From the bastion of the left....

Superfreak said:
Which is EXACTLY what I said in my original post that people like you would spin this into. I did not say Iraq was a success because of this. How dishonest can you possibly be? Friggin apologists for the UN. Precious little UN can do no wrong. Super said something positive about the war.... call him an apologist and ignore anything that is not blatantly negative about the war.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, when did I even mention the UN or exhibit any type of apologist rhetoric toward the UN?
 
Superfreak said:
No, I was answering your "One simple question. Rwanda should have been dealt with because of the genocide that was taking place. What genocide was taking place inside of Iraq before we invaded?"

So now you are trying to play it off as a simple case of some malnurished people? That the Kurds and Shite were simply second rate citizens? Talk about a warped sense of reality.
Click to expand...

I'd like to have the chance to argue your point that Rwanda and the Kurdish situation was not the same prior to our invasion. Unless of course you can give me (recent) examples of Saddam committing genocide against the Kurds in the months prior to our invasion.
 
LadyT said:
I'm sorry, when did I even mention the UN or exhibit any type of apologist rhetoric toward the UN?
Click to expand...

You didn't. His position is just indefensible, on every level.

Hey - Iraq was impossible to avoid. We were careening headlong into invasion; Bush was just unlucky enough to be in office when it happened. Poor guy...
 
Onceler said:
You didn't. His position is just indefensible, on every level.

Hey - Iraq was impossible to avoid. We were careening headlong into invasion; Bush was just unlucky enough to be in office when it happened. Poor guy...
Click to expand...

LOL, that last sentence made me laugh out loud in my cube. :readit:
 
Onceler said:
You didn't. His position is just indefensible, on every level.

Hey - Iraq was impossible to avoid. We were careening headlong into invasion; Bush was just unlucky enough to be in office when it happened. Poor guy...
Click to expand...

How quaint... again, completely spinning what I said. Typical UN apologist. They fail for twelve years... but you simply refuse to see it.
 
Superfreak said:
About the same amount of times I have "apologized" about/for Bush.
Click to expand...

Oh, so not only are you confused with what "inevitable" means, I see we now have to clarify "apologist".

I've yet to make excuses for any mistakes or shortcomings the UN has made. You on the other hand are making excuses after excuse as to why we "had to invade Iraq" and why, as Lorax eloquently put it, "We were careening headlong into invasion; Bush was just unlucky enough to be in office when it happened. Poor guy...
 
Last edited:
Onceler said:
Was Saddam Hussein or Iraq any threat to America when we invaded?

Yes, or no.
Click to expand...

I have already answered that tool. He was not a direct threat WHICH is why I SAID BUSH SHOULD HAVE WAITED. fucking UN apologist.

Did the UN succeed or fail? If they had succeeded... why were the sanctions still in place TWELVE years later? Did the oil-for-food program benefit the Iraqi people or Saddam? then explain why.
 
Freakazoid, you're getting things very confused. "Thumbing one's nose at the UN" is NOT a clear justification for war. It's not a justification, period.

Was Saddam contained? Yes. Was he a threat to us? No. Did he have WMD's? No.

All I ever hear from apologists is, "he thumbed his nose at the UN for 12 years!" So, to stop a "thumbing of the nose," we're willing to sacrifice over 3,000 troops. sustain over 30,000 casualties, spend a half a trillion dollars, damage our reputation around the globe, actually HELP Al Qaida recruit, create an enormous refugee problem, and watch over 100,000 Iraqis die?

Good plan. That'll teach anyone to "thumb their nose"...
 
Onceler said:
Freakazoid, you're getting things very confused. "Thumbing one's nose at the UN" is NOT a clear justification for war. It's not a justification, period.

Was Saddam contained? Yes. Was he a threat to us? No. Did he have WMD's? No.

All I ever hear from apologists is, "he thumbed his nose at the UN for 12 years!" So, to stop a "thumbing of the nose," we're willing to sacrifice over 3,000 troops. sustain over 30,000 casualties, spend a half a trillion dollars, damage our reputation around the globe, actually HELP Al Qaida recruit, create an enormous refugee problem, and watch over 100,000 Iraqis die?

Good plan. That'll teach anyone to "thumb their nose"...
Click to expand...

Ahhh... more UN apologist spin.

I'll let you in on a little secret lorax... had the UN done its fucking job, Iraq would have been resolved long before Bush had a chance to fuck it up. But the UN failed. But please... do keep on chanting in your apologetic voice...."The UN is perfect... they can do no wrong"
 
But back to the original post in the thread... why do you all have such a problem with positive results being reported. Funny how you all try to discredit these reports by posting people's opinions from several years ago. What about what they have written recently.
 
Superfreak said:
But please... do keep on chanting in your apologetic voice...."The UN is perfect... they can do no wrong"
Click to expand...

You're taunts aren't funny when they are just outright lies.

No one said anything about the UN being perfect. We are talking about the US being justified in invading Iraq and you've yet to give one sound reason as to why it was, "inevitable". You've still yet to make a case for your jump from UN being a failure, to the US having to invade. Are we supposed to invade every country that the UN fails on that is NOT a direct threat to us?
 
Superfreak said:
Funny US... yet are you not one of those that continues the chime of "superfreak is a Bush apologist" without any comment from me to support that?
Click to expand...
Oh so you want to support my opinion that you are a Bush apologist ?
I thought this thread already proved that ;)
 
Superfreak said:
But back to the original post in the thread... why do you all have such a problem with positive results being reported. Funny how you all try to discredit these reports by posting people's opinions from several years ago. What about what they have written recently.
Click to expand...

Ummmmm, because the negatives far outweigh the positives. And what you consider positives are merely getting Iraq back on track to when Saddam was in power which further highlights the futility of the war. And when you talk about gaining grounds on Al Queda, that merely pisses us off more because again we're reminded that there was no fcking Al Queda in Iraq before we got there.

Its like going into a china shop, smashing a expensive piece and glueing one or two pieces back together an marveling at your progress. Its ridiculous.
 
Had the UN done it's job, Bush never would have had to invade! Poor Bush!

Gimme a break, SF - you missed the point of the whole post. I'm not saying the UN is perfect, and never did. BUT...if Saddam did not have WMD's, was not a threat, and was contained...

Um...why did we invade again? Where is the 'inevitability'?

There's only one apologist on this thread. Starts with a "Su," ends with an "eak"...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top