52% Wow

If you read the New York Post today you will have seen a new poll that says almost 52% of Democrats say that the world would be Better and Safer with Saddam still in power in Iraq! Wow! When will they learn?

DS

Jeez Smitty,

Can't you make one rediculous thread at a time and deal with it before you make a new one?

The Doc

I think this is very arguable. Saddam was bad, but what has come in his place right now, doesn't look very much better. Back then, there was a government (a bad one of course, but there was one), there was infrastructure.
Now, it appears to be one hell of a chaos there. And certainly with terrorist attacks, which weren't happening on such a large scale with Saddam still in power.

It's chosing between the lesser of two evils, IMO.

And here goes Iraqi thread number 55...

Democrats are stupid, but I'm sure if Clinton would have done something during his administration, Republicans would say the same thing.

Further proof that our political parties in this country SUCK!

I guess those Dems didn't have a Kurd relative.

I think "appears to be" is the key phrase. I believe about half of what I see and none of what I hear (to quote Marvin Gaye). If people wanna believe every morsel the media pitches to 'em (right wing OR left), so be it. I also heard today that the homicide bombers, car bombers, etc. are dwindling over there...floundering, in fact. A commentary on the presence of determined troops? Perhaps. But like I said, folks will buy what they want to buy. Yeah, I'll be the first to shout Halleleujah when our troops come home, but I'm a realist. For the number of troops deployed versus the casualty rate, well, I would refer you to the casualties of just about any other war. I say dig in and finish the job first, THEN come home. And yes, I'd gladly serve if they'd have me.

And back in November of 2004, 89% of the democrats said that John Kerry would be the new President and went out and voted for him. Much more than the 52% in this poll.


They were wrong back then too.


Don Cardi

To which I respond:

[/b][/quote]Glad that you've finally admitted the truth: that Clinton did NOTHING during his administration! It's so nice to see you finally admit it.
:p


Don Cardi

We know that was taken out of context. When I say, "did something", I could apply anything that the Republicans would have disagreed with. So... something.. anything!

[/b][/quote]Glad that you've finally admitted the truth: that Clinton did NOTHING during his administration! It's so nice to see you finally admit it.
:p


Don Cardi [/b][/quote]He didn't exactly do nothing ask Monica :rolleyes:

Mig - Oh, no, he still made her do all the work.


Tony Love - I didn't mean to take that out of context. I really agreed with what you said alot. But, Cardi took it out of context, all in good fun, I suppose.

Yes LLC, it was all in good fun. Glad to see that some of us still have a sense of humor about these things.


Don Cardi

Oh that's way he didn't have sexual relations with that women :rolleyes:

I think this is very arguable. Saddam was bad, but what has come in his place right now, doesn't look very much better. Back then, there was a government (a bad one of course, but there was one), there was infrastructure.
Now, it appears to be one hell of a chaos there. And certainly with terrorist attacks, which weren't happening on such a large scale with Saddam still in power.

It's chosing between the lesser of two evils, IMO. [/b][/quote]Im sorry but you obviously have no idea of the history of Saddamm and Iraq or of whats going on right now. "One who reads nothing but newspapers is more stupid than one that does not read at all." Thomas Jefferson.

Smitty is hilarious. I love these little posts like this.

Don Pope,

1. I can read
2. You re-read my post. Things under Hoessein were terrible, but they weren't total chaos like now.

That's to whom I was referring. And I know it was in good fun.

And Tony, I did post this :

[/b][/quote];) I hear ya, DC

Look, Smitty. I've been reading your ridiculus posts for months and sometimes I wonder if you can comprehend what the fuck it is that you are trying to say.

Democrats are entitled their opinion and on this point they make a very good point. Are we really safer with an angry insurgency in Iraq killing our boys everyday? Do we even have inteligence saying that Iraq was bent on attacking us? We threw away the handbook of American Foreign Policy under the Bush Admnistration and we're going around like a bunch of fucking cowboys.

Whatever it is, you can always lie about it. Just like Tony Blair did. Strange fellow, the Blair guy is.

Mike, you are right, Democrats are entitled to their opinion, no question. As a matter of fact anyone involved directly or indirectly with this war is entitled to their opinion.

I am interested to hear you opinion on what you may think is a good exit strategy at this point. I started a topic about it. here's the link : http://www.gangsterbb.net/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=009222


Don Cardi

Mike, you are right, Democrats are entitled to their opinion, no question. As a matter of fact anyone involved directly or indirectly with this war is entitled to their opinion.

I am interested to hear you opinion on what you may think is a good exit strategy at this point. I started a topic about it. here's the link : http://www.gangsterbb.net/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=009222


Don Cardi [/b][/quote]Thanks Cardi. I'm glad we can be civil and I know that for the most part you are on the other side of the fence but what has really angered me is Smitty's dismissal of my opininon along with many others.

Mike, I don't have a problem with people voicing their concerns or opinions about the war, politics, or anything for that matter. What I find childish and ridiculous is when we start reading things in posts like "trigger Happy GI Joes, Jesus Freaks, Bush sucks, Clinton blows, etc." Or when someone is lost for an answer and they turn to name calling and making attacks. Those kinds of remarks and attacks add absolutely nothing to a discussion or a debate.

Of course we all lose our tempers from time to time, getting caught up in the moment. But overall I think that most of the members here do show a certain respect for opposite views.


Don Cardi

When will you learn that you can't change anyone's opinion by making threads like this?

Why cant I make a post about feeling that 52% of the democrats saying this is wrong? What will it take for them to realize that Saddam was a mass murderer?

If you dont like my posts then dont reply.


DS

Uh, that has nothing to do with it.

Read what the poll was about, analyze the Middle-east very carefully from everyone's POV, including the Arabs, then analyze Africa's poverty.

Africa's poverty? What are other countries doing about it? Its like I always say, the only time other nations want the USA's help is when someone invades them or they need money.

DS

Reuters - Mon Dec 5, 3:12 PM ET
BAGHDAD - Men and women were tortured for days and babies left to die in an interrogation facility which featured a meat grinder for human flesh, the first prosecution witness to face Saddam Hussein told the court on Monday After weeks of delay and legal arguments over security and the legitimacy of the court, the trial of Saddam and seven co- defendants on charges of crimes against humanity heard confusing but graphic witness evidence of torture and summary execution.


This is a man who if still in power would make the world more safe?

DS

The reasoning is, altho not reasoning that I necessarily agree with (I'm still mulling it over), that it's not that having Sadaam in power makes the world more safe, it's that his removal and all of the new terorists and hatred for the U.S. that his removal has caused has made the world less safe.

There is, I think, a certain defiensible logic to that.

I think these terrorists were always there, we just chased them out of their holes.

DS

Right. Altruism is the corner stone of foreign policies. Generally countries offer help for the sake of universal brotherhood and welfare of mankind. That makes the most sense. Definitely.

You can't deny that the invasion of Iraqi has bred more terrorsits, can you?

Simple logic tells me that it must have.

And how about the increased hatred in the world for the U.S.?

I don't think that you cn deny that, either.