Is Saddam right? - Devils Advocate.

[biglouie250]

This guy has a good point. Iraq made Sadam. One hundred civilians die
every day in Iraq. When Sadam was in power he made things work.
When he gased the Kurds the US was behind him.

actually we made Saddam. we supported him in the 1980's. we didnt have a problem with him killing the innocent then, now we all of a sudden do.

[Ufa]

actually we made Saddam. we supported him in the 1980's. we didnt have a problem with him killing the innocent then, now we all of a sudden do.

Senator Rockeffeller stated a couple of days ago that Iraq would be
better off with Sadam. If he was reinstated he would not let the
country be taken over by any one. Iran would be in check. The
taliban would be out. He would be one pissed of MF. We let the
people of Iraq choose their Govt and they chose civil war. Why are
we there, unless it is a foward base to launch an attack against Iraq.

[Phreak101]

This guy has a good point. Iraq made Sadam. One hundred civilians die
every day in Iraq. When Sadam was in power he made things work.
When he gased the Kurds the US was behind him.

What??

We were never "behind" Sadamm Hussein. He was being used by the U.S. to further a political agenda in Iran. Besides, he gassed the Kurds long after that.

[Ufa]

I would like to see your time-line.

[gixxerboy1]

What??

We were never "behind" Sadamm Hussein. He was being used by the U.S. to further a political agenda in Iran. Besides, he gassed the Kurds long after that.

Yes we helped him i against Iran. Just like we did with Afghanistan And the Soviet Union.

[Phreak101]

Senator Rockeffeller stated a couple of days ago that Iraq would be
better off with Sadam. If he was reinstated he would not let the
country be taken over by any one. Iran would be in check. The
taliban would be out. He would be one pissed of MF. We let the
people of Iraq choose their Govt and they chose civil war. Why are
we there, unless it is a foward base to launch an attack against Iraq.

Democracy would be happening in Iraq right now if it wasn't for Islamic radicals, we can see this by the fact Iraq has established a government based on a democratic vote. The country is falling into civil war because of people who do NOT Iraq to have the freedom of a democracy, they want an Islamic theocracy. Why have freedom when you can have the power of "god" behind your decisions?

If Iraq becomes democratic, other countries will want the same freedom. but we can't have freedom in Islamofascist governments now can we?

[Phreak101]

Yes we helped him i against Iran. Just like we did with Afghanistan And the Soviet Union.

He was being used, he was never an "ally".

[Phreak101]

I would like to see your time-line.

When do YOU think the Kurds were gassed?

[RA]

lol!!!! cmon!!! these guys had no hand in their demize??? GWB is the definition of open mouth insert foot. Newt sunk himself with his BS "contract for america". For god sakes Dick Cheney shot someone in the face!!!!!!!



im not defending the dems, as i am not one. im just saying that the current administration cant say that dems overspend given what they have done. I vote for who i believe will do the best job according to my beliefs, whether they are dem or repub is irrelevant. i have voted for both parties in the past.

Its contract with America and if you knew anything about it, you would probably say it sounds good. The problem is that youve listened to the dems and now the man is a punchline because they demonized him. Hes actually one of the more intelligent leaders weve had in congress.

You are 100% defending them. You keep claiming your not a liberal but you sound like one.

[RA]

actually we made Saddam. we supported him in the 1980's. we didnt have a problem with him killing the innocent then, now we all of a sudden do.

Yes we were allies because we needed to be at the time. Doesnt mean we condone all his actions.

Anyway its irrelevant today.

[breacherup]

If Sadam had cooperated with the UN inspections and not tried to assassinate the 1st President Bush he would have been left in place, and probably used as a check to Iran's nuclear ambitions but he didn't and now there is a firing squad in his future. As a soldier I would have no problem with using him if it was strategically expedient, but having been over there and seen the mass graves and prisons built for children, I am glad to have helped remove him. The place is a bloody mess now, but so was El Salvador in the 80's...

[Phreak101]

If Sadam had cooperated with the UN inspections and not tried to assassinate the 1st President Bush he would have been left in place, and probably used as a check to Iran's nuclear ambitions but he didn't and now there is a firing squad in his future. As a soldier I would have no problem with using him if it was strategically expedient, but having been over there and seen the mass graves and prisons built for children, I am glad to have helped remove him. The place is a bloody mess now, but so was El Salvador in the 80's...

+1! I like the way this man thinks!

