Bush = Hitler!

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
Uh, yeh they were. They supported and defied US orders to hand over Bin Laden and the terrorists and actually THREATENED to fight us if we went into their country to take out AL-Queda so I dont know where you are coming from. Its not like the Taliban were such great people themselves...

Yes, the Taliban harboured Al Queda, but they had nothing to do with 9/11. You don't get what I'm saying do you?

" What the hell kind of logic is that? "it was probable that they had the chance to". Read that over and try and see how ridiculous that sounds. If you were going to attack a country based on a percieved threat, Iran or Korea would be who you would attack before Iraq. They possess a greater military threat than Iraq did. Iraq was NO threat to the US. They were not nuclear capable nor was there any ambition to start a conflict with a country that Sadam knew would kick his ass."

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
As i said they supported terrorists like the Taliban did before 9/11. They were asking to get their asses handed to them. And Saddam was crazy and hated us, what if, just before he was about to die, he cooked up a little gas bomb or two for major american cities? Just for a last laugh. Its been done before, more than once.

That is still not a logical enough reason to wage war witrh Iraq. Saddam posed NO threat to the US. It was stated by Rice and powell only months before. Even if they were nuclear capable they had no intercontental system with which to launch.

Iraq had absolutely no strategic advantage or intention of attacking the U.S.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
Saddam was by no means a "stabilizing force" in the middle east. he was just as radical as any other extremist leader. He invaded Kuwait, evidence enough to show he had more he wanted than just power in Iraq. Saddam was ruled by his own power and money, and that is just as bad if not worse than being against fundamental muslim beleifs.

By stabilizing force, I mean to say that Saddam kept the balance of power away from the fundamentalistic islamic movement. His being there was advantagious to any state opposed to fundamental islamic ideas.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
Evidence of terror groups in Iraq? Here are some links to follow. I will only post one for each for now but if u want you can go find some more yourself.

AL-Queda:Al-Queada

Mujahadeen

PKK
--there are acutally a lot more than this but these are major ones.

Here's one for you:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/17/Bush.alqaeda/index.html

an excerpt:

In the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq, Bush had made stronger statements alleging cooperation between Iraq and al Qaeda. In a October 2002 speech, he said, "Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases."

The initial report from the 9/11 commission, which held a public hearing Wednesday and Thursday, said Osama bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to (Saddam) Hussein's secular regime."

It says the contact was pushed by the Sudanese "to protect their own ties with Iraq." After bin Laden asked for space in Iraq for training camps, the report said, "Iraq apparently never responded."

It also said:"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship."

"I always said that Saddam Hussein was a threat," Bush said. He was "a threat because he provided safe haven for a terrorist like (Abu Musab al-) Zarqawi, who is still killing innocents inside of Iraq."

Did you read that? Do you see the problem there?

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
Thats what I meant. And Canada doesnt really count. 🙂

Very mature retort. I guess the deaths of Canadian soldiers doesn't mean much, or the fact that it was them and SAS troops that saved thousands of U.S. troops' lives through their sniping and 'painting' of targets.

Your comment there only shows that not only do you not understand nor respect the efforts of other countries in this conflict, but that you also are an ignorant ass.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
And an equal number could say otherwise. Why do we always go for the bad news over the good?

So are you denying that an american general admitted that Bush was seeking a war with Iraq? Your comment is unclear on the subject.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
No duh. I already stated that was not the reason we attacked Iraq. Iraq harbored terrorists though so it is not beyond reason to think that those terrorists could have been in Iraq at one point.

Iran harbors far more terrorists than Iraq ever did. Palestine, Libya and Syria also harbored for more terrorsits (including Al Queda) than Iraq ever did. Your point is moot.

The reasons for attacking Iraq have changes from WMD's to their support of terrorism, to the liberation of the Iraqi people.

If this was about terrorism, there were far more important countries to attack, not to mention the mass withdrawal of american troops from Afghanistan (which is now a mess by the way) where known terrorists still operated.

Debating woth you seems to be about as pointless as debating with Deano.

