Iraq

[xtc]

"They came as liberators but were met by fierce resistance outside Baghdad. Humiliating treatment of prisoners and heavy-handed action in Najaf and Fallujah further alienated the local population. A planned handover of power proved unworkable"

Iraq 2004?


No Iraq 1917 Proving the old saying He who does not know his history is doomed to repeat it.

http://www.robert-fisk.com/articles403.htm

[Back]

Remarkable. Good reading.

[Cayge]

Very entertaining indeed.

[Latrinsorm]

Talk to me in January. :)

[Caiylania]

We are learning from the past. Last decade we allowed Hussein to keep control of "his" country. Not this time :D

[DeV]

Originally posted by Caiylania
We are learning from the past. Last decade we allowed Hussein to keep control of "his" country. Not this time :D Yeah, and what about Iran, Libya, Syria, North Korea or even China? :?: We should not be policing police the world. We have learned nothing from Iraq and the only good thing to come out of this is Saddam getting caught.

[Artha]

We should not be policing police the world.

Someone needs to.

[DeV]

We need to take care of home first.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by DarkelfVold
Yeah, and what about Iran, Libya, Syria, North Korea or even China?The President addressed at least three of those in the debates.

[Caiylania]

Originally posted by Artha

We should not be policing police the world.

Someone needs to.

Agreed.

[Nieninque]

How about the United Nations?

[Victril]

I served during the Iraqi War and Operation Enduring Freedom. No longer is the United States known as a "push over", making threats and warnings to terrorist nations and giving into the demands of ruthless dictators. As for Korea and other nations, i think there are different tactics that are neccesary to meet the many situtations that are involved. Mostly Korea is just trying to push America into giving them more money, and under this administration we haven't given into them, and they haven't shown any action to back up there threats. So, we can't just say we need to police the world. I think we need to be able to differentiate circumstances that require force and those that require diplomacy.

Nothing can stop the U.S. Air Force! :smilegrin:

[Victril]

By the way, i'll probably be heading to South Korea before long! Yikes! All you weird and stange people out there keep me in mind while i'm being shot at!

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by DarkelfVold
We need to take care of home first.

Yea, because that worked SOO well prior to WWII

[Ilvane]

Yes, because Iraq is going SO well.

-A

[Parkbandit]

Liberation is never an overnight process.

Also, since when does the Media actually run GOOD stories? I spoke with a friend of mine this weekend that just got home from being in Iraq. He said that it's not anything like it is on the news. Yes, there is still trouble over there.. but everyone he comes in contact with is so thankful to us for helping them. He said the media only goes to the trouble spots.. that they don't report on all the good things that are being accomplished over there in terms of building, infrastructure, etc...

Mind you, I don't believe this is some liberal move to help Kerry get elected.. but I do believe that this is a flaw in the way we get our information. Bad news sells.. good news does not.

[Ilvane]

I think Bush has this Pollyanna look at how Iraq is going. We are not really being greeted as liberators, and I would venture a guess that it would depend on where you were in Iraq.

The actual idea of going to Iraq isn't so bad as much as he didn't have a plan to win the peace, or that he didn't really have any proof of weapons of mass destruction.

-A

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Ilvane
I think Bush has this Pollyanna look at how Iraq is going. We are not really being greeted as liberators, and I would venture a guess that it would depend on where you were in Iraq.

The actual idea of going to Iraq isn't so bad as much as he didn't have a plan to win the peace, or that he didn't really have any proof of weapons of mass destruction.

-A

You keep using the term "He" didn't really have any proof of weapons of mass destruction. I'm not sure how many times it needs to be pointed out to you that the entire world believed he had them at the time. Or that Kerry also agreed with the same exact intelligence. I realize now Kerry WISHED he had not agreed with Bush.. but unfortunately for him, the media was there as well as the record of his votes.

And I do agree with you that Bush seems to portray a too positive image of Iraq.. but nothing compared to the absolute doom and gloom view that Kerry leads you to believe is the truth.

