2000 - Now dead

[insein]

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize the only deciding factor in waging war was "did they attack us first." Using your logic, you could justify invading any country at any time.

Fortunately, in the real world, there are more factors than that in deciding whether or not to go to war.

Glad we agree. So trying to pin a "Bad War" label on this one solely because of WMD's not being found right away is ludicrous.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize the only deciding factor in waging war was "did they attack us first." Using your logic, you could justify invading any country at any time.

Fortunately, in the real world, there are more factors than that in deciding whether or not to go to war.

So, coward, I see you ignored my question. The speech proves you wrong. Proves you wrong about saddam being a threat to us, the belief he had WMDS and still may have, the false belief that Bush lied,,

 

[LuvRPgrl]

you might want to take a look at your own party and ask them why it has been so "necessary" for these soldiers to die in the first place.

The reason so many had to die was cuz Clinton didnt take Osama when he was handed to him on a silver platter. Nor did he do anything else serious about the terrorist problem.

 

[Max Power]

So, coward, I see you ignored my question. The speech proves you wrong. Proves you wrong about saddam being a threat to us, the belief he had WMDS and still may have, the false belief that Bush lied,,

Sigh
How does the speech prove me wrong? What is that a Bush speech proving that Bush is correct? Seriously?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4997766/

As recently as January, Vice President Dick Cheney referred to the trucks as "conclusive" proof that Iraq was producing weapons of mass destruction. But CIA Director George Tenet later testified to Congress that he had called Cheney to warn him that the evidence was in doubt.

So, Cheney is told that evidence was in doubt, he then reports it as "conclusive," ... yeah, they're being REAL honest.

 

[Max Power]

The reason so many had to die was cuz Clinton didnt take Osama when he was handed to him on a silver platter. Nor did he do anything else serious about the terrorist problem.

And now that Bush is running things, Osama is behind bars, Zarqawi is dead, and world terrorism is down!

Oh wait! None of those are true!

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Sigh
How does the speech prove me wrong? What is that a Bush speech proving that Bush is correct? Seriously?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4997766/:

SIGH, the speech was given by Hillary Rodham Clinton
OWNED
10/10/98

 

[LuvRPgrl]

And now that Bush is running things, Osama is behind bars, Zarqawi is dead, and world terrorism is down!

Oh wait! None of those are true!

relevancy?????????

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Now is exactly the time to be critical. Iraq is not the South Pacific or Nazi Germany, the terrorists are vastly outnumbered and outequipped(sp?). We should have been in and out of there in under a year but LBJ errr Bush can't seem to keep his hands off and leave war to the trained big boys.

The house is falling down around us, as conservatives we've been ambushed by this administration and yet we still have those who wish to put blinders on and picture it as a Disney film.

You merely repeated yourself. You didnt offer anything new or respond to my points and/or questions. Believing something because you repeat it often enough is called brainwashing.

What I said stands, its a difficult situation,

We have not been ambushed by the administration
Fact is, Bush barely won both elections. What happens in 2008 is important. He cant just run roughshod over many in the middle. He has to appease them. People like you who criticize him for it make his job more difficult, not easier. Hence you are creating the problems that leads him to govern more towards the middle.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Please support the S.A. statement, as I see it they are factually implicated in the 9/11 attacks. Hell even in their schools their hatred of the west is taught and fostered.

OIL

 

[Max Power]

SIGH, the speech was given by Hillary Rodham Clinton
OWNED
10/10/98

Oh no! The speech was given by somebody else who supported the war! Therefore both pro-war viewpoints are accounted for!

It must be true because the Clinton's and the Bush's aren't family friends... oh wait they are!
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/14/politics/main679881.shtml

You give yourself far too much credit.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Oh no! The speech was given by somebody else who supported the war! Therefore both pro-war viewpoints are accounted for!

It must be true because the Clinton's and the Bush's aren't family friends... oh wait they are!
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/14/politics/main679881.shtml

You give yourself far too much credit.

Oh, but you ASSUMED it was BUSH speaking. Hahahhaha,,,oh, funny thing, Kennedy, Kerry, Edwards, they all endorsed the speech, now who you got left????