"Yes, the Taliban harboured Al Queda, but they had nothing to do with 9/11. You don't get what I'm saying do you?"

--Who gives a s**t to whether or not they were involved in 9/11? They were enemies and were hiding the terrorists that DID attack us. Its not like anyone misses them, no one liked their government! In America, we dont tolerate people who attack us OR those who aid them.

"That is still not a logical enough reason to wage war witrh Iraq. Saddam posed NO threat to the US. It was stated by Rice and powell only months before. Even if they were nuclear capable they had no intercontental system with which to launch.

Iraq had absolutely no strategic advantage or intention of attacking the U.S."

--And you know that how? Did Saddam tell you personally? He would have attacked us given the chance. And he was a mass-murderer who more or less follows in the footsteps of Hitler I think that is reason enough to take him down. Compared to the lives we may have saved it was well needed.

"By stabilizing force, I mean to say that Saddam kept the balance of power away from the fundamentalistic islamic movement. His being there was advantagious to any state opposed to fundamental islamic ideas."
--Like for instance? Isreal maybe? Oh wait, Saddam hates Isreal... he shot Scuds at them during the first Gulf war.

"So are you denying that an american general admitted that Bush was seeking a war with Iraq? Your comment is unclear on the subject."
---Well a lot of people say things like that these days, always after the fact... Ill bet that guy came up with the idea in the first place. Secondly, who knows what he meant by what he said about Bush wanting to get into Iraq? Bush could have been talking about a completely different subject and then mentioned something about Iraq, the general heard and told, and the media went away with their noble copy and pasting until they had a story... Not to disprove what he may have said, but Im just showing the other side of it.

"Iran harbors far more terrorists than Iraq ever did. Palestine, Libya and Syria also harbored for more terrorsits (including Al Queda) than Iraq ever did. Your point is moot.
The reasons for attacking Iraq have changes from WMD's to their support of terrorism, to the liberation of the Iraqi people.
If this was about terrorism, there were far more important countries to attack, not to mention the mass withdrawal of american troops from Afghanistan (which is now a mess by the way) where known terrorists still operated.
Debating woth you seems to be about as pointless as debating with Deano."

---But at least they dont commit mass murder. An beleive me, all those countries have it coming for them some day. Iraq was just the begining.
---My argument on Iraq has not changed. They HAD WMDs, they HARBORED TERRORISTS, and they DID kill a load of people. Not to mention a lot more than just that. And Afghanistan is far from 'a mess' right now. Its a hell of a lot better than it was before.

No, wait..they didn't have WMD...wasn't that the whole point?

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
Who gives a s**t to whether or not they were involved in 9/11? They were enemies and were hiding the terrorists that DID attack us. Its not like anyone misses them, no one liked their government! In America, we dont tolerate people who attack us OR those who aid them.

Do you realize how riddiculous you sound when you say,"In America, we dont tolerate people who attack us OR those who aid them? How old are you? You do realize that by your logic you are supporting the idea that the U.S. should now wage war on half of the world? Also, if you don't tolerate people who attack your country, or those that aid them, you better first start with your home-grown terrorsists and also the government agencies and corporate billionaires who not only have aided you enemies, but also armed them, educated them, and still profit from them.

"That is still not a logical enough reason to wage war witrh Iraq. Saddam posed NO threat to the US. It was stated by Rice and powell only months before. Even if they were nuclear capable they had no intercontental system with which to launch.

Iraq had absolutely no strategic advantage or intention of attacking the U.S."

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
And you know that how? Did Saddam tell you personally? He would have attacked us given the chance.

Are you trying to tell me that you actually believe that Saddam hussien and the Iraqi military were a threat to America? Please inform me as to how such a small an inept military force with VERY limited resources proved to be such a threat to the U.S.

Iraq is a far worse threat:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/04/02/iran.missile.ap/index.html

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
And he was a mass-murderer who more or less follows in the footsteps of Hitler I think that is reason enough to take him down. Compared to the lives we may have saved it was well needed.

Saddam was no Hitler. Don't be one of those idiots who compares everyone to Hitler. And that is not the reason the U.S. attacked Iraq. If it were then why has the U.S. put up with (and continues to do so with) other leaders who have killed foar more people?

