Cagey18
Posts: 662
Joined: 9/7/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: CruelNUnsual
quote:
ORIGINAL: Cagey18
1. So then why mention "we were attacked" at all? If we were attacked by Finland, does that justify bombing Australia? Since, you know, we were attacked by Saudi Arabian nationals, but we instead bombed Iraq. If all we need to bomb a country is to classify them as a "hostile regime", then why did you bring in 9/11 into the argument? I was responding to a statement that said "we werent attacked". We were. It didnt say "we werent attacked by Iraq", which would have made the statement more correct.
Ah what a short memory you have. Actually you were responding to:
quote:
No, see a just war would be one where we were actually provoked or attacked,
(see, it's right there on page 3!)
which referred (to aid your memory) to the war in Iraq, and not, say, the Revolutionary War (see the above analogy about Finland and Australia)
Here's a graphic explaining the above, since apparently you missed the implication the first time around:
Attack by country X on the US => Justified bombing by the US on country X
Since it's obvious to nearly everyone that we weren't attacked by Iraq on 9/11 (even to your Great Leader George W. Bush), then your inclusion of such a statement in connection with the Iraq War makes zero sense.
Unless, of course, one actually believes that Iraq did attack us on 9/11. Do you?
quote:
If Finland sponsors Australian terrorists then yes, that justifies bombing Australia.
Correction: you meant "justifies bombing Finland", not "Australia".
So in your world, we're justified in pre-emptively bombing any country that sponsors al-Qaeda terrorists, yes?
(and again, we're all still waiting for proof of this claim of yours that Iraq did in fact support and train al-Qaeda terrorists.)
quote:
2. And how come we bombed only this one hostile regime? Why not North Korea? Why not Iran? Why not Zimbabwe? In fact, lemme see, which one of the "Axis of Evil" did Bush repeatedly (but falsely) link with 9/11? Oh wait, I got it, it sounds kinda like Iran, but a bit different at the end...And if we did bomb NK or Iran the BHLs would have said "why didnt you try negotiation first?" Hint: a strategy that is appropriate in one situation isnt necessarily appropriate in similar situations.
So explain for us lesser mortals why you think bombing is appropriate for this particular hostile regime, but not for others. Since, that is, there weren't any WMD's in Iraq, as we keep pointing out to you.
quote:
3. Are you now saying that Iraq was not responsible for a specific attack? (gosharootie I sure don't want to put words in your mouth and risk the oh-so-horrible fate of being put on Ignore) Cause it sure sounds like that's what you're saying. Gosharoote, I never said they were so "now saying" is inappropriate.
Are you really that unable to answer a simple Yes or No question?
quote:
4. How ya coming along with those links that back up your multiple claims? Cause without them, they remain, oh what's that word again, oh yeah, bullshit.
Links about what?
Dang, I laid it all out for you (see, it's right there on page 4!). Amazing that you keep missing it.
quote:
And once again...
Care to admit you were wrong about the WMD's too? Or are you going to provide a link for your bogus claim that Saddam hid them in Syria?
And once again...
You have proof that Saddam supported and helped train Al Qaeda, yes?
|
RE: Joe the "plumber" leaving the GOP - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread