PDA

View Full Version : Most suucinct argument I have seen for why we went to war with Iraq



Eastside Scott
08-26-2008, 01:24 PM
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?

SmthBluCitrus
08-26-2008, 01:32 PM
I won't be able to give you anything unbiased at all.

I was against the war then and I'd still be against the war now. The war was run poorly by a group of people that really, in essence, had no idea what they were doing. And, instead of listening to the generals that were advising them they continued to execute a poorly drawn out plan.

I do think that the Bush administration purposely manipulated the general public as to the reasons for the war, and when no evidence materialized it became Operation Iraqi Freedom ... as though that was our sole purpose for the endeavor.

Sorry, I'm sure that's not what you want ... but it's what I've got.

CubsGirl
08-26-2008, 01:32 PM
I think it all leads back to the false pretenses thing. If they had phrased it like that in the beginning, instead of saying "9/11" and "they already have WMDs," who knows if it would've been as "popular" at first, but it wouldn't be as unpopular as it is now.

b1e9a8r5s
08-26-2008, 01:37 PM
I think it all leads back to the false pretenses thing. If they had phrased it like that in the beginning, instead of saying "9/11" and "they already have WMDs," who knows if it would've been as "popular" at first, but it wouldn't be as unpopular as it is now.

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.

CubsGirl
08-26-2008, 01:38 PM
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.
If bad intelligence reports happened to be the case, the government could obviously see that, and as a whole didn't do much, if anything, to fix it. I think that's just as bad as lying outright. The only way it's different is that they were lying by deciding not to tell the truth (if that makes sense).

gcoll
08-26-2008, 01:41 PM
What do you all think?
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.

SmthBluCitrus
08-26-2008, 01:41 PM
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.

Congressional members do not have access to the same amount of intel that the White House does.

SmthBluCitrus
08-26-2008, 01:42 PM
I think, at this point, why we went...is inconsequential.

Agreed. We're there. Now we have to figure out how to safely, and justly, get out.

b1e9a8r5s
08-26-2008, 01:45 PM
Congressional members do not have access to the same amount of intel that the White House does.

Ok, fine, but do you think they lied about what they knew? Or the intellegence was wrong?

IMO, they overplayed the 9/11 thing for sure, but I don't think they out and out lied about WMD's. Seems to me that was the understanding that most had, and even the impression that Sadaam wanted to give (in hindsight).

SmthBluCitrus
08-26-2008, 01:51 PM
I don't think the intel was entirely accurate -- mostly because I don't want to believe that we were, flat-out, lied to.

But, at the same time, I believe they manipulated facts and only gave us a partial truth. They certainly overplayed 9/11 -- and the connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden/al-Qaeda.

As far as WMDs go, I think the intel reports likely said that it was POSSIBLE that Saddam had - or was pursuing - them, because he had a history. But, not that he necessarily had them at that time.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not sorry Saddam isn't the leader of Iraq anymore. But, I think we had alternate means of making that happen. We should have better utilized the lessons we learned in Afghanistan, made it less of an invasion and occupation, and actively supported a Kurd/Shia uprising to overthrow the Baathist government -- without completely disintegrating the Baathist structure.

gcoll
08-26-2008, 01:56 PM
Ok, fine, but do you think they lied about what they knew? Or the intellegence was wrong?

I think it's more likely that the intelligence was wrong.

I don't think the Bush administration would have risked that much political capital, on something they knew wasn't there.

Whether or not that's the reason they wanted to go to Iraq though, is a different story altogether.

hoosiercubsfan
08-26-2008, 02:45 PM
I think it's more likely that the intelligence was wrong.

I don't think the Bush administration would have risked that much political capital, on something they knew wasn't there.

Whether or not that's the reason they wanted to go to Iraq though, is a different story altogether.

You can say whatever you like but the entire reason for going into Iraq was Iran. If we would have been able to go in like we did in the first gulf war and get out as quick as we did leaving a strong democratic government in would have possibly been able to put pressure on the leaders of Iran. Granted we monumentally screwed up Iraq the Iranian people are very pro west. Though they are Muslim first and while we are stilled viewed as an occupying force we aren't able to reap any good will from them. The thought process i am guessing is go in overthrow a madman and let the Iranian people see how wonderful a democratic government is and hope they do the same in their own country.

ari1013
08-26-2008, 03:05 PM
Ok, fine, but do you think they lied about what they knew? Or the intellegence was wrong?