Once again, I feel the actual truth is somewhere in between.

[Tsa`ah]

I would say your friend was fortunate then. I hear the exact opposite from my brothers and cousin.

They aren't greeted warmly, thankfully, or anything like what you described.

Thankful that a dictator and his regime are gone? Sure. Thankful that 13,000, and counting, civilians are dead? Prisoner abuse? Occupation? I would venture to guess no.

[Victril]

Its already been noted that Sadaam placed Civilians in key locations where bombing was going to take place. He put his people in danger. Colateral damage will always be around. Every life is prescious, but we've lost not even a fraction of the men and women who have died in WW2 and other conflicts. Besides, those of us who are in the military join for the defense of U.S., we understand whats at stake. Secondly i don't promote prisoner abuse, but if you saw one of these prisoners cut your best friend's head off, wouldn't you feel compelled to do some abusing too? Be honest with yourself, the enemy isn't playing by the rules, don't be surprised when we push the envelope ourselves. And as for occupation, who else would you have lead Iraq in this time of crisis? Definately not those cleric insurrectionists who have ALWAYS had reason to hate America, even before the war. Hell, most of our allies protest the fact we are sided with Isreal, and you can bet that they are going to push Kerry into leaving them in the dust if he gets ellected. And when that happens, things are realy gona get interesting.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by DarkelfVold
We need to take care of home first.

Yea, because that worked SOO well prior to WWII Funny you'd mention that. Considering the only reason we ventured into WWII was because Japan attacked us first. Those atrocities that were taking place in Germany and other countries Hitler terrorized were going on well before we decided to exert force so your point is borderlining on irrevelant. However, I can somewhat see where you are trying to go with it and still disagree.
We are doing the job of the UN and setting a precedent in the process.

What's to stop the next country that cries, "preemption and imminent threat" from attacking another country who they feel threatened by?

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Victril
Its already been noted that Sadaam placed Civilians in key locations where bombing was going to take place. He put his people in danger.

That accounts for roughly 7,000 Iraqi civilian deaths. Since the "Major combat" stage ended on May 1, 2003 there have been an addition 6-8,000 civilian deaths.

That's some pretty heavy "collateral" damage considering we are no longer in major combat.

There are three reasons casualties in this conflict are not as high as those in WWII.

1. The opposition isn't killing their own in mass.
2. Smaller population, region, force.
3. Technology.

You're comparing an apple to an aardvark.

You also take the position of knowing what's at stake and defending this nation. Iraq didn't attack us. They didn't invade us and last I heard they were only a threat to that region. I'll back the stance my siblings take, our military is being misused.

Now if Iraq had invaded and successfully occupied the US, I would not play by the rules either. Neither would you.

[Victril]

Damned if you do and damned if you don't. Its your job as a civilian to sit back and bitch about the job WE do. :lol: And whats more....you get paid more for it! Oh sweet irony! Which is anouther thing, Bush has given us quite a few pay raises since i've been enlisted, and why the hell would i vote against that heh

[xtc]

Originally posted by Victril
By the way, i'll probably be heading to South Korea before long! Yikes! All you weird and stange people out there keep me in mind while i'm being shot at!

Victril I think many people here may not agree with this administrations foreign policy yet have great respect for the men and women in the military. I am sure that we would disagree on many things yet I respect what you are doing.

p.s. best of luck in Korea

[DeV]

Originally posted by Victril
Damned if you do and damned if you don't. Its your job as a civilian to sit back and bitch about the job WE do. :lol: And whats more....you get paid more for it! Oh sweet irony! Which is anouther thing, Bush has given us quite a few pay raises since i've been enlisted, and why the hell would i vote against that heh Your job is to protect our country which you also get paid for, and you volunteered for it as well. It's our job to remain informed citizens who question leadership when we feel misled or not properly informed. I think our military does a great job, it's the administration I feel is lacking.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by Ilvane
I think Bush has this Pollyanna look at how Iraq is going. We are not really being greeted as liberators, and I would venture a guess that it would depend on where you were in Iraq.

