Sure, no media bias

[jon_forward]

he must of over-medicated himself again...take a nap jones, you will feel better some shut eye...and loosen up the tin-foil

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by jones
SPIN SPIN SPIN, knew you could do it.

Only worked on yourself though!!!

Thanks for confirming you haven't reached puberty yet. We all know what was said and what wasn't said. We just wanted to see if you were smart enough to find ONE link backing up your statements. Thanks for not letting us down.

 

[jones]

Well, if you on the Left are going to make the charge that Bush called Iraq an imminent threat, then you should be able to produce the relevant quote. The burden of proof is on you, not us.

Find ME proof that we needed to start a pre-emptive war without a reason!!! Its unconstitutional to just go pre-empting everyone, expecially if there is NO IMMINENT THREAT!! JUST LIKE HITLER!! he said it was for freedom too!

Get a freaking clue u guys. Why did we goto Iraq then. to secure their oil? To topple an EEEEEVIL REGIME< How bout we send them to china too! They've done far faaar worse things to their people and you sit here talkin of IRAQ.
Thats as unamerican as you can get.

Why don't you go tell those troops that we didn't need to fucking go into Iraq ASAP....

Unfrickenbelievable, Take enough Oxy conten-legal heroin lately? maybe too much you're getting delusional.

 

[jones]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Thanks for confirming you haven't reached puberty yet. We all know what was said and what wasn't said. We just wanted to see if you were smart enough to find ONE link backing up your statements. Thanks for not letting us down.

"Leaving Saddam Hussein in possession of weapons of mass destruction for a few more months or years is not an option, not in a post-September 11th world."

 

[jimnyc]

Jones, come back when you can act somewhat like an adult. I'm tired of you making claims and then turning into a whining 9 year old when someone asks for sources.

 

[jon_forward]

Jonesy...you remind me of the fella that got a speeding ticket and then went off his rocker....you are acting like you fell off the roof and landed on your head...saddam WAS dangerous, aint no more....THE #1 stated goal told to the military was "regime change" .....get over it..and stay out of the sun...

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by jones
Find ME proof that we needed to start a pre-emptive war without a reason!!! Its unconstitutional to just go pre-empting everyone, expecially if there is NO IMMINENT THREAT!! JUST LIKE HITLER!! he said it was for freedom too!

There is nothing in the Constitution about pre-emptive war. And the Bush-Hitler thing is really old, too. There is a huge difference - Bush is not raising the American flag over Afghanistan, Iraq, etc., and he's not doing it to unite the Aryan race, like Hitler was.

And again, you make the accusation (i.e. that Bush stated that Iraq was an imminent threat), you get to back it up with proof. It's not my job to refute your claims. And the quote you posted, ("Leaving Saddam Hussein in possession of weapons of mass destruction for a few more months or years is not an option, not in a post-September 11th world.") says nothing about Saddam being an imminent threat.

Get a freaking clue u guys. Why did we goto Iraq then. to secure their oil? To topple an EEEEEVIL REGIME< How bout we send them to china too! They've done far faaar worse things to their people and you sit here talkin of IRAQ.
Thats as unamerican as you can get.

China is not actively supporting terrorists, as Saddam was. China did not flaunt 14 UN resolutions, as Saddam did. China is certainly no friend of the US, but it was not actively seeking to evade the UN's reach, either.

 

[jimnyc]

Ok, Jones, would you like to try again now?

 

[jones]

: Oh man was I super pissed when you banned me! Not so mad anymore, you waited long enough. darnit.


Anyway, why did we goto war so quickly if he was not a threat at the time? And why do you insist that it must be taken literally and claim its not true because they didn't say the exact words "imminent threat"?

 

[5stringJeff]

Why did we go to war so quickly... we spent about a year putting together our case for Iraq. Saddam knew we were doing it. We took months deploying troops over to Kuwait and the Middle East. If Saddam had wanted to comply, he had all kinds of times - not to mention the 11 years prior to that. I was hardly a rush to war. Now we did rush to Afghanistan in hopes of catching OBL before he could get out of town - but that was also a successful campaign.

And why do you insist that it must be taken literally and claim its not true because they didn't say the exact words "imminent threat"?

You made the accusation that the administration called Iraq an imminent threat. He didn't - or at least you haven't shown it to us yet. Your quote from a few posts ago says nothing about being an imminent threat. It says that leaving Saddam in power with WMDs is not an option.

 

[jones]

Why didn't we goto war 11 years ago? When he was gassing his own people and buys WMDs. Oh right, Reagan wouldn't betray his allies.

If Saddam had wanted to comply, he had all kinds of times

What exactly did you want him to do? he supplied 14,000 pages of documents and destroyed some of the weapons he had. They were not even WMDs, just some old scuds that have regional capabilities beyond legal limit. He let all kinds of weapons inspectors into his country, what did they find? Probly some old botulism.
What was he supposed to do to comply?

"Leaving Saddam Hussein in possession of weapons of mass destruction for a more months or years is not an option, not in a post-September 11th world."

What is soon to you?

pre-emtive is to prevent imminent threat by definition.
Relating to or constituting a military strike made so as to gain the advantage when an enemy strike is believed to be imminent: a preemptive nuclear attack.

 

[jones]

If not immenint like you claim. Why not wait for proof of WMD?

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by Aquarian
Well.... this post is about whether or not the administration called the threat imminent as well as whether or not it was indeed imminent. bartlett tacitly called it imminent by responding in the affirmative to the reporters question. Tenet says it was never considered by the cia to be imminent. up to us to shuffle thru the muck and decide what/who to believe.

My point was to describe how Bartlett's answer was true based on the way the question was asked. It is irresponsible to use Bartlett's answer to imply the administration said that Iraq was an imminent threat to the U.S. Bartlett was referring to an imminent threat to U.S. interests in that region. Saddam firing on US and UK war planes enforcing the no-fly zone for years preceeding this war was more than an imminent threat, it was a current threat, so I would add that to the three points I made earlier. Saddam did indeed represent an imminent threat to US interests in the Middle East, and that's what Bartlett affirmed.

 

[Comrade]

jones:

"Why didn't we goto war 11 years ago?

Recall we did and remained at war since the Kuwait invasion. Peace terms were NEVER adhered to by Saddam.

The "UN friendly" way failed, we should have unilaterally deposed Saddam to save us 11 years of low intesity conflict and a huge investment in time and money.


"when he was gassing his own people and buys WMDs."


Well given the time-line doesn't seem important to you, I'm happy to report we got 'em.

Or maybe you are saying since we didn't do it then we can't do it now. Is that your argument?



"Oh right, Reagan wouldn't betray his allies."


Now WHO would that be? Another "Bin-Laden left to die in Afganistan and vows revenge on America" who-dunnit?