IMO, they overplayed the 9/11 thing for sure, but I don't think they out and out lied about WMD's. Seems to me that was the understanding that most had, and even the impression that Sadaam wanted to give (in hindsight).
Speaking of which, anyone know the over/under on the number of 9/11's Rudy's going to say next week?

OnWisconsin2007
08-26-2008, 03:11 PM
Last RNC, and election in general, Bush used 9/11 to his advantage. It's almost as if that terrible day was the best thing to happen to his campaign.

hoosiercubsfan
08-26-2008, 03:19 PM
Last RNC, and election in general, Bush used 9/11 to his advantage. It's almost as if that terrible day was the best thing to happen to his campaign.

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?

OnWisconsin2007
08-26-2008, 03:27 PM
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.

hoosiercubsfan
08-26-2008, 03:44 PM
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?

PunkShizzle
08-26-2008, 04:55 PM
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?

PunkShizzle
08-26-2008, 04:58 PM
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.

Doc Fluty
08-26-2008, 05:53 PM
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

Brewersin08
08-26-2008, 06:08 PM
Sadam had WMD's. They're buried in the Syrian desert. Read the book by Georges Sada.

Doc Fluty
08-26-2008, 06:09 PM
that may be true... but we dont need to rely on speculation when the facts justify it enough

Brewersin08
08-26-2008, 06:45 PM
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.

PHX-SOXFAN
08-26-2008, 06:54 PM
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.:rolleyes:

PHX-SOXFAN
08-26-2008, 06:56 PM
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!"

PHX-SOXFAN
08-26-2008, 06:58 PM
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?:speechless:

ink
08-26-2008, 07:00 PM
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.

Brewersin08
08-26-2008, 07:04 PM
why does any of it matter anyway? the mission's been accomplished, right?:speechless:

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.

Doc Fluty
08-26-2008, 07:09 PM
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...

PHX-SOXFAN
08-26-2008, 07:11 PM
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.

PHX-SOXFAN
08-26-2008, 07:14 PM
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...

why were we in a bad mood again? Oh wait, because our intelligence efforts mirrored those of our highest leader of the time's outright intelligence and his ego and passion for the war. They were on parole and just as everything from the first week of the war showed, the parole was working and weakening saddam. Too bad the effects of this diplomacy were ignored for the political gain of a few

Doc Fluty
08-26-2008, 07:16 PM
that was the most... weird post... you ever gave..

i genuinely have no idea what your talking about or even meant to say

again you ignore that the part about 1998 and clinton...

you just want to blame bush and ignore the large FACTS that i posted on the previous page.

PHX-SOXFAN
08-26-2008, 07:21 PM
that was the most... weird post... you ever gave..

i genuinely have no idea what your talking about or even meant to say

again you ignore that the part about 1998 and clinton...

you just want to blame bush and ignore the large FACTS that i posted on the previous page.

if you want me to sum it up, the sanctions were working, proven during the invasion. the intelligence was wrong, bush made terrible errors, colin powell has confirmed it. end of story. Please dispute something that Colin Powell has said after the fact, Please!

Brewersin08
08-26-2008, 07:26 PM
if you want me to sum it up, the sanctions were working, proven during the invasion. the intelligence was wrong, bush made terrible errors, colin powell has confirmed it. end of story. Please dispute something that Colin Powell has said after the fact, Please!

Again, Sadam had WMD's. And even if you stupid liberals are too dense to see that, the man was a terrible person. He murdered countless people because they disagreed with his ideas. He needed to be removed. Even if Sadam didn't have WMD's, which he did, he still was a severe threat to his own people.

ink
08-26-2008, 07:28 PM
Again, Sadam had WMD's. And even if you stupid liberals are too dense to see that, the man was a terrible person. He murdered countless people because they disagreed with his ideas. He needed to be removed. Even if Sadam didn't have WMD's, which he did, he still was a severe threat to his own people.

When you insult people it drives up the temperature in the forum. There's no need for that.

If the "proof" you had was that conclusive, it would be widely known about and accepted. Until then, it's just another theory.

