• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

for mp

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
Eighteen (18 ) Iraqis died today. Those are on Bush's head because he wiped out the police and other security forces that should be protecting the civilians in that country and didn't provide replacement security.

As of yesterday, US deaths were only down five from last year, even after all Bush's claims of progress in the country and spending billions of dollars. Not much progress, in my estimation. But we are coming out of there.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051231/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

Current number of Iraqis killed since the invasion:

Min of 27,636, possibly as many as 31,160. This included men women and children. Does it make you proud?
 

mp.freelance

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
502
Reaction score
0
Location
Oregon
It's a pretty big stretch to say they were killed by Bush when in fact they were killed by people opposed to Bush, and you know it.
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
mp.freelance said:
It's a pretty big stretch to say they were killed by Bush when in fact they were killed by people opposed to Bush, and you know it.

Spinner. I didn't say they were killed by Bush. I said their deaths are on Bush's head and they are. I'll type this slow: he ignored professional military advice, sent in too few people to secure the country. Plain old thugs and murders, in addition to terrorists, are running wild over in that country. They're killing, kidnapping, torturing, robbing the civilians every day because Bush knocked out their security forces and didn't replace them. Would these people be alive if Bush hadn't chosen to invade Iraq? Probably. So spin away. You know better.
 

mp.freelance

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
502
Reaction score
0
Location
Oregon
You've repeatedly said Bush is just as big a murderer as Saddam, if not worse. That would imply he was directly responsible for their deaths. So who's the spinner?
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
28,971
Reaction score
274
Location
NE WY at the foot of the Big Horn mountains
I think Dis would much rather we fight this war over here, as over there.

One thing is for sure, if we had not stood up for ourselves in WWII, we would have been ruled by Hitler. Bet she wouldn't be complaining then...she'd be wiped out...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Faster horses said:
I think Dis would much rather we fight this war over here, as over there.
You are so right, Faster horses. Just like so many of the Dems, she is so interested in gains in 2006 and the WH in 2008 that she would prefer failure to success in Iraq. Any loss to advance her cause. Disgusting.

American, my ass. She's a terrorist ally, plain and simple. :mad:
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
mp.freelance said:
You've repeatedly said Bush is just as big a murderer as Saddam, if not worse. That would imply he was directly responsible for their deaths. So who's the spinner?

You're spinning again. Shame on you, mp. No one said Saddam personally killed the thousands of Iraqis that you're mourning. So now you'd like to say that if Bush doesn't kill them personally, he's not responsible for their deaths? You have said you supported this war because of Saddam's opression and murder of his own people. I have shown that Bush is responsible for the deaths of more people per day in Iraq than Saddam. They have less electricity, gasoline, no better streets and sewage systems. Their children may be blown up on the street on their way to school by terrorists or kidnapped for ransom by thugs. So tell me now why you support this war?
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
Faster horses said:
I think Dis would much rather we fight this war over here, as over there.

One thing is for sure, if we had not stood up for ourselves in WWII, we would have been ruled by Hitler. Bet she wouldn't be complaining then...she'd be wiped out...

So tell me, FH, why are we in a war in Iraq?
 

mp.freelance

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
502
Reaction score
0
Location
Oregon
There's a difference between "directly responsible" and "personally responsible". If I stab my neighbor, then I'm personally responsible. If I order him killed, then I'm directly, though not personally, responsible. America is not directly responsible for the deaths of Iraqis killed by insurgents because they are not being killed on our orders. Saddam was directly responsible. The U.S. is indirectly responsible, but that's a whole different ballpark from the ethical perspective.
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
mp.freelance said:
There's a difference between "directly responsible" and "personally responsible". If I stab my neighbor, then I'm personally responsible. If I order him killed, then I'm directly, though not personally, responsible. America is not directly responsible for the deaths of Iraqis killed by insurgents because they are not being killed on our orders. Saddam was directly responsible. The U.S. is indirectly responsible, but that's a whole different ballpark from the ethical perspective.

No, it's not a whole different ballpark. If you order your neighbor killed, you can be charged with murder, just as if you killed him with your own hands. Most of those thousands of Iraqi civilians are dead because Bush ignored Colin Powell's warning. He's responsible for their deaths. Spin all you want, slip, slide, parse words, but by knocking out security in Iraq and not replacing it, Bush is responsible for the deaths that would not otherwise occured.

So tell me, mp, what's your excuse for backing this war now?
 

Soapweed

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
16,257
Reaction score
42
Location
northern Nebraska Sandhills
Disagreeable said:
mp.freelance said:
There's a difference between "directly responsible" and "personally responsible". If I stab my neighbor, then I'm personally responsible. If I order him killed, then I'm directly, though not personally, responsible. America is not directly responsible for the deaths of Iraqis killed by insurgents because they are not being killed on our orders. Saddam was directly responsible. The U.S. is indirectly responsible, but that's a whole different ballpark from the ethical perspective.

