And the DC political circus gets even more ridiculous

Saddam had an image to keep up though. He was not exactly friends with the neighboring countries and for security reasons had to make it look like he had stuff by giving them a hard time. This is completely different in that we should have nothing to hide and don't tell the UN no or have not in the past. Doing what this administration is doing is how you get people to not trust you in the future. Given how the US has acted since Bush took office...I can't see the UN giving a damn about what we have to say when it comes to UN reform.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edczxcvbnm

Saddam had an image to keep up though. He was not exactly friends with the neighboring countries and for security reasons had to make it look like he had stuff by giving them a hard time. This is completely different in that we should have nothing to hide and don't tell the UN no or have not in the past. Doing what this administration is doing is how you get people to not trust you in the future. Given how the US has acted since Bush took office...I can't see the UN giving a damn about what we have to say when it comes to UN reform.

---

So it was alright when Saddam did it, because he had a rep' to protect? Saddam DID have things to hide, and he did that well by jerking the UN around--and the UN put up with it until the U.S. stepped in and said "that's enough". The UN has lost the little respect it had earned in the past and not lost already, and is no longer a credible, honest, or powerful organization. And I don't see how the U.S. pissing off the UN would get people to trust us less--those that would trust us less would already side with the UN despite all the under-the-table deals, constant mishandling of military situations, and rampant cowardice concerning the most recent conflict. And we don't care what those countries think about us, because they didn't like us anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Terrorists and terrorist suspects being held in Guantanimo Bay are not being tortured.

---

So I guess the many military and FBI reports saying that people are being tortured in Gitmo, like the one I quoted in my opening post, mean nothing then, eh?

Durbin didn't explicitly compare Gitmo to a Nazi camp from what I understand, he just said you wouldn't expect it to come from a country that ostensibly loves freedom as much as the U.S.

Quote:

---

Well, I quite frankly disagree with Mr. Durbin's nazi analogy. The mass murder, and genocide death camps that took place during world war 2 does not compare to that of Guantanamo.

---

If you look at what we are doing as a whole, this is not true. But case by case, there will be some cases where his analogy is valid.

Quote:

---

Saddam kicks out UN weapons inspectors, and he's innocent.

---

Well, since he didn't have WMD's....

Although the sheer idiocy of that comment doesn't even warrant a response, I will simply point out the fact that Saddam not only had WMDs, he had a history of using them in brutal manners, and he was pursuing more.

Saddam had WMD. Which we sold to him. And he later destroyed. So by the time we invaded Iraq, no, he did not have WMD.

Quote:

---

Although the sheer idiocy of that comment doesn't even warrant a response, I will simply point out the fact that Saddam not only had WMDs, he had a history of using them in brutal manners, and he was pursuing more.

---

And these WMD's were?? Oh yeah, he didn't have them anymore! My argument stands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Man

Saddam had WMD. Which we sold to him. And he later destroyed. So by the time we invaded Iraq, no, he did not have WMD.

---

Not only did he no longer have these weapons, Bush's government has admitted that it knew he didn't have them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

So it was alright when Saddam did it, because he had a rep' to protect? Saddam DID have things to hide, and he did that well by jerking the UN around--and the UN put up with it until the U.S. stepped in and said "that's enough". The UN has lost the little respect it had earned in the past and not lost already, and is no longer a credible, honest, or powerful organization. And I don't see how the U.S. pissing off the UN would get people to trust us less--those that would trust us less would already side with the UN despite all the under-the-table deals, constant mishandling of military situations, and rampant cowardice concerning the most recent conflict. And we don't care what those countries think about us, because they didn't like us anyway.

---

It was not alright that he didn't let them in but he eventually did and showed he had nothing. If you have nothing to hide then let them in or else you look untrustworthy and suspisous.

If Saddam had stuff to hide then how come no UN inspector found anything and how come we found nothing even now.

