Ted Kennedy Shrine

[Truth]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Let me get this straight. The Iraqis should pay us for the honor of having their country invaded by us (and racking up over 100,000 civilian casualties in the process)? Ungrateful SOB's!!!! Please explain.

Someone in a statement in this thread mentioned the financial cost of the USA being in IRAQ, so therefore why would them paying us back with oil not be a logical action? You actually believe the Iraqi people were better off living under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussien and his associates than they are now? Why do you not mention all the civilian deaths Saddam Hussien's Regime was responsible for?

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by Truth

Someone in a statement in this thread mentioned the financial cost of the USA being in IRAQ, so therefore why would them paying us back with oil not be a logical action? You actually believe the Iraqi people were better off living under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussien and his associates than they are now? Why do you not mention all the civilian deaths Saddam Hussien's Regime was responsible for?

This is the kind of non sequitur I was talking about.

They didn't ask us to come, as I recall. We invaded. So it's a little disingenuous to now ask them to pay for it. But that has little to do with whether or not they're "better off".

Look, please try to understand where I'm coming from on this and why it bothers me. You don't seem willing to accept that anyone can have anything to say about Iraq because the "people there are better off". Yeah, well the folks in Sudan would be better off if we went in there too. But we don't. Why? Probably because they have no oil. To pretend like this was the U.S. saving the people of Iraq with no other motive is a little crazy. And to make it out like you can't oppose taking action anywhere on Earth without supporting murders is divisive. It doesn't make for good conversation.

Take care,

Ed

[Truth]

Originally Posted by Fast_Eddie

This is the kind of non sequitur I was talking about.

They didn't ask us to come, as I recall. We invaded. So it's a little disingenuous to now ask them to pay for it. But that has little to do with whether or not they're "better off".

Look, please try to understand where I'm coming from on this and why it bothers me. You don't seem willing to accept that anyone can have anything to say about Iraq because the "people there are better off". Yeah, well the folks in Sudan would be better off if we went in there too. But we don't. Why? Probably because they have no oil. To pretend like this was the U.S. saving the people of Iraq with no other motive is a little crazy. And to make it out like you can't oppose taking action anywhere on Earth without supporting murders is divisive. It doesn't make for good conversation.

Take care,

Ed

The average Iraqi wasn't free to ask that even if they wanted to do so.
Yes we invaded, are all invasions wrong? Were our invasions in WW2 wrong also? If they are better off now because we invaded them then that has a lot to do with why they are now better off.

I've never stated that someone wasn't entitled to there opinions.
Pretend? I've never stated that the reason we went into Iraq was to save the people, but one of the results of it is that we have rescued them from the Hussein Regime. Why am I not entitled to believe that people such as Saddam Hussein shouldn't be allowed to exist in our world. Is our world not better off with people like him not in it?

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by Truth

Yes we invaded, are all invasions wrong?

I never said they were.

Originally Posted by Truth

I've never stated that someone wasn't entitled to there opinions.

I didn't say you did. But you jump from one point to another. Rather than defend the reasons we went to war, you jump to an indisputable consequence of our going to war. Are they better off? Many of them who survived probably are. But that doesn't have anything to do with our being there.

I eluded to this earlier- there are people living in conditions far, far, FAR worse than the average Iraqi in many parts of Africa. But we don't liberate them. So clearly, that is not the reason we went to war.

Ask yourself this- if Obama tomorrow said "we're sending troops to Africa to liberate the oppressed people in many nations there" what would your reaction be? I suspect you'd say "What the hell!?" And I'd be right there with you. Would the world be a better place if we did that? Maybe so. But it's not our place and we certainly don't have the funds to liberate all the oppressed people of the world.

Originally Posted by Truth

Were our invasions in WW2 wrong also?

Who did we invade during WW2? Germany, I guess, eventually. When we went to the nations of Europe and kicked the Nazis out we didn't invade those countries. Hitler had already done that. We were dispelling him form them. In the first Gulf war we had the Kuait situation that was much more a parallel. But not this go-round.

But that seems like quite a reach. No one has ever suggested Saddam posed the threat Hitler did. Not even a fraction of the thread. Yes, we fabricated a story about WMD. But North Korea HAS Nukes and Iran is working on them. We didn't invade them. So the threat situation wasn't the reason we went either. And I know Sadam didn't bomb Hawaii.

So, is the world a better place without Saddam? Probably. The world would be a better place with a single payer health care system in the United States, but we don't have one. Why? Because people were concerned about paying for it. So we're can't afford to take care of United States citizens, but we can take care of people in Iraq?

