Free speech is a beautiful thing.

[PCL_128]

Don't try to use a small simple fact to turn the attention away from the big picture.

Oh, I'm sorry. I hate to let actual facts get in the way of your crazy liberal rantings. I guess I just forgot for a minute that pesky little things like facts aren't really important to the liberal agenda. I'll try to remember that in the future.

That WASN'T the basis for going to war. The basis was WMD. There have been none found. They will find none.

The WMD are most likely in Syria, but that isn't really the point. The point is that there were many reasons for going to war in Iraq, not just WMD:

1. Remove a murderous dictator that was known for using chemical weapons for the systematic murder of his opponents
2. Remove a regime from power that was friendly to the terrorist groups that aim to destroy western culture
3. Fight the enemy somewhere other than the homeland
4. Begin a process that will change the basic culture in the Middle East and move it towards democracy

I could go on and on with reasons why this war is justified, but since you've already said that "small simple facts" aren't important to you, then I'm just wasting my time. I'll let you get back to your irrational hatred of Bush and the Republican party now.

 

[Traumahawk]

Do a little research and you won't look so stupid.

Read a little further....I'm talking less than a paragraph ya twit.


Pg. 83 of the 911 Commission's report.

"..But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States."

hehe...whoops...fogot to include that part didn't we?

Translation. No link..between 9/11 or Iraq. But just the other day the President was touting just that!!! And People are dying as we speak in a country we have absolutely NO business in at this time, especially not in the effort we have put forth.

Bush barely won both elections. In fact, he didn't have the popular vote the first time. And his approval ratings continue to fall. I think people support more of cleaning up the mess he made, rather than the laughable propaganda Bush lays out there as far as Iraq being about our freedom.

I think we have taken a HUGE step back by concentrating on Iraq instead of other interests, Sadam in power or not. We walked up and kicked a H3LL of a bee-hive.

T-hawk

 

[Traumahawk]

The WMD are most likely in Syria, but that isn't really the point. The point is that there were many reasons for going to war in Iraq, not just WMD:

1. Remove a murderous dictator that was known for using chemical weapons for the systematic murder of his opponents
2. Remove a regime from power that was friendly to the terrorist groups that aim to destroy western culture
3. Fight the enemy somewhere other than the homeland
4. Begin a process that will change the basic culture in the Middle East and move it towards democracy

I could go on and on with reasons why this war is justified, but...

The Iraq war, what is it??! Well, it's a big blunder of falsely driven American support for stopping terror in the completely wrong place....but that's not important right now.....

Syria!?!? Doh...we were sooo close. When should we move in??

WMD not in Iraq but thats NOT IMPORTANT!!??? NOT IMPORTANT!!??
Tell that to the parents and friends and kin of hundreds, thousands, of Dead, shot, kidnapped, stabbed, exploded, critically injured people who were in Iraq because of that MAIN reason in the first place!!!

That was NUMBER ONE my friend, ONE on the priority of being in Iraq. Do you remember the speech the President gave?? Giving Sadam to the count of 3 to give up the weapons or else we would move in and find them by force???

Where was mid-east democracy in that speech??

Hey by the way....I like your secondary excuses for going to war, but um, nope, thats NOT why we went. Those are reasons Bush came up with after we came up with ZILCH, maybe even a nice little project if we didn't have bigger things on our plate. Terrorists, and how about problems on our homeland??

Spit up the Koolaid. You have forgotten the real WHY's in the first place. Time does that to you.

P.S. I don't HATE any party, I hate hypocracy. OUR president, often defines the word.

T-Hawk

 

[SWAnnabee]

There was as much of a tie between Sadam and Al Qaeda as there was between dog sh!t and oranges.

They don't like each other, they stand for different things, they have no interest in one another.

"In February 1999, Allen proposed flying a U2 missioni over Afganistan to build a baseline of intelligence outside the area where the tribals had coverage. Clarke was nervous about such a mission because he continued to fear that Bin Laden might leave for someplace less accessable. He wrote to Deputy Natinoal Security Advisor Donald Kerrik that one reliable source reported Bin Laden's having met with Iraqi officials, who "may have offered him assylum." Other intelligence sources said that some Taliban leaders, though not mullah Omar, had urged Bin Laden to go to Iraq."

How you can argue that there is no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda is beyond me.

Read a little further....I'm talking less than a paragraph ya twit.


Pg. 83 of the 911 Commission's report.

"..But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States."

Read this VERRRRY CARRRREFULLLLY. "Operational relationship" is not the same as a financial relationship or harboring or providing safe haven. Same with the "developing or carrying out" any attacks. Why would Saddam need to help with eveloping or carrying out attacks. Bin Laden is perfectly capable of planning and carrying out his own plans. What Iraq DID provide was intelligence and financial and technical SUPPORT. Which is a "tie". Which is why your quoted statement above is WRONG. Which is my POINT.

Originally Posted by Traumahawk
There was as much of a tie between Sadam and Al Qaeda as there was between dog sh!t and oranges.

They don't like each other, they stand for different things, they have no interest in one another.

You, sir, are WRONG that "they don't like each other, they stand for different things,they have no interest in one another." They clearly do.

 

[Smacktard]

Read this VERRRRY CARRRREFULLLLY. "Operational relationship" is not the same as a financial relationship or harboring or providing safe haven. Same with the "developing or carrying out" any attacks. Why would Saddam need to help with eveloping or carrying out attacks. Bin Laden is perfectly capable of planning and carrying out his own plans. What Iraq DID provide was intelligence and financial and technical SUPPORT. Which is a "tie". Which is why your quoted statement above is WRONG. Which is my POINT.