 

[LuvRPgrl]

This one was by Bill Clinton in 98

Those who have questioned the United States in this moment, I would argue, are living only in the moment. They have neither remembered the past nor imagined the future.

So first, let's just take a step back and consider why meeting the threat posed by Saddam Hussein is important to our security in the new era we are entering.

This is a time of tremendous promise for America. The superpower confrontation has ended; on every continent democracy is securing for more and more people the basic freedoms we Americans have come to take for granted. Bit by bit the information age is chipping away at the barriers economic, political and social that once kept people locked in and freedom and prosperity locked out.

But for all our promise, all our opportunity, people in this room know very well that this is not a time free from peril, especially as a result of reckless acts of outlaw nations and an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals.

We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century. They feed on the free flow of information and technology. They actually take advantage of the freer movement of people, information and ideas.

And they will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen.

There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us.

I want the American people to understand first the past how did this crisis come about?

And I want them to understand what we must do to protect the national interest, and indeed the interest of all freedom-loving people in the world.

Remember, as a condition of the cease-fire after the Gulf War, the United Nations demanded not the United States the United Nations demanded, and Saddam Hussein agreed to declare within 15 days this is way back in 1991 within 15 days his nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them, to make a total declaration. That's what he promised to do.

The United Nations set up a special commission of highly trained international experts called UNSCOM, to make sure that Iraq made good on that commitment. We had every good reason to insist that Iraq disarm. Saddam had built up a terrible arsenal, and he had used it not once, but many times, in a decade-long war with Iran, he used chemical weapons, against combatants, against civilians, against a foreign adversary, and even against his own people.

And during the Gulf War, Saddam launched Scuds against Saudi Arabia, Israel and Bahrain.

Now, instead of playing by the very rules he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War, Saddam has spent the better part of the past decade trying to cheat on this solemn commitment. Consider just some of the facts:

Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had left in its possession after the Gulf War. When UNSCOM would then uncover evidence that gave lie to those declarations, Iraq would simply amend the reports.

For example, Iraq revised its nuclear declarations four times within just 14 months and it has submitted six different biological warfare declarations, each of which has been rejected by UNSCOM.

In 1995, Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law, and the chief organizer of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more.

Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities and weapon stocks. Previously, it had vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth. Now listen to this, what did it admit?

It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs.

And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.

As if we needed further confirmation, you all know what happened to his son-in-law when he made the untimely decision to go back to Iraq.

Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have undermined and undercut UNSCOM. They've harassed the inspectors, lied to them, disabled monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of suspect facilities as inspectors walked through the front door. And our people were there observing it and had the pictures to prove it.

Despite Iraq's deceptions, UNSCOM has nevertheless done a remarkable job. Its inspectors the eyes and ears of the civilized world have uncovered and destroyed more weapons of mass destruction capacity than was destroyed during the Gulf War.

This includes nearly 40,000 chemical weapons, more than 100,000 gallons of chemical weapons agents, 48 operational missiles, 30 warheads specifically fitted for chemical and biological weapons, and a massive biological weapons facility at Al Hakam equipped to produce anthrax and other deadly agents.

Over the past few months, as they have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions.

By imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits, including, I might add, one palace in Baghdad more than 2,600 acres large by comparison, when you hear all this business about presidential sites reflect our sovereignty, why do you want to come into a residence, the White House complex is 18 acres. So you'll have some feel for this.

One of these presidential sites is about the size of Washington, D.C. That's about how many acres did you tell me it was? 40,000 acres. We're not talking about a few rooms here with delicate personal matters involved.

It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them.

The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.

 

[Max Power]

Oh, but you ASSUMED it was BUSH speaking. Hahahhaha,,,oh, funny thing, Kennedy, Kerry, Edwards, they all endorsed the speech, now who you got left????

Rep. Ron Paul, TX.

You think I really care what Clinton, Kennedy, or Kerry said?

 

[Max Power]

Claim: Iraq must be attacked because it has ignored UN Security Council resolutions – these resolutions must be backed up by the use of force.

