Civl War has begun in Iraq

[Article 15]

Really which credit.

For getting kicked out or for following GW's timeline?

Ah, the time horizon that Bush agreed to in the summer of 2008. That was funny. The writing was on the wall that Obama was going to get elected and pull the troops out so Bush made the deal so his sycophants could claim that it was his call.

This all after the same people were accusing people of being terrorist sympathizers and traitors for wanting a timetable for withdrawal. Hilarious.

LOL I see your back to lying. PISS OFF.

Sound rebuttal.

 

[Jarhead]

Were they flying over United States or anywhere in the vicinity of at the time?

Yeah...I see your point.

We should wait until the enemy makes our shorelines the front.

Yeah, because that was totally a realistic threat.

Yeah.....what a far fetched threat.

I mean...the thought that a couintry with a military can hit our shores is rediculous.

Only a band of nomads have the ability to do that.

 

[konradv]

Pure speculation on your part based on your ideology.

Bottom line....Clintons intel said there were WMD's. Bush's intel said there were wmd's. The intel of Great Britain siad there were wmd's. The intel of Australia said there were WMD's. The intel of other European countries said there were WMD's.

You want to say Bush cherry picked intel so he can play Army? Go right ahead.

But then please explain how he cherry picked the intel of OTHER countries and convinced them to go to war WITH US.

As you said, EVERYBODY had faulty intel. Why did Bush tell the inspectors to leave Iraq before that intel could be up-dated?

Intel updated?

Uh...intel is "updated" on a regular basis. It is not like they are gathering intel and finding out critical things and saying....wow, we better not forget to put this in the report that we will be releasing to the President next year"

Where do you hear this stuff?

What stuff? The FACT that Bush told inspectors to leave Iraq before their job was finished? Next year? I was talking about the weeks leading up to the invasion, when it could have been learned that stockpiles of WMDs were a myth.

 

[Full-Auto]

Ah, the time horizon that Bush agreed to in the summer of 2008. That was funny. The writing was on the wall that Obama was going to get elected and pull the troops out so Bush made the deal so his sycophants could claim that it was his call.

This all after the same people were accusing people of being terrorist sympathizers and traitors for wanting a timetable for withdrawal. Hilarious.

LOL I see your back to lying. PISS OFF.

Sound rebuttal.

All it deserves. with you being mentally unstable dont even address me.

 

[Article 15]

Yeah...I see your point.

We should wait until the enemy makes our shorelines the front.

Yeah, because that was totally a realistic threat.

Yeah.....what a far fetched threat.

I mean...the thought that a couintry with a military can hit our shores is rediculous.

Only a band of nomads have the ability to do that.

No doubt our shores can be hit by a country or a pack of nomads.

Just don't try to tell me that American planes getting shot at while flying over Iraq at all equates to a threat to our own shores or justification for a full scale invasion and occupation of a country.

 

[konradv]

Yeah...I see your point.

We should wait until the enemy makes our shorelines the front.

Yeah, because that was totally a realistic threat.

Yeah.....what a far fetched threat.

I mean...the thought that a couintry with a military can hit our shores is rediculous.

Only a band of nomads have the ability to do that.

Depends on the country. Iraq had no way of attacking us militarily beyond potshots at planes, if they happened at all. Anyone got a cite? The only thing I remember are radar sites locking on and then getting blasted. If there was any shooting, it was us doing it.

 

[Jarhead]

As you said, EVERYBODY had faulty intel. Why did Bush tell the inspectors to leave Iraq before that intel could be up-dated?

Intel updated?

Uh...intel is "updated" on a regular basis. It is not like they are gathering intel and finding out critical things and saying....wow, we better not forget to put this in the report that we will be releasing to the President next year"

Where do you hear this stuff?

What stuff? The FACT that Bush told inspectors to leave Iraq before their job was finished? Next year? I was talking about the weeks leading up to the invasion, when it could have been learned that stockpiles of WMDs were a myth.

It must make you feel so knowledgable to be a monday morning quarterback.

So lets say he got the "updated" intel 2 weeks laer and it still said the same thing.

And he invaded.

And there were none.

Then you would say "he could have waited ANOTHER 2 weeks for the NEW updated intel."

Clinton's intel said there were WMD's.

4 years later the intel still said the same thing.

Another 2 weeks would have made a difference?

Start applying logic....but you will need to check your ideology at the door first. It clouds your thinking.

 

[Jarhead]

Yeah, because that was totally a realistic threat.

Yeah.....what a far fetched threat.

I mean...the thought that a couintry with a military can hit our shores is rediculous.

Only a band of nomads have the ability to do that.

Depends on the country. Iraq had no way of attacking us militarily beyond potshots at planes, if they happened at all. Anyone got a cite? The only thing I remember are radar sites locking on and then getting blasted. If there was any shooting, it was us doing it.

So a band of nomads without a military has greater military capability than a country with an established military.

