Why the war in Iraq is wrong

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by Gabriella84, Jun 15, 2005.

  1. Gabriella84
    Online

    Gabriella84 Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Have you ever seriously thought about it? Or are you blindly accepting the reasons offered by the Bush administration?
    Here are some basic misconceptions:

    A -- Iraq was somehow involved in the Sept. 11 attacks

    **Completely false. Saddam and Osama were always bitter enemies. Saddam was a egocentric psychopath. His life was opulent splendor. Osama is a religious cleric who despised state regimes. Osama has plotted to assassinate Saddam.
    The alleged tie between terrorism and Iraq could never have existed while Saddam was in power. He would never have agreed to share to delegate authority to anyone. He cooperated with no one.

    B -- Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was a threat to use them.

    **Also false. It is true that Iraq had supplies of dangerous chemicals, such as nerve gas, in the early 90s. Such chemicals had a shelf life of 2-6 months, at the most. So even if found, they would retain zero toxicity. The manufacturing plants were either destroyed in the Gulf War or dismantled after discovery by U.N. inspectors. No other biological or nuclear weapons have ever been found. The reports of such were total fabrication, used to deceive Congress into approving the invasion.

    C -- We had to "liberate" Iraq and "preserve freedom."

    **Are they liberated now? Whose "freedom" are we preserving? More Iraqi people have died since the invasion than were killed by Saddam. No one is "free" now. The country is basically lawless. If it was stable, we would have no excuse to be there.

    D -- Iraq was a threat to the U.S. and other Western countries.

    **Laughable. Iraq was only a threat to itself. Saddam was considered a harmless clown by his own allies after the failure of the invasion of Kuwait. His only weapons were the ones that the U.S. sold him, since we considered Iran more of a threat. He was all talk and bluster. Terrorism experts could name at least a dozen other countries that were greater threats.

    --So why did the U.S. invade?

    To settle a personal grudge. During the Gulf War, Saddam regularly made threats against Daddy Bush. He even talked of assassinating him. Don't think this was forgotten when Son Bush took power. His first cabinet meeting after winning election in 2000 included talk of how to deal with Iraq. During a meeting on Sept. 12, Donald Rumsfeld is on record as stating "Can we use this as a reason to take care of Iraq?"

    So this is why 1,700 American soldiers (and counting) have died. To settle a grudge. And to make money, of course.
     
  2. Comrade
    Offline

    Comrade Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,873
    Thanks Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Seattle, WA.
    Ratings:
    +167
    :cof:

    *puts up feet and waits for the show*
     
  3. Stephanie
    Offline

    Stephanie Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2004
    Messages:
    70,236
    Thanks Received:
    10,818
    Trophy Points:
    2,040
    Ratings:
    +27,360
    Mrsxxxxxxsssss twin sister is heeeerrrrrr!!!!!!! :alco:
    Sister I'm from a red state and I don't understand what your trying to say, without some PROOF for me to see. You know 50some million of us are to stupid to know who and what we voted for..... So show me the proof! We've heard this now for three yrs, anything new in you vocab..... :dunno:
     
  4. Gabriella84
    Online

    Gabriella84 Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    You are free to do the same reading that I did. Too many people get their facts off TV. I have read both sides. A lot of people don't.

    By the way, I know EXACTLY who I voted for. And why.
     
  5. Comrade
    Offline

    Comrade Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,873
    Thanks Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Seattle, WA.
    Ratings:
    +167
    Let's start with your fact based on this statement alone:

    I'd like to know how we've killed more than 1.5 million people since the invasion. :link:
     
  6. Stephanie
    Offline

    Stephanie Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2004
    Messages:
    70,236
    Thanks Received:
    10,818
    Trophy Points:
    2,040
    Ratings:
    +27,360
    Links and PROOF, thanks... :link: Oh and you have inside information that us little people don't??? Don't forget I said 50 plus million voted for the president. So are you still saying we're all uninformed, and your the smarter of us all. :flameth: I'm sure you are, but no matter.
     
  7. Merlin1047
    Offline

    Merlin1047 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2004
    Messages:
    3,500
    Thanks Received:
    449
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    AL
    Ratings:
    +450
    Typical leftist, elitist dingbat. You're some collegiate know-it-all, aren't you? Before you come onto this board and presume to lecture us, why don't you slow down and do a little reading first. That MIGHT help to prevent your making a total ass of yourself on such a regular basis and at such a spectacular level. Meantime, let me ask you - why do you feel the need to come onto this board and immediately start talking down to the rest of us with your arrogant and idiotic question "Have you ever seriously thought about it?" YES, we seriously think about a LOT of things. And you know what? We were doing it BEFORE you got here to give us your divine guidance. And we'll do it after we run your sorry ass off.

    Yes, we ALL know that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 except in the very loose sense that they supported terrorism in general. We do not require some self-delusional pseudo intellectual to belabor the obvious for us, thank you very much.