PHX-SOXFAN
08-26-2008, 07:30 PM
Again, Sadam had WMD's. And even if you stupid liberals are too dense to see that, the man was a terrible person. He murdered countless people because they disagreed with his ideas. He needed to be removed. Even if Sadam didn't have WMD's, which he did, he still was a severe threat to his own people.

yep, I'm sure they're just holding that info proving the wmd's to exist in Iraq:rolleyes:. Do you have some information that no one else does, because nothing has proved that they had them yet:o.

he was a terrible person. A terrible person who was being weakened and controlled by the sanctions in place, proven fact

Brewersin08
08-26-2008, 07:34 PM
yep, I'm sure they're just holding that info proving the wmd's to exist in Iraq:rolleyes:. Do you have some information that no one else does, because nothing has proved that they had them yet:o.

he was a terrible person. A terrible person who was being weakened and controlled by the sanctions in place, proven fact

How about one of his top advisors coming forward and saying that he had them. And that they were shipped out of the country before the war. Weakened by the sanctions? That doesn't stop him from killing his own people.

Doc Fluty
08-26-2008, 07:38 PM
How about one of his top advisors coming forward and saying that he had them. And that they were shipped out of the country before the war. Weakened by the sanctions? That doesn't stop him from killing his own people.

come think of it.. i believe i heard that.. but i dont remember names or where so i wont quote it

Brewersin08
08-26-2008, 07:41 PM
come think of it.. i believe i heard that.. but i dont remember names or where so i wont quote it

his name is Georges Sada. This is a very interesting video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7LGeYr1hiQ&feature=related

ink
08-26-2008, 07:44 PM
Sadam had WMD's. They're buried in the Syrian desert. Read the book by Georges Sada.

That has never been proven, only alleged by one person.

Doc Fluty
08-26-2008, 07:45 PM
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Investigation/story?id=1616996


late April or May of 1995, Saddam and his senior aides discuss the fact that U.N. inspectors had uncovered evidence of Iraq's biological weapons program -- a program whose existence Iraq had previously denied.

At one point Hussein Kamel, Saddam's son-in-law and the man who was in charge of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction efforts can be heard on the tapes, speaking openly about hiding information from the U.N.

"We did not reveal all that we have," Kamel says in the meeting. "Not the type of weapons, not the volume of the materials we imported, not the volume of the production we told them about, not the volume of use. None of this was correct."

Shortly after this meeting, in August 1995, Hussein Kamel defected to Jordan, and Iraq was forced to admit that it had concealed its biological weapons program.

chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, says the tapes are authentic and show that "Saddam had a fixation on weapons of mass destruction and he had a fixation on hiding what he was doing from the U.N. inspectors." Hoeckstra says there are more than 35,000 boxes of such tapes and documents that the U.S. government has not analyzed nor made public that should also be translated and studied on an urgent basis.

I did not put this up to prove there was WMD... only to show that they had "probable cause to suspect WMDs" in 2001

if you throw in this with the other things i posted you can see that there was a case...


Among the treasure trove of information captured after Saddam Hussein's fall were tape recordings of the Iraqi leader discussing weapons of mass destruction with top aides.

Transcripts of Saddam's tapes reviewed by NBC News show him ruminating about future terror attacks in the United States using weapons of mass destruction.

"We shouldn’t be surprised to see a car bomb with nuclear [material] explode [in] Washington, either germ or chemical," Saddam tells aides. "So this is coming,” Saddam says on the tapes, “but not from Iraq," he adds, seeming to indicate that Iraq would not be the source of any such attack.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11373537/

OR

this one... i wont paste the whole thing here but read nightlines investigation

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Investigation/story?id=1623307&page=1


With regard to the issue of the chemical, sir, which we assume that they have not raised, and our belief that the sole problem is that of the biological weapons. No, sir. I think they have detailed information about the missiles, and if they want to bring them up, they will as I said because we did not complete. In the chemical, sir, they have a problem far bigger than the biological, bigger than the biological.

Brewersin08
08-26-2008, 07:46 PM
That has never been proven, only alleged by one person.

Yeah, the head of the Iraqi airforce.

ink
08-26-2008, 07:49 PM
Yeah, the head of the Iraqi airforce.

We don't know what his motivation was. His allegations happened four years ago and didn't change many people's minds. The fact is the Duelfer report of 2004 contradicts what he alleged. There is certainly no conclusive proof - i.e. physical evidence rather than hearsay.

PunkShizzle
08-26-2008, 08:07 PM
Again, Sadam had WMD's. And even if you stupid liberals are too dense to see that, the man was a terrible person. He murdered countless people because they disagreed with his ideas. He needed to be removed. Even if Sadam didn't have WMD's, which he did, he still was a severe threat to his own people.

There are lots of bad people in power doing bad things? Do you plan to forcedly remove all of them? Do you care that some of them are our allies?

