El Presidentes last stand...Follow

lolGodwins.

(I don't know if the above sentiment is appropriate. I just hate to see a thread die without one "lol[insert thing to be lol'd]"--even if it's the worst thread ever.)

NO U!

Um... okay.

Well, maybe tomorrow.

No, I'll probably be bored tomorrow, too.

So... no.

And u.

Well it is now.

Nice stick you got there.

bloodywilliam the Brilliant wrote:

paulsol the Flatulent wrote:

If I'd wanted a debate on gullible fu'cks who have invisible friends who tell them what to think, I'd have started a thread called,

Gullible Fu'cks and Their Invisible Friend Who Tells them What to Think"


Varus. You are an cunt. And a fucking ignorant one at that.

At least Gbaji tris to stay on subject for a while at least. Speaking of wich, I asked him a few questions a while back. Hasn't Coulter or Malkin told you what to come back with yet?

My NEW new favorite person.

aHEM

Oh no. I'm not falling for anymore of your tarps!!

See what I did there?

I can be subtle too

and who do you think sold them that bottle of '67 Chateau Lafitte

At the risk of violating the CJ this thread has become...



But not enough to do anything about it, right? That's the point. You wont *ever* do anything about the actions of another nation until they physicaly and directy attack *you*. That's what some of us call "not learing from history".



It's not a pretext. Iraq invaded Kuwait. We pushed them back. We could have invaded Iraq and removed Saddam from power then. We chose to give them a chance to surrender (that's the leaders you're talking so highly of). There were a list of conditions to that surrender. They failed to meet those conditions.

The "right" comes from that. We are/were at war with them. A war started by their agression, not ours. A war that did not end because Iraq refused to meet the surrender conditions. This means we're still at war and may resume hostilities at any time. We gave them over 10 years to meet those conditions. At some point it should become obvious to most people that they're never going to comply and the only way to resolve the situation is to continue with the invasion that you stopped only because they promised to meet those terms initially.

That's where the right comes from. The fact that one of the major things Iraq failed to do was meet the disarmament agreements, specifically with regards to their programs for developing, building, and deploying biological and chemical weapons only increased the need to resolve that issue quickly. 9/11 was a wakeup call to us, and showed us that things could be much much worse if the next terrorist to attack us were to be armed with weapons developed and built by Iraq. Given that Iraq had shown no sign that it would ever give up that development goal, we *must* force them to. Period.

It's a pretty obvious conclusion to anyone not wearing appeasement tinted glasses. We gave them every chance to abandon their WMD development goals. They refused for over 10 years. Given the circumstances of the time, it became unreasonable to allow them to continue doing so.



Yes. Let's:

1. Iraq is no longer developing WMDs.
2. We know for certain that Iraq does not possess any WMDs.
3. We know that Iraq therefore cannot hand any WMDs to terrorists to aid them in an attack.
4. Iraq is no longer threatening to invade any of its neighbors.
5. The dictatorship of Iraq and rule by fear has been replaced with a democratic government.
6. The condition of cease fire, and therefore sanctions involved have been ended.
7. Troops stationed in Saudi Arabia, which was a major point of contention in the region are no longer required to maintain those sanctions.
8. As a result of that, we've transformed a global behind the scenes movement to conduct stealthy and well planned attacks on the US into a regional conflict between factions in Iraq. A battlefield that we can win rather then one we can't.
9. In the process, we've convinced several other leaders in the region to denounce their connections to terrorist groups, changing the balance of support dramatically in our favor.


Need more? Grab a map of the middle east. Make two copies.

On copy one, write "pre-WarOnTerror". Take a red marker and a green marker. Mark the nations who are actively supporting terrorist organizations in red. Put some red hashes on those that are on the fence (don't actively support, but don't openly condemn either). Finally, mark the nations who openly condemn terrorism in green. Mark them all as they were in 2001.

On copy two, write "Today". Take the same two markers. Do the same thing, marking the nations as appropriate for today.


Note the difference. It's *huge*. In the last 5 years, we've made an enormous impace on that region. While there is an increase in open fighting, we have turned most of the nations in the area against supporting terrorist group (that's *why* there's been an increase in fighting btw).

We've accomplished a huge amount. We've accomplished nearly all our goals in Iraq specifically, and somewhat throughout the region as well. The only thing left to do is help the Iraqi's get through the violence going on there right now. It'll pass in another year or two. When it does, we'll have made an incredibly positive impact on the region. No matter how much you believe otherwise.



They aren't "kids". They are soldiers. You offend them by saying otherwise.

You could have made the exact same argument for soldiers sent to fight in Europe in WW2. How is sending a half a million kids to Europe to be targets for trained German soldiers going to help?

See how silly that is? You fight until the other guy is defeated. You don't fight until you think there's been enough bloodshed and then you quit. No one ever won a war fighting that way. Certainly, if your goal is to avoid bloodshed and the other guy's goal is to win, he's going to win every single time...

After wading thru the quagmire of gbajis verbosity again. I couldn't be ***** to point out those things (and plenty of others too).

So I'd like to thank Ambrya for doing some of it for me while I went surfing.

/salute