O'reilly Vs. Moore

[spinningfreemanny]

Ok, let me catch up...

Saddam gassed his own people, I call it genocide but you can call it whatever you want.

I just pointed out 1 difference among many that make Israel and Iraq unique, many things besides genocide can be committed for just action. Really I thought that you can figure that for yourself. There's a leader that supports terrorism, persues chemical weapons, and supplies a havan for our terrorist enemies among others.

Believe what you want. Saddam was a dangerous risk in his support of terrorists and an democratic Iraq is vital to a war on terror.

Oh, man, some people didn't like that...

Kind of like someone comparing President Bush to Hitler, lol.

RF, if everything that your saying is true, then hell, something should change; do you not believe that? Though I don't know what Israeli resolutions specified; Iraq's resolutions were voided with the specific threat of war in the resolution if failure was to result.

Saddam was given a choice 12 times. War or resolution. if you want to make a case for each resolution go ahead, but the simple number is convincing. There was no mistake on the U.S. part; Saddam gave a legal leeway for war 12 times.

Israel is not invading Palestine, like Germany is invading France. The French did not target German civilians. really people, these camparisons are becoming pretty rediculous. Iraqi war is Veit Nam, Palestine is France, Iraq is Israel, Bush is Hitler, etc...

Israel is vastly outnumbered and hated around the world. There are literally billions of people who would like to blow Israel into the sky save Jerusalem; I would expect them to have an aggressive stance to keep secure.

Edit: Do not take the last statement out of context to assume that I think that Israel has done nothing wrong, and that they should go on a globalizing romp through the ME.

and, as it's apparent, I'm also outnumbered in this view on this board; so take heart...

[vidcc]

Originally posted by spinningfreemanny@2 August 2004 - 13:09
Israel is vastly outnumbered and hated around the world; there are literally billions of people who would like to run the Jews out of Jerusalem, I would expect them to have an aggressive stance to keep secure.

Not sure that Iraq was exactly popular..... so your justification for the double standard is ????????

[Busyman]

Originally posted by spinningfreemanny@2 August 2004 - 15:09
There's a leader that supports terrorism, persues chemical weapons, and supplies a havan for our terrorist enemies among others.

Believe what you want. Saddam was a dangerous risk in his support of terrorists and an democratic Iraq is vital to a war on terror.

Huh, what terrorism?

[vidcc]

Originally posted by spinningfreemanny@2 August 2004 - 13:09
.

Israel is not invading Palestine,

WHAT????????? OMG.

[spinningfreemanny]

Originally posted by Busyman+3 August 2004 - 01:28--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman &#064; 3 August 2004 - 01:28)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-spinningfreemanny@2 August 2004 - 15:09
There&#39;s a leader that supports terrorism, persues chemical weapons, and supplies a havan for our terrorist enemies among others.

Believe what you want. Saddam was a dangerous risk in his support of terrorists and an democratic Iraq is vital to a war on terror.

Huh, what terrorism? [/b][/quote]
What? Na, Saddam would not support terrorists... He wouldn&#39;t give money to help people who would like to kill Americans...He likes us&#33; He wouldn&#39;t give terrorists weapons.


Wake up


Edit: I know this is useless trying to convince 5 liberals who will despise any Republican in the White House and hold the "I&#39;ll vote for a ham sandwich before I vote for Bush" Ideology so I won&#39;t bother for more useless clarification... I have made my point for real moderates who wander in and see this thread.

[clocker]

Manny, YOU wake up.

Iraq had no problems supporting Palestinians, but really wanted nothing to do with Islamic fundamentalists- they were a direct threat to Saddam&#39;s power.
AFAIK, the primary targets of Palestinian terrorists are Israeli, or at least people in Israel...certainly, they are not active in the US.

Lots of countries supply weapons to terrorists...which one should we invade next?

[Busyman]

Originally posted by spinningfreemanny+3 August 2004 - 00:47--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (spinningfreemanny @ 3 August 2004 - 00:47)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by Busyman@3 August 2004 - 01:28
<!--QuoteBegin-spinningfreemanny

@2 August 2004 - 15:09
There&#39;s a leader that supports terrorism, persues chemical weapons, and supplies a havan for our terrorist enemies among others.

Believe what you want. Saddam was a dangerous risk in his support of terrorists and an democratic Iraq is vital to a war on terror.

Huh, what terrorism?

What? Na, Saddam would not support terrorists... He wouldn&#39;t give money to help people who would like to kill Americans...He likes us&#33; He wouldn&#39;t give terrorists weapons.


Wake up


Edit: I know this is useless trying to convince 5 liberals who will despise any Republican in the White House and hold the "I&#39;ll vote for a ham sandwich before I vote for Bush" Ideology so I won&#39;t bother for more useless clarification... I have made my point for real moderates who wander in and see this thread. [/b][/quote]
Assumptions my man.

Another reason to add to a list for justification for war.
None of which was the initial reason given for war....a reason you are now skirting over rather conveniently.

Bullshit detection. ALERT&#33;&#33;&#33;ALERT&#33;&#33;&#33;ALERT&#33;&#33;&#33;

Do you realize that a ham sandwich is sharper than Bush?
Do you realize that is not a bandwagon to dislike Bush?
He&#39;s a fuck up. I have a thread about Bush and the good he&#39;s done.

I think the frogs were burping and the crickets were chirping.

I can&#39;t even give him credit for the housing market (that&#39;s fucking me up right now). I give that credit, believe it or not, to 911.

[Snee]

Originally posted by spinningfreemanny+3 August 2004 - 06:47--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (spinningfreemanny @ 3 August 2004 - 06:47)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by Busyman@3 August 2004 - 01:28
<!--QuoteBegin-spinningfreemanny

@2 August 2004 - 15:09
There&#39;s a leader that supports terrorism, persues chemical weapons, and supplies a havan for our terrorist enemies among others.

Believe what you want. Saddam was a dangerous risk in his support of terrorists and an democratic Iraq is vital to a war on terror.

Huh, what terrorism?

What? Na, Saddam would not support terrorists... He wouldn&#39;t give money to help people who would like to kill Americans...He likes us&#33; He wouldn&#39;t give terrorists weapons. [/b][/quote]
Come on now, certain American presidents wasn&#39;t above giving weapons and funding to certain rogue elements of this world, would you hunt your presidents down too?

Or was it cool as long as it wasn&#39;t americans getting killed?

[vidcc]

i&#39;d still like to hear about Isreal not invading palestine...oh wait a moment, he said "like germany ivaded France" (actually he said like germany IS invading France so i&#39;d better point out that ww2 is over). So a partial invasion is just huh?

there are several hard lined republicans on this board, some not actually party soldiers but Bush supporters none the less, and i have to say that i respect them and their opinions even if i disagree with them. They do make intellegent debate.

but manny...i suggest you buy a newspaper or read a history book every now and then. You do a great dis-credit to conservatives.

EDIT:

Edit: I know this is useless trying to convince 5 liberals who will despise any Republican in the White House and hold the "I&#39;ll vote for a ham sandwich before I vote for Bush" Ideology so I won&#39;t bother for more useless clarification... I have made my point for real moderates who wander in and see this thread.

I would vote republican, but not Bush jnr. So they lost at least one vote by having him as the candidate.

[BigBank_Hank]

Originally posted by Busyman@3 August 2004 - 05:29
I have a thread about Bush and the good he&#39;s done.

That was a great thread. I think that it got lost in the big delete though.