|
|
Post by Peachs on Jul 29, 2008 8:05:02 GMT -5
"During 2002, Bush repeatedly backed demands for unfettered inspection and disarmament with threats of military force. In accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 1441 Iraq reluctantly agreed to new inspections in late 2002. The results of these inspections were mixed, with the inspectors discovering no WMD programs..."en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_IraqSame web site, different information… yes yes, I saw that one too.... |
|
|
|
Post by flyersfantn on Jul 29, 2008 8:14:06 GMT -5
They didn't find a uranium stockpile, Sadaam wasn't supporting terrorists (his state was secular, he was hated by the Islamic republics surrounding him), and he wasn't causing "instability" in the region. Quit getting your information from Fox News. You are in serious need of a fucking history lesson, dipshit. Hussein did in fact support terrorists, just not in the way you, or MSNBC, would want you to think. He was well known for paying money to the families of palistinians that had "martyred" themselves against Isreal. Suicide bombers = terrorists. Also, there are reports of terrorist groups such as Hamas having training camps inside Iraq before we invaded. |
|
|
|
Post by ratrad on Jul 29, 2008 9:07:16 GMT -5
Wow. While I don't really agree with everything Scooterfanatic says, you might be the most naive person on this board. Really. Do you actually believe EVERYTHING that the politicians say? I mean come on. Apparantly your a blind idiot with no life experience You go ahead and believe that. |
|
|
|
Post by The Biff Lebowski on Jul 29, 2008 9:14:26 GMT -5
So Biff, your "proof" is a bunch of quotes from congresspeople who were fed all their information from the Bush administration? All that proves is that a lot of people THOUGHT he had WMDs, not that he actually had them at the time. Really? Bill Clinton? Keep going. I enjoy reading you. |
|
|
|
Post by The Biff Lebowski on Jul 29, 2008 9:15:27 GMT -5
Didn’t the U.N. perform inspections in Iraq before we invaded and find nothing, but we decided to invade anyways? All of the quotes above were taken before U.N. inspections were completed. Did you completely overlook the part about Hussein posturing himself as if they had WMD when the U.S. invaded Afghanistan? That's convenient. |
|
|
|
Post by Fistor on Jul 29, 2008 9:19:23 GMT -5
why am i saying anything in a thread like this? this can only lead to bad things... i think the whole pro-everything-that-has-to-do-with-a-soldier trend has a lot to do with not repeating what happened to soldiers returning from vietnam (if that's the right one... i think), who were totally disrespected and disgraced by americans for doing their job. anybody who serves honorably deserves to get his or her ass kissed. which is the current trend: strangers shake their hands, they're instantly popular wherever they go, and they can basically get themselves laid at the drop of a dime. no issues with any of that, except maybe a little jealousy, but hey, good for you men and women. at the same time, there seems to be a kneejerk negative reaction when soldiers in general aren't getting their asses kissed, as if people automatically read it as an insult. although, there are several instances above where that didn't happen. those people deserve their own props, too. Agreed. No one in this thread ever said soldiers don't deserve our respect. But one perceived negative thought toward soldiers sets off a powder keg. |
|
|
|
Post by Fistor on Jul 29, 2008 9:20:19 GMT -5
Didn’t the U.N. perform inspections in Iraq before we invaded and find nothing, but we decided to invade anyways? All of the quotes above were taken before U.N. inspections were completed. Did you completely overlook the part about Hussein posturing himself as if they had WMD when the U.S. invaded Afghanistan? That's convenient. But is "posturing" enough justification to start a war? |
|
|
|
Post by The Biff Lebowski on Jul 29, 2008 9:28:32 GMT -5
Did you completely overlook the part about Hussein posturing himself as if they had WMD when the U.S. invaded Afghanistan? That's convenient. But is "posturing" enough justification to start a war? Given his track record I say "yes". |
|
|
|
Post by ratrad on Jul 29, 2008 9:32:32 GMT -5
But is "posturing" enough justification to start a war? Given his track record I say "yes". What track record? The one where he asked the US if he could invade Kuwait and Bush Sr. said he'd look the other way and then as soon as Saddam went in we called foul and took action? Or is it the 100,000 people he killed, only to have at least 800,000 Iraqis killed by this war? Sheesh, Bush Jr. is like 8 times worse than Saddam! Or perhaps its his record of being put into power by......ummm.....who was that now?..........Oh, thats right, it was the United States. |
|
|
|
Post by ratrad on Jul 29, 2008 9:34:53 GMT -5
Or it could also be his record of being ENEMIES with Osama Bin Laden because Bin Laden hates secularists. Imagine that, an Iraq where Sunnies and Shi'ites got married. Can't have that.
