EXACTLY!


Don Cardi

What about the genocide that was going on in Iraq before Saddam was kicked out of power. Wasnt it like over 200,000 of his own people gassed and killed (women and children also)! And all the other countless people who died because of him, but when we go in and stop it the Dems yell foul. And remember after 9-11 when Bush gave his speech to congress and he said that we will not seperate a terrorist and the country that harbors or supports them, and all the Dems stood up and cheered? Now they are against it? Why did they agree then and now they do not?

Because they are Democrats!


Don Cardi

We yelled 'foul' because we were told that the main reason for entering Iraq was to get WMDs, not end Saddam's genocide.

Just curious, but what is your definition of a terrorist? Some people believe a terrorist is only someone who is capable of bringing death to American soil, i.e. Osama Bin Laden and Al Quaeda. Others consider people like Fidel Castro terrorists. Also, what do you think about the Sudanese government killing its' own people? Are they terrorists? -Pat

EXACTLY!


Don Cardi [/b][/quote]Aren't you Republicans the ones who are asking us Democrats to unite with you and support Bush? Saying things like that isn't convincing. -Pat

Ah Saladbar, long time no see. I miss ya and you need to stop by more often and let's chat about some less depressing stuff!

Presntly there is a resolution before the Security Council (sponsored by the US) to place 10,000 U.N. peacekeepers as well as 715 civilian police in southern Sudan to monitor a cease-fire there. The resolution also would give the peacekeepers the right to protect civilians from violence in the 23-month-old conflict.

The problem is two fold.
1. Russia and China will object to any kind of sanctions or any action against the Sudan government.

2. ICC vs. Special Court tribunal to take try war criminals.

Yes there is already a special court in the ICC. However, the US fear is abuse of power and the US has never "signed on" to the ICC.

And yes, there is another exisitng tribunal -- A court in Tanzania, where a U.N. tribunal is trying alleged war criminals from the 1994 Rwanda massacres, could be expanded to handle the Darfur cases. Eventually, the tribunal could be turned into a permanent African institution whose presence would serve as a deterrent to war crimes.

The U.S., Russia, Great Britian, China and others all said that Saddam had WMD. But you seem to be against Genocide like everyone else should be. So because Saddam did not have WMD we should just sit back and let it happen? You seem to agree that we should not just sit back idle and let that stuff happpen. U say that Bush is standing by and letting Sudan get away with Genocide but Iraq was OK?

Part--Why are Russia and China against us helping them?

The US, Russia, GB, and China should all get their intelligence straightened up than, eh? And no, we shouldn't have sit back and let it happen, but Saddam has been committing genocide since the late 80's. The US and the rest of the world should eliminate all genocide. However, the fact that we were told we were entering Iraq for WMDs and than shifting our cause to genocide is embarrassing. If Bush wanted to save all of the Iraqis from genocide and believes genocide is such a horrible thing, why has he failed to address the Sudan genocide? -Pat

China gets their OIL from Sudan, they don't want the government being messed with.

Russia and China were knee deep in the oil for food scandal, they did not want us to go in and find out whatwe did, that they were ripping the people and the world off. They did not want us to go in and stop there profit taking.

But i ask the question, why should we have just sit back and let Genocide take place in Iraq, arent we all against that also.

Ofcourse we are. We're against genocide everywhere, atleast I am. The point is this: Bush told us that we were entering to DISARM Saddam of his WMDs. That was the main reason. The main reason wasn't to end genocide in Iraq. What makes Iraq's genocide so much more 'special' than that of Sudan? As I said a number of times in this thread, Bush is changing the reason of entering Iraq to make himself look better and it embarrasses me to be a citizen with a guy like that. We already know the world hates us. Now they're going to hate us even more. Why did it even matter if Iraq had WMDs? Why couldn't the main reason have been entering to end genocide? We KNEW genocide was happening. WMDs being there was 50/50. -Pat

SEPTEMBER 11TH 2001 ~!~ REMEMBER?

17 UN RESOLUTIONS over 12 YEARS REMEMBER? :rolleyes:

Don Cardi

U are right when u say what is the differnce between the genocide in Iraq and Sudan, there is none, I agree with u. I must say though that I do not care what the rest of the world thinks about us, Iam not trying to be a tough guy but that is how i feel. The world forgets all the blood we spilt for it over the years how We helped liberate Europe against Nazi aggression and countless other ways. The only thing we ask in return is enough land so we can bury our dead soliders after liberating others. Look at all the American graves by the beach of Normandy.