Reality: Iraq is but one of the many countries that have not complied with UN Security Council resolutions. In addition to the dozen or so resolutions currently being violated by Iraq, a conservative estimate reveals that there are an additional 91 Security Council resolutions by countries other than Iraq that are also currently being violated. Adding in older resolutions that were violated would mean easily more than 200 UN Security Council resolutions have been violated with total impunity. Countries currently in violation include: Israel, Turkey, Morocco, Croatia, Armenia, Russia, Sudan, Turkey-controlled Cyprus, India, Pakistan, Indonesia. None of these countries have been threatened with force over their violations.

Claim: Iraq has anthrax and other chemical and biological agents.

Reality: That may be true. However, according to UNSCOM's chief weapons inspector 90–95 percent of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons and capabilities were destroyed by 1998; those that remained have likely degraded in the intervening four years and are likely useless. A 1994 Senate Banking Committee hearing revealed some 74 shipments of deadly chemical and biological agents from the U.S. to Iraq in the 1980s. As one recent press report stated:

One 1986 shipment from the Virginia-based American Type Culture Collection included three strains of anthrax, six strains of the bacteria that make botulinum toxin and three strains of the bacteria that cause gas gangrene. Iraq later admitted to the United Nations that it had made weapons out of all three...
The CDC, meanwhile, sent shipments of germs to the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission and other agencies involved in Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. It sent samples in 1986 of botulinum toxin and botulinum toxoid – used to make vaccines against botulinum toxin – directly to the Iraqi chemical and biological weapons complex at al-Muthanna, the records show.

These were sent while the United States was supporting Iraq covertly in its war against Iran. U.S. assistance to Iraq in that war also included covertly-delivered intelligence on Iranian troop movements and other assistance. This is just another example of our policy of interventionism in affairs that do not concern us – and how this interventionism nearly always ends up causing harm to the United States.

Claim: The president claimed last night that: "Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles; far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey and other nations in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work."

Reality: Then why is only Israel talking about the need for the U.S. to attack Iraq? None of the other countries seem concerned at all. Also, the fact that some 135,000 Americans in the area are under threat from these alleged missiles just makes the point that it is time to bring our troops home to defend our own country.

Claim: Iraq harbors al-Qaeda and other terrorists.

Reality: The administration has claimed that some Al-Qaeda elements have been present in Northern Iraq. This is territory controlled by the Kurds – who are our allies – and is patrolled by U.S. and British fighter aircraft. Moreover, dozens of countries – including Iran and the United States – are said to have al-Qaeda members on their territory. Of the other terrorists allegedly harbored by Iraq, all are affiliated with Palestinian causes and do not attack the United States.

Claim: President Bush said in his speech on 7 October 2002: " Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. Well, we don't know exactly, and that's the problem..."

Reality: An admission of a lack of information is justification for an attack?

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Rep. Ron Paul, TX.

You think I really care what Clinton, Kennedy, or Kerry said?

Considering you get your talking points from them, yes, I think you are. You will deny it, but.........

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Claim: Iraq must be attacked because it has ignored UN Security Council resolutions – these resolutions must be backed up by the use of force.

Reality: Iraq is but one of the many countries that have not complied with UN Security Council resolutions. QUOTE]

Claim: Maxipads says if you cant enforce one law, its wrong to enforce any laws.

Reality: You just totally ignored what I posted.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Claim: Iraq must be attacked because it has ignored UN Security Council resolutions – these resolutions must be backed up by the use of force.

Reality: Iraq is but one of the many countries that have not complied with UN Security Council resolutions. In addition to the dozen or so resolutions currently being violated by Iraq, a conservative estimate reveals that there are an additional 91 Security Council resolutions by countries other than Iraq that are also currently being violated. Adding in older resolutions that were violated would mean easily more than 200 UN Security Council resolutions have been violated with total impunity. Countries currently in violation include: Israel, Turkey, Morocco, Croatia, Armenia, Russia, Sudan, Turkey-controlled Cyprus, India, Pakistan, Indonesia. None of these countries have been threatened with force over their violations.

Ok. So let's just go ahead and pronounce the U.N. a useless organization. Are you willing to do that?

Claim: Iraq has anthrax and other chemical and biological agents.