The actual idea of going to Iraq isn't so bad as much as he didn't have a plan to win the peace, or that he didn't really have any proof of weapons of mass destruction.

-A

You keep using the term "He" didn't really have any proof of weapons of mass destruction. I'm not sure how many times it needs to be pointed out to you that the entire world believed he had them at the time. Or that Kerry also agreed with the same exact intelligence. I realize now Kerry WISHED he had not agreed with Bush.. but unfortunately for him, the media was there as well as the record of his votes.

And I do agree with you that Bush seems to portray a too positive image of Iraq.. but nothing compared to the absolute doom and gloom view that Kerry leads you to believe is the truth.

Once again, I feel the actual truth is somewhere in between.

The entire world didn't think Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. That is why before the war there was the world's largest demonstrations against the war. 1 million took to the streets of Rome, 1.5 million to the streets of London. PB starting watching some international news.

[Ilvane]

I hate to burst your bubble Victril, but they actually were planning on lowering some of the compensation..Might not be much but they weren't lobbying for higher, that's for certain:

The Defense Department proposed allowing a temporary pay increase for all troops worldwide (even those not in Iraq or Afghanistan) to expire, and promised to maintain current pay levels for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan with separate pay raises if necessary.

A Pentagon budget assessment sent to Congress in July called for letting a temporary combat pay raise enacted earlier that year for troops worldwide expire at the end of the fiscal year, Sept. 30. The result would have been a cut of $75 a month in "imminent danger pay" and $150 a month in "family separation allowances."(source:Vince Crawley and Dario Lopez-Mills. "Pentagon Pushes for Cuts in Danger, Separation Pays." Army Times . 18 Aug. 2003.)

Just thought I might point that out.

Thank you for your service to our country though, I am forever grateful to that.

-A

[xtc]

Originally posted by Victril
Its already been noted that Sadaam placed Civilians in key locations where bombing was going to take place. He put his people in danger. Colateral damage will always be around. Every life is prescious, but we've lost not even a fraction of the men and women who have died in WW2 and other conflicts. Besides, those of us who are in the military join for the defense of U.S., we understand whats at stake. Secondly i don't promote prisoner abuse, but if you saw one of these prisoners cut your best friend's head off, wouldn't you feel compelled to do some abusing too? Be honest with yourself, the enemy isn't playing by the rules, don't be surprised when we push the envelope ourselves. And as for occupation, who else would you have lead Iraq in this time of crisis? Definately not those cleric insurrectionists who have ALWAYS had reason to hate America, even before the war. Hell, most of our allies protest the fact we are sided with Isreal, and you can bet that they are going to push Kerry into leaving them in the dust if he gets ellected. And when that happens, things are realy gona get interesting.

Reason for going to war to find weapons of mass destruction. No weapons found no reason for going to war. USA was intrumental in putting Saddam in power and keeping there when it suited them. They knew in the 80's he was a butcher but they didn't care because they needed him. Same goes for Osama bin laden. They funded him to fight the Soviets and provided him with Weapons. But when he won a war the Americans couldn't fight, it was fuck off Osama we aren't going to help you rebuild Afghanistan.

America had never had a problem funding a brutal dictator if it suited their purposes. They put Pinochet in power after another individual had one an election. Pinochet was a butcher.

And before you call me a pinko, I have served and seen action.

[Edited on 10-11-2004 by xtc]

[Edited on 10-11-2004 by xtc]

I just have to put my two cents in.

My views on the subject are known, I agree with what is going on and in about 8 months from now I will be playing in the SandBox.

