It's May 25, 2024, 07:02:21 AM
I don't know what the big deal is. Machiavelli might be 14 but everything he has said so far is true.
Bush needs to accept responsibilty, even if he was given faulty inteligence.
OReiley told moore that the Iraq war was not bush' fault. He said that bush got faulty inteligence, and so he should not be held accountable. Moore basically said that bush is the president and therefore it is his fault. imo, i think that when you take the job as president, any faults that your administration makes, is your fault. Bush needs to take responsibility for the Iraq war.
Bush still stands by his argument that "America and every other country are safer because saddams evil regime are gone." Thats complete bs.
So you don't believe that taking out Saddam made America and other countries safe, even tho saddam was killing hundreds of thousands of people in the middle east.
Quote from: 7even the Harbinger on July 27, 2004, 02:17:31 PMcan anybody record it with a digi cam and put it online? I dont have Fox lolI am not suprised. Fox News is the biggest cable news channel here in the US...theyir ratings dwarf those of CNN and MSNBC combined. But alot of left wing socialist countries like Canada and probably your country won't let Fox News air there because they don't want people exposed to new, different viewpoints besides the leftist brainwashing you guys usually get.
can anybody record it with a digi cam and put it online? I dont have Fox lol
America was 100% not any safer. Neighboring countries weren't any safer because saddam wasnt planning any attacks on them.saddam wasnt a threat, especially to america.
Quote from: rampant on July 27, 2004, 07:57:38 PMAmerica was 100% not any safer. Neighboring countries weren't any safer because saddam wasnt planning any attacks on them.saddam wasnt a threat, especially to america.So your saying neighboring countries weren't any safer with saddam out of office and it would be better if he was still in office? How could this be true if Saddam was committing mass murders on neighboring countries? Also Iraq would allways threat attacks on countries such as Israel or Kuwait.You are right about how saddam wasn't a threat to America since he didn't have WMDs..but if he got a hold of one, don't you think he would use it on us or neighboring countries.
So you basically just proved that we went into Iraq because we assumed things that could or could not be true. Your previous argument of "he killed his own people" was even better than this.
Quote from: Maradona on July 27, 2004, 10:49:05 PMSo you basically just proved that we went into Iraq because we assumed things that could or could not be true. Your previous argument of "he killed his own people" was even better than this.Well Initially we went into Iraq for WMDs right? Since we didn't find no WMDs, this war was about taking out the brutal dictator Saddam, and helping Iraq rebuild its country.
So we changed our reasons for the war as we went along.... LOL.... it's obvious you're just out of things to say, so you turn out to argue and defend my view instead of yours by claiming that the U.S. realized that the public was on to their lies, and then changed its reason to something different to make the war seem justified. Thanks a lot moron.
Quote from: Maradona on July 27, 2004, 11:00:40 PMSo we changed our reasons for the war as we went along.... LOL.... it's obvious you're just out of things to say, so you turn out to argue and defend my view instead of yours by claiming that the U.S. realized that the public was on to their lies, and then changed its reason to something different to make the war seem justified. Thanks a lot moron.No we didn't change it as we went along. We allways had that reason, except we didn't use it because the WMDs reason was much more serious, that using that reason was just an alternative reason to go to Iraq, but then it became a primary reason after we found out there were no WMDs.