[biglouie250]

Its contract with America and if you knew anything about it, you would probably say it sounds good. The problem is that youve listened to the dems and now the man is a punchline because they demonized him. Hes actually one of the more intelligent leaders weve had in congress.

You are 100% defending them. You keep claiming your not a liberal but you sound like one.

simple error. but your reaction to it is why we dont have politcal forum anymore bro. no need to meet my thought with such angst. i know all about the contract and its pitfalls. you cant have a "take back the streets act" (part of the contract) but be against gun control. how are you going to take back the street? you cant it was a toothless policy that was used to make it seem like values would be restored, pure propaganda. the term contract with america is a reagan term and was used by GOP to ressurect reaganesque ideals, pride and good feelings that ronald reagan brought to this country. In actuality it cut many programs such as food inspections, health/science research, student loans, welfare(i agreed with this part of it, welfare was out of hand). it also cut capital gains tax(favors the rich) among other things.

I am not defending them as i probably wont vote for a democrat in 2008 because no one that ive seen impresses me at all. And come on Newt is one funny character! He is a smart guy ill give you that, i think its unfortunate that his big claim to fame was the contract with america which was met with heavy opposition by the clinton administration and ultimatley led him to become a punchline.
On me being a liberal: I voted for Rick Lazio(republican) over Hillary Clinton for NY senate, I would have voted for Gulianni had he run. I considered myself a republican prior to Bush, keep in mind a NY republican. NY republicans tend to be more "liberal" with social policies(IE: pro-choice, gun control but not so when it comes to economics.) As i already told you im all for cutting taxes and curbing got spending. Im all for simplifying the tax code, and actually believe in trickle down economics to a certain degree.

[Psychotron]

He is the cause of 9/11 IMO. He was asleep at the wheel. No way did he do a "good job"

he did if you look at the economy during his eight years as a president. he also handled saddam in a such way that didnt put us in the mess we find ourselves today. and honestly i think you people are braindead if you still think bin laden and some people in caves who flew air planes into the towers were behind 9/11 this whole country needs to wake up.

[RA]

simple error. but your reaction to it is why we dont have politcal forum anymore bro. no need to meet my thought with such angst.

lol, you think that was harsh?

[RA]

he did if you look at the economy during his eight years as a president. he also handled saddam in a such way that didnt put us in the mess we find ourselves today. and honestly i think you people are braindead if you still think bin laden and some people in caves who flew air planes into the towers were behind 9/11 this whole country needs to wake up.

Oh, your one of those. Watch out that black helicopters going to hit you in the head.

[RA]

simple error. but your reaction to it is why we dont have politcal forum anymore bro. no need to meet my thought with such angst. i know all about the contract and its pitfalls. you cant have a "take back the streets act" (part of the contract) but be against gun control. how are you going to take back the street? you cant it was a toothless policy that was used to make it seem like values would be restored, pure propaganda. the term contract with america is a reagan term and was used by GOP to ressurect reaganesque ideals, pride and good feelings that ronald reagan brought to this country. In actuality it cut many programs such as food inspections, health/science research, student loans, welfare(i agreed with this part of it, welfare was out of hand). it also cut capital gains tax(favors the rich) among other things.

I am not defending them as i probably wont vote for a democrat in 2008 because no one that ive seen impresses me at all. And come on Newt is one funny character! He is a smart guy ill give you that, i think its unfortunate that his big claim to fame was the contract with america which was met with heavy opposition by the clinton administration and ultimatley led him to become a punchline.
On me being a liberal: I voted for Rick Lazio(republican) over Hillary Clinton for NY senate, I would have voted for Gulianni had he run. I considered myself a republican prior to Bush, keep in mind a NY republican. NY republicans tend to be more "liberal" with social policies(IE: pro-choice, gun control but not so when it comes to economics.) As i already told you im all for cutting taxes and curbing got spending. Im all for simplifying the tax code, and actually believe in trickle down economics to a certain degree.

"An anti-crime package including stronger truth-in- sentencing, "good faith" exclusionary rule exemptions, effective death penalty provisions, and cuts in social spending from this summer's "crime" bill to fund prison construction and additional law enforcement to keep people secure in their neighborhoods and kids safe in their schools"

The part of the contract you named. Im not seeing the problem here. It has nothing to do with gun laws.(which are protected by our constitution) I could list the rest of the contract but its all a very good agenda for them to have laid down.

