George W. Bush is ...

Will he be brought up on treason charges?

 

Lou --
You addressing the problem with my point of view by making up my point of view is an interesting gambit, but it's essentially meaningless.

I think Iraq didn't exist? No, but rather, unlike the current administration, I do have a grasp on the history of the region that gives me a pretty good idea that Western-style democracy isn't coming to the area any time soon. Do you know why that is, Lou? What's your grasp on the history of the region?

I would rather have Saddam still in power? Huh. Nothing like framing a false duality. Let me turn the tables. You support the removal of Saddam Hussein. Thus, you must support the removal of George Bush as well, since you're for the removal of world leaders. Why are your two possibilities any more valid than mine? Wait for it, you've stumbled on to the key problem of a pre-emptive war. Tomorrow we have to invade Belgium.

No end in sight, eh? And now there is? All we've done is increase the death toll. There isn't a free and democratic Iraq, and the US military presence is larger and will be committed for longer. Like forever. Say it with me. Forever. And if there is ever a free and democratic Iraq, there's no guarantee it will be because we invaded, frankly. Maybe we'll have spurred a civil war, but there's no telling how long it will last or what it will solve. You can read up on Lebanon if you'd like more information on this phenomenon.

 

Zeke you should have taken a breath and gave a thought to what you were writing before typing that screed.

You just equated Saddam Hussein with George Bush - if you truly believe in that moral equivalence then I really want nothing to do with you.

I have pointed out a number of times that the death toll in Iraq is greatly down compared to when Saddam was in power and that democracy is taking root. Yes these gains have come at the cost of American blood and treasure but I believe we were faced with a hard choice and made the hard but right decision. We were still at war with Iraq from 1991 if you recall correctly (just in a state of cease fire while Saddam was supposed to be disarming).

You got indignant just as predicted but you never answered the question of what should have been done with Saddam Hussein. If you are against us invading YOU HAVE NO OTHER CHOICE BESIDE LEAVING SADDAM IN POWER. Or were you like John Kerry who was for the invasion before he was against it?

 

Yeah, Zeke. Let's be fair to Mr. Hussein, please.

 

Way to add to the debate Ace. Nice of you to bring your usual to the table.

 

You call that a debate? Reads like sheep bleating.

 

If it reads like sheep bleating to you - why not just move along? Why do you feel like you have to add a quick add nothing to the discussion comment? I'm really curious what motivates a guy like you who always seems to agree with the majority of the board to make a sheeps bleating comment.

 

What makes you think you are going to convince Zeke of anything? I like to stick a needle in here and there to take the pressure off.

Anyway, I got three smileys on this thread. What do you got?

 

I got better things to do than respond to a guy who is just out to collect smiley faces (crave the acceptance of the herd much sheepboy?)

 

What makes you think that Iraq, with borders that were hurriedly drawn when the British wanted to skip town, a nation with little history as a nation and NO history as a nation not being ruled by an autocratic leader and comprising three distinct ethnic minorities who to this day are much more loyal tribal ideas than nationalistic ones, is becoming a democracy. Because we propped up a transitional authority and guarded polls on election day?

And please, I'm happy that the people in Iraq got to vote. It doesn't mean that a democracy will take hold if we ever leave. Which we never will, which makes that useless digression.

Why do I have to be for Saddam being in power or us removing him? You've been co-opted by the doctrine of pre-emption to the point on not even realizing it. Why can't I be for a separate Kurdish state and frankly indifferent as to the ultimate leadership of the rest of the area?

Why couldn't I be for an Iraqi uprising? Why couldn't I be for Saddam stepping down? Where do these false dualities come from? When, exactly did this war have to begin? And, furthermore, if it simply had to happen, why did it take so long to decide that he had to go, and then why did it have to be implemented so quickly?

And I made no moral equivalence of any kind. I carried your ridiculous argument to its logical conclusion. You have to be for what we did, or you're for Saddam Hussein remaining in power. That's simply shoddy thinking that anyone who went to high school ought rightly be ashamed of.

And you'll never know if any death tolls are down in Iraq or not. Our government doesn't bother to count the civilians it kills. But I'd wager that 40,000 dead civilians — directly from the war — is a conservative estimate, so unless Shrub has singlehandedly wiped out the mortality rate FROM everything else, you'll have a hard time convincing me the United States has been anything but a marginal improvement over the past ownership.

As someone posted on the Lebanon thread: It's a war. People are going to die. Which is a line I'm sure Saddam Hussein used as well.

 

Watch it pal, or my anonymous friends will kick your ass.

 

OK, Ace, THAT was funny.

Wear 'em with pride.