But who cares about Bin Laden.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fistor on Jul 29, 2008 9:37:41 GMT -5
But is "posturing" enough justification to start a war? Given his track record I say "yes". Hindsight's 20/20, but I disagree. Yes, he was a prick, but I think it was pretty damned irresponsible to go in with guns blazing with no concrete proof that he had WMDs. I am glad he's dead, but I'm not sure it was worth 4,124 American and 314 foreign lives (to this point). There are other tyrants who are more of a threat to the US, whom we have not attacked. |
|
|
|
Post by ratrad on Jul 29, 2008 9:39:28 GMT -5
Given his track record I say "yes". Hey Fistor. How many Americans died on 9/11? |
|
|
|
Post by The Biff Lebowski on Jul 29, 2008 9:46:58 GMT -5
What track record? The one where he asked the US if he could invade Kuwait and Bush Sr. said he'd look the other way and then as soon as Saddam went in we called foul and took action? Or is it the 100,000 people he killed, only to have at least 800,000 Iraqis killed by this war? Sheesh, Bush Jr. is like 8 times worse than Saddam! Or perhaps its his record of being put into power by......ummm.....who was that now?..........Oh, thats right, it was the United States. Let's see some proof of those numbers. Solid proof not blogs. |
|
|
|
Post by Fistor on Jul 29, 2008 9:47:31 GMT -5
Hey Fistor. How many Americans died on 9/11? 3,000. Why? |
|
|
|
Post by The Biff Lebowski on Jul 29, 2008 9:47:53 GMT -5
There are other tyrants who are more of a threat to the US, whom we have not attacked. No argument from me. |
|
|
|
Post by The Biff Lebowski on Jul 29, 2008 9:50:42 GMT -5
Hindsight's 20/20, but I disagree. Yes, he was a prick, but I think it was pretty damned irresponsible to go in with guns blazing with no concrete proof that he had WMDs. I am glad he's dead, but I'm not sure it was worth 4,124 American and 314 foreign lives (to this point). I don't think Bush lied in order to start the war but he sure bungled it since the cease fire was detracted. |
|
|
|
Post by ratrad on Jul 29, 2008 9:52:09 GMT -5
Hey Fistor. How many Americans died on 9/11? 3,000. Why? Oh, I was just curious since there has been 4,124 US soldiers killed and numerous more injured. So, I was wondering at what cost is this still beneficial. Hey! Remember this? "And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth? And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq. All of a sudden you've got a battle you're fighting in a major built-up city, a lot of civilians are around, significant limitations on our ability to use our most effective technologies and techniques. Once we had rounded him up and gotten rid of his government, then the question is what do you put in its place? You know, you then have accepted the responsibility for governing Iraq." -Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney 1992 |
|
|
|
Post by Fistor on Jul 29, 2008 9:52:22 GMT -5
Hindsight's 20/20, but I disagree. Yes, he was a prick, but I think it was pretty damned irresponsible to go in with guns blazing with no concrete proof that he had WMDs. I am glad he's dead, but I'm not sure it was worth 4,124 American and 314 foreign lives (to this point). I don't think Bush lied in order to start the war but he sure bungled it since the cease fire was detracted. Do you believe there were WMD's, and that they were relocated? |
|
|
|
Post by Fistor on Jul 29, 2008 9:55:47 GMT -5
Oh, I was just curious since there has been 4,124 US soldiers killed and numerous more injured. So, I was wondering at what cost is this still beneficial. Hey! Remember this? "And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth? And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq. All of a sudden you've got a battle you're fighting in a major built-up city, a lot of civilians are around, significant limitations on our ability to use our most effective technologies and techniques. Once we had rounded him up and gotten rid of his government, then the question is what do you put in its place? You know, you then have accepted the responsibility for governing Iraq." -Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney 1992 9/11 and Iraq were never related. I don't believe the 4,124 American lives lost in Iraq were in any way lost to avenge 9/11. Sadly, I'm not sure why they were lost. |
