Reptile & Amphibian Forums

I asked this of Sobek below, but thought I would post it here in the hopes that Stoeckl and Kanuk and the absentee would throw their two cents in.

If you all believe all that you say and Bush is the evil man you make him out to be, then please share with us what you believe to be the lesser of two evils...

1) Bush fibs to get rid of Saddam and his equally evil sons?

2) Saddam stays in power and continues to rape, torture, execute, slaughter thousands of civilians by experimenting on them with mustard gas and nerve toxins, etc.?

Thanks in advance for your input.

1: Lieing about war is wrong! Any way you put it. Tell the people who's loved ones were sent back in a box, after Bush played dress up, and landed on the big boat calling a end to major combat in Iraq. Tell them it was worth the lie.

2: No one said Saddam was a good man, or needed to be in power. Even though we backed him in the 1st place. We gave Saddam WMD to gas thoes people. Why did we not FINISh the job in the Gulf War? Bush rushed into this war with no idea of how to manage Post Iraq. No he is asking for help.

In all that ranting, you forgot to answer the question. Conveniently perhaps? You guys are great at that!

How about I make it easy for ya'? I gave two choices in that post. All you have to do is say #1 or #2. It's that simple.

Maybe if you would read my post insted of ranting. There is no lesser of evil. Both are wrong!

Bush had the support of everyone just about going into this. As the facts come to the surface people want anwsers. Ya'll act as if Bush can do what he wants, when he wants, to whom ever he wants, without any reason behind his actions. Anwser me this. If Saddam is so bad. Why did Bush sr. not bring him to justice when he had the chance? Why are Iraq's tossin gernades in are Humvees, Because they trusted Bush sr. to rid them of Saddam the 1st time. Well he really let them down huh? Lots of there relatives trusted in Bush sr, and the U.S. and help us in the Gulf War, Only to be left to the hands of Saddam. They dont trust us anymore. Would you?

I knew you wouldn't/couldn't answer that question. You can't answer it because it would expose you for the Anti-American that you are. None of you will be able to answer it by simply picking #1 or #2. CHECKMATE!

I take that back. You omission of an answer shows you're an Anti-American. Thanks!

did you anwser any ?'s I think not. GET OFF YOUR HIGH HORSE.

Actually, I have. Again, which will it be? Number one or number two?

Bush Sr. got Iraq the hell out of Iraq. That was the mission, get it jackass? The reasons for not going into Bagdad and risking the lives of mant US soldiers were solid. What the hell is it to YOU that Bush Sr. didn't go into Bagdad back then anyway? You really dig to to bash a decent President. Grow up!

Snake Feller

Snake Feller

Sorry couldn't resist. The US mission was to remove Iraq from Kuwait. With such an admirable grasp of world geography and events, how can you claim to form any rational opinions?

Bush Sr. got Iraq the hell out of Iraq.

WTF is that? Do you even read your OWN post? You have the I.Q. of a common house fly. I URGE YOU TO GROW UP!!

Criticize, criticize, criticize! No solution to offer either. Bush's handling of the war was near perfect. Your whining does nothing to erase his awsome performance. Grow some balls and slap yourself if you really are an American. You act just like Stroeckl. What country are you really from?

Snake Feller

If you've taken the time to read anything I've ever written, I've always said that getting rid of Saddam was a good idea. What I do take issue with is the fact that it sems that the world was misled as to the reasons why the US went in. There are no weapons of mass destruction, there are no links to Al-Queda. Your own president has backed off on the second assertion and there is an interesting article on CNN today that states

"that after five months, its 1,500 experts have found no WMD, delivery systems or laboratories involved in developing them."

It also goes on to make the point, which I agree with, that the war was justifiable nontheless because basically Sadam was an SOB who deserved to be gotten rid of. If they would just come out and say that, I'd be very happy. And yes, I agree that taking out Sadam was the lesser of two evils.

You are a petty little idiot. Saddam is gone and you are clamoring for attention. No one has to explain anything to you! Why don't you get busy trying to solve some of the many problems in your precious Canada?

Snake Feller

HALLE-FRIGGIN'-LUJAH!!! Thank you! It's about time someone finally answered that.

I just re-read your post. Very sneaky! You didn't actually answer the question. Given the circumstances, I'll take what I can get. I'll just interpret it as you thinking that if Bush is in fact lying that it would be the lesser of the two evils. After all, that would be the intellegent answer.