Wasn't Saddam ousted for doing precisely this sort of thing? (page 19)

Realist

yeru,

The Palestinians are not a legitimate nation

it seems the palestinians do not agree with this assessment.

nor is theirs a legitimate war

and what makes a legitimate war?

nor are they forced by circumstances to do such a thing

but the US was?

they can decide they want both peace and their own nation and STOP attacking Israel...the US wasn't given that option

the US was not given the choice to accept japans surrender? how so?

Tell ya what big guy, love them terrorists all ya want...they wanna kill you too.

yawn.

even after the Japanese saw the power of the bomb on one of it's own cities...it refused to surrender

the US dropped the bombs although japan wanted to negotiate the surrender.

in any case nothing can justify this bombings just like nothing justifies the killing of a woman and her children. only that the bombing was 100.000 times as murderous.

myauntfanny

Tell ya what big guy, love them terrorists all ya want...

I really dislike this kind of talk. Just because people don't like American foreign policy and don't support Bush, doesn't mean they love terrorists. This is just bullying and intimidation.

Doubtfully Yours

This goes to show that plenty among us are no better.

DY

Yerusalyim

One last time, back to the principle discussion....

The question is stated in the title: Wasn't Saddam ousted for doing precisely this sort of thing?

This would presume that President Bush was aware of or condoned or had a policy in place that allowed this sort of thing...he didn't.

The US was prosecuting the perps in this instance long before the media feeding frenzy began...

Succintly put...there is no equivalancy between what Saddam's thugs did and what the idiots in that prison did...because whereas with Saddam this was policy...with the US this goes against policy.

blacksheep

ARE YOU INSANE??? I JUST POSTED THE FACT ABOVE! CAN YOU AT LEAST FOLLOW THE LINK AND READ THE QUOTES YOU *

You can dispense with the insults. The article "proves" nothing about the election. So what if them majority of people opposed the Iraqi occuaption. Surely you don't think that THAT was the only issue they considered in deciding how to vote. You can't be that naive.

But, by AlQ's bombing right before the election, he made SURE it was one of the key reasons.

Realist

black,

my post stated:

spain withdrew its troops not because of the terror attack but because of the view of now ruling party that the whole iraq war was illegal to say the least.
the new government had promised spain to withdrew the troops if they get elected - and thats exactly what they did. with or without the terror.

your response was:

That's the biggest bunch of BS I've heard. Right. Had NOTHING to do with the bombing in Madrid just days before the election?
You really are delusional.

as everyone who actually listens to news knows your statement is wrong. i posted the link to prove it. the socialists had said all along they will withdrew the troops. PS: sorry for the insult....just got a little too aggrevated!

truthseeker1

Wow, this just turned into a slug fest. Think it will get locked?

Realist

truth,

missed your second post.

if one talkes about 300.000 lives one would think all measures are first tried before actually dropping the bombs. the US nuked them as soon as they were able to do so without any warning. it is very obvious that the US gov. gave a flying shit about the people.

by the way...germany was not working on the bomb. they had simply not the required facilities and person to produce it.

and what is up with this norwegian guy??? never heard of that story.

truthseeker1

Germany wasn't working on a bomb?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0340830158/janeriks/202-1809332-9631824

Realist

truth,

what is this??? can you give em a summary?

Wasn't Saddam ousted for doing precisely this sort of thing?

Share this