    Baloney. It is true that SOME chem weapons have a relatively short shelf life, but if you'll pull your head out of the liberal propoganda trough from which you are swilling, you may find some surprising FACTS. Such as:
    ===============================================

    http://www.fas.org/irp/gulf/cia/960715/72569.htm
    IRAQ HAS A SIZEABLE CW STOCKPILE, AT LEAST SOME OF WHICH CAN SURVIVE SEVERAL YEARS OF STORAGE.

    IRAQ'S MUSTARD, THE CW AGENT MOST USED IN THE WAR WITH IRAN, IS
    QUITE STABLE; MUCH OF IT SHOULD REMAIN EFFECTIVE FOR SOME TIME.

    THE UNITARY FORM OF IRAQ'S SARIN - ITS PRINCIPAL NERVE AGENT - HAD
    A RELATIVELY SHORT SHELF LIFE DURING THE WAR WITH IRAN.


    THE IRAQIS HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THIS PROBLEM:

    THEY HAVE TRIED TO INCREASE UNITARY SARIN SHELF LIFE BY IMPROVING
    THE PURITY OF THE PRECURSOR CHEMICALS AND REFINING PRODUCTION
    PROCESSES.

    THEY HAVE DEVELOPED AND TESTED BINARY NERVE AGENT ROUNDS FOR
    ARTILLERY SHELLS AND BINARY MISSILE WARHEADS AS WELL.
    =================================================

    Yes, they ARE liberated now - or did you sleep through the elections?. Your statements comparing the death rate pre/post Saddam are ludicrous on their face and reveal you for the left wing propoganda glutton that you are. Apparently you believe that people being tortured and enslaved under a brutal dictator is acceptable so long as he murders fewer numbers than those who are killed by the terrorists and insurgents who are attempting to reinstate his rule. What a wonderful view. Is this the vaunted leftist "compassion". Truth is, like most of your ilk, you have no compassion at all. What masquerades as compassion is simply convenience. You don't want to be bothered and you don't have the intestinal fortitude to change the world for the better. Pathetic.

    And yes, the country is not stable. It DOESN'T HAPPEN OVERNIGHT. I suppose that I can't critize you for this, given the fact that you, like most of your self-righteous brethren have extremely short attention spans and probably suffer from ADD as well as mental deficiencies.

    How typical. You assert that Iraq was only a threat to itself. Not only do you appear to be satisfied to allow Saddam to continue butchering his own people, but then you turn right around and mention his invasion of Kuwait. All the while blithely blathering that Saddam was only a threat to himself. Idiot. Had we left Saddam alone, his next target would have been Saudi Arabia. Saddam was a destabilizing influence in the entire region. Saddam's invasion of Kuwait was NOT a failure. It was a spectacular success. Had it not been for the intervention of the US and its allies, Saddam would be sitting on the world's largest oil reserves right now. Don't you read anything that's not approved by Howard Dean? Let's hear it now -----Yeeeeeeeaaaaaaahhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    And let's talk about this stupid statement - "His only weapons were the ones that the U.S. sold him, since we considered Iran more of a threat." Apparently the Russian tanks, artillery, AK-47s, anti-tank weapons etc etc must have been American equipment is disguise. You lack one of two things, or perhaps both - you are either a congenital liar or you have no intellectual honesty whatever. Either way, you are thoroughly disgusting.

    So this is the best you can do. Come here with no factual information and come to the Kennedyesque conclusion that the war was hatched for some petty personal reason. That our president is such a callous criminal that he would sacrifice the military simply to settle a personal grudge. YOU GOT THAT WRONG TOOTS - that was Clinton who did that.

    Please, before you post anything else - drop the assumption that we're a bunch of losers like you who will believe any unsupported, idiotic opinions posted by some wandering leftie who happens to stumble across this board. Save your kool-aid inspired literary efforts for the like-minded vermin which infest the boards at the Democratic Underground and Moveon.org. You'll find a far less hostile reception there.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  8. Gabriella84
    Online

    Gabriella84 Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    I do enjoy the common ploy of "asking for proof." I've been through it many times. When you do present a "link" or "proof," someone is quick to jump out and say "more liberal BS!" or "stop quoting the liberal media!"

    I no longer fall prey to such ploys. My response is always "you can do the same reading that I do." Which involves research and reading of authors.

    I have met Michael Moore. He is a pompous jerk. But his information is usually rigorously annotated, unlike people such as Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity.

    I regularly read Al-Jazeera. It's very informative. Their viewpoints are slanted, but no more so than the Fox Network.
     
  9. GotZoom
    Offline

    GotZoom Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2005
    Messages:
    5,719
    Thanks Received:
    366
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Cordova, TN
    Ratings:
    +366
    You beat me to is. I do believe they were separated at birth.

    Gabriella84, stick to this: http://www.coasttocoastam.com/

    At least some of the things on this website are far more believable than what you are writing.

    And that is a stretch.
     
  10. GotZoom
    Offline

    GotZoom Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2005
    Messages:
    5,719
    Thanks Received:
    366
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Cordova, TN
    Ratings:
    +366
    Al Jazeera is as slanted as Fox Network.

    That is one of the funniest things I have ever read.
    :rotflmao:
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

misconceptions al-jazeera iraq war