For people to look at the war in Iraq as a catastrophic failure in my view it is completely wrong. We have lost many service men over there though not anywhere near as many as we could have. We were able to liberate millions of people from oppression (yes I know to some of you that is not good enough. What about the other countries? I know that is a question you will ask, but for a moment leave that out of the equation and just look at Iraq alone.) We are currently in the process of an exit plan, though many of you believe there not to be one. At my time in basic we had quite a few reserve drill sergeants going though the company, all of which were being called to active duty, some 3,800 Army wide are being called back to head over to Iraq to train the Iraqi forces so they will be better able to defend themselves against problems foreign and domestic. We now have made a stepping stone for other such revolutions in the area so that the oppressive regimes surrounding Iraq may one day see the same freedoms that the Iraqi people eventually will. The change of a government is a very difficult thing, especially when you have religious fanatics such as those that practice Whabism<sp?> and people so ingrained with hate against the liberating power from the day they were born against the formation of that new government. I hope though that slowly things will calm down and those people will finally realize that we are trying to help them instead of harm them, but they need to understand that we are there for our own well being first and foremost. The USA comes first. Our government is in place to protect us, not the other people of the world. If in our actions to keep us safe there are side affects that help other countries that is a good thing, and that in my view is what is going on over in Iraq now.

XTC I have stated this before(not to you I dont think though), but If you think that our only reason for going to Iraq was to find WMD you are sorely mistaken. I would suggest finding a complete copy of President Bushes address to the UN, WMD was only one many reasons for our going.

[xtc]

Weapons of Mass Destruction was the only legal reason for going to war with Iraq. It is a point that Bush HARPED on before the war. He claimed Iraq was in violation of UN resolution 1441, which they weren't. When Collin Powell went to the UN, he harped on about Weapons of Mass Destruction. He provided intelligence report after intelligence report "proving" Iraq had these weapons. The reason Saddam was such a threat was because he had Weapons of Mass Destruction. To quote Kerry it was a campaign of Mass Deception. Bush started changing his stance to regime change only when it looked like WMD were not going to be found.

The vast majority of Muslims in Iraq are Shia's, next is Sunni's, not those who practice wahhabism. No one has been liberated. The fighting continues. What Bush has done is create a possible Iran/Iraq alliance and a shift in the seat of power in Islam from Saudi Arabia to Iran/Iraq. See Saddam was a Sunni but really not a believer. The vast majority of people in Iraq are Shia's and thus they will vote for a Shia leader. Iran is populated and run by Shia's they run a Islamic theocracy. Iranian Shia's are already talking with Iraq Shia's about an alliance. This would create even a bigger threat to the west.

Bush has not made the world a safer place. He went charging in without knowing his history, the tribes, the conflicts, or the players.

[DeV]

Liberation? No matter how you spell it out and what excuses Bush came up with regarding our reason for being there, It was not a just war. That is also why the UN did not back us in our decision to go to war with Iraq.

[Back]

Liberation. That still gets me. When everyone was asking for proof of WMDs, when the inspectors came back saying Iraq was complying, thats when the whole liberation theme started. Interesting that the word “liberation” is derivative of ”liberal”. And indeed, it would have been a liberal policy to actually try to liberate an oppressed people. Only that this liberation was one of profits.

There is no way in hell you can convice me that the real reason this administration went to Iraq was to selflessly liberate an oppressed peoples. That is the biggest fraud of the 21st century. Talk about flip-flopping. Talk about consistancy. Talk about waffling.

[Victril]

Ouch, i'm outnumbered! Fall back! Fall back! Heh. Sorry guys i gota bail to a safer thread, i feel i've been ousted from this one. Ah well, you guys are better debaters than i am, i just fix planes for a livin. This'll teach me to join political threads! Bad Victril Bad!

[Back]

Originally posted by Victril
Ouch, i'm outnumbered! Fall back! Fall back! Heh. Sorry guys i gota bail to a safer thread, i feel i've been ousted from this one. Ah well, you guys are better debaters than i am, i just fix planes for a livin. This'll teach me to join political threads! Bad Victril Bad!