Don't even bother. Common sense won't work. Traumahawk is still to traumatized by 8 years of Bush to ever accept logic. They want the phone call from Saddam authorizing 9/11.

 

[PCL_128]

How you can argue that there is no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda is beyond me.

That question can be answered with one of Numbnuts' own posts:

Don't try to use a small simple fact to turn the attention away from the big picture.

You see, facts aren't important to Numbnuts. He'll continue to rail against the President and the Republican party no matter what. All reasoning and common sense left him long ago when he decided to become a liberal.

 

[threegreen123]

The simple FACT of the matter is that the Bush administration has continualy lied to the American public. And we still have three years left. God help us!

3 Years left until Jeb gives it a try that is. God help us!

 

[fugghedabowdit]

Saddam Hussein could not stand to have Al-Qaeda on his turf, it would represent a second power base and destablize his authority. He regularly killed Islamic fundamentalist clerics for this reason. His was a secular regime, Al-Qaeda is not.

The SAUDIS gave logistical and financial support. Go bomb them.

This war was about WMD which did not exist. Plain and simple. what we're seeing now is mission creep, which is what George 41 avoided during Gulf War 1. IMO, he was a highly underrated President and made alot of tough calls that he got alot of flack for. He knew an unstable, toppled Iraq was beyond the mission of liberating Kuwait and he stuck to his guns. Too bad Jr had to try to one up him. He wanted to do this from the minute he took office and 9/11 gave him the perfect cover. What a wasted opportunity to unite the country and the world against the real enemy.

The fact that we are so divided about this is a faliure of his Presidency.

 

[Foldem]

The WMD are most likely in Syria, but that isn't really the point. The point is that there were many reasons for going to war in Iraq, not just WMD:

1. Remove a murderous dictator that was known for using chemical weapons for the systematic murder of his opponents
-Is it not murder when we kill his people?
2. Remove a regime from power that was friendly to the terrorist groups that aim to destroy western culture
-Is the US not responible for its relationships with terrorist groups that share that goal?
3. Fight the enemy somewhere other than the homeland
-You're implying Iraqis were about in invade. False.
4. Begin a process that will change the basic culture in the Middle East and move it towards democracy
-No, it won't. The Iraqis know it. Trust their own judgement.

 

[D.sanchez]

The WMD are most likely in Syria, but that isn't really the point. The point is that there were many reasons for going to war in Iraq, not just WMD

If WMD's wasn't the major reason for invading Iraq, why were most of Bush's, Chenney's, Rumsfield's speeches leading up to the war talking so much about Iraq and their WMD threat? I remember the speeches almost exclusively about 'the smoking gun will be a mushroom cloud' and ' Saddam's WMD'S falling into the wrong hands..' and such. Maybe you don't remember this because you have selective memory... or maybe you're just lying to yourself. I remember, and so does everyone else.

Oh, now they're in Syria....ARE YOU F'ING KIDDING ME?!?!?.. If Saddam had WMD's, he would have used them when we he was cornered and had nowhere to run-- I can think of no reason why he wouldn't have used them.. he had nothing to left to lose....Before you respond to my post, answer this question.. Why would Saddam not use the only weapons (the supposed WMD's) he had to defend himself? The simple answer is, he didn't have them. Stop making up unbelievable BS about sending them to Syria.

 

[HoursHore]

Is that Avatar from Bang Bus?

 

[AirBill]

What was the title of this thread again?

It should be "Tools With Diarrheah of the Mouth Who Can't Stay on Topic."

I figure it's only a matter of time before someone blames Iraq and WMD on Chautauqua or Mesa. Or Gulfstream. Or Pinnacle. Or the RJDC.

 

[SkyBoy1981]

You see, facts aren't important to Numbnuts. He'll continue to rail against the President and the Republican party no matter what. All reasoning and common sense left him long ago when he decided to become a liberal.

Exactly.

 

[PCL_128]

-Is it not murder when we kill his people?

No, we aren't attacking innocent Iraqis. We are attacking terrorists who aim to destroy the fragile democracy that is being built in Iraq. The terrorists are the ones killing the Iraqis with their car bombs and suicide bombers.

2. Remove a regime from power that was friendly to the terrorist groups that aim to destroy western culture
-Is the US not responible for its relationships with terrorist groups that share that goal?

You'll have to be more specific. I'm not aware of any U.S. relationship with a terrorist group.

3. Fight the enemy somewhere other than the homeland
-You're implying Iraqis were about in invade. False.

Not at all. You fail to see that we aren't fighting Iraqis now. We are fighting terrorists that have come to Iraq from places like Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, etc... Their aim is to destroy the progress that has been made in Iraq. If they're fighting us there, then they aren't fighting us here at home.

4. Begin a process that will change the basic culture in the Middle East and move it towards democracy
-No, it won't. The Iraqis know it. Trust their own judgement.

I'd venture to say that you don't have a clue what the Iraqis think. All you know is what CNN and Al Franken tell you. Try talking to some American servicemen whenever you see them in the terminal. I do ever chance I get. They usually don't talk of car bombs and terrorists. They talk of the schools, police stations, fire stations, electric grid, etc... that they are all creating in Iraq. Stop listening to CNN and start listening to the people that were actually there working on this new democracy. I trust their judgement a lot more than I trust Christian Amanpour from CNN.

 

[blingair]

Wow, reading the posts from the people on the right, they seem to be chanting the same things over and over. Its getting harder and harder to swallow the same general idealisms handed to them from the President.