The cuts you refer to are cuts in increases, not actual cuts.

And a New York Republican could never get elected President. They are way way too liberal. We're just looking at rep and dem from two different points of view.

[Psychotron]

Oh, your one of those. Watch out that black helicopters going to hit you in the head.

im not that one of those. but you should probably do some reading on the "circumstantial" events of the days leading up to 9/11 and even the physical laws violated of the entire story behind how the towers fell.

[collar]

[RA]

im not that one of those. but you should probably do some reading on the "circumstantial" events of the days leading up to 9/11 and even the physical laws violated of the entire story behind how the towers fell.

If there was something there dont you think the democrats would have found it by now?

[biglouie250]

And a New York Republican could never get elected President. They are way way too liberal. We're just looking at rep and dem from two different points of view.

Rudy Guilianni.....

[RA]

Rudy Guilianni.....

Yeah, no doubt hes popular but the base would never accept him. Just too liberal.

[biglouie250]

Yeah, no doubt hes popular but the base would never accept him. Just too liberal.

think so? i would think that at this point he'd have the best chance to win the presidency for the republicans, he'd get a lot of swing votes and if he took NY for the GOP it would be pretty easy for him to win.

[Kärnfysikern]

im not that one of those. but you should probably do some reading on the "circumstantial" events of the days leading up to 9/11 and even the physical laws violated of the entire story behind how the towers fell.

Funny that the majority of experts in the world feel no laws of physics where violated. Not the guys that built the thing, not the engineers that examined it, not all the physcisists that have looked at it. No one except a handful of conspiracy theorists.

Even the guy who planned the towers said that they where built to collaps in that way.

If you think its fishy that the towers went straight down I have a followup question, where else would they go?

The main objection to the official story seems to be that they should not have fallen at free fall speed due to conservation of momentum. Well I havent done any number crunching but I doubt it would have much of a effect except on the first few floors pancacking.

[Psychotron]

obviously down.The floors collapsed, they shouldnt have. The weight from the top which was each floor was already supporting should not have caused such events to occur. The floor below the compromised floor would also have had to be compromised in order for each to give out, it doesnt work with just one floor being crippled.

[RA]

Like Johan said, you know this because you know more then all the experts?

obviously down.The floors collapsed, they shouldnt have. The weight from the top which was each floor was already supporting should not have caused such events to occur. The floor below the compromised floor would also have had to be compromised in order for each to give out, it doesnt work with just one floor being crippled.

[Kärnfysikern]

obviously down.The floors collapsed, they shouldnt have. The weight from the top which was each floor was already supporting should not have caused such events to occur. The floor below the compromised floor would also have had to be compromised in order for each to give out, it doesnt work with just one floor being crippled.

Hasnt it been conclusivly shown that the structure was weakened enough for the collaps to take place. Atleast conclusive enough to convince everyone investigating it...

But if one floor is crippled and gives in the rest will fall. They are not built to withstand 10 floors coming crashing down. Only to withstand the static weight of the floors above.

Anyway lets not get into a discussion about this. It has been beaten to death in several threads and I might add that on the science forums I browse the topic is even closed for discussion since everyone with credability agress with the official story and has debunked the myths enough times to be feed up with it. So I do not have any expertise to say anything myself but I trust the scientific consensus on this issue.

Also the fact that the man that designed the towers himself do not find any objections makes me belive nothing fishy happened.

[Psychotron]

Like Johan said, you know this because you know more then all the experts?

Because I have read and listened to what experts have said. There is a lot of skepticism, and I will follow suit with Johan and say that it is futile for me to argue with you guys. It really doesnt matter whether or not the planes crash was the cause of the fall. It is probably the weakest argument for why the whole thing was fishy.

[Phreak101]

Because I have read and listened to what experts have said. There is a lot of skepticism, and I will follow suit with Johan and say that it is futile for me to argue with you guys. It really doesnt matter whether or not the planes crash was the cause of the fall. It is probably the weakest argument for why the whole thing was fishy.

You're ice skatin uphill bro. Just because you've watched Loose Change and think that all the evidence is there does not mean that what you're hearing is the truth.

When a panel of close to 100 structural engineers releases a report stating exactly what happened that coincides with what we think happened, I'm convinced.

[biglouie250]

ive seen loose change and ive also seen "scre loose change" which shoots holes in all its arguments.

[Psychotron]

lol ive seen screw loose change, never saw the real one though.