Reality: That may be true. However, according to UNSCOM's chief weapons inspector 90–95 percent of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons and capabilities were destroyed by 1998; those that remained have likely degraded in the intervening four years and are likely useless. A 1994 Senate Banking Committee hearing revealed some 74 shipments of deadly chemical and biological agents from the U.S. to Iraq in the 1980s. As one recent press report stated:

One 1986 shipment from the Virginia-based American Type Culture Collection included three strains of anthrax, six strains of the bacteria that make botulinum toxin and three strains of the bacteria that cause gas gangrene. Iraq later admitted to the United Nations that it had made weapons out of all three...
The CDC, meanwhile, sent shipments of germs to the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission and other agencies involved in Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. It sent samples in 1986 of botulinum toxin and botulinum toxoid – used to make vaccines against botulinum toxin – directly to the Iraqi chemical and biological weapons complex at al-Muthanna, the records show.

These were sent while the United States was supporting Iraq covertly in its war against Iran. U.S. assistance to Iraq in that war also included covertly-delivered intelligence on Iranian troop movements and other assistance. This is just another example of our policy of interventionism in affairs that do not concern us – and how this interventionism nearly always ends up causing harm to the United States.

Still. They wouldn't let inspectors go where they wanted. That's just daring the world to do something.

Claim: The president claimed last night that: "Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles; far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey and other nations in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work."

Reality: Then why is only Israel talking about the need for the U.S. to attack Iraq? None of the other countries seem concerned at all. Also, the fact that some 135,000 Americans in the area are under threat from these alleged missiles just makes the point that it is time to bring our troops home to defend our own country.

Wow. You're daft. Israel is the only country in the region who has been considered a state enemy of all the others.

Claim: Iraq harbors al-Qaeda and other terrorists.

Reality: The administration has claimed that some Al-Qaeda elements have been present in Northern Iraq. This is territory controlled by the Kurds – who are our allies – and is patrolled by U.S. and British fighter aircraft. Moreover, dozens of countries – including Iran and the United States – are said to have al-Qaeda members on their territory. Of the other terrorists allegedly harbored by Iraq, all are affiliated with Palestinian causes and do not attack the United States.

It's still iraq. And if Iraq harbors no terrorists, how are you sure they don't attack the U.S. or contemplate it, considerting the contention they don't exist.

 

[OCA]

You merely repeated yourself. You didnt offer anything new or respond to my points and/or questions. Believing something because you repeat it often enough is called brainwashing.

What I said stands, its a difficult situation,

We have not been ambushed by the administration
Fact is, Bush barely won both elections. What happens in 2008 is important. He cant just run roughshod over many in the middle. He has to appease them. People like you who criticize him for it make his job more difficult, not easier. Hence you are creating the problems that leads him to govern more towards the middle.

Wrong, you're just afraid to voice criticisms that you know are valid. I understand though that you put all your faith in this man and he shafted you, has to be tough on you sometimes.

Remember a moderate is just another word for fence sitter, Bush is exactly that. The fact that you believe that he has to appease the middle when he ran on exactly the opposite makes YOU the problem not me. You see I still take people at their word but if you can stomach getting shafted then by all means do it.

BTW do you consider the fact that he has grown government more than Clinton to be "we have not been ambushed by this administration"?

It seems i'm taking off your thin layer of conservative outer layer to reveal an ugly moderate layer underneath. Remember the meaning of hypocricy?

 

[OCA]

OIL

Please this is a debate messageboard, please brush up.

But let me see if I understand, if i'm correct, which I am, you think the U.S.A. should be whores for oil, wow what a great line of thinking!

 

[SpidermanTuba]

the coose to work far from home and they choose to drive a car.....

Yeah, because there are just so many good jobs out there, but for some reason, the majority of Americans just love buring gas and waiting in traffic so they "choose" to work far from home.

how about england's invasion of germany?

if you are attacked first is it ok to retailate?

Sure.

if one of your friends is attacked is it ok to help them and retaliate on their behalf?

Depends. Its usually best to stay out of other people's business. If you make it known beforehand that you intend to fight on behalf of an ally, that's one thing. But if you were to, say, for instance, tell the nation of Iraq you don't care if they invade Kuwait, and then attack them for invading Kuwait - that would be an example of using your friend, Kuwait in this instance, to get involved with a war to boost your popularity. Because likely if we had told Iraq that we'd kick their ass if they invaded Kuwait - they never would have invaded Kuwait to start with.