Why Bush and Cheney are lying idiots.

[Bonnie]

I second what Gem posted!!! Bravo

 

[Mr. P]

killing for freedom............

i always liked the line....

"if i am going to kil for a word..my woord is pooontang"

Spoken like a true Southern Boy....

 

[sitarro]

Biochem WAS found. The Brits still stand behind their claim TO THIS DAY, regardless of the existence of a forged document. That document was not the only thing they were going on apparently. Our own 9/11 commission report said Saddam had ties to terrorist orgs and was giving money to suicide bombers. You can haggle about what "operational" means if you want to. Saddam WAS in violation of many U.N. resolutions. He was a mass murdering tyrant. All in all, the war was highly justified.

Not to mention being responsible for the largest human caused ecological disaster of all time.
I'm sure it has been said before but I still need to suggest that DFRESH should change his screen name to DSTALE . :happy2:

 

[DFresh]

http://www.overspun.com/2005_01_01_archive.html#110552597870883752

Weapons Hunt In Iraq Comes To An End

There weren't any. Just as we were told by the inspectors before invading.

Dear war hawks: Told you so.

You have a lot of apologizing to do- start with Hans Blix- he was reviled for telling the truth. I'm talking ceaseless personal attacks on his character- Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly- you morons wouldn't listen. When you were proven wrong you blamed the CIA. F**k you. The CIA wasn't there, the weapons inspectors were. Then Bush kicked them out.

We've since learned that the CIA was working against the inspectors- presumably at the instruction of the president. They were holding back suspicious sites that, if inspected, would have ruined Bush's fake justification for war. (See "A Pretext for War" for more information.)

The UN inspectors told the truth, and they suffered for it. Now it's your turn to suffer.

We can never, ever trust the criminals who got us into this again. Unfortunately we're stuck with them for four more years- let's give 'em four years of hell.

http://www.overspun.com/2005_01_01_archive.html#110552597870883752

 

[jimnyc]

You have a lot of apologizing to do- start with Hans Blix- he was reviled for telling the truth.

I suggest the writer of this article do a bit more research. Blix himself reported that Iraq was in breach of resolutions. That's all that needs to be said.

 

[007]

Oh. My. God. Dude...you are going to get hammered...I mean flamed...I hope you aren't a girly man, cuz if you ARE I predict you'll be brought to TEARS...sobbing...boo-hoo'ing.

Trust me.

I can't even muster up enough give a fuck to respond to this idiot...

 

[DFresh]

but you responded stupid

 

[Shattered]

but you responded stupid

Must you resort to name calling? It just irritates someone enough to ban you, and that ruins a perfectly good debate.

 

[DFresh]

I'm not the one who called someone a fucking idiot.

 

[dmp]

Second, follow the link stupid.

but you responded stupid

Hypocrit. YOU started the name-calling in this thread...please cut it out.

 

[DFresh]

fine no more it's getting ridiculous

 

[freeandfun1]

fine no more it's getting ridiculous

No, you are ridiculous!

 

[oxbow3]

Biochem WAS found. The Brits still stand behind their claim TO THIS DAY, regardless of the existence of a forged document. That document was not the only thing they were going on apparently .

It is a well known fact that Iraq used bio and chemical weapons on the Kurds and the Iranians. 75% of the Kurds killed in this horrible manner were women and children . I stand in agreement that he was a mass murdering tyrant.

However, part of the reason why we were so sure he had these agents was because, as Dave Chapelle put it, we have the receipt.

A review of thousands of declassified government documents and interviews with former policymakers shows that U.S. intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role in shoring up Iraqi defenses against the "human wave" attacks by suicidal Iranian troops [this was when Iraq and Iran were at war]. The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague.

U.S. Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup:
Trade in Chemical Arms Allowed Despite Their Use on Iranians, Kurds
By Michael Dobbs
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 30, 2002; Page A01

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52241-2002Dec29?language=printer


This sort of selective amnesia as to why he had his WMD's in the first place is a dangerous policy. "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Times change. SItuations change. Alliances change. THis was all before the u.n. resolutions.

 

[oxbow3]

Our own 9/11 commission report said Saddam had ties to terrorist orgs and was giving money to suicide bombers. You can haggle about what "operational" means if you want to. Saddam WAS in violation of many U.N. resolutions. He was a mass murdering tyrant. All in all, the war was highly justified

According to the State Department's annual Patterns of Global Terrorism, issued in May 2002, Iraq's role as a state sponsor of terorism consisted of being "the only Arab-Muslim country that did not condemn the Sep. 11 attacks against the United States." Also, Iraq provided safe haven to a number of Palestinian org.'s involved with the intifada and other activities.

