Powell: No connection between Iraq and 9/11

nakedemperor said:
Wade, he's right, WMD weren't the ONLY reason, but like I said, it was 99.9% of why we went. Sure, humanitarian efforts are all well and good, but that's NOT why we're in Iraq right now. Like Jim said, there were myriad reasons (no preposition with myriad, by the bye) for going to war, but the driving force was far and away WMD and terrorism.

Of course rhetoric is going to include humanitarian references, but again, we didn't go to Iraq to free people, we didn't go to Afghanistan to free people, we went there to make the people of the U.S. safer, and IN DOING SO, peoples were liberated, but we didn't go there explicitly to free them.

WMD's were a big selling point because

1. EVERYONE thought they had them
2. REASONABLE people would quickly agree that Saddam would use them

Now WMDs are simply the libs favorite way of accusing Bush of being a liar
 
dilloduck said:
WMD's were a big selling point because

1. EVERYONE thought they had them
2. REASONABLE people would quickly agree that Saddam would use them

Now WMDs are simply the libs favorite way of accusing Bush of being a liar

Everyone thought they had them because of the administration's datamined information and rhetoric and presentations that even Colin Powell has since called "dishonest" and "deliberately misleading".

Now WMDs are simply a black eye for the administration that has the pay the price for overestimating, LOOKING for information to support policy, rather than basing policy on information, and then selling it for much much MUCH more than it was worth.
 
nakedemperor said:
Everyone thought they had them because of the administration's datamined information and rhetoric and presentations that even Colin Powell has since called "dishonest" and "deliberately misleading".

Now WMDs are simply a black eye for the administration that has the pay the price for overestimating, LOOKING for information to support policy, rather than basing policy on information, and then selling it for much much MUCH more than it was worth.

Depends on who you ask? It was the best use of MY tax money for years!
 
Bravo Naked and Wade,

It is crazy to believe this country would have offered up its soldiers solely for the liberation of Iraq or the enforcement of the resolutions. It went ONE-WMD,....two-Ties to Al-Qaeda...and three-Saddam was evil/liberation. If anyone here sincerely cares about people around the world then where is the uproar for what is happening in the Sudan? We only attack when threatened and WMD was a perfect instance for the Administration to use - they probably believed it as everyone else did but there was no immediate threat that required us to abandon the world and cash in all of our diplomatic capital. Now we are there predominantly alone.
 
nakedemperor said:
Wade, he's right, WMD weren't the ONLY reason, but like I said, it was 99.9% of why we went. Sure, humanitarian efforts are all well and good, but that's NOT why we're in Iraq right now. Like Jim said, there were myriad reasons (no preposition with myriad, by the bye) for going to war, but the driving force was far and away WMD and terrorism.

Of course rhetoric is going to include humanitarian references, but again, we didn't go to Iraq to free people, we didn't go to Afghanistan to free people, we went there to make the people of the U.S. safer, and IN DOING SO, peoples were liberated, but we didn't go there explicitly to free them.

99%? Do you care to backup your exaggerated claims? The 2 main resolutions finalized by 1991 were not even remotely close to such a ridiculously high figure you use. Returning belongings to Kuwait, stopping the oppression, return valuables, no fly zones... All non-wmd reasons specified various times by the security council and outlined in the resolutions. Of course WMD were highly touted, as I would say they would have the most importance. But don't be foolish and claim that was the only reason stated for invasion. I'll ask you as well to read the resolutions and prove me wrong. 12 years of repeated resolutions tell the entire story, not just the liberal/Bush hating agenda.
 
MJDuncan1982 said:
Bravo Naked and Wade,

It is crazy to believe this country would have offered up its soldiers solely for the liberation of Iraq or the enforcement of the resolutions. It went ONE-WMD,....two-Ties to Al-Qaeda...and three-Saddam was evil/liberation.

3 outstanding reasons that make a perfect recipe for invasion and ouster of a dictator. Sounds like only 33% WMD as well. Thanks for helping prove my point.
 
MJDuncan1982 said:
Bravo Naked and Wade,

It is crazy to believe this country would have offered up its soldiers solely for the liberation of Iraq or the enforcement of the resolutions. It went ONE-WMD,....two-Ties to Al-Qaeda...and three-Saddam was evil/liberation. If anyone here sincerely cares about people around the world then where is the uproar for what is happening in the Sudan? We only attack when threatened and WMD was a perfect instance for the Administration to use - they probably believed it as everyone else did but there was no immediate threat that required us to abandon the world and cash in all of our diplomatic capital. Now we are there predominantly alone.

Again with the alone rhetoric. Again with the "dieing soldiers" rhetoric. Again with the WMD, Al-Queda rhetoric.

We have a coalition of over 60 nations. Your so big on multilaterlism? Perhaps you shouldnt piss off 60 of the world's nations.

The Number of deaths vs what we have achieved shows that this was one of the most successful military operations in not just American but world History. 1000 soldiers have given their lives to protect their country from those that would do us harm and kill us at our jobs or schools. They volunteered to go kill them so you wouldnt have to. To mock their deaths by saying that their lives were wasted is a complete insult to all that they have stood and fought for. It sickens me to hear liberals drool over the number of deaths as a they think in their warped minds it gives them a politcal advantage.

As for the final straw, do yourself a favor and go back and search anyone of mine or the numerous other threads that have detailed info and links to the whereabouts of WMDs and the numerous terrorist ties to Iraq.
 
Three parts does not necessitate equality among them. Come on now...there are many ways to reach 100% with three variables. My personal belief is that it goes 80 (WMD), 10 (Al-Qaeda) and 10 (Saddam/liberation).

Look on the back of a coke can. Are you trying to assert that those ingredients are equally distributed in the recipe just because they are there?

