The Iraq thread 3

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Europe has no so called 'debt' to repay, if you go by that logic the US repayed it's debt to France by going to help in WW2.

WW1......

So, sleepy................................must rest....................... and prepare for 5 minute speech................zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.................zzzzz

[homerj 0]

My bad, check this site out.

http://www.post-gazette.com/world/20030522iraqnukew1.asp

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/news/s_128200.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2....printer

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2....printer

All thes articles say that these places did have nuclear material that is now missing.

I dont think his acts of genocide and opressing minorities while elevating his own tribe and people were for keeping things together. But you said it yourself, he did it to keep the sunnis down, whereas the soudis do it for punishment.

I dont mean to justify what the soudis are doing, but what they are doing is PUNISMENT, what he did was torture.

I was refering to the terrorists, who are the minority in the region, most Muslims arent like that. But be real, they arent exactly comming from canada or ohio now are they?

[homerj 0]

Why not? It another good example of how we dont sit back and do nothing in regards to dictators, threats to us or not.

We could manufacture everything we needed. It was you guys who needed to trade with us.

What about WWI? and bailing them out of nam?

Good luck on your test, sociology is a bitch.

[Frisbee 0]

But be real, they arent exactly comming from canada or ohio now are they?

No, there you would have other religious fanatics.

Think of militias, and the crazy people who think that Bush raving on and on about God in his speeches as the president of a free, democratic nation is a good thing.

Moral higher ground, what's that?

Really reaaaaaally need to go now, though.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Good luck on your test, sociology is a bitch.

SOC 101 was easy.......................zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[homerj 0]

Since when were there millitia in ohio? Even if there were are they blowing themselves up?

[billybob2002 0]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122934,00.html

Quote[/b] ]

Report Bluntly Contradicts Bush?

Thursday, June 17, 2004

By Brit Hume

The latest from the Political Grapevine:

Report Bluntly Contradicts Bush?

The Associated Press leads off its story on a new 9/11-commission report by saying the document -- "bluntly contradict the Bush administration" by claiming to have no credible evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the September 11th terrorist attacks.

In fact, the Bush administration has never said that such evidence exists. President Bush denied a connection to 9/11 as recently as last September, saying -- "we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September 11th."

Bush went on to say,  -- "there's no question that Saddam Hussein had Al Qaeda ties" -- an assertion that the commission's report actually supports.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[blackdog~ 0]

More confusing liberal headlines!

First thought that ran through my mind is that AP was saying that there was no relation of Saddam and 9/11 and Al Queda.

but

Bush says that INDEED there were no ties with Saddam and 9/11 but there were ties between him and Al Queda. Woo just thought I'd clear that up.

[blackdog~ 0]

Since when were there millitia in ohio? Even if there were are they blowing themselves up?

If that headline about the FBI catching terrorists in Ohio was true, then boy were those terrorists dumb. Honestly, who in their right mind would bomb a mall in Ohio. I didn't even know there were malls in Ohio. I thought there were just potatoes. Wait wait, I see the connection. The potato heads were going to bomb the malls in Ohio. THere we go.

[ralphwiggum 6]

.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tm....inter=1

Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Army is bringing murder charges against a soldier who fatally shot at close range an Iraqi man who already was badly wounded in a vehicle after a high-speed chase in Iraq (news - web sites), officials said on Wednesday.

"Charges have been preferred," said Lt. Col. Pamela Hart, an Army spokeswoman at the Pentagon (news - web sites), but she did not specify the charges or name the 1st Armored Division soldier. Another Army official said the soldier is being charged with murder after the Army Criminal Investigation Division looked into the May 21 shooting near Kufa in southern Iraq.

The incident took place after U.S. forces engaged in a high-speed chase after coming across a motorcade in which the Iraqi was driving one of the vehicles, according to a statement issued by U.S. Central Command on June 4.

The man's vehicle was hit by gunfire and he was seriously wounded, while a passenger in the vehicle was less seriously wounded, according to that statement. The U.S. soldier then approached the car and shot the wounded drive to death at close range, according to the statement.

At the time, defense officials said the investigation centered on "a potential violation of U.S. rules of engagement." They said the soldier may have shot the Iraqi to end the wounded man's suffering, but one official added that soldiers "don't get to make those kinds of decisions."

[ralphwiggum 6]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122934,00.html

Quote[/b] ]

Report Bluntly Contradicts Bush?

Thursday, June 17, 2004

By Brit Hume

The latest from the Political Grapevine:

Report Bluntly Contradicts Bush?

The Associated Press leads off its story on a new 9/11-commission report by saying the document -- "bluntly contradict the Bush administration" by claiming to have no credible evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the September 11th terrorist attacks.

In fact, the Bush administration has never said that such evidence exists. President Bush denied a connection to 9/11 as recently as last September, saying -- "we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September 11th."

