[quote]Originally posted by Chewbacca:
Most the past reasons to go to war have been debunked so there is no debate to have when one side ( pro-war) has nothing but a bunch of hot air. Besides the point I'm making isnt about the justification for war but the justification for a leader to say one thing and then do the opposite. BTW If the majority of people jump off a bridge, is it wise to follow along just because a majority is doing so? [/b]
Quote:
Debunked? Not really.When you without a shaddow of a doubt prove that Saddam had absolutly no WMD's, then I will say the prowar side has been debunked. Evidence for his WMD's are suppose to come out sometime this month (http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak...t-novak10.html). We will have to wait and see I guess. Of course, reguardless of what comes in the next few weeks, the anti-war folks will just yell "Planted! Planted I say!". Not too mention the terrorist training camps that were in Iraq. But yeah, I agree with you, its pretty pointless when on side is full of hot air.
Hey we made our bed and now we can sleep in it, some of us will never wake up either. I never once argued we were going to rape any land for oil. There are/were far better principled reasons to delay conflict and still no good reason not to delay it, no matter how much you spin it.
I know for a fact that we wouldnt be doing any nation building in Iraq if we hadn't taken it upon ourselves to invade the country. Bush wouldn't be facing a bold faced campaign lie concerning nation building and he wouldnt need a bunch of rabid apologists for it either. [/b]
|
With the bed comment, you are saying that we should stay and do the nation building, correct? But that seems to go against your previous statements. Frankly I don't see how this was possible with out nation building. Was Bush's comment before or after the UN debacle?