|
|
|
Post by The Biff Lebowski on Jul 29, 2008 9:57:47 GMT -5
Do you believe there were WMD's, and that they were relocated? Absolutely. One day that may be proved but I'm not holding my breath (especially given the current administration's ineptitude). |
|
|
|
Post by ratrad on Jul 29, 2008 10:03:27 GMT -5
Oh, I was just curious since there has been 4,124 US soldiers killed and numerous more injured. So, I was wondering at what cost is this still beneficial. Hey! Remember this? "And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth? And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq. All of a sudden you've got a battle you're fighting in a major built-up city, a lot of civilians are around, significant limitations on our ability to use our most effective technologies and techniques. Once we had rounded him up and gotten rid of his government, then the question is what do you put in its place? You know, you then have accepted the responsibility for governing Iraq." -Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney 1992 9/11 and Iraq were never related. I don't believe the 4,124 American lives lost in Iraq were in any way lost to avenge 9/11. Sadly, I'm not sure why they were lost. Thats my point! But we get told over and over that that is why we are there! |
|
|
|
Post by Fistor on Jul 29, 2008 10:04:27 GMT -5
Do you believe there were WMD's, and that they were relocated? Absolutely. One day that may be proved but I'm not holding my breath (especially given the current administration's ineptitude). Are you referring to nerve gas which Saddam used on his own people, among others, or nuclear missiles/ICMs that would be capable of reaching the US? If the latter, how do you account for the UN inspectors not finding them? |
|
|
|
Post by Fistor on Jul 29, 2008 10:05:23 GMT -5
9/11 and Iraq were never related. I don't believe the 4,124 American lives lost in Iraq were in any way lost to avenge 9/11. Sadly, I'm not sure why they were lost. Thats my point! But we get told over and over that that is why we are there! I know. I was trying to reinforce your point in my own special effed up way. |
|
|
|
Post by The Biff Lebowski on Jul 29, 2008 10:07:54 GMT -5
Are you referring to nerve gas which Saddam used on his own people, among others, or nuclear missiles/ICMs that would be capable of reaching the US? If the latter, how do you account for the UN inspectors not finding them? Probably both. As to how they weren't found: he had sufficient time to hide/ship them. He denied the UN access for quite some time IIRC. |
|
|
|
Post by Fistor on Jul 29, 2008 10:11:54 GMT -5
Are you referring to nerve gas which Saddam used on his own people, among others, or nuclear missiles/ICMs that would be capable of reaching the US? If the latter, how do you account for the UN inspectors not finding them? Probably both. As to how they weren't found: he had sufficient time to hide/ship them. He denied the UN access for quite some time IIRC. I would think the shipment of massive missiles would get picked up by satellite, don't you? And if it was, we'd have seen it over and over again by now. |
|
|
|
Post by The Biff Lebowski on Jul 29, 2008 10:14:20 GMT -5
I would think the shipment of massive missiles would get picked up by satellite, don't you? And if it was, we'd have seen it over and over again by now. I was thinking about that and it seems to me that there was a mysterious ship that was being tracked because it was suspected of having "interesting" cargo. The story seemed to die and I don't remember reading anything else about it. This doesn't change my opinion on it all. Hussein wasn't stupid. He knew about satellite tracking et al. BTW, the only thing they would have to move were the warheads and elements. |
|
|
|
Post by scooterfanatic on Jul 29, 2008 10:22:13 GMT -5
