposed to weaken Arafat? Hmmmm...
Not only have I considered it, but it was the exact point I was making with regards to Saudi Arabia.
Yes, that's exactly what I was saying. Well done for exposing my anti-semitism for all to see.
"Statistically speaking?" I think it's a little more complex than that. Oh, and remember, the Iran invasion doesn't count - he was our ally who we actively helped acomplish that goal.
Rainman, Rainman, Rainman...I think you're forgetting one little thing. You are the person who is replying to the points that I am making in this discussion, not the other way around. If what you are saying is different in content and/or context to what I am saying, then it is you who is twisting my words around to "change the point".
As you even pointed out yourself, my point was that Saddam couldn't legitimately be compared to Hitler in terms of being an active threat to the outside world at the time of the Coalition invasion of Iraq. If you count addressing anything outside of that extremely narrow band of focus as "twisting words" and "changing the point" then it is you, my friend who is guilty of this crime and not me.
Cause-effect: US troops being present in Saudi was the cause, the threat to Saudi Arabia being neutralised was the effect.
Now grow up or this will be another instance where I'll simply have to stop replying to you, which'll be a shame, as you can make good points when you put your mind to it, and actually concentrate on the debate rather than whining that I don't play fair.
Going back to the murderer analogy, what you are saying is the equivalent to "Charlie Manson's still a threat to the outside world, it's just the prison walls and guards that are making him think twice about starting any trouble with the rest of Polanski's family". The US troops were the guards and walls. Saddam was contained.
Another way of saying "tactics". This post is your one and only warning - stop it and grow up.
"More secure"? The region is less stable than ever. You said as much about Iran yourself, and terrorist attacks in the region haven't exactly stepped down over the last year, have they. And that's before we even get onto the subject of boarder controls, civil unrest, anti-US sentiment, the rise of Wahhbism and so on...
Yes, now they're kidnapping and assasinating each other's leaders, desending into civil war as well as continuing suicide bombings and arbitrarily (and illegally) annexing each other's land, cutting hundreds and thousands of innocent civilians off from their only means of survival. Much better.
Ask the Irish whether they'd rather have the uneasy stalemate they have now, or whether they'd rather have out-and-out chaos.
I think you need to look up the definition of the word in a dictionary.
since the event happend, all the evidence has shown that the gassing of the Kuds was carried out by the Iranians. Both our governments even altered their forigen policy with regards to weapon supplies to Iraq (and Iran) as a result. Ever since the gassing, both of our governments have stated that those Kurds were killed on the deliberate orders of Saddam as part of an attempt at genocide. What word would you use to describe it?
To be fair he's hardly unique in that, though, is he? Care to comment on the US government's complicity in destroying the natural habitat of, say, the U'wa people of Colombia? A couple of links to get you started: http://www.ran.org/ran_campaigns/beyond_oil/oxy/
http://www.acad.carleton.edu/curricular/BIOL/faculty/pcamill/SLP00/nora/SLP.htm
As this is your opinion, I never want to hear you refering to resolutions sanctions or anything to do with the UN as legitimising the US' actions again.
Well, the first and most obvious was to let the inspectors do their work.
This is probably the most irrational you've got. I expect "we saved your asses in WWII" from rabid patroitic right-wing militant yanks when they've run out of real arguments, but to claim that the rest of Europe was doing nothing before America enterd the wars? Ludicrous and more than a little disrespectful to the more than 39 million Europeans who died in WWII alone, not including the millions of Jews and other innocents. Very tacky and tasteless, there.
The legitimacy, in this case, was bestowed by the US.
That does not explain why it couldn't have happened after the summer.
No, you are not.
You might want to read this: http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/MiddleEast/TerrorInUSA/faq/WesternTerrorism.asp
And let us not forget the good old IRA.
