Posted on 03/05/2003 8:09:11 AM PST by fight_truth_decay
It completely silly to argue with people who absolutely refuse to hear anything other than what our government says.
I agree. However, you just pointed me to a thread that further weakened your case. You didn't argue. You claimed to not have the time, which I now question.
Again, I usually stay away from these threads. No sense in arguing with people who appear to be blindy accepting what they are told by the government.
I support war against any country who attacks us. There is the same amount of proof that Iraq was involved in 9/11 as there was that Iraq was involved in the OK City bombing, yet nothing was done then. Yet, the talk is as if we dont bomb Iraq right now, our country will be destroyed by summer.
From The Left: We should let the inspectors finish their job.
Adkins: We did. They didn't. We will.
Common Sense: Can someone define what finishing their job is? And by the way, Americans make up the majority of those inspectors. If the United States “knows” where all those weapons of mass destruction are located, why not just tell those inspecting to go look there? Yes, I know, silly notion – that’s why I call it “common sense”.
Snowy: Finishing the job means making sure Iraq is no longer a threat. Understand Mr. "Common Sense"? The inspectors were compromised (Powell alluded to this when he showed the pictures of the Iraqis cleaning and leaving right before the inspectors arrived).
From the Left: Why fight? The Iraqi military is weaker than in 1991.
Adkins: But their biological weapons and chemical weapons are much more dangerous.
Common Sense: More dangerous to whom? No one has shown that Iraq has any ability to deliver those weapons here. And before you say “it can be a small as a test tube”, that only proves that invading Iraq won’t do a damn thing to stop it”. And this is another point I’d like to burn into the heads of my fellow conservatives: “When a country is invaded by a foreign power, do not stand in shock and horror when any and every weapon at their disposal is used to defend themselves. You see, it’s called “self-defense” – a natural tendency of any living animal. To say, “we have the right to invade, and they don’t have the right to defend” is not only arrogant, it’s pretty stupid.
Snowy: Well, "common sense', we can invade Iraq and oust Saddam and destroy the weapons plants. That would be a good start. No one thinks Saddam will use those weapons outside of the country. BUT, he can and no doubt will 'sell' them to those who will and could. We have the right to defend ourselves too. What did we do to the 911 terrorists? Hmmm? We are on to them and they are thick and thieves.
Are you sure these 'common sense' responses aren't a joke? Is this enough, or shall I continue?
So anyone who doesn't agree with you should sit down and shut up, but those who agree should speak up? The common theme is that these people are entertainers and have no business talking about politics. I agree, and their opinion on poilitics matters not.
Lets be fair. Demand ALL entertainers shut up, not just the ones you disagree with.
I feel from your comments, you have no time to hear the other side of the discussion which you are so quick to poke a stick at, so why bother to even read our comments?
You might take note on Michael Savage last night, Oliver, from Free Republic had a difference of opinion with Savage on the new Poster depicting a woman in the military leaving her children on the dock and she is seen softly crying. Oliver had a difference of opinion and because he offered up a discussion of merit, Savage mentioned him throughout the entire show as did other callers. One receives respect when one gives respect.
f_t_d
Tia
No, please stop. You are embarrassing yourself with your comments. You use no common sense, only repeat what the government has told you.
Again, was Iraq an eminent threat a year ago? If so, why didn't we bomb the country then? How about when there was evididence Iraq was involved in the OK City bombing? Why not then? I have to wonder what the real reason is when the President is saying "we got to do it, RIGHT NOW" when North Korea is essentially daring us to mess with them and threatening nuclear war.
And please, do not even try using "Clinton was in charge then" excuses.
Are yoiu serious? The "other side" is discussed ad nauseum on this web site and on all news chanels with dissent quickly crushed.
I'll give this one try, and I will only reply to your responses since you appear to be making an honest attempt to discuss this.
1) Iraq is less of an eminent threat than North Korea. Saddam has been in charge for years, and we fought there for something before, but left him there. Was he a threat three years ago? Last year? Six months ago? Why is it RIGHT NOW??
2) This will only cause increased terrorists attempts. Our government has YET to take rational steps to keep terrorists out and deport the ones who are here.
3) The U.S. has attempted "regime changes" in Panama, Haiti and Bosnia, all of which were failures.
4) Most 9/11 highjackers were Saudis, yet they are still considered an ally. Isn't that odd considering we want to bomb Iraq?
5) If this is a war of "American Self-defense" then we would need NO authorization or supporty from the UN or any other country, just the same as our attacks on the Al Quaida in Afganistan.
6) Saddam has not made an actual threat of using WMD against the US, but other countries sure have.
7) Evidence shows that Russia, Korea and China arm terrorists more than Iraq does.
Those are a few. If you care to discuss them, fine.
Why would you assume poster Snowy does not form her own opinions when reviewing both sides? She just chose the other side of the coin you are on, which does not mean she should be in any way embarrassed by her comments.
Simply Put, Do we go mess with North Korea, and while doing so hope that Soddomy doesn't procure a Nuke? so we can fight the same battle twice?
You take out Saddam First, while Bombers stand poised to Strike North Korea if Kim Ibeillin Jong so much as twitches.
Plus, for fighters a Tune Up bout is always helpful.
I agree and think its fair too. That's why I am not publically calling for those who I disagree with to shut up. My original comment was asking those who want the leftist entertainers to shut up to be fair and want all entertainers to shut up. I think Sean Penn amd Babwa Streissand are idiots. They seem to oppose anything that may take attention away from them. I couldn't care what they think, and I suppose most people do not either. Responding to their idiocy by calling them "traitors" is counter-productive. Just ignore them.
I understand, but, North Korea is a threat to the world. They are a rouge state(not saying Iraq isnt) who has made direct threats of using WMD. It appears that many countries do not see Iraq as a threat to them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.