Nah, its not like that at all. The more the merrier. Your observations of whats going on there count more than most of ours.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Backlash
Liberation. That still gets me. When everyone was asking for proof of WMDs, when the inspectors came back saying Iraq was complying, thats when the whole liberation theme started. Interesting that the word “liberation” is derivative of ”liberal”. And indeed, it would have been a liberal policy to actually try to liberate an oppressed people. Only that this liberation was one of profits.

There is no way in hell you can convice me that the real reason this administration went to Iraq was to selflessly liberate an oppressed peoples. That is the biggest fraud of the 21st century. Talk about flip-flopping. Talk about consistancy. Talk about waffling.

I'm one of those that think Bush should have simply told the truth.. that we had every indication that they had WMDs and that Saddam was actively pretending to have them. Certainly our intelligence was flawed. I think he should have just come clean with that instead of regime change... though I'm not sure what the implications would have been had he done that.

But to completely blame Bush for lying is downright ignorant. He had the same exact information as Kerry and they both came to the same exact conclusion and voted the same exact way.

[DeV]

Change of regime is not commonly accepted as a justification for war, nor should it be. I believe the reason Saddam was targeted was because it was believed he would never give up in his Pursuit of weapons of mass destruction.

[Xcalibur]

Originally posted by DarkelfVold

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by DarkelfVold
We need to take care of home first.

Yea, because that worked SOO well prior to WWII Funny you'd mention that. Considering the only reason we ventured into WWII was because Japan attacked us first. Those atrocities that were taking place in Germany and other countries Hitler terrorized were going on well before we decided to exert force so your point is borderlining on irrevelant. However, I can somewhat see where you are trying to go with it and still disagree.
We are doing the job of the UN and setting a precedent in the process.

What's to stop the next country that cries, "preemption and imminent threat" from attacking another country who they feel threatened by?

You need to review your history: the US joined way before by giving weaponry to the allies...

Without that help: you and me would be speaking german.

The US saved the civilised-world in WWII.

[DeV]

Giving weaponry to allies as opposed to actually sending in armed forces. Please X, use conductive reasoning. My point is the US would not have sacrificed troops had we nothing to gain.

[Xcalibur]

US were neutral. They were neutral. In that time, it was merely an European war. As much as the war of domination UK had before.

They couldn't send soldiers as it would force them to declare war AND maybe facing a total chaos INSIDE their countries.. As the opinion about war in that time was NOT that much against HItler (as he was doing a good job against some countries/races).

US were recovering as ALL countries from the great depression AND WWI, too.

I recall you that Germany would not had sacrificed soldiers for nothing
I recall you that Japan would not had sacrificed soldiers for nothing
I recall you that Italy would not had sacrificed soldiers for nothing
I recall you that UK would not had sacrificed soldiers for nothing
I recall you that France would not had sacrificed soldiers for nothing
I recall you that Spain would not had sacrificed soldiers for nothing
I recall you that Portugal would not had sacrificed soldiers for nothing

Et cetera.

It's normal.

Would you sacrifice your life for another country? No? Not them, also.

[DeV]

Thank you for making my point, X. I knew I could count on you. :thumbsup:

[Xcalibur]

But of course.

The Us saved the world, you should be proud:)

[Back]

Nuclear materials 'vanish' in Iraq (http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.nuclear/index.html)


Equipment and materials that could be used to make nuclear weapons have disappeared from Iraq, the chief of the U.N.'s atomic watchdog agency has warned.

Guess what time span this occured in? Yep, after the U.S. lead invasion. Someone dropped the ball... bigtime.

[DeV]

The U.S. government prevented U.N. weapons inspectors from returning to Iraq -- thereby blocking the IAEA from monitoring the high-tech equipment and materials -- after the U.S.-led war was launched in March 2003.
:rolleyes:

Originally posted by xtc
Weapons of Mass Destruction was the only legal reason for going to war with Iraq. It is a point that Bush HARPED on before the war. He claimed Iraq was in violation of UN resolution 1441, which they weren't. When Collin Powell went to the UN, he harped on about Weapons of Mass Destruction. He provided intelligence report after intelligence report "proving" Iraq had these weapons. The reason Saddam was such a threat was because he had Weapons of Mass Destruction. To quote Kerry it was a campaign of Mass Deception. Bush started changing his stance to regime change only when it looked like WMD were not going to be found.