Bush went on to say,  -- "there's no question that Saddam Hussein had Al Qaeda ties" -- an assertion that the commission's report actually supports.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

.

http://www.cnn.com/2004....ex.html

Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Vice President Dick Cheney said Thursday the evidence is "overwhelming" that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, and he said media reports suggesting that the the 9/11 commission has reached a contradictory conclusion were "irresponsible."

"There clearly was a relationship. It's been testified to. The evidence is overwhelming," Cheney said in an interview with CNBC's "Capitol Report."

"It goes back to the early '90s. It involves a whole series of contacts, high-level contacts with Osama bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence officials."

"The press, with all due respect, (is) often times lazy, often times simply reports what somebody else in the press said without doing their homework."

[homerj 0]

LOL, yeah, who would have know ohio was on their list.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122934,00.html

Quote[/b] ]

Report Bluntly Contradicts Bush?

Thursday, June 17, 2004

By Brit Hume

The latest from the Political Grapevine:

Report Bluntly Contradicts Bush?

The Associated Press leads off its story on a new 9/11-commission report by saying the document -- "bluntly contradict the Bush administration" by claiming to have no credible evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the September 11th terrorist attacks.

In fact, the Bush administration has never said that such evidence exists. President Bush denied a connection to 9/11 as recently as last September, saying -- "we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September 11th."

Bush went on to say,  -- "there's no question that Saddam Hussein had Al Qaeda ties" -- an assertion that the commission's report actually supports.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Holy shit, Brit Hume lying for the administration? That's never happened before.

[wildbrumby 0]

Quote[/b] ]Hmmm.....Clinton said that Iraq had WMDs.

So what? Clinton said a lot of things that I think were pretty dumb. Oh, wasn't he the guy that blew up that chemical plant over in Sudan on a pretext that it was manufacturing WMDs?

Quote[/b] ]

I cannot believe people still think this crap.

I think will have a Saddam fan......

Ok, well give me a good reason why this war isn't a result of American imperalism. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a duck. We invade an innocent nation, destroy thousands of people, impose our government upon them, and then we claim we're not imperalists? And as to being a Saddam fan? I'll admit that he was a ruthless dictator, but that is no justification for removing him. Since when has America become the world's policeman?

Quote[/b] ]Oh God forbid we go liberate 25+million people. How awful of us.

Oh, those 25+ million people who we "liberated" don't seem too apprecative. How many US soldiers have been killed by these "liberated" people? How many people are weeping with gratitude that the US has come in, bombed their country, killed their brothers, tortured their countrymen, and plunged the nation into chaos.

Quote[/b] ]

Wake up we did find wmds, hear of the sarin and mustard gas bomb?

Oh yes, that bomb that failed to go off. First, how can we know that the chemical was created by Saddam and "hidden"? How can we know that it wasn't brought into the country by terrorists? And a tiny amount of chemicals doesn't really classify as a reason for invading a country does it? The point is, even if Saddam DID have WMDs, SO DAMN WHAT???

Quote[/b] ]Someone who has nothing to hide dosent kick inspecors out for nothing does he?

The UN inspectors should not have been nosing through places they did not belong anyway. Who gives America the RIGHT to impose itself on the rest of the world?

Quote[/b] ]

Plus we were at a constant state of war with them. Iraqi AA sites were constantly targeting and attacking coalition fighters over the no-fly zone. So how many more reasons do you want?

Some better reasons then you gave me! The United States of Arrogance decreed (by their "divine" authority) that the Iraqi's couldn't fly planes over parts of their own country. THEIR OWN COUNTRY!!! How would you like it if that was inforced in America by a hostile power?

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Quote[/b] ]Hmmm.....Clinton said that Iraq had WMDs.

Yes, and he also started a massive war with far-reaching implications for the entire region as well as for our countr- oh wait; HE DIDN'T. Face it: containment worked, and you have Clinton to thank for it.

[homerj 0]

Imperialism would mean that we would have an empire, to have an empire we would have to colonize other countries. But come june 30 we hand over power to the iraqis and we are that much closer to getting out of there. So no, what we did isnt imperialistic, if it were where are the boats of American colonists?

LOL, innocent, far from it.

How bout you prove that it is imperialism? You even know what it means?

Gee you make it seem like they all are shooting at us. The hot spots are contained in the sunni triangle, everywhere else is relatively peacefull. No big suprise that the saddam lover over there are going to fight to keep their privaleges and status.

Noone said it would be easy, nothing worth doing ever is.

LOL, "so what'? Gee you fail to grasp how dangerous those weapons are in the hands of saddam and terrorists.

