George W. Bush and the climbing community
I think removing Saddam might have a great humanitarian impact. But the purpose of invading Iraq had nothing to do with humanitarianism. It serves as a beautiful after the fact justification. So chalking this up as one of Bush's "great humanitarian" acts, is misplaced.Zspider wrote:BWAHAHA!! Should I remind you that one of Saddam's primary tasks was the elimination of around 10,000 of "those people" a year for 20 years in a row?
And I have not forgotten that we invaded Iraq. I'm proud of the fact. I count the removal of Saddam from power as a great humanitarian act.
ZSpider
Besides, do you know what will happen when we leave? Do you know who is waiting in the wings to step up? We've tried transplanting democracy before and guess what we get? Not what you obviously think. Just more bloodshed and pain.
Jesus only knows that she tries too hard. She's only trying to keep the sky from falling.
-Everlast
-Everlast
-
bushwhacker
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2004 3:58 am
Bush 41 sent U.S. troops to Somalia after he got voted out of office as a humanitarian gesture, Clinton inherited it ...go watch "Black Hawk Down", they should show that movie non-stop along with "3 Kings" and "the Battle of Algiers"...gunslnga wrote:Mcrib says...
Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld have never been in combat but they are willing, I'd even say eager, to send others to their untimely deaths.
Again I agree, however lets not forget Slick Willies little indescretion in Somolia.
whether it's 19 dead Rangers or 2k troops, one dead soldier is too many.....
-
bushwhacker
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2004 3:58 am
Nope. We declared war on the Axis after Pearl Harbor. We were materially supporting England through Lend/Lease for years before Pearl, though.Zspider wrote:Crankmas wrote:If I recall my world history correctly, Hitler had to declare war on us before we really took a personal interest in him.
ZSpider
If right wingers recalled world history correctly, we wouldn't be in Iraq.
Spragwa wrote:
I think removing Saddam might have a great humanitarian impact. But the purpose of invading Iraq had nothing to do with humanitarianism. It serves as a beautiful after the fact justification. So chalking this up as one of Bush's "great humanitarian" acts, is misplaced.
Besides, do you know what will happen when we leave? Do you know who is waiting in the wings to step up? We've tried transplanting democracy before and guess what we get? Not what you obviously think. Just more bloodshed and pain.
*************
OK. I'll bite. Why did Bush remove Saddam from office?
I think there is a lot of merit in your comment about what might happen when we leave. There might simply be no hope at all, and that would be sad. Nevertheless, there is little doubt that the Iraqis need our presence to insure any kind of stability as a democratic nation, and that a hasty pull-out will not fare well for them. So why is it that the Left is so insistent on an immediate withdrawal?
ZSpider
I think removing Saddam might have a great humanitarian impact. But the purpose of invading Iraq had nothing to do with humanitarianism. It serves as a beautiful after the fact justification. So chalking this up as one of Bush's "great humanitarian" acts, is misplaced.
Besides, do you know what will happen when we leave? Do you know who is waiting in the wings to step up? We've tried transplanting democracy before and guess what we get? Not what you obviously think. Just more bloodshed and pain.
*************
OK. I'll bite. Why did Bush remove Saddam from office?
I think there is a lot of merit in your comment about what might happen when we leave. There might simply be no hope at all, and that would be sad. Nevertheless, there is little doubt that the Iraqis need our presence to insure any kind of stability as a democratic nation, and that a hasty pull-out will not fare well for them. So why is it that the Left is so insistent on an immediate withdrawal?
ZSpider
My "Wes hump" post was not in response to you. It was a comment about the admin-altered text of an earlier post of mine.Spragwa wrote:Again you miss the point. Since indirect communication didn't work with you, you are close minded as well ZSpider.
Personally, I enjoy discussing politics with conservatives who are respectful and polite. It's important to hear ideas that are different from your own or you stagnate. Not all conservatives are like you. Thank God.
ZSpider
Could you please tell me where I have stated views that, beyond generic conservatism, identitfy me as a radical?Paul3eb wrote:zspider, you still have yet to prove yourself to be open-minded and your posts to this thread serve to cement the impression we have of you as an closeminded, right-wing radical that will listen and respect us only when we agree with you. that doesn't take much intellect or compisition, just a few philosophy books on your shelf and a strong separation from reality.
I also find your comment about "a strong separation from reality" to be ironic. I'd like to hear an example of where my views demonstrate a separation from reality. I can think of any number of left-wing fantasies.
ZSpider
So what was incorrect in my statement?bushwhacker wrote:Zspider wrote:Nope. We declared war on the Axis after Pearl Harbor. We were materially supporting England through Lend/Lease for years before Pearl, though.Crankmas wrote:If I recall my world history correctly, Hitler had to declare war on us before we really took a personal interest in him.
ZSpider
If right wingers recalled world history correctly, we wouldn't be in Iraq.
ZSpider