PHX-SOXFAN
08-26-2008, 08:09 PM
We don't know what his motivation was. His allegations happened four years ago and didn't change many people's minds. The fact is the Duelfer report of 2004 contradicts what he alleged. There is certainly no conclusive proof - i.e. physical evidence rather than hearsay.

no wmd's have ever been found, FACT! Despite occupation for many years now, no wmd's have ever been found. Surely something would have been found by now if they existed.

I don't know why it's so hard to comprehend that none were ever found. Colin Powell said they were there, he then admitted he was given false intelligence.:speechless:

Brewersin08
08-26-2008, 08:10 PM
There are lots of bad people in power doing bad things? Do you plan to forcedly remove all of them? Do you care that some of them are our allies?

Yes, especially when they use chemical weapons on their own people.

Brewersin08
08-26-2008, 08:12 PM
no wmd's have ever been found, FACT! Despite occupation for many years now, no wmd's have ever been found. Surely something would have been found by now if they existed.

I don't know why it's so hard to comprehend that none were ever found. Colin Powell said they were there, he then admitted he was given false intelligence.:speechless:

:bang::bang::bang:

Because they are in Syria.

PunkShizzle
08-26-2008, 08:13 PM
Yes, especially when they use chemical weapons on their own people.

You want to wage war on every country with a leader who has done bad things?

PHX-SOXFAN
08-26-2008, 08:13 PM
[/B]

:bang::bang::bang:

Because they are in Syria.

sure they are mel gibson, do you have any other consipracy theories?:rolleyes:

Brewersin08
08-26-2008, 08:15 PM
You want to wage war on every country with a leader who has done bad things?

Stop twisting what I'm saying. Sadam killed thousands of his own people simply because they disagreed with his ideas. He needed to be removed. I can't understand why we didn't just finish the job during the Gulf War.

Brewersin08
08-26-2008, 08:17 PM
sure they are mel gibson, do you have any other consipracy theories?:rolleyes:

Don't post again until you watch this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7LGeYr1hiQ&feature=related

PunkShizzle
08-26-2008, 08:26 PM
Stop twisting what I'm saying. Sadam killed thousands of his own people simply because they disagreed with his ideas. He needed to be removed. I can't understand why we didn't just finish the job during the Gulf War.

You think he's the only madman in power right now?

Brewersin08
08-26-2008, 08:29 PM
You think he's the only madman in power right now?

He's still in power? Really? I didn't know that. Kim Jong Il, Omar Quadafi, whoever the head of Iran is. But to our knowledge they aren't psychotic murderers like Sadam.

PHX-SOXFAN
08-26-2008, 08:30 PM
Don't post again until you watch this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7LGeYr1hiQ&feature=related

ok great, nothing proved, nothing credible.

this guy's certainly credible:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZTLmOoPzjs&feature=related:speechless::speechless:

PHX-SOXFAN
08-26-2008, 08:32 PM
[/B]

He's still in power? Really? I didn't know that. Kim Jong Il, Omar Quadafi, whoever the head of Iran is. But to our knowledge they aren't psychotic murderers like Sadam.

to our knowledge? wasn't our knowledge just proved wrong regarding this war:speechless:

Brewersin08
08-26-2008, 08:34 PM
ok great, nothing proved, nothing credible.

this guy's certainly credible:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZTLmOoPzjs&feature=related:speechless::speechless:

How is the head of the Iraqi Airforce not a credible source? I think he'd know a lot more about the status of Iraq's military than Colin Powell.

ink
08-26-2008, 08:37 PM
How is the head of the Iraqi Airforce not a credible source? I think he'd know a lot more about the status of Iraq's military than Colin Powell.

I'm sure his allegations were taken into account by the Duelfer Report and by the intelligence community. But nothing came of it and it's been 4 years. It's just another conspiracy theory man. Until there is hard evidence, it doesn't matter who it is that made the allegations. We don't know what his motivations were. Nothing was proven or accepted as fact. It's just hearsay.

lilboytwister99
08-26-2008, 08:43 PM
This is pretty interesting. I for one never was for the war in Iraq. I have my own theory on the whole situation, but I dont know if anybody would agree with it. Well, in this case, I guess it wouldnt matter because everybody has their opinions anyhow, and its just natural for others to disagree.

My thought is that Bush was behind 9/11, and he used Osama as a "pawn" to go to Iraq. Now I know this makes no sense, but let me try to explain. Bush was trying to put it in our minds that Saddam was in cahoots with Bin Laden. Now whether or not this is true, well I couldnt say myself because I got tired of watching the news because I knew that we were going back to Iraq.