Surely you jest.
 
MJDuncan1982 said:
Three parts does not necessitate equality among them. Come on now...there are many ways to reach 100% with three variables. My personal belief is that it goes 80 (WMD), 10 (Al-Qaeda) and 10 (Saddam/liberation).

Look on the back of a coke can. Are you trying to assert that those ingredients are equally distributed in the recipe just because they are there?

Surely you jest.

So you admit wmd was not the only argument. Thanks for playing. Oh ,and your percentages are off.

He should have been taken out just for f'ing around with the U.N. inspectors in my opinion. He was already under the terms of a previous cease fire agreement.
 
insein said:
As for the final straw, do yourself a favor and go back and search anyone of mine or the numerous other threads that have detailed info and links to the whereabouts of WMDs and the numerous terrorist ties to Iraq.

Powell said the sources for information used in his U.N. presentation in building a case for Iraq's possesion of WMD's were "inaccurate and wrong and, in some cases, deliberately misleading. And for that, I am disappointed and I regret it."

Do yourself a favor and get off the rickety bandwagon that's coming apart at the hinges. We haven't found any WMD, and the administration that so highly touted their existance has ADMITTED it deliberately misled the American public about Iraq having them in massive quantities.
 
Colin Powell, on "Meet the Press", May, 2004: Powell said the sources for information used in his U.N. presentation were "inaccurate and wrong and, in some cases, deliberately misleading. And for that, I am disappointed and I regret it.

deliberately misleading
 
Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, high ranking official in the Bush Administation, chosen to deliver their case for WMD to the United Nations prior to the invasion of Iraq.
 
jimnyc said:
No, what YOU just wrote was bullshit. There was ALWAYS a myriad of reasons for invading Iraq. From failed resolutions (which included an abundance of humanitarian aspects) to the games they played with weapons inspectors. Just about every speech I have ever heard (both Clinton and Bush administrations) always discussed WMD and humanitarian efforts alike. Have you ever read the resolutions that were in place since 1991? Are you aware of just how much is in there non-WMD related? If you have read these resolutions, and you still claim WMD were the primary and only reason for invasion, I politely suggest yuo enroll in some reading comprehension courses.

You are denying the unquestionable fact that G. W. Bush sold this war to the american people almost solely on the "fact" that Saddad had large stockpiles of WMD's. I know all the other arguments, but none of them justified the USA going to war against Iraq, they justified the UN doing so.

Stop trying to revise history. This war was about WMD's and very little else.

Wade.
 
rtwngAvngr said:
So you admit wmd was not the only argument. Thanks for playing. Oh ,and your percentages are off.

He should have been taken out just for f'ing around with the U.N. inspectors in my opinion. He was already under the terms of a previous cease fire agreement.

The argument was "he has WMD's so we should go to war - oh and by the way he's a rotten guy too".

Wade.
 
wade said:
The argument was "he has WMD's so we should go to war - oh and by the way he's a rotten guy too".

Wade.

And also there were something like 17 violated un resolutions.

Do you think nothing should be done to a country who kicks un nuclear inspectors out? What are we supposed to do in the face of that? Nearly every position of yours is intellectually and morally untenable.
 
But we didn't go to war when that happened. By the time we did go to war, they'd been back in Iraq inspecting for quite some time.

So your position has no substance at all, but that won't stop you from insulting me will it?

You never really make any arguments at all, you just throw out quips and insults. Go away stupid one. You're annoying like a fly around the dinner table - and not as significant.
 
wade said:
But we didn't go to war when that happened. By the time we did go to war, they'd been back in Iraq inspecting for quite some time.

So your position has no substance at all, but that won't stop you from insulting me will it?

You never really make any arguments at all, you just throw out quips and insults. Go away stupid one. You're annoying like a fly around the dinner table - and not as significant.

No. My argumentsa are factual, true, persuasive and logical. They were being led around and not allowd to do what they wanted. They were delayed at the front door while stuff was being taken out the back. Your arguments have no merit. Your intellect is a shameful waste of bioelectricity.
 
rtwngAvngr said:
No. My argumentsa are factual, true, persuasive and logical. They were being led around and not allowd to do what they wanted. They were delayed at the front door while stuff was being taken out the back. Your arguments have no merit. Your intellect is a shameful waste of bioelectricity.

I bet your some snot nosed kid who has never been in a life threatening fight in your life who's mom wants him to get out and get a job or a GED.

Just how many hours a day do you spend trolling this msg board? :gross2:
 
wade said:
I bet your some snot nosed kid who has never been in a life threatening fight in your life who's mom wants him to get out and get a job or a GED.

Just how many hours a day do you spend trolling this msg board? :gross2:

I'm not a gambling man, sorry.

Look wade, socialism is a failed ideology, and your juvenile brand of senseless antiamericanism only reveals you as a persnickety snail snacker.
 
wade said:
You are denying the unquestionable fact that G. W. Bush sold this war to the american people almost solely on the "fact" that Saddad had large stockpiles of WMD's. I know all the other arguments, but none of them justified the USA going to war against Iraq, they justified the UN doing so.

Stop trying to revise history. This war was about WMD's and very little else.

Wade.

Unlike you, I actually listened to ALL the speeches when delivered by our President. Every speech I saw/heard spoke of WMD AND failed resolutions AND oppression and liberation. This history is FACT unlike your constant crap that it was based solely on WMD. Maybe your liberal mind blocked out everything but the WMD? Or maybe that would require more comprehension than you can handle?

The US was most certainly justified with invading Iraq based on failed resolutions alone. Read them as I have requested several times and come back and tell me if they were based solely on WMD. Read them and come back and tell me what the consequences were if they were in breach.
 

Forum List

Back
Top