So Biff, your "proof" is a bunch of quotes from congresspeople who were fed all their information from the Bush administration? All that proves is that a lot of people THOUGHT he had WMDs, not that he actually had them at the time. Really? Bill Clinton? Keep going. I enjoy reading you. Make no mistake, Saddam did have chemical weapons in the 1990's. What we're talking about is 2003, after the weapons inspectors found nothing, and we still went in. Bringing up the 90's is avoiding the issue. We invaded Iraq in 2003 because Bush said Saddam had WMDs in 2003. I don't care if every senator and congressperson believed it, the fact is he didn't have WMDs in 2003. |
|
|
|
Post by vsangelchick on Jul 29, 2008 10:24:17 GMT -5
So Biff, your "proof" is a bunch of quotes from congresspeople who were fed all their information from the Bush administration? All that proves is that a lot of people THOUGHT he had WMDs, not that he actually had them at the time. Your latest argument is now that many democratic congresspeople ate everything the republicans were feeding them without putting up an argument? Are they not smart enough to do their own research and come to their own conclusions? I hate the "they were fed misleading info" argument. I'm marrying a Veteran of the currant War in Iraq. Talk to him, it's not what they say it is....he gets pissed watching the news "report" on the war. |
|
|
|
Post by scooterfanatic on Jul 29, 2008 10:27:02 GMT -5
So Biff, your "proof" is a bunch of quotes from congresspeople who were fed all their information from the Bush administration? All that proves is that a lot of people THOUGHT he had WMDs, not that he actually had them at the time. Your latest argument is now that many democratic congresspeople ate everything the republicans were feeding them without putting up an argument? Are they not smart enough to do their own research and come to their own conclusions? I hate the "they were fed misleading info" argument. I'm marrying a Veteran of the currant War in Iraq. Talk to him, it's not what they say it is....he gets pissed watching the news "report" on the war. My argument is that a collection of government people (Democrats or not) who thought Saddam had WMDs is not proof that he had WMDs, especially now that they have not been found. Keep in mind I am not saying he never had WMDs, just that there is no evidence he had them in 2003 when we invaded. |
|
|
|
Post by Fistor on Jul 29, 2008 10:30:16 GMT -5
I would think the shipment of massive missiles would get picked up by satellite, don't you? And if it was, we'd have seen it over and over again by now. I was thinking about that and it seems to me that there was a mysterious ship that was being tracked because it was suspected of having "interesting" cargo. The story seemed to die and I don't remember reading anything else about it. This doesn't change my opinion on it all. Hussein wasn't stupid. He knew about satellite tracking et al. BTW, the only thing they would have to move were the warheads and elements. Have they found missile bodies? I'd think that we would have heard a hell of a lot more than what we have, if there were even the slightest possibility that this mystery train was shipping WMDs. They surely could've tracked were the train was going and started a search there. I think believing Saddam shipped out WMDs that could've been picked up by satellite, but weren't, is giving the president the benefit of the doubt. I understand you want to do that, whereas I do not. I'm not saying I'm perfect, either. I firmly believe I was duped. After 9/11, I wanted blood, and stupidly believed that everyone in the Middle East belonged to the same "hate America" club. When Bush said Iraq = bad, I swallowed the hook. I willingly let him talk me into believing Iraq had something to do with 9/11, and didn't start believing I made a mistake until years later. I loved Dubya and craved his warmongering ways. I wanted blood - any Middle Eastern blood would due. I think he willingly redirected the same "kill Obama" sentiment in all of us. And I'm kinda pissed about that. |
|