Now as far as Iraq goes, we should have been out of there a LONG time ago. Here's why I said this. Our mission in Iraq was to take out Saddam and find the WMD's. Well, we took out Saddam. We didnt find WMD's (which I do believe they are in the middle east but at the time of inspection we didnt find any), so mission accomplished. But now what I see in Iraq is troops stuck in the middle of a civil war. We should have just left when our mission was accomplished.

Now I may not be entirely truthful on the "mission" to Iraq, Im sure I may have left pieces out, but those are pieces that I either dont know about, or dont really consider "our business". Why are we still trying to turn a country that was once our enemy into a democracy? Is it our responsibility to do so? I honestly dont think so. But, we try to play the good guy in all of this, and look what we get in return.

Bin Laden.... Ive always said he and Bush are buddies. We found Saddam so fast, but we couldnt find Bin Laden? Or, from what I last heard, he's in Afghanistan and we wont go after him because we dont want to endanger the women or children? I dunno I think we knew where he was all this time, we just covered his rear end.

Thats just my opinion. You have to understand Im 25 yrs old, never gave a crap about politics, but recently (especially with the two knuckleheads we got runnin for president) I have been majorly concerned with the direction our country is going in. Its not looking good, and I believe we are in for some tough tough times.

Yall have a good night.

Eastside Scott
08-26-2008, 09:10 PM
OK, I am going to fess up now, but since this is four pages long, I amnot sure how many will see it. I intentionally mis-attributed the quote that started this thread. THe time and place were correct, however the speaker was Sen. Joe Biden, current candidate for VP.

Sorry about that, but I wanted to see what the staunch liberal viewpoint was on the subject when they didn't know it was their own #2 man doing the talking.

By the way Biden also said of Obama's vote not to fund US Troops that it was an obvious decision to try to win an election at the expense of our soldiers overseas, and losing a war.

PunkShizzle
08-26-2008, 09:41 PM
[/B]

He's still in power? Really? I didn't know that. Kim Jong Il, Omar Quadafi, whoever the head of Iran is. But to our knowledge they aren't psychotic murderers like Sadam.

Have you ever heard of Africa?

PunkShizzle
08-26-2008, 09:43 PM
This is pretty interesting. I for one never was for the war in Iraq. I have my own theory on the whole situation, but I dont know if anybody would agree with it. Well, in this case, I guess it wouldnt matter because everybody has their opinions anyhow, and its just natural for others to disagree.

My thought is that Bush was behind 9/11, and he used Osama as a "pawn" to go to Iraq. Now I know this makes no sense, but let me try to explain. Bush was trying to put it in our minds that Saddam was in cahoots with Bin Laden. Now whether or not this is true, well I couldnt say myself because I got tired of watching the news because I knew that we were going back to Iraq.

Now as far as Iraq goes, we should have been out of there a LONG time ago. Here's why I said this. Our mission in Iraq was to take out Saddam and find the WMD's. Well, we took out Saddam. We didnt find WMD's (which I do believe they are in the middle east but at the time of inspection we didnt find any), so mission accomplished. But now what I see in Iraq is troops stuck in the middle of a civil war. We should have just left when our mission was accomplished.

Now I may not be entirely truthful on the "mission" to Iraq, Im sure I may have left pieces out, but those are pieces that I either dont know about, or dont really consider "our business". Why are we still trying to turn a country that was once our enemy into a democracy? Is it our responsibility to do so? I honestly dont think so. But, we try to play the good guy in all of this, and look what we get in return.

Bin Laden.... Ive always said he and Bush are buddies. We found Saddam so fast, but we couldnt find Bin Laden? Or, from what I last heard, he's in Afghanistan and we wont go after him because we dont want to endanger the women or children? I dunno I think we knew where he was all this time, we just covered his rear end.

Thats just my opinion. You have to understand Im 25 yrs old, never gave a crap about politics, but recently (especially with the two knuckleheads we got runnin for president) I have been majorly concerned with the direction our country is going in. Its not looking good, and I believe we are in for some tough tough times.

Yall have a good night.

:sigh:

Fool
08-26-2008, 09:44 PM
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.

In a sense they annoy me too, becuase as much as I'd like it to be, we can't just pull out immediately, and some people don't see that. There's a job to be done. Nobody wants any of our soldiers to die, and I'm sure nobody wants them to be away from their families either, but now that we're there, we're there. I don't support the war and its original purpose, but something I realized is, who cares if Sadam didn't anything to us, didn't we still have an obligation to the people being murdered there? But thats a two edged sword I guess, beacuse what about people in other places....

sorry, just some internal thoughts really... :cool:

Doc Fluty
08-26-2008, 09:55 PM
OK, I am going to fess up now, but since this is four pages long, I amnot sure how many will see it. I intentionally mis-attributed the quote that started this thread. THe time and place were correct, however the speaker was Sen. Joe Biden, current candidate for VP.

