Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 69
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    cheese head land
    Posts
    4,088
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by hoosiercubsfan View Post
    I'd like to think that you don't believe this comment. But I would venture to guess that you actually do. It was what was prevalent to the day did you really expect him to not use it?
    It was all he talked about. Of course none of his policies or anything were very good, so he had to pretend to be some hero of 9/11.



  2. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    7,687
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by OnWisconsin2007 View Post
    It was all he talked about. Of course none of his policies or anything were very good, so he had to pretend to be some hero of 9/11.
    Fine I can play also. Have we been attacked since?

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Andyville
    Posts
    2,854
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Eastside Scott View Post
    I know this is ancient history, but I ran across this old quote from McCain on why we were right to go to Iraq. It is one of the clearest, most rational statements I have seen on the subject.

    "This is a guy who's used weapons of mass destructions. This is a guy who has destabilized the whole neighborhood. This is a guy who in a war with Iranians, over 800,000 people on both sides were killed. This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world. And this is a guy who is in every way possible seeking weapons of mass destruction. That case, in and of itself, ought to be sufficient." ("Meet the Press," Aug. 4, 2002)

    What do you all think?
    How many countries can that exact statement, or something similar, be said about? Are we going to go to war with all of them?
    lol nothing matters

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Andyville
    Posts
    2,854
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by hoosiercubsfan View Post
    Fine I can play also. Have we been attacked since?
    Awful argument.

    Before 9/11, when was the last time we'd been attacked on US soil? Not including Oklahoma City (which was a different form of attack, being that it was domestic and the motivations were not alike)...1975. That's a 26 year gap, so saying that just because we've been fine for 7 means nothing. Correllation don't equal causation.
    lol nothing matters

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Infiltrating Hippie Southwestern Command Center
    Posts
    1,405
    vCash
    1500
    The 1991 Gulf War never fully ended, as there was no armistice formally ending the war. As a result relations between the United States, the United Nations, and Iraq remained strained, although Saddam Hussein issued formal statements renouncing his invasion of Kuwait and made reparations payments for Kuwait. The U.S. and the United Nations maintained a policy of “containment” towards Iraq, which involved numerous and crushing economic sanctions, Iraqi no-fly zones enforced by the United States, the United Kingdom and France, and ongoing inspections of Iraqi weapons programs.[3] In 2002, the UN Security Council unanimously passed United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 demanding that Iraq "comply with its disarmament obligations" and allow weapons inspections

    U.S. policy shifted in 1998 when the United States Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed the "Iraq Liberation Act" after Iraq terminated its cooperation with U.N. weapons inspectors the preceding August. The act made it official U.S. policy to "support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power

    One month after the passage of the “Iraq Liberation Act,” the U.S. and UK launched a bombardment campaign of Iraq called Operation Desert Fox. The campaign’s express rationale was to hamper the Hussein government’s ability to produce chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, but U.S. national security personnel also reportedly hoped it would help weaken Hussein’s grip on power

    In the days immediately following 9/11, the Bush Administration national security team actively debated an invasion of Iraq, but opted instead to limit the initial military response to Afghanistan.[18] In January of 2002, President Bush began laying the public groundwork for an invasion of Iraq, calling Iraq a member of the Axis of Evil and saying that "The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons."[19] Over the next year, the Bush Administration began pushing for international support for an invasion of Iraq, a campaign that culminated in Secretary of State Colin Powell's February 5, 2003 presentation to the United Nations Security Council.[20] After failing to gain U.N. support for an additional UN authorization, the U.S., together with the UK and small contingents from Australia, Poland, and Denmark, launched an invasion on March 20, 2003 under the authority of UN Security Council Resolutions 660 and 678.[3]

    Iraq War Resolution

    The October, 2002, US congress Iraq War Resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:

    * Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.
    * Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."
    * Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
    * Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
    * Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
    * Members of al-Qaeda were "known to be in Iraq."
    * Iraq's "continuing to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
    * The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, including the September 11th, 2001 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them.
    * The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
    * Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.



