Bombings in Amman Show US Involvement in Iraq Is Correct

[BluffTHIS!]

I didn't say they did. Saddam definitely didn't care about religion until his capture. But Saddam's dictorship and his willingness to develop and use WMD's and use them against his own people is the same as terrorism. If you don't think so then ask the Kurds and the Shi'a. And Al-Quaeda is there now which means we have to be since they are our enemies. And they have indeed overplayed their hand as I said above.

And we sure would hate to destabilize the middle east, island of stability that it has been the past 50 years.

[canis582]

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't say they did. Saddam definitely didn't care about religion until his capture. But Saddam's dictorship and his willingness to develop and use WMD's and use them against his own people is the same as terrorism. If you don't think so then ask the Kurds and the Shi'a. And Al-Quaeda is there now which means we have to be since they are our enemies. And they have indeed overplayed their hand as I said above.

And we sure would hate to destabilize the middle east, island of stability that it has been the past 50 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

So we have the mandate to attack any country that uses force to stop rebellions?

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Should we go 'all in' Iran?

[/ QUOTE ]

If they keep supporting terrorism as with Hezbollah, and also developing nuclear weapons, then they can expect to have their bets raised. And having the big stack means they can't bust us but we can them.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
So we have the mandate to attack any country that uses force to stop rebellions?

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are saying Saddam's government was a legitimate one that had the right to opporess its own people right? Kinda like King George III?

[nicky g]

"
I didn't say they did. Saddam definitely didn't care about religion until his capture. But Saddam's dictorship and his willingness to develop and use WMD's and use them against his own people is the same as terrorism."


Another instance of broadening the definition of terrorism well past the point of meaninglessness.

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So we have the mandate to attack any country that uses force to stop rebellions?

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are saying Saddam's government was a legitimate one that had the right to oppress its own people right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your boys Reagan and Bush Sn seemed to think so.

If you want to argue for intervention on humanitarian grounds go for it (and perhaps expalin why Iraq should have been the first/only country on the list). But arguing that Bush was correct to link Saddam to terrorism because he was an oppressive or even genocidal ruler is dumb. They're two different arguments.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Another instance of broadening the definition of terrorism well past the point of meaninglessness.

[/ QUOTE ]

It wasn't meaningless to the Kurds and Shi'a when they had chems used on them. It wasn't meaningless to the Kuwaitis. But hey, if the gangbangers in your town are running wild and unchecked it's no skin off your back if they proliferate right? No way problems become bigger when you don't deal with them at the earliest opportunity right?

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Another instance of broadening the definition of terrorism well past the point of meaninglessness.

[/ QUOTE ]

It wasn't meaningless to the Kurds and Shi'a when they had chems used on them. It wasn't meaningless to the Kuwaitis. But hey, if the gangbangers in your town are running wild and unchecked it's no skin off your back if they proliferate right? No way problems become bigger when you don't deal with them at the earliest opportunity right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Please stop with the weepy rhetorical dribbling.

So your defintion of terrorism is any form of violence you regard as illegitimate? It isn;t a question of whether it's right or wrong; of course what Saddam did was wrong (as, for instance, was the firebombing of Japan in WWII). But to call it terrorism just empties the word of its last vestiges of meaning. Try war crime/crime against humanity or something like that.

"But hey, if the gangbangers in your town are running wild and unchecked it's no skin off your back if they proliferate right? No way problems become bigger when you don't deal with them at the earliest opportunity right? "

Are you drunk? I've no idea what you're talking about but I suspect it has nothing to do with the point I was making.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
But arguing that Bush was correct to link Saddam to terrorism because he was an oppressive or even genocidal ruler is dumb. They're two different arguments.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oppressive dictatorships and terrorism spring from the same well of violence and hatred. And any dictator who has used chems on his own people wouldn't think twice about using them on other countries or providing them to terrorists with whom he shared common enemies.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
But to call it terrorism just empties the word of its last vestiges of meaning. Try war crime/crime against humanity or something like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

They're just different heads of the same hydra.