A war fought on false pretenses ...

We entered World War II because Japan attacked Perl Harbor, yet there were other reasons besides the sneak attack to enter the war. One could argue that we shouldn't fight Germany, because they didn't bomb Perl Harbor, Japan did. Yet another could say that Japan and Germany were allies.

Using that same logic, Saddam and Bin Laden both supported terrorism and attacks on the USA, in that thought they are allies.

Faulty military intelligence said that Saddam had WoMD, based on past data when he had them. Congress and the Senate agreed to the report, the same as the President did. Yet you and others are quick to blame the President, and not anyone else who voted for the war, and not blame the faulty miltary intelligence either.

If Bush said the reason for going to war was because Saddam had WoMD, then that was a fallacy, but it wasn't really known at the time if it was true or not. Yet there were other reasons for going to war as well, like Saddam murdering his own people, etc.

In my eyes, the war is justified, becuase of the bad things that Saddam did. Bush may have had the wrong reasons, but the right idea. I feel that if you disagree with that, then you agree that Saddam did nothing wrong and should have stayed in power and continued to murder his own people, invade Kuwait again, etc. If that is the case, then you support Saddam's brand of terrorism, and feel that we should not fight that brand of terrorism.

Post #167,951 by jb4 8/6/04 4:36:45 PM Reply	A war fought on false pretenses ... .. is not now, nor shall it ever be, justified. /me washes out your mouth with soap for even suggesting that! jb4 shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub* + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf.* BULLSHIT
Post #167,962 by inthane-chan 8/6/04 5:50:32 PM Reply	It's like saying that a rape is justified... ...if the child turns out to be a genius. WANTED: Precognitive Telepath for adventuring Partnership. You know where to apply.
Post #168,000 by boxley 8/6/04 9:59:07 PM Reply	OT on rape seattle and children (new thread) Created as new thread #167999 titled [link\|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=167999\|OT on rape seattle and children] "delayed incessantly by people whose prevalent qualification was an excess of free-time" Philip Atkinson questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #168,115 by orion 8/7/04 7:28:03 PM Reply	The right war for the wrong reasons We entered World War II because Japan attacked Perl Harbor, yet there were other reasons besides the sneak attack to enter the war. One could argue that we shouldn't fight Germany, because they didn't bomb Perl Harbor, Japan did. Yet another could say that Japan and Germany were allies. Using that same logic, Saddam and Bin Laden both supported terrorism and attacks on the USA, in that thought they are allies. Faulty military intelligence said that Saddam had WoMD, based on past data when he had them. Congress and the Senate agreed to the report, the same as the President did. Yet you and others are quick to blame the President, and not anyone else who voted for the war, and not blame the faulty miltary intelligence either. If Bush said the reason for going to war was because Saddam had WoMD, then that was a fallacy, but it wasn't really known at the time if it was true or not. Yet there were other reasons for going to war as well, like Saddam murdering his own people, etc. In my eyes, the war is justified, becuase of the bad things that Saddam did. Bush may have had the wrong reasons, but the right idea. I feel that if you disagree with that, then you agree that Saddam did nothing wrong and should have stayed in power and continued to murder his own people, invade Kuwait again, etc. If that is the case, then you support Saddam's brand of terrorism, and feel that we should not fight that brand of terrorism. *"When a true genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in confederacy against him." - Jonathan Swift* [link\|http://www.xormad.com:4096/district268\|I am from District 268].
Post #168,473 by jb4 8/10/04 1:37:26 PM Reply	Are you THAT fucking stoopud, Norm! (new thread) Created as new thread #168472 titled [link\|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=168472\|Are you THAT fucking stoopud, Norm!] jb4 shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub* + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf.* BULLSHIT

Welcome to IWETHEY!