Originally Posted by EladBell

you also fought to save a poepole from a tyarnt

There are lots of tryants, and Saddam was hardly the worst. Iran new resurregence is largely due to the fact there is no Saddam Hussein anymore to keep them in check.

Which do you prefer Saddam or the Mullahs in Iran? Its an easy pick for me: Saddam.

Originally Posted by EladBell

you also fought to save a poepole from a tyarnt

Yes,...that is why the US is invading North Korea, Zimbabwe, and a dozen other places ruled by similar persons next week.

It was merely "a convenience" that Saddam was the leader in Iraq and that he happened to be a tyrant. There were multiple reasons, however I don't believe any or all of them, would have caused the country to have been invaded if it were not for the fact that Iran had a truly world class oil supply.

consider the Oil as a Bonus alright?
abouth the N.Korea and all the other places,with a president like the US has got now,i will no be suprised if he would house these guys in his house

oh and saddam,he killed ALOT of his own men and women and even curds i think ,i would consider him a big threat,not to the world,but to the Iraqi ppl

Originally Posted by EladBell

consider the Oil as a Bonus alright?
abouth the N.Korea and all the other places,with a president like the US has got now,i will no be suprised if he would house these guys in his house

oh and saddam,he killed ALOT of his own men and women and even curds i think ,i would consider him a big threat,not to the world,but to the Iraqi ppl

You are quite correct, he was definitely not a nice person,... but neither is Mugabe and Kim Jong Il, but they live in peace because they do not threaten our oil supplies.

well the world is all about Money,but im not sure that was the ONLY motive,im not a Naiv person,ofcourse this was one of the motives,but im not sure it was the main

Originally Posted by Rob Henderson

But did he ever say it?

I don't know what he has said because I have never spoken to him personally. I only read what he posted. If it was not what mmarsh posted, he should complain to the moderators and find out who is posting in his name.

Originally Posted by Rob Henderson

Chukpike, you've really got to start reading more critically... Ever heard of the term "rhetorical question"?
[sarcasm]

I do not have your psychic abilities to read what someone else states and determine that is not what they meant. [sarcasm]

Originally Posted by Rob Henderson

Obviously there are circumstances in which the invasion of Iraq would be justified... Like, Bush senior not finishing the job... [/sarcasm]

So apparently invading Iraq was justified after all, with nothing to do with oil. Just go back and finish the job. Thanks for the clarification[sarcasm]

Originally Posted by mmarsh

There are lots of tryants, and Saddam was hardly the worst. Iran new resurregence is largely due to the fact there is no Saddam Hussein anymore to keep them in check.

Which do you prefer Saddam or the Mullahs in Iran? Its an easy pick for me: Saddam.

So you prefer Saddam Hussein over the Mullahs in Iran.
So you do not believe what you previously posted in the topic:

Topic: Iranian Election: Fraud or sour grapes?

"5.56

Your wrong. Iran isnt a full-blooded democracy but its elections up until now have been much more fair then say countries like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait where there are no elections at all. Iran is a authoritarian religious theocracy but its not a total dicatatorship...yet."

and you would prefer Saddam Hussein,
The same Saddam Hussein who orchestrated the genocide of the Kurds in North Iraq.

The same Saddam Hussein who slaughtered Shiites in the south, after they rose up against him after Desert Storm.

Certainly clarifies your views as to why invading Iraq was such a bad decision.

Originally Posted by Chukpike

So apparently invading Iraq was justified after all, with nothing to do with oil. Just go back and finish the job. Thanks for the clarification[sarcasm]

And obviously you can't read what people post even when they spell it out for you... When someone wraps "sarcasm tags" around something ( [sarcasm] and [/sarcasm] ) it means that person is being sarcastic inside those tags. That would be the purpose for using the sarcasm tags. Is this making sense, or should I get Mr. Rogers in her to explain it using song? When I said "Obviously there are circumstances..." I was being sarcastic. Hence the sarcasm tags. Understand?


As 13th said, oil DID play a part in Iraq. A HUGE part. It may not have been the only motivation, I certainly don't believe it was, but it was still in the top 5 or top 3.

The Afghanistan Invasion was our good deed.

Sure it wasn't to kick some ass after 9/11 for political reasons? If so why refuse to have anything to do with the country, then go in straight after this happened?

It was to show the American people that we were "doing something" about the attacks. That's what I meant by good deed... It was the excuse to get us into a Middle Eastern Theater.