RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


What has Iraq ever done to us?(6 posts)

What has Iraq ever done to us?Captain Morgan
Feb 11, 2003 6:00 AM
Well, for one, they tried to kill a former President of ours. Funny how the pacifists fail to mention that in their peace demonstrations.

What have they ever done to the world? Well, for one they created the largest man-made environmental catastrophe in the history of the world when they retreated from Kuwait. Also, in his own country, he dammed rivers in order to dry up vast wetlands that he thought rebels were hiding in. This land was widely thought to be the land on which the Garden of Eden was based. Now it is an arid desert with dead vegetation.
Why would pacifists care?czardonic
Feb 11, 2003 10:26 AM
There seems to be a lot that you hawks fail to mention in your war demonstrations. None of the sins you mention would have come to pass if the United States hadn't built him into the boogie man he is today.

Admit it, you're just humiliated because you (and your ideological avatars GWHB and Reagan) were duped into supporting him, only to be left like a paper towel in the men's room at the bus station after he got what he wanted from you. Its time to move on with yout life, man! He's not coming back. But there are plenty of brutal dictators and megalomaniacs in the sea. Hang in there! You'll find "the one", your "generalissimo charming", soon enough.
Because they are anti-warCaptain Morgan
Feb 11, 2003 11:19 AM
Okay, so I guess that if we have friendly relations with a country, we should maintain those relations in all circumstances and indefinitely. Foreign relations should remain static. We supported Cuba and Iran, so we should always support them no matter what. We have been enemies with Russia, so we should not try to improve relations, right? That makes sense.
They <i>still are</i> anti-war.czardonic
Feb 11, 2003 12:52 PM
Duh.

When did I suggest that foreign relations remain static? I'm all for improving relations. I was simply suggesting that you hawks get over your wounded pride. The best revenge is living well, or in this case condicting responsible diplomacy. Don't let your humiliation over Saddam's ideological phliandering goad you into these embarassing outbursts. "They tried to kill a former President of ours!" Yeah, and Saddam promised that you'd always be together. But people change, governments grow apart. No sense in living in the past.

You say that you are "over" your flirtation with Iraqi totalitarianism, but its clear that Saddam still knows just what buttons to push to get a reaction out of you.
That's what got us into this messCaptain Morgan
Feb 11, 2003 3:16 PM
"The best revenge is...responsible diplomacy."

That is the reason that al-Qaeda felt confident enough to attack us. They believed we were weak and unwilling to fight the tough fight. Diplomacy without having the leverage of being able to back up your words is weak and ineffective. That's also what gave Iraq the audacity to ignore U.N. mandates.

"Saddam still knows just what buttons to push to get a reaction out of you."

Perhaps you are right, or perhaps you give him too much credit for his stupidity. Let's revisit in 6 weeks and see if he really is that smart. Its bad enough that he has bin Laden speaking up for him. We don't need a bunch of liberals running around this country supporting him, which coincidentally is what you critized GWHB and Reagan of doing in the thread above (i.e. supporting him at one time).
No. I said "responsible" diplomacy.czardonic
Feb 11, 2003 3:55 PM
Giving chemical and biological weapons to a ruthless dictator, which is what Saddam has always been, is not responsible. Even if he is fighting on your side. Even if that dangerous, rebel quality leaves you breathless and rosy-cheeked. When are you conservatives going to realize that those "bad boy" types are no good for you? First Saddam, then Bin Laden. . .they always hurt you in the end.

Diplomacy backed by force is fine. Force backed by the blind rage of a spurned suitor is not.

As much as you hope and pray with eyes screwed shut and fingers crossed, liberals are not supporting Saddam. They simply don't beleive that Bush can take him out without making a mess of the entire region and leaving the United States in even more danger. He can't even manage this country, why should he be trusted with any other?