The vast majority of Muslims in Iraq are Shia's, next is Sunni's, not those who practice wahhabism. No one has been liberated. The fighting continues. What Bush has done is create a possible Iran/Iraq alliance and a shift in the seat of power in Islam from Saudi Arabia to Iran/Iraq. See Saddam was a Sunni but really not a believer. The vast majority of people in Iraq are Shia's and thus they will vote for a Shia leader. Iran is populated and run by Shia's they run a Islamic theocracy. Iranian Shia's are already talking with Iraq Shia's about an alliance. This would create even a bigger threat to the west.

Bush has not made the world a safer place. He went charging in without knowing his history, the tribes, the conflicts, or the players.

I am left to wonder when you became an expert on International Law to know this to be factual. How do you know that we had no legal reason to go into Iraq. If you listen to the "experts" they come down on both sides of the issue, so it can not be from them. So tell me how is it that you know this?

[Snapp]

Originally posted by Victril
Ouch, i'm outnumbered! Fall back! Fall back! Heh. Sorry guys i gota bail to a safer thread, i feel i've been ousted from this one. Ah well, you guys are better debaters than i am, i just fix planes for a livin. This'll teach me to join political threads! Bad Victril Bad!

:offtopic:
Holy shit, another Delawarean!
:offtopic:

[Galleazzo]

Originally posted by Victril
I served during the Iraqi War and Operation Enduring Freedom. No longer is the United States known as a "push over", making threats and warnings to terrorist nations and giving into the demands of ruthless dictators. As for Korea and other nations, i think there are different tactics that are neccesary to meet the many situtations that are involved. Mostly Korea is just trying to push America into giving them more money, and under this administration we haven't given into them, and they haven't shown any action to back up there threats. So, we can't just say we need to police the world. I think we need to be able to differentiate circumstances that require force and those that require diplomacy. iI dunno. I was in the Navy for Desert Storm my own self. Seems to me that Bush lied about Iraq having nukes and bioweapons, and 1000 dead later we got ourselves a new Nam. Meanwhile North Korea HAS nukes, they BRAG about having nukes, and we play with ourselves. What the fuck?

The dirtbag Republicans impeached Clinton for cheating on his wife and lying about it. Now Bush lies about WMD and 1000 Americans died for it. Where's the impeachment now?

[Galleazzo]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
You keep using the term "He" didn't really have any proof of weapons of mass destruction. I'm not sure how many times it needs to be pointed out to you that the entire world believed he had them at the time. Or that Kerry also agreed with the same exact intelligence. I realize now Kerry WISHED he had not agreed with Bush.. but unfortunately for him, the media was there as well as the record of his votes.Like every other Senator, Kerry went with the information the Bush administration put out. So he screwed up for not figuring Bush would sucker the whole Congress into his bullshit?

We don't elect presidents to be liars or incompetants. Bush CLAIMED have had the proof in hand, he SHOULD have had the proof in hand, and if he didn't, he shouldn't have killed a thousand of our boys in a frigging wild goose chase, and since he didn't, he should have had the stones not to run for reelection.

Which is he, PB? Incompetant or a liar?

[Hulkein]

The intelligence gathering agencies were incompetent.

PS. I think you meant inductive or deductive reasoning, DEV :)

[Back]

Originally posted by Hulkein
The intelligence gathering agencies were incompetent.

PS. I think you meant inductive or deductive reasoning, DEV :)

I don’t buy it. Too convenient. So no one was at fault. No way. This administration pushed/sold/baited and switched everyone into it. Including the intelligence community. And who is head of the administration? The President. When does he actually take responsibility for something? Oh, right, when a few piddly-ass minimum wage jobs are made.

