Re: Hahahaha
> Exactly - every right winger on the face of the planet who's been laying
> low owing to the exposure of the wholesale furphys and wishful thinking
> upon which the war was based, actually think the rest of the world was
> calling their bluff becuase they hadn't found Saddam.
I don't know of anyone who's "laying low," let alone "every right winger on the face of the planet." The only people who should be laying low are those who used fear-mongering propaganda to try and block the toppling of Saddam. Fear-mongering such as that we'd kill hundreds of thousands of civilians, there'd be a mass refugee crisis, a humanitarian catastrophe, all the oil wells would be exploded causing economic and environmnetal disastor, Israel would be sucked into the war and would use nukes, terrorism in America would rise, there'd be a WMD "ring of death" (or was it "ring of fire") awaiting us in Baghdad, and so on and so forth, all predictions which never came true and all designed to make the world too afraid to imagine a new and better Iraq can be created.
Yes, those people should lay low, but of course now they're gonna nitpick every step of the rebuilding of Iraq and the handing over of it to a democratic government, even though if they had had their way Iraq would still be enslaved by a genocidal, mass murdering, torturing psychopath.
You still think that only a right wing conservative could possible support
regime change in Iraq to remove a genocidal maniac.
What is "conservative" about what we're doing in Iraq?
> My reaction to the capture of Saddam was not negative - my reaction to
> conservatives' and war-supporters' reaction to the capture of Saddam
> remains proudly and defiantly negative.
Except Saddam would not be catpured if not for the supporters of the invasion.
Many of whom, by the way, were not "war-supporters" or "conservatives," but actually people living IN Iraq who were WEARY of war and dreaming of a liberal democracy, some of whome fought side-by-side with Americans.
At least 5 opinion polls taken in Iraq have revealed that the overwhleming majority of Iraqis and Kurds are glad the Coalition toppled Saddam.
There are many web blogs from Iraqis in Iraq popping up on the Internet, and every one I've seen has been supportive of the Coalition''s invasion.
> No-one's posted pro-war prattle here in months, then suddenly people start
> feeling vindicated again because of one inevitable that barely changes the
> facts or dynamics of the war in terrorism one iota.
There have been a long line of vindications along the way for those supporting regime change in Iraq. The final vindication will come when the new Iraq is fully established and everyone can compare that with the horrorshow you wanted to leave in place. So you see, in the end your side will inevtiably lose this argument. IMHO. Which is why some people on your side seem to want Saddam loyalists, the criminals they pay, and the Islamic fundamentalists to succeed in chasing the Coalition out of Iraq prematurely, even thoyugh this would of course create civil war, a refugee crisis, civilian deaths, and pretty much the all around humanitarian disastor I thought the peace-lovers were trying to prevent in advocating Saddam be left in power.
But the Coalition won'tbe chased out. And because thayt's not gonna happen, I know that Iraq will be better than ever before. If Bush loses the election, it doesn't matter, because every Democrat with a chance to win has vowed to finish the job in Iraq. Bush had the balls to do something radical and courageous, and people still can't believe he did it. But now that he actually has done it, I'm very sorry, but we'll see the fruits of that action and all the fear-mongering will be exposed.
> I find it interesting that George Bush's first reaction is to holler for
> blood and once more prove how disgusting, immoral and irreligious
> (certainly un-christian) supporters of the death penalty actually are.
What are you talking about? First of all, I don't feel I have to defend everything Bush says or does because I supported invaded Iraq for my own reasons. But for the life of me I can't figure out what you're referring to.
What I remember Bush saying right after Saddam was captured was that he knows what he'd like to see done to Saddam but the choice isn't for him to make, rather it is for Iraqis to make after a trial in Iraq. Please tell me the quote I missed that was "immoral" and "disgusting," because that statement was exactly right-on. Iraqis have the right to expect to be the ones to put him on trial and decide what should be done with him.
Also, while as a general statement I oppose the death penalty in America because I don't trust the system not to make mistakes and because there is racial inequality, I don't get how you accuse people of being "immoral" and "disgusting" simply because they think a monster like Saddam deserves to die.
Is it really beyond you to understand how someone could advocate putting Saddam to death without being a "disgusting" person? You probably think that way because you're always so busy thinking you're right about everything you can't even imagine how someone who isn't "disgusting" can think differently than you.
Whatever the case, as it stands, because of that "disgusting" and "immoral" Bush, Saddam is going to be placed on trial, instead of continuing to commit genocide and torture and mass murder as he would be doing if pure and moral you had had your way.
As far as the charge of being "un-christian," I just have to laugh at that one.
I must say it often worries me when candidates like Bush, and Clinton before him, and many others, go on and on about their religions, but I'm glad to see that Bush was able to disregard what many Christian religious leaders were advising on Iraq and think for himself.