Shoot, we don't have to go that far. We can afford to take care of Iraq but not Mexicans who want to come over here and work? No, this argument that Iraq is okay because the people there are better off doesn't hold water. We could help many, many more people for far less money if we chose to. But we didn't. We went to Iraq.

And the thing is, we all know why. So why bother with the justification?

[Truth]

Originally Posted by Fast_Eddie

Who did we invade during WW2? Germany,

Yes, we fabricated a story about WMD. But North Korea HAS Nukes and Iran is working on them. We didn't invade them.

The world would be a better place with a single payer health care system in the United States, but we don't have one. Why? Because people were concerned about paying for it. So we're can't afford to take care of United States citizens, but we can take care of people in Iraq?

Shoot, we don't have to go that far. We can afford to take care of Iraq but not Mexicans who want to come over here and work? No, this argument that Iraq is okay because the people there are better off doesn't hold water. We could help many, many more people for far less money if we chose to.

Two men say their Jesus. One of them must be wrong.

You forgot or don't know we invaded Japan with 2 Nukes and then our troops.
Yes you Leftists fabricated a story about WND's. We haven't invaded Iran and North Korea yet, perhaps we should with a couple of Nukes as we see that result of doing so in Japan was a long term positive result for the world.

How would and will the world be better off with the USA having a government run health care system?

What doesn't hold water is you stating we can't afford to take care of Iraqis but bemoan the fact that the USA isn't taking better care of the illegal Mexicans in the USA.

No, if two men each claimed that, they both would be wrong.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Truth

You forgot or don't know we invaded Japan with 2 Nukes and then our troops.

I really doubt that it's even possible for someone to forget about Hiroshima and Nagasaki and we never invaded the Japanese mainland. We occupied it after the Japanese surrendered but that's not an invasion.

Yes you Leftists fabricated a story about WND's.

Leftists like George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld did fabricate the story about Iraqi WMD. North Korea, on the other hand, has nukes. They began testing them in 2006. Iran is unclear. They do have a nuclear program which could be used to produce weapons.

We haven't invaded Iran and North Korea yet, perhaps we should with a couple of Nukes as we see that result of doing so in Japan was a long term positive result for the world.

Congratulations. If anyone here was still prepared to take you seriously, you've put an end to that in one sentence.

John

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by Truth

We haven't invaded Iran and North Korea yet, perhaps we should with a couple of Nukes as we see that result of doing so in Japan was a long term positive result for the world.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again;

"I believe the biggest tragedy to come out of WW2 is the notion that bombing the shit out of someone is an acceptable way to make friends of other nations."

Truth, I want to be your friend. So, maybe what I need to do is riddle your home with bullet holes and kill your dog. Then we can go have a beer and laugh it off. Just you and me, two newly made buddies enjoying each others company......................

What fuckin' sense does any of THAT make?

It's like the adage; "The economy is slow. Maybe we need to have a war to get it moving again?"------SEND YOUR OWN KIDS! Only a true wingnut asshole would even think such a thing.

Geez.

Dave

[Truth]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

Truth, I want to be your friend. So, maybe what I need to do is riddle your home with bullet holes and kill your dog. Then we can go have a beer and laugh it off. Just you and me, two newly made buddies enjoying each others company......................

Geez.

Dave

Thanks for offering your friendship Dave, and that might be amusing and thrilling if you riddled my residence with bullets, I don't have a dog though, so you'll have to shoot someone's else dog. Imagine the News Headlines....
"Dave the founder of the radical group "BlueStreak" riddles right winger's residence with bullets."

And sure Dave after you serve your prison term and pay for the damages we can go have a Beer and share some laughs.

Originally posted by Dave BlueStreak
I don't support abortion, as it stands.

But, here's the thing---The day the Republicans get off their worthless asses and actually do something about it, other than use it to get votes from gullible dolts like you, is the day I agree they're actually the Christians they claim to be. I think I can rest assured this day will NEVER come. Because they truly are full of shit. Their agenda has nothing to do with abortion. And that's the TRUTH.

Have a nice day!
Dave

While I'm against Abortion, I believe that people should be free to abort, that organizations shouldn't try to stop anyone's individual choice to do so and that the government shouldn't fund them or be involve with them one way or the other. So Dave you dope, I've never voted for anyone because they were anti abortion.

You have a nice day also Dave BlueStreak!

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by Truth

What doesn't hold water is you stating we can't afford to take care of Iraqis but bemoan the fact that the USA isn't taking better care of the illegal Mexicans in the USA.

What doesn't "hold water" is providing free services to Iraqis, while calling our own people "spoiled whiners" and stripping them of everything worth having, even the things they DO work for..........Knothead.

Dave

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

What doesn't "hold water" is providing free services to Iraqis....

.... like single payer national health care.

John