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
Like for instance? Isreal maybe? Oh wait, Saddam hates Isreal... he shot Scuds at them during the first Gulf war.

Boy, that had nothing to do with my point at all? What a very random comment. And, if the U.S. and Britain allowed them to do so, Israel would have made Iraq a stain on the map.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
Well a lot of people say things like that these days, always after the fact... Ill bet that guy came up with the idea in the first place.

What a lame comeback. Is this the JFK Middle School of Debate? It deserves no further attention.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
Secondly, who knows what he meant by what he said about Bush wanting to get into Iraq?

Bush could have been talking about a completely different subject and then mentioned something about Iraq, the general heard and told, and the media went away with their noble copy and pasting until they had a story... Not to disprove what he may have said, but Im just showing the other side of it.

There was nothing left up to interpretation. There was no misrepresentation of character or story. Sorry.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
But at least they dont commit mass murder.

But that wasn't the reason for invasion. WMD's and terrorism were the so-called motives for invasion. If you are going to attack a country because of how they kill their own people then there are a long list of countries before Iraq ever makes a blip on the screen.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
An beleive me, all those countries have it coming for them some day. Iraq was just the begining.

So are you saying that the U.S. is now going to attack Syria, Libya, Palestine, Korea, Iran and the many other countries caught up n terrorism or anti american positions? Do you think that this is a rational step?

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
My argument on Iraq has not changed. They HAD WMDs, they HARBORED TERRORISTS, and they DID kill a load of people. Not to mention a lot more than just that.

The U.S. has the most WMD's on the globe. The U.S. not only harbored terrorists in the past, they have trained and armed them. And the U.S. has been responsible for killing 'loads' of people. Perhaps the world should unite and rid ourselves of this menace! (I don't believe that the world should do that of course, I am just showing you how silly your argument is.)

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
And Afghanistan is far from 'a mess' right now. Its a hell of a lot better than it was before.

Uhhmmmm... better check the papers my friend, Afghanistan is a mess right now and armed resistance is increasing.

And for cryin' out loud please use to learn the 'quote' function provided in this forum!

Originally posted by KharmaDog
So are you saying that the U.S. is now going to attack Syria, Libya, Palestine, Korea, Iran and the many other countries caught up n terrorism or anti american positions? Do you think that this is a rational step?

Rational: perhaps not

Sadly necessary: you betcha

Uhhmmmm... better check the papers my friend, Afghanistan is a mess right now and armed resistance is increasing.

Yeah, its still a shit-hole but its a lot better than it was before.

The Black Ghost>
- What was the argument for invading Iraq?

- Karmadog never said, that Iraq had absolutely no strategic advantage or intention of attacking the U.S. He was quoting Rice and Powell.

- How do you know, that Saddam Hussein would have attacked the USA given the chance? Did he tell you that? Why should he do so, knowing the retaliation?

- Is or isn't it true, that after Saddam Hussein has been removed, things are worse in Iraq than ever, and the number of religious fundamentalists is rising?

- Why do you deny the possibility that the American general admitting that president Bush was seeking a war with Iraq is telling the truth? Why, in your belief-system, must he be lying, simply because he de-glorifies the reasons behind the invasion of Iraq?

- "But at least they dont commit mass murder" At least??? So for you to see a justification of the American administration to invade another country, it's regime must commit mass murder? If massmurder is committed in a country, should the US then invade promptly?

- What WMD did Iraq have?

- What terrorists did they harbour? (Hussein actually made Al-Queda illegal years ago, his regime was secular, and Al-Queda are religious fundamentalists). Slaughter of the Kurds were done to, among things, attack the terrorist group PKK, who wanted an independent Kurdistan.

- Would you call the person behind the Oklahoma bombing a terrorist?

- Is it possible that terrorist hide in a country, without the CONSENT of the government?

- "And Afghanistan is far from 'a mess' right now." In what ways?

DiamondBullets>"Rational: perhaps not

Sadly necessary: you betcha."

What an argument!!! (Irony) tell me why.