Sorry about that, but I wanted to see what the staunch liberal viewpoint was on the subject when they didn't know it was their own #2 man doing the talking.

By the way Biden also said of Obama's vote not to fund US Troops that it was an obvious decision to try to win an election at the expense of our soldiers overseas, and losing a war.

interesting

hoosiercubsfan
08-26-2008, 09:56 PM
no wmd's have ever been found, FACT! Despite occupation for many years now, no wmd's have ever been found. Surely something would have been found by now if they existed.

I don't know why it's so hard to comprehend that none were ever found. Colin Powell said they were there, he then admitted he was given false intelligence.:speechless:

Ok so not so fast there buddy. That is not quite the case.



US-led coalition forces in Iraq have found some 500 chemical weapons since the March 2003 invasion, Republican lawmakers said, citing an intelligence report.
"Since 2003, Coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent," said an overview of the report unveiled by Senator Rick Santorum and Peter Hoekstra, head of the intelligence committee of the House of Representatives.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=060622055545.07o4imol&show_article=1

This is another failure of the administration to put out news that would cause it to possibly be seen in a better light. I agree they have misstep after misstep but doesn't make the article any less true. The administration has had misguided visions of grandeur that where flawed to say the least.


Reporters questioned the lawmakers as to why the Bush administration had not played up the report to boost their case for continued warfare in Iraq.

"The administration has been very clear that they want to look forward," Santorum said. "They felt it was not their role to go back and fight previous discussions." From the same article.

ink
08-26-2008, 10:34 PM
OK, I am going to fess up now, but since this is four pages long, I amnot sure how many will see it. I intentionally mis-attributed the quote that started this thread. THe time and place were correct, however the speaker was Sen. Joe Biden, current candidate for VP.

Sorry about that, but I wanted to see what the staunch liberal viewpoint was on the subject when they didn't know it was their own #2 man doing the talking.

By the way Biden also said of Obama's vote not to fund US Troops that it was an obvious decision to try to win an election at the expense of our soldiers overseas, and losing a war.

So? :confused: He could be wrong just like a lot of other American leaders who got sucked into supporting the Iraq War. Now you really have made this thread out of date. Not to mention the fact that you intentionally misrepresented the speaker but still couldn't come up with much. The other misrepresentation you might have made was in the other thread when you claimed not to have a strong political persuasion. ;)

b1e9a8r5s
08-27-2008, 12:17 AM
Speaking of which, anyone know the over/under on the number of 9/11's Rudy's going to say next week?

Haha. I'll set the over/under at 15.

blenderboy5
08-27-2008, 01:02 AM
30. Plus he answers his wife's phone call twice.

ari1013
08-27-2008, 08:26 AM
Ok so not so fast there buddy. That is not quite the case.




http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=060622055545.07o4imol&show_article=1

This is another failure of the administration to put out news that would cause it to possibly be seen in a better light. I agree they have misstep after misstep but doesn't make the article any less true. The administration has had misguided visions of grandeur that where flawed to say the least.

From the same article.
Wasn't that Santorum report disproven?

spartanbear
08-27-2008, 05:58 PM
30. Plus he answers his wife's phone call twice.

Double B...I thought I would find you on here way sooner than now...:)

Well back to the point I won't get into what side of the War I stand or stood but what I will say is until the Iraqi people and well all people from the region who are oppressed...you know the "good" people in a bad situation who want better for their futures (and their children), the people that desire freedom, the people who are willing to wrestle down their fears and stand up for righteousness, the people who do not desire to blame the US (and other free nations) but instead admire our idea of freedom and begin to take pride in their own country to realize their own...until those people stand up for themselves, say enough and take control of their country and their future and believe in freedom like people throughout the history of this nation have(the revolutionaries, the immigrants, the slaves, the women)...then they are doomed to suffer, doomed to remain occupied, doom to beg for emancipation only to curse those that offer to aid in their cause. We alone cannot free the Iraqi people. They must begin to express the desire to control their own destiny. Then and only then will they be free.

The Constitution is not the only reason why "Saddam Hussein" would not be able to thrive in this country. God bless the American people.

I am the Spartanbear and I approve this message. :D