U are right when u say what is the differnce between the genocide in Iraq and Sudan, there is none, I agree with u. I must say though that I do not care what the rest of the world thinks about us, Iam not trying to be a tough guy but that is how i feel. The world forgets all the blood we spilt for it over the years how We helped liberate Europe against Nazi aggression and countless other ways. The only thing we ask in return is enough land so we can bury our dead soliders after liberating others. Look at all the American graves by the beach of Normandy.

SEPTEMBER 11TH 2001 ~!~ REMEMBER?

17 UN RESOLUTIONS over 12 YEARS REMEMBER? :rolleyes:

Don Cardi [/b][/quote]Talk about picking apart a post. :rolleyes: I said why couldn't the main reason of entering Iraq have been the genocide instead of the WMDs?

Ofcourse we are. We're against genocide everywhere, atleast I am. The point is this: Bush told us that we were entering to DISARM Saddam of his WMDs. That was the main reason. The main reason wasn't to end genocide in Iraq. What makes Iraq's genocide so much more 'special' than that of Sudan? As I said a number of times in this thread, Bush is changing the reason of entering Iraq to make himself look better and it embarrasses me to be a citizen with a guy like that. We already know the world hates us. Now they're going to hate us even more. Why did it even matter if Iraq had WMDs? Why couldn't the main reason have been entering to end genocide? We KNEW genocide was happening. WMDs being there was 50/50. -Pat [/b][/quote]:rolleyes: around and around we go. Judge, I think we have heard this story more then enough.

We know:

1) There were no WMD.
(you were kidding us, right)

2)The rest of the world hates us.

3)Pat is embarrassed to a citizen
under President Bush. :rolleyes:

4)Since Bush said that WMD were the main reason, then no other reasons matter. :rolleyes:

DS--We must remember something about WW II. Nazi Germany was a threat to us. Sudan isn't.

FS--Do you think you could edit that up a little so I could understand it?

Oh, I am sorry, I forgot.

There you go, please read it real Slow, so you don't miss any of the finer points.
or maybe you could get someone to read/explain it to you.

I have notice, that many times you seem to miss the better points people make. That is Ok, I know you are in a hurry to make your remarks, and often miss a sentence or two.

Um, that's great. Where's DMC? He's speaking for everyone!

I didn't need an echo, but alright.

That's not what I said. I said it's embarrassing that we have a leader who changed the reason of entering Iraq from WMDs to genocide.

I really hope you don't think that way. -Pat

WTF are you talking about?

WTF are you talking about? [/quote] Funny isn't it. Maybe Don Cardi can start the popcorn machine up for us.

WTF are you talking about? [/quote] Funny isn't it. [/b][/quote]Actually FS I don't find it funny, he says things about people in hopes of starting a flame war, in every thread he posts in he tries to say something that will cause a problem and then when the **** hits the fan he backs out or complains that people are picking on him.

WTF are you talking about? [/quote]You're always criticizing me for saying how 'most' people or the 'majority' feels and you say I can't speak for everyone. FS stated, this is how 'we' feel. Get it now? Good. -Pat

WTF are you talking about? [/quote]You're always criticizing me for saying how 'most' people or the 'majority' feels and you say I can't speak for everyone. FS stated, this is how 'we' feel. Get it now? Good. -Pat [/b][/quote]#1 don't talk about my fiance.
#2 all I saw him say was "you are kidding us" us is not a statistic but I'll give it to you anyway. Upon further review of the play you have a point.
Upon EVEN further review of the play FS makes a good point. I will have to call this one a draw.

edit: thank you

WTF are you talking about? [/quote]You're always criticizing me for saying how 'most' people or the 'majority' feels and you say I can't speak for everyone. FS stated, this is how 'we' feel. Get it now? Good. -Pat [/b][/quote]Yes Patrick, but were does it say that I am speaking for everyone in that statement. It says you are kidding US- meaning you are kidding everyone. Two different things my friend.
As always you are in a hurry to prove your point and don't read the post in the right matter.

Maybe if you try not to be so combative, it would help.