Originally posted by DiamondBullets
Rational: perhaps not

Sadly necessary: you betcha

Yeah, its still a shit-hole but its a lot better than it was before.

Originally posted by Tangible God
Only now, the countries aren't run by men and organizations who won't kill and murder innicent civilians.

Funny...

What is?

Originally posted by Tangible God
What is?

What you said there....

LOL you need to catch the irony in your own statement Tangible God

😛 Perhaps I wan't specific enough.

Originally posted by Tangible God
I wish people would realize that. Everyone thinks that Afghanistan and Iraq became shitholes only AFTER the U.S. invaded. They were before, and they are now. Only now, the countries aren't run by men and organizations who won't kill and murder innicent civilians.

👆

Originally posted by Mr Parker
yes I knew that want his own words that he just copied and pasted it.He probably doesnt bother to say where he got the source or who said it because he probably has the same experience with people such as yourself that I do who are too frightened to hear the truth.I just pointed out to ghost that you can go to infowars.com and click on the bottom left hand side the prior knowledge section and you can see for yourself there those are taken directly from major media newspapers such as the miami herald swith proof that the government had prior knowledge it would happen,that bush knew all about it,showing documentation of BUSH threatening FBI agents with arrest if they try and stop the attacks. 🙄

Here's my question. Why on earth is anyone listening to this kid? He's about 13 years old, and lives with his parents. He frets about one movie having a small difference with the comic book that it's based on, and constantly complains about it. His word and understanding is VERY limited as to what reality is like.

Does Bush = Hitler? Absolutely not. Hitler was a Nazi, and a mass murderer. In fact, Hitler was very open in his beliefs that he wanted every single person who was not an Aryan to die. Now, for those of you who aren't from America, and are under voting age, Bush's policies and so forth have been working better than we expect. You'll hear people say stuff about Iraq being worse now, and so forth, but that's pretty ignorant, to be honest. Saddam Hussein nerve gassed people for fun, and choked the life out of his country for personal gain. Saying that we should have left Iraq alone is like saying that Russia should still be under communist power, or Hitler should have still been in power in Germany. So, the question is, how on earth did this all get started?

Well, one turkey got the ball rolling, and that's Micheal Moore. Mr. Moore is a overexposed moron. He is well known for throwing around propaganda for the sake of the Democratic party, which is is an outspoken member of. He spreads deceit and doubt around the country trying to turn the whole nation against their own leader. Well, here's the thing: Micheal Moore is a fat liar. I'm not kidding. Many of the "sources" he has more than likely doctor their information. Unfortunately, a lot of morons have listened to his crap, and have gone down the same path as he has. They're all a bunch of idiots who only do it because they can't pick up a damn history book and make a comparison that makes sense. Bush is no Nazi, and he's no dictator. Pick up a history book, and face the facts that Michael Moore is a douce. This is what he spends most of his time:
This is all he's really thinking

"So if I understand you correctly, Jesus, I nuke Iran and then invade N. Korea? Or do I nuke N. Korea and then invade Iran? And do I do this after we spread the bird flu at anti-war protests and quarantine all the commies?

Originally posted by Tangible God
I wish people would realize that. Everyone thinks that Afghanistan and Iraq became shitholes only AFTER the U.S. invaded. They were before, and they are now. Only now, the countries aren't run by men and organizations who won't kill and murder innicent civilians.

Originally posted by Tangible God
I wish people would realize that. Everyone thinks that Afghanistan and Iraq became shitholes only AFTER the U.S. invaded. They were before, and they are now. Only now, the countries aren't run by men and organizations who won't kill and murder innicent civilians.

You do realise that you've basically said the current powers that be in Afghanistan and Iraq are the kind of people who will 'kill and murder innicent(sic) civilians', don't you? Ergo, I agree with you; Bush's foreign policy is despicable and the actions of his administration in a military sense are horrific.

I still wouldn't call him a Hitler. Too much like Mussolini, only hopefully for his sake and our own, Bush's reign won't end the same way...

Originally posted by Bardock42
Funny...

Oh, snap! Trust the funny frood to get it first!