After the 1st gulf war they agreed to inspections, thats where we got the right to "nose" around. If we dont who will? And whose going to stop proliferation of WMDs? As the worlds only superpower its our duty and responsiblity to make keep those weapons out of enemy hands. Its not a right, its a responsibility. We are responsible for keeping the sadams and hitlers of the world on their ass. We made the mistake of not doing anything too many times and we wont make it again. Have we all learned nothing from the holocaust and 9/11? All evil needs to triumph is for good men to do nothing. And we wont sit around and let that crap happen, whats so wrong about that?

Your conveniently forgeting why the fuck it was there in the first place. Let me refresh your slelctive memory, it was to stop saddam from gassing the kurds. How dare we do something that saves the lives of thousands, how fucking awful for us to make sure a dictator dosent gass innocent women and children. Gee, if it was your people getting gassed wouldnt you want someone to protect you and your family from the likes of saddam?

If it was enforced in America to save thousands of lives I wouldnt have a prob with it. Why would I?

[homerj 0]

Clinton paved the way for regime change when he made it our policy.

Oh really? If containment worked how the hell did al queda affiliated terrorists get there? Remember hitler? We though contaiment would work with him too, boy were we wrong, and we didnt make the same mistake twice.

[billybob2002 0]

Must sleep........

Quote[/b] ]Ok, well give me a good reason why this war isn't a result of American imperalism. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a duck. We invade an innocent nation, destroy thousands of people, impose our government upon them, and then we claim we're not imperalists? And as to being a Saddam fan? I'll admit that he was a ruthless dictator, but that is no justification for removing him. Since when has America become the world's policeman?

Quote[/b] ]Oh yes, that bomb that failed to go off. First, how can we know that the chemical was created by Saddam and "hidden"? How can we know that it wasn't brought into the country by terrorists? And a tiny amount of chemicals doesn't really classify as a reason for invading a country does it? The point is, even if Saddam DID have WMDs, SO DAMN WHAT???

WTF....Look in this thread for the answers.

Why do you just admit that you are anti-american or communist or something because your rant looks like it...........I'm too sleepy for this crap....

America=empire is the most dumbest shit ever. The last true imperalist was in office was in the early 1900s...........zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

zzzzzzzzzbraindead...............

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Holy shit, Brit Hume lying for the administration? That's never happened before.

He is not lying because Bush never said directly that Iraq was a part of the 9/11 attacks im public. OMG it is 3:13 AM.....        

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Quote[/b] ]Holy shit, Brit Hume lying for the administration? That's never happened before.

He is not lying because Bush never said directly that Iraq was a part of the 9/11 attacks im public. OMG it is 3:13 AM.....        

Read Plan of Attack. And then read the transcript of the White House press conference I posted earlier. 1) Because from late September '01 on, the administration pressed the Pentagon to draw up an invasion of Iraq and for the CIA to find an Iraq-9/11 connection, despite being busy with Afghanistan at the time 2) The White House never made more than vague assertions of the link between Iraq and AQ; in a situation where most Americans don't know anything about AQ except they were responsible for 9/11, just vaguely referencing a connection is tantamount to implicating Iraq in the attacks. How else do you explain the polls showing over 40% of Americans still believing Iraq was involved? It's the Goebbels 'Big Lie' theory in practice. 3) Contacts != ties, collaboration, or relationships. The two entities made contact less than 10 times, and no working relationship or coordination ever occurred. AQ wasn't even able to use Iraq as a recruiting base (bar recruiting in the Kurdish autonomous zone) until post-invasion. It's embarassing to point to this abortive game of international phone tag as "long standing ties" as both Cheney and Bush have asserted. But, for fun, let's play your game. Let's say that a meeting between two officials constitutes "long standing ties" and a "collaborative relationship", as far as 10 years down the line...

Oh snap- that means that we actually attacked Iraq during the Gulf War while we simultaneously having long standing ties and a collaborative relationship with them. How awkward.

[homerj 0]

The pentagon is always drawing up contingency plans for invadinghostile neighbors. Whats new?

The CIA was asked to find a iraq-aq link, last time I checked wasnt it their job to find links and stuff like that?

[Tex -USMC- 0]

The pentagon is always drawing up contingency plans for invadinghostile neighbors. Whats new?

The CIA was asked to find a iraq-aq link, last time I checked wasnt it their job to find links and stuff like that?

No, they already had a contingency plan. The administration wanted them to draw up a new one about 3 years ahead of schedule.

When I say find a link I mean find (wink wink, nudge dudge) a link.

[Frisbee 0]

Imperialism would mean that we would have an empire, to have an empire we would have to colonize other countries. But come june 30 we hand over power to the iraqis

Iraqi's of american choosing, so no religious fanatics (even though that would probably be democratic), America has a long and proud history of puppet regimes. So no, not literally a new star on your flag, but nonetheless quite imperialistic.

Also : imperialism is an extended form of hyper-nationalism.

Notice : Land of the freeâ„¢, Coalition of the willingâ„¢, Bringers of democracyâ„¢, Axis of evilâ„¢ and the huge public pleaser 'With God by our side...'

