Originally Posted By No Waiting in Line --You said he was an Islamist, which is a very different thing. He was a Muslim, but not as Islamist. How can you be taken seriously when you can't even get a simple thing like that right or demonstrate that you understand the distinction?-- Who cares what you call the man. He was a Muslim who supported mass murder and world wide terrorism. He was someone who Democrat after Democrat said to be removed when it was politically popular. The fact that people like yourself are now saying he should be in power, and that is exactly what you are arguing, shows your lack of clarity regarding Saddams role in the world when he WAS alive. --Against us? With the WMD he didn't have?-- Can you get me the list of people who said Sddam did not have WMD's back when he was given a chance to disarm? Maybe you can get that quote from a few Democrats who now say Saddam was not a threat. Really, I want to see who said Saddam had no WMD's since you brought it up like it was common information and president Bush was the only person to think WMD's were in Iraq. -- No. Any more than Bush not invading Korea means he's fine with Kim brutalizing HIS people. This simplistic garbage has been asked and answered a thousand times. -- We are not in the position to get rid of Kim. If we tried to remove Kim from N. Korea your side would scream blodddy murder. In fact, the Democrats today drew up something that said they would never support any attack on Iran. In case you missed it, Iran has the most dangerous person on the planet making threats to wipe out entire nations. But we were in the position to rid the world of Saddam and we did. You argue he was no threat and he kept the region together because he was not an Islamist. By default, you wanted to keep a mass murderer in power along with his two sons when the opportunity to remove him was there. That has nothing to do with any other dictator in the world so why bring them up? Again, who is Beau? My name is Kim. Not THAT Kim but a girl named Kim. hehehe
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> Do you personally want the Iraq plan President Bush announced last week to succeed? << Why would a poll even ask such a question? Perhaps to demonize democrats? And who would want to do such a thing? Oh wait - fox news. Fair and balanced, right?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Question # 19 show it all.<< It shows that 51% of Democrats polled want it to SUCCEED (51% is more than half), 34% do not, 15% don't know, based on a poll of 900 people. You can't lump "don't know" in with "want it to fail" -- it means they don't have an opinion. That isn't 'more than half.' Using your math, almost a quarter of Republicans surveyed 'want it to fail', but you didn't mention that. I wonder why?
Originally Posted By mrichmondj << Using your math, almost a quarter of Republicans surveyed 'want it to fail', but you didn't mention that. I wonder why? >> We all know Republicans aren't very good at math . . . it's too "fuzzy" for them.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan And also, if you asked "Do you want the president's surge plan to fail in Iraq" you'd likely get a different response across the board. That isn't what they asked, so your statement that "more that half of Democrats want us to fail in Iraq" is nonsense.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Yeah, Beau, there's no sense in responding (yet again) to your drivel, if indeed you haven't been kicked off again yet.
Originally Posted By onlyme good grief. Why are people here so obsessed with this guy. So, he says derogatory things. Big Deal. I've been called a moron and a fool, for starters, for voting for Bush(and if you agree and would like to make the same comment-that's fine). I really don't care what I'm called. And to be honest, complete and utter disrespect for opinions/comments have run on both sides. So, again I say, who gives a hoot.