No, it's not a whole different ballpark. If you order your neighbor killed, you can be charged with murder, just as if you killed him with your own hands. Most of those thousands of Iraqi civilians are dead because Bush ignored Colin Powell's warning. He's responsible for their deaths. Spin all you want, slip, slide, parse words, but by knocking out security in Iraq and not replacing it, Bush is responsible for the deaths that would not otherwise occured.

So tell me, mp, what's your excuse for backing this war now?

Well, Disagreeable, just knowing you were not backing the war would be reason enough for me to back it. :!: :wink:
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Reason # 1 Saddam-Osama link
The Clinton administration talked about firm evidence linking Saddam Hussein's regime to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040624-112921-3401r.htm


Reason # 2 to prevent saddam from restarting any WMDs program
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 |



Reason # 3 saddam is a Butcher.
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 |



Reason #4 and 5 pre-emptive strike, instability of region,
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998



Reason # 6 failure to comply with UN weapons inspectors,,
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998



Reason # 7 WMDs
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 |

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002



Reason # 8 Failure to comply with UN resolutions
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

and the link;
http://www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004.shtml
(with direct links to the exact source)......

Reason # 9 Terrorists
Again in Wichita, November 17, Clinton said that what happens in Iraq "matters to you, to your children and to the future, because this is a challenge we must face not just in Iraq but throughout the world. We must not allow the 21st century to go forward under a cloud of fear that terrorists, organized criminals, drug traffickers will terrorize people with chemical and biological weapons the way the nuclear threat hung over the heads of the whole world through the last half of this century. That is what is at issue."13
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1513656/posts

not to mention the terrorist training camps that were in Iraq.....

Iraq continued to plan and sponsor international terrorism in 1999. Although Baghdad focused primarily on the antiregime opposition both at home and abroad, it continued to provide safehaven and support to various terrorist groups. Iraq continued to provide safehaven to a variety of Palestinian rejectionist groups, including the Abu Nidal organization, the Arab Liberation Front (ALF), and the former head of the now-defunct 15 May Organization, Abu Ibrahim, who masterminded several bombings of U.S. aircraft.
http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/terror_99/sponsor.html

Reason # 10 regime change.
On October 31, 1998, Iraq ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM.37 The same day President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act, which declared that "t should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."38 In signing the Act, the President stated that the U.S. "looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life."39

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-20040623.htm

Seemed pretty convincing coming from them.......
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
Steve said:
Reason # 1 Saddam-Osama link
The Clinton administration talked about firm evidence linking Saddam Hussein's regime to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040624-112921-3401r.htm


Reason # 2 to prevent saddam from restarting any WMDs program
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 |



Reason # 3 saddam is a Butcher.
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 |



Reason #4 and 5 pre-emptive strike, instability of region,
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998



Reason # 6 failure to comply with UN weapons inspectors,,
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998



Reason # 7 WMDs
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 |

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002



Reason # 8 Failure to comply with UN resolutions
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

and the link;
http://www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004.shtml
(with direct links to the exact source)......

Reason # 9 Terrorists
Again in Wichita, November 17, Clinton said that what happens in Iraq "matters to you, to your children and to the future, because this is a challenge we must face not just in Iraq but throughout the world. We must not allow the 21st century to go forward under a cloud of fear that terrorists, organized criminals, drug traffickers will terrorize people with chemical and biological weapons the way the nuclear threat hung over the heads of the whole world through the last half of this century. That is what is at issue."13
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1513656/posts

not to mention the terrorist training camps that were in Iraq.....

Iraq continued to plan and sponsor international terrorism in 1999. Although Baghdad focused primarily on the antiregime opposition both at home and abroad, it continued to provide safehaven and support to various terrorist groups. Iraq continued to provide safehaven to a variety of Palestinian rejectionist groups, including the Abu Nidal organization, the Arab Liberation Front (ALF), and the former head of the now-defunct 15 May Organization, Abu Ibrahim, who masterminded several bombings of U.S. aircraft.
http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/terror_99/sponsor.html

Reason # 10 regime change.
On October 31, 1998, Iraq ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM.37 The same day President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act, which declared that "t should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."38 In signing the Act, the President stated that the U.S. "looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life."39

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-20040623.htm

Seemed pretty convincing coming from them.......


Talk's cheap. Not one of these people sent American soldiers into Iraq. Every one of them wanted the UN to take action. When the UN did take action and send weapons inspectors into the country, Bush ordered them out so he could attack. Why? Because he didn't want to know Saddam didn't have WMDs, that would negate his excuse for invading the country. All that aside, if he had a competent Administration that had run the war properly, I wouldn't have so much to complain about. But he didn't, still doesn't. But at least we're coming out of there.
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
Faster horses said:
She is still in shock :shock:


from all that factual information.

Not quite the same as what she has been reading.

ROTFLMAO! Facts? What facts. He's quoting opinions and they were all wrong. The fact is Saddam didn't have WMDs. But, for a change, he does offer links. :lol:
 

Latest posts

Top