This is, imho a disturbing change in American foreign policy.

Furthermore, as it has been stated many times before, Saddam was a bloody oppressor, but he was one of the most stable regimes in the region. Also one of the more 'advanced' (in our eyes) nations, which is also why he used to be such a good buddy of everyone.

Saddam has people killed, tortured and so forth to stay on his cushy throne and keep sipping his vodka martini's.

Bush sends young soldiers to war, to kill, be killed (and torture people one might say, but I won't go there) with the purpose of pleasing his corporate buddies, and thus staying in power, and maybe being able to run for a second term succesfully.

This makes them about equal in my book, Iraq became target because :

a) After the gulf war, people already know the general area Iraq is in, and that the bad guy has a mustache and is named Saddam. Thus, with the previous run-ins it was easy to make a story stick.

b) Iraq could be taken rather easily, little power left in Saddam after years of (succesful) containment, a weakened military and a great terrain to show some pretty pictures of LGB's blowing stuff up, and Abrams's do look pretty in desert camo. Good for giving this whole war on terrorism a visual in the media, nevermind that this has nothing to do with terrorism, but if a guy's name is Ali, Mustaffa or I don't know...Saddam? He must have some kind of terrorist connection, right?

Undeniably, there are other, more brutal dictators, in other, just as unstable regions, with definite WMD's, not just 'the potential, to maybe, after a decade or so, maybe, with some luck produce a WMD''.

Iraq was, unlucky enough for them, just a perfect posterchild to try and give Bush some credibility after the fruitless war on terrorism.

Thanks for the good luck btw, it seemed to have helped, easy exam, went pretty well, thanks

[homerj 0]

What? So we have to stick to ONE single contingency plan? You know countries change and plans need to be altered. Maybe there was something wrong with teh old one.

Oh I get it, another liberal conspiracy theory.

That one has been thrown around for a while and theres still no evidence its true.

[denoir 0]

Sure, look at what it did to khadafii, he gave up his wmds, see its working already and we havent even handed over power to the iraqis.

Saddam gave up his too, but Bush wanted his little war too badly. Now I know that tens of thousands dead Iraqis don't mean anything to you, but the 840 dead US soldiers shouls.

Quote[/b] ]

Remember the IAF strike on the iraqi nuclear fascility? That was after 1991.

Now, I'm more than happy to correct you on every point, but really, it would save us a lot more time if you read up on the most basic things.

It was in 1981.

Quote[/b] ]Look at my post with all the links. Those guys were al queda sponsored, they trained and fought with them.

Yupp, and faught against Saddam.

Quote[/b] ]No its not, they got allot of stuff, but our stuff is better, look at korea. Smaller better equiped and trained US forces held off and defeated larger chinese ones. And with our technology they couldnt win. If they put all their stuff on the field, and we did the same, there is no way they could win. Toe to toe they dont stand a chance in hell. But whatever its not going to happen soon, they arent going to attack their biggest customer.

You know, had you asked me two years ago, I might have agreed with you. After seeing how the US military is incapable of dealing with a few RPG carrying rebels and after a number of failures like Fallujah, I don't think so anymore.

Quote[/b] ]The threat was that they had wmds and were actively trying to acquire more of them(why else would they kick inspectors out), in a post 9/11 world we couldnt let that stuff get to terrorists hands. Iraq supported terrorists, iraq hates the US, sounds like an equation for a wmd attack on the US to me.

Another typical skewing of the facts: Iraq did not kick the inspectors out. Now let's read that again: Iraq did not kick the inspectors out. They left by their own free will after being fed up with Iraqi obstruction of the process. Why the obstruction? A number of reasons, most likely that they weren't too fond of American spies (among the inspectors) touring their top-secret weapons facilities.

Regardless, the inspectors were before the war in agreement that Iraq had started fully to cooperate and that they got access to everything. Of course this did not change TBA's mind.

Quote[/b] ]Sure freeing millions and taking out a dictator is illegal and unjust.

Killing tens of thousands and miserabely failing in setting up even a basic social/political system. Face it, Iraq is a big ugly failure. The only thing achieved so far is the removal of Saddam, and that's worth nothing without replacing him with something adequate. Right now things are no better than under Saddam. Look at the polls and the surveys to see what the Iraqis think of you. No WMDs were found. Terrorist activity world wide has gone through the roof.

Bush is the danger to world peace (well, not any more, he has had his dick cut of after this miserable failure in Iraq, but he was before the war), not Saddam.

Quote[/b] ]Then so was fighting hitler, but why arent you bitching about that?

Hitler invaded allied country and even then, you came two years too late.

Quote[/b] ]We could have stayed out of europe and just go after japan, hell we could have even sided with germany.

Hardly. America was on Hitler's list. Had Europe fallen, America would be very very alone.