While I don't really like the UN...those things you put up there is why it is going to be going through reform so that it can be good again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Man

Saddam had WMD. Which we sold to him. And he later destroyed. So by the time we invaded Iraq, no, he did not have WMD.

---

Not only did he no longer have these weapons, Bush's government has admitted that it knew he didn't have them.

---

Beautiful. Got a link? That'd come in handy for future debates, I think. :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Although the sheer idiocy of that comment doesn't even warrant a response, I will simply point out the fact that Saddam not only had WMDs, he had a history of using them in brutal manners, and he was pursuing more.

---

yea, he used them in the early 90s. Every shred of evidence available indicates that while I'm sure he would have loved to have tons of WMD, he didn't, and he wasn't working on having them, and he was basically complying, and that he posed no significant threat to the US. But I guess it's easier to confront an enemy with imaginary WMD than confront an enemy with real WMD, like N Korea.

If you people are still too damn stupid to see any truth, this isn't my fault. Nevermind the fact that we found WMD supplies, paraphenalia, protection, plans, and small amounts of WMDs themselves--nevermind the fact that Saddam had years and years without any supervision to sell, trade, develop, produce, and hide his weapons--nevermind the fact that Saddam had a history of not only pursuit and application of technology for more and deadlier WMDs, but also hostility towards America and the Western World for their "interfering", and of refusing to comply with much of anything laid down by convening authorities...we didn't find as much as we expected, so it's all wrong, huh?

Yes, Big D, now you have an actual reason to do something, instead of taking an extremely general and non-insulting comment as a personal attack like last time. If you--yeah, you, and anybody who thinks like you--honestly believe not only that Saddam should have been left in posession and pursuit of more WMDs, but that he really didn't have any to begin with, you are a dumbass, and severely blinded to the world.

(By the way. When was the last time North Korea invaded another country, or used their WMD to slaughter hundreds of thousands of their own people, or supported known terrorists in every possible manner, or directly threatened slaughter on American civilians?)

EDIT: It's been fun pissing people off, but I just can't handle the stupidity anymore. I hope somebody near you all can smack some sense into you, or something. You'll have my prayers--mainly, that you don't breed, but still, prayers.

Thank you for your concern.

It's fun watching neocons blow a gasket.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

If you people are still too damn stupid to see any truth, this isn't my fault. Nevermind the fact that we found WMD supplies, paraphenalia, protection, plans, and small amounts of WMDs themselves--nevermind the fact that Saddam had years and years without any supervision to sell, trade, develop, produce, and hide his weapons--nevermind the fact that Saddam had a history of not only pursuit and application of technology for more and deadlier WMDs, but also hostility towards America and the Western World for their "interfering", and of refusing to comply with much of anything laid down by convening authorities...we didn't find as much as we expected, so it's all wrong, huh?

Yes, Big D, now you have an actual reason to do something, instead of taking an extremely general and non-insulting comment as a personal attack like last time. If you--yeah, you, and anybody who thinks like you--honestly believe not only that Saddam should have been left in posession and pursuit of more WMDs, but that he really didn't have any to begin with, you are a dumbass, and severely blinded to the world.

(By the way. When was the last time North Korea invaded another country, or used their WMD to slaughter hundreds of thousands of their own people, or supported known terrorists in every possible manner, or directly threatened slaughter on American civilians?)

EDIT: It's been fun pissing people off, but I just can't handle the stupidity anymore. I hope somebody near you all can smack some sense into you, or something. You'll have my prayers--mainly, that you don't breed, but still, prayers.

---

lets see due to the fact of someone not being able to see that Iraq had no nukes and N.Korea said openly that they are making nukes.REally what kind of stupid person chooses Iraq unless O-I-L

yeah.The whole war on terrorist is pointless sinc eneocons define them as islamic extremist.yeah.There are tons of organizations that are terrorist.The white house used all the neocon's fears so they can do there own ambitions that wonb't fulfill your needs.Anyway they'll ignore NKorea and nuclear holocaust at the least will happen.