> If he put that much effort into resolving the Palestinian question, he'd
> be doing a greater service in fighting terror than the effects of the
> entire Iraqi
> war combined.
I'm sorry he hasn't solved the Israeli-Palestinian crisis in two years. No one else has either. But it's a good thing that one of the main funders of Palestinian terrorism is now in jail awaiting trial.
Quite frankly you've never expressed much concern over how to deal with Islamic fundamentalist terrorism and the states that support it, so I don't think
you're the man I'll turn to for how we should deal with the problem.
> This thing is far from over - and as Dean is right to ask, is America any
> safer?
What does that mean, "this thing is far from over"? Please elaborate. Hoping for something to happen?
Was Dean right to say America is no safer today than before? I dunno, I guess it's a matter of opinion. How do you prove America is safer?
I think we're safer, although not safe.
This is only some of my evidence:
Al Qaeda no longer controls Afghanistan as their safe and secure home base. Instead, al Qaeda is on the run all over the globe, and their funding has been severely crippled. Just the other day I read that al Qaeda met with Taliban leadership and informed them they'd have to drastically cut their funding of the Taliban. I've also not seen or heard from bin Laden in about a year, so if he's not dead he's in some rat hole in a condition worse than death.
There have been no terrorist attacks in America since 9/11, even though those opposed to America's foreign policy told us it would lead to increased terrorism in America. This could change tomorrow, but the fact is there have been no attacks successfully pulled off despite the terrorist groups' desires and plans. At least three 9/11-scale attacks were prevented (an attempt to take down the Brooklyn Bridge; an attemot to blow up gas stations across the country; and an attempt to take over some Air France flights), and I'm sure many more that we've never heard about. Apparently some of the things that broke down in preventing 9/11 from occurring are being addressed.
Saudi Arabia, the country from which many of the ideas bought into by terrorists emanates from, is backing away from supporting such ideas and is instead cracking down on terrorists. The Suadi royal family's oil monopoly is also about to be undermined by Iraq's liberated oil.
Syria, a terrorist supporting state observing the occurances in Iraq, recently seized over $23 million dollars intended for al Qaeda.
Pakistan is less likely today to be taken over by Islamic fundamentalists of the Taliban variety, which was on the verge of happening a few years ago. If such people did take over Pakistan, the problem in Kashmir would quickly become the biggest problem on earth (if it isn't already), with nuclear war imminent. Islamic fundamentalism of the al Qaeda variety was spreading in many other places as well before 9/11, such as Indonesia, but today they are in retreat and decline.
Saddam can no longer support international terrorism, can no longer have any WMD, can never have nukes, can no longer ethnically cleanse populations in Iraq, can no longer mass murder, or invade other countries.
North Korea was given millions of dollars by Saddam shortly before the Coalition invaded Iraq. It was millions of dollars for illegal missiles with a range to threaten his neighbors. As the David Kay report reveals, North Korea got cold feet because Coalition forces were massing on Iraq's border. In other words, the reality we'd have today if Saddam was left in power would have been his support of terrorism in general, and links to al Qaeda specifically, coupled with his arms deals with North Korea. This vindicates Bush's State of the Union speech where he said we must stop Saddam's threat before it becomes imminent.
In the wake of Saddam's toppling and capture, Libya has agreed to disarm with
international inspectors allowed in to verify.
Also in the wake of Saddam's toppling, Iran has signed an agreement to allow surprise inspections of its nuclear facilities.
I see this is getting rather long, so I'll stop there, as there was one other point I had to make about your apparent fondness for Dean. And I'll just say, you might not agree with all that, but my post has got so much supporting evidence I almost feel hesitant to post something so long, whereas yours just said, "I agree with Howard Dean that America isn't safer." Oh gee, really? Howard Dean, a politician lusting the most powerful office, who based his campaign on opposing the invasion, says no one's safer because of it. Well then I guess it must be so!
I'd be careful about getting too into Howard Dean, though. Dean is guilty of things that those consumed with hatred for Bush have accused Bush of. They tell us Bush has decieved America into thinking Saddam was behind 9/11, even though Bush knows there's no evidence of that. All Bush has ever said was what Saddam is linked to terrorists in general, including al Qaeda. Which is true. And that in the post-9/11 era we cannot co-exist with terrorist supporting dictators like Saddam who violate every U.N. resolution with respect to WMD. Makes sense to me. Saddam has a long record of supporting terrorism, and his links to al Qaeda specifically were proven in a February, 2003 New Yorker article. Since the invasion, each month has brought more proof of such links. But Bush has never said Saddam was behind 9/11.
Howard Dean HAS tried to lead Americans to believe in things he knows aren't true, however. And Dean's supporters are okay with that.
Hmm, I'll put that in a second message in reply to my own message.