    those are facts... and facts are unbiased
    Last edited by Doc Fluty; 08-26-2008 at 06:06 PM.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    519
    vCash
    1500
    Sadam had WMD's. They're buried in the Syrian desert. Read the book by Georges Sada.
    Who Is John Galt? Atlas is Shrugging.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Infiltrating Hippie Southwestern Command Center
    Posts
    1,405
    vCash
    1500
    that may be true... but we dont need to rely on speculation when the facts justify it enough

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    519
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Doc Fluty View Post
    that may be true... but we dont need to rely on speculation when the facts justify it enough
    It is fact that Sadam had WMD's. Sada was one of his top advisors, and he admits that the WMD's were shipped out just before the war began.
    Who Is John Galt? Atlas is Shrugging.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    4,957
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by b1e9a8r5s View Post
    Do you think that the administration lied about it or that everyone was going on bad intellegence reports? There were obviously a lot of dems that went along with the war based on the intellegence.
    they did go along with the poor intelligence that was force fed in the marketing campaign for the war. Even Colin Powell was used to present this information due to his high respectability and opinion. Too bad no one listened to his opinion on how to run a war.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    4,957
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Doc Fluty View Post
    that may be true... but we dont need to rely on speculation when the facts justify it enough
    actually the facts show that it was an unjustified war based on lies and poor intelligence, and executed and planned even more poorly. I'll rely on my favorite defense for all this, "JUST ASK COLIN POWELL!"

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    4,957
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by gcoll View Post
    I think, at this point, why we went...is inconsequential.

    I think the conversation should be, what role should we maintain there, how long we should maintain it, what goals to set as "benchmarks", what consequences would we have if we left before those benchmarks.....etc. etc. Basically, what's the benefit of leaving right now vs. the cost of staying.

    But everyone wants to boil it down to "are you for the war, or against it" when really, I think it's a lot more complicated than that. Which is why anti war protesters piss me off.
    why does any of it matter anyway? the mission's been accomplished, right?

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    VANCOUVER
    Posts
    49,854
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Eastside Scott View Post
    I know this is ancient history, but I ran across this old quote from McCain on why we were right to go to Iraq. It is one of the clearest, most rational statements I have seen on the subject.

    "This is a guy who's used weapons of mass destructions. This is a guy who has destabilized the whole neighborhood. This is a guy who in a war with Iranians, over 800,000 people on both sides were killed. This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world. And this is a guy who is in every way possible seeking weapons of mass destruction. That case, in and of itself, ought to be sufficient." ("Meet the Press," Aug. 4, 2002)

    What do you all think?
    I didn't think that reasoning was very persuasive before and I don't think it's any more persuasive now. There's nothing in that quote that wasn't expressed better by Colin Powell, and we all know he was misinformed when he was used to deliver falsehoods to the UN Security Council.

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    519
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by PHX-SOXFAN View Post
    why does any of it matter anyway? the mission's been accomplished, right?
    Right. We got rid of a cruel and heartless dictator who had WMD's and was willing to use them. There is progress being made in Iraq. Will it ever be a peaceful place? History shows us that it most likely won't be. There has been conflict in the middle east since before biblical times. But they are much better off without Hussein.
    Who Is John Galt? Atlas is Shrugging.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Infiltrating Hippie Southwestern Command Center
    Posts
    1,405
    vCash
    1500
    U.S. policy shifted in 1998 when the United States Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed the "Iraq Liberation Act" after Iraq terminated its cooperation with U.N. weapons inspectors the preceding August. The act made it official U.S. policy to "support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power
    maybe you missed this in my large post which i notice was ignore (facts usually are) but the whole thing didnt start with bush.. it was started with clinton.. it just escalated when 9/11 happened

    Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors. are reasons alone to justify the war...

    they were on parole... they messed up and they tempted us when we were in a bad mood and got what they got...

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    4,957
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by ink View Post
    I didn't think that reasoning was very persuasive before and I don't think it's any more persuasive now. There's nothing in that quote that wasn't expressed better by Colin Powell, and we all know he was misinformed when he was used to deliver falsehoods to the UN Security Council.
    Colin Powell did say it all well. Just like he has said well that he feels used to deliver misinformation for the marketing of the war. He also says that no one listened to him and he was outright ignored in planning the war especially when he was the dissenting view in the room. He was an outsider because he was not a "yes man". He had credibility and is getting a lot back by speaking out about the poor planning and unjust marketing of the Iraq war.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •