“Yes, I know this makes me bad at arguing, and perhaps it means I've lost, but here goes- my final salvo. You're an idiot.”



No “perhaps” about it, but aside from your use of ad homonym as substitute for rational dialouge, you also ignorantly assume both that I have been in favor of coalition occupation of Iraq, and that the state was an imminent threat to the west. You have not heard such phrases come from my side of the fence, and you won’t find evidence to support otherwise. The closest thing I have equated Saddam to- in terms of a danger- has been one which is “genuine.” A far cry from “eminent.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“[Whether or not Iraq was an eminent threat is] a separate point from what we should do now, since we're already there.”

Ah, my original point. The original poster’s belief is that it makes no difference what kind of progress we make in the country of Iraq, since the initial invasion was based on a “pack of lies.” I stated this was most certainly not the case, and listed it as one of our further goal to rid terrorism where it may exist, regardless of location.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“But you've still bought a bunch of bologna, hook line and sinker because you're an idiot. I feel bad for you.”


While I appreciate your oh-so genuine concern, this has been about whether or not to take out Saddam in a bigger picture of global security, not around

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Just to go back to the point about sharing a border- tell me, when has Iraq ever used chemical weapons against a group that was not located within its own territory or that it shared a border with. You won't tell me, because it hasn't happened. You'll just say it could have and therefore they were an imminent threat.”

It is clear you and I do not agree here. Unlike you, I would not stand by and wait for a ruler such as Saddam to take his very clear and very real use of chemical weaponry, and extend them to outside his own regions before taking action. This is not the same thing as saying he could have pointed and shot the United Sates on a whim at the time we finally did invade. Both the history and the threats of using such destructive power were clear and present, and that would have been enough for me to take him out. Further, this paradigm does not include an occupation and construction of an entire state. While the merits of establishing democracy go to the larger picture of global security, I believe that the Iraqi people are not deserving of, nor ready for such changes to take place, and ultimately taking out their despot was more than warranted.