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2002/

A closer look is warranted at some of these terrorist org.'s. The Kurdish Worker's Pary is a Marxist political party that supports Kurdish separatism from Turkey, and publicly abandoned armed struggle in 1999. The Mujahedin-e-Kalq is an armed guerrilla force who's goal is to overthrow the gov. of Iran. The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine is a member of the PLO. It was active in terrorism in the 1960's, less so lately. All in all, the terrorism that Iraq was supporting was infighting between its neighbors, not the international terrorism that the war on terror's stated goal is to eradicate. Some of the org.'s such as the MEK, actually have goals that are similiar to the US', such as the overthrow of the theocratic regime of Iran.

In fact, according to the 2002 Patterns of Global Terrorism, it was Iran that "remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism in 2001"-a title that Iran had held for several years.

There are also other states, like Saudi Arabia and Palestine, that sponsor terrorism more than Iraq did. As a result, it is hard for me to accept this rationale as justification for invading Iraq. Iran, Palestine, North Korea, even Saudi Arabia stick out as much better targets according to our own intelligence agencies.

 

[JOKER96BRAVO]

Bush is president, Iraq has been invaded, terrorist are there, GET OVER IT!

That should wrap it up....

 

[oxbow3]

Times change. SItuations change. Alliances change. THis was all before the u.n. resolutions.

I would be careful about being so flippant about the deaths of 5000 Kurdish civilians. More women and children died in that day than all the people on September 11th. Yet the US government did not speak out then because it was well aware that it had given Saddam the WMD's to do that.

Besides, if you are going to play by UN rules, then you must play by UN rules. You can't decide to take the law into your own hands if you don't like the results. Thr UN sanctions apparently were working to some extent, as no WMD's had been found. For my comments on the oil for food scandal, see the global politics discussions page.

And if you are ging after countries for WMD;s. You are much better off going after N. Korea, Pakistan or any of the other new nuclear powers that we know have these. Heck go after Iran. They are the #1 state sponsor of terroirsm and we knew they were close to having nuclear capabilities. IIRC, A 1998 IAEA report, partly based on defector's testimonies, concluded that 90-95% of Iraq's biochemical weapons capabilities were destroyed.

 

[oxbow3]

Bush is president, Iraq has been invaded, terrorist are there,

Yea, now they are! .

Actually, I am over it. I just am a big fan of learning from mistakes. Hence the George Santayana quote.

 

[freeandfun1]

Yea, now they are! .

Actually, I am over it. I just am a big fan of learning from mistakes. Hence the George Santayana quote.

If you like learning from "mistakes", then look at the appeasement of Hitler prior to WWII and then tell me that appeasing Saddam would have been learning from out mistakes.

You are contradicting yourself. Before WWII, Hitler wasn't an enemy of the west now was he? He only became an enemy once he THOUGHT our appeasement was giving him the rights to do whatever he wanted.

 

[oxbow3]

If you like learning from "mistakes", then look at the appeasement of Hitler prior to WWII and then tell me that appeasing Saddam would have been learning from out mistakes.

You are contradicting yourself. Before WWII, Hitler wasn't an enemy of the west now was he? He only became an enemy once he THOUGHT our appeasement was giving him the rights to do whatever he wanted.

We were not appeasing Saddam. We had no fly zones up so tight he couldn't sneeze without getting bombed. We had sanctions effective enough that his WMD program never left the ground, and the WMD's he got from us and others during the Iran-Iraq war had broken down or disintigrated.

Granted the international community did not want tto take the next stop into armed conflict. That is because they did not want to take responsibility for the country, for reasons that we are finding out now. I am still of the opinion that they could have been convinced with better evidence to undertake a global intervention. Unfortunately, we still have none. This brings down our credibility in future conflicts, which is the real loss IMHO.

Fair enough! I am not so sure it was a mistake though, there were many other reasons to invade Iraq and also I can see it being a place of sanctuary for other terrorist had we invaded a nearby country, so in any event I can't see any mistake in it.

The problem is Sir Evil that almost any country in that region has its share of terrorists that are tolerated or supported by the government. This includes our closest allies, such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. The newest issue of Time (or newsweek, I don't remember which) says that most of the Taliban leftovers are still there, but are receiving aid from the region's secret service to undertake raids into Afghanistan with.

Most of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi citizens, and the Saudi culture and powers have a history of using anti-Americanism as an outlet for social stresses both in the media and directly through policy. If we were to invade every country that harbors or supports terrorists, we would have to wage war against the entire Middle East. That is why I don't subscribe to the same viewpoint as you. I did for a time, but further research has led me to the conclusion that it is an after-the-fact justification. Plus, its just not worth the 1,000 American lives and 20,000 or so Iraqi civilian lives lost so far to me. Even if Saddam was still in power, I don't like having all that blood on our hands.