The whole world didn’t believe it like some people here claim. Thats bullshit. Thats why they had such a hard time getting anyone on board. The whole world was suspect more like. The administration kept saying over and over they had proof. Now no one will take responsibility.

[Ilvane]

I'll say after watching Fahrenheit 9/11 again I really do agree that Bush was really intent on being in Iraq after 9/11.

He had wanted to attack Iraq even before 9/11 and then tried everything to get them attached to the World trade center at any cost.

He's still trying to link them, as is Dick Cheney..and yet they have absolutely no proof of that at all.

-A

[DeV]

Originally posted by Hulkein
The intelligence gathering agencies were incompetent.

PS. I think you meant inductive or deductive reasoning, DEV :) Yes, glad you could figure out what I meant Hulkien. That was some good deductive reasoning going on.

We can blame it on the intelligence agencies, bottom line, Bush is our leader. It is his job to make sure they get it right, with the necessary proof and information to back up their claims. They were incompetent and provided a fitting reflection of our leader's decision to go forth.

[Hulkein]

<<Thats why they had such a hard time getting anyone on board.>>

No, we had such a hard time getting France, Germany, and Russia on board because the UN is corrupt and they were involved in a scandal with Saddam Hussein.

As Tamral said in another thread... it's not the Presidents job to micromanage. He isn't in the desert or the expert viewing satellite photos.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Hulkein
it's not the Presidents job to micromanage. He isn't in the desert or the expert viewing satellite photos. It might not be his job to micro-manage but if he plans on dropping the bomb, so to speak, on the American people with his reasons why war is necessary, the least he could have done was proof the so called proof.
If they don't have sufficient evidence now, they didn't have it then and he should have demanded more before soldiers were sent packing.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Galleazzo
we got ourselves a new Nam. Although it's hard to believe given some of the other things in that very post, that is the dumbest thing you've ever said.

I'd say the second most effective line of this administration was "we can't let a mushroom cloud be a smoking gun", or something to that effect. It's effective because it's true.

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by Ilvane
I'll say after watching Fahrenheit 9/11 again I really do agree that Bush was really intent on being in Iraq after 9/11.

He had wanted to attack Iraq even before 9/11 and then tried everything to get them attached to the World trade center at any cost.

He's still trying to link them, as is Dick Cheney..and yet they have absolutely no proof of that at all.

-A

You know what, Angela? I really like you and have immense respect for you, but hearing you use a Michael Moore movie as a reference is just not something I would expect you to do. You're smarter than that.

[Back]

Originally posted by Hulkein
<<Thats why they had such a hard time getting anyone on board.>>

No, we had such a hard time getting France, Germany, and Russia on board because the UN is corrupt and they were involved in a scandal with Saddam Hussein.

As Tamral said in another thread... it's not the Presidents job to micromanage. He isn't in the desert or the expert viewing satellite photos.

Conspiracy time, eh Hulk? Thats not even 10% of the total member nations of the UN, besides the world wide protests when this was all going down.

I don’t buy it. What does he take responsibility for? A few piddly-ass minimum wage jobs hes recovered, not created, recovered during his term?

I’m sorry, but if our President is going to war, you know, where people die, lives are destroyed, progress reversed, blowed up women and children in the cross-fire kind of war, he better damn well have concrete, hard evidence before hand. My opinion of him would be much different had he shown, from the very beginning, that there was without a doubt, hard factual evidence to his claims.

[xtc]

[quote]Originally posted by Hulkein
<<Thats why they had such a hard time getting anyone on board.>>

No, we had such a hard time getting France, Germany, and Russia on board because the UN is corrupt and they were involved in a scandal with Saddam Hussein.

As Tamral said in another thread... it's not the Presidents job to micromanage. He isn't in the desert or the expert viewing satellite photos. [/quote

What about all the other countries in the world? and to my recollection only France had contracts with Saddam