Like I said in post before this...check your ideology at the door. It stifles your ability to apply logic.

Now...that being said.....I do not support the Iraq invasion. But I do not hold Bush or Congress irresponsible for reacting to intel form countries all over the world.

 

[konradv]

Intel updated?

Uh...intel is "updated" on a regular basis. It is not like they are gathering intel and finding out critical things and saying....wow, we better not forget to put this in the report that we will be releasing to the President next year"

Where do you hear this stuff?

What stuff? The FACT that Bush told inspectors to leave Iraq before their job was finished? Next year? I was talking about the weeks leading up to the invasion, when it could have been learned that stockpiles of WMDs were a myth.

It must make you feel so knowledgable to be a monday morning quarterback.

So lets say he got the "updated" intel 2 weeks laer and it still said the same thing.

And he invaded.

And there were none.

Then you would say "he could have waited ANOTHER 2 weeks for the NEW updated intel."

Clinton's intel said there were WMD's.

4 years later the intel still said the same thing.

Another 2 weeks would have made a difference?

Start applying logic....but you will need to check your ideology at the door first. It clouds your thinking.

I wasn't talking time; I was talking inspectors. However long it took them to finish their job would have been the proper time. The notion that there was some reason they couldn't do that, implied intel Bush obviously didn't have.

 

[Article 15]

LOL I see your back to lying. PISS OFF.

Sound rebuttal.

All it deserves. with you being mentally unstable dont even address me.

"dont even address me"

 

[Jarhead]

Yeah, because that was totally a realistic threat.

Yeah.....what a far fetched threat.

I mean...the thought that a couintry with a military can hit our shores is rediculous.

Only a band of nomads have the ability to do that.

No doubt our shores can be hit by a country or a pack of nomads.

Just don't try to tell me that American planes getting shot at while flying over Iraq at all equates to a threat to our own shores or justification for a full scale invasion and occupation of a country.

I am not equating that.

I responded to your post that implied that we should not have done anything until they were in OUR airspace.

I disagree with that.

If there is a threat to our country....it is best to do all we can to keep the front as far from our shores as possible.

 

[konradv]

Yeah.....what a far fetched threat.

I mean...the thought that a couintry with a military can hit our shores is rediculous.

Only a band of nomads have the ability to do that.

Depends on the country. Iraq had no way of attacking us militarily beyond potshots at planes, if they happened at all. Anyone got a cite? The only thing I remember are radar sites locking on and then getting blasted. If there was any shooting, it was us doing it.

So a band of nomads without a military has greater military capability than a country with an established military.

Like I said in post before this...check your ideology at the door. It stifles your ability to apply logic.

Now...that being said.....I do not support the Iraq invasion. But I do not hold Bush or Congress irresponsible for reacting to intel form countries all over the world.

Don't put words into my mouth. Tell me what YOU think. That being said, you post makes no sense. I don't recall ever saying anything like your first line. Check your ideology at the door, I still haven't seen the logic in your posts.

 

[LibertyForAll]

Yeah...I see your point.

We should wait until the enemy makes our shorelines the front.

Yeah, because that was totally a realistic threat.

Yeah.....what a far fetched threat.

I mean...the thought that a couintry with a military can hit our shores is rediculous.

Only a band of nomads have the ability to do that.

America was in no threat of being invaded, not then, not now. It's not going to happen. The logistics involved would be staggering. There is no way a country could sneak up on us. We have the largest navy in the world. We have more satellites, we have more drones, we have an armed citizenry that would band together. Our country is vast and it would take a HUGE force to hold even a portion of it. THe rest of the country would band together to drive the invaders out.

To entertain the idea that Iraq or even Iran could invade us is ludicrous. The chinese could invade us amd maybe hold some of our country but not for long and they won't because it would be an economic disaster for them. Crack dealers don't kill thier customers...

There could be a threat from a smuggled bomb being set off in one of our cities. Destabilizing governments who have those bombs isn't the way to go though because then who controls the bombs when the government is gone? Who knows, right? Governments want to preserve their own power and it doesn't make sense for them to attack us. They might posture and threaten but thats all part of the game. They are trying to inspire nationalism in their own people.

The way to counteract the threat is to secure our own borders and make sure psychos with bombs aren't geting in. Also not bombing people and destroying governments or sanctioning people and causing them to starve might be a good start towards creating good will.

 

[Jarhead]

What stuff? The FACT that Bush told inspectors to leave Iraq before their job was finished? Next year? I was talking about the weeks leading up to the invasion, when it could have been learned that stockpiles of WMDs were a myth.

It must make you feel so knowledgable to be a monday morning quarterback.

So lets say he got the "updated" intel 2 weeks laer and it still said the same thing.

And he invaded.

And there were none.

Then you would say "he could have waited ANOTHER 2 weeks for the NEW updated intel."

Clinton's intel said there were WMD's.

4 years later the intel still said the same thing.

Another 2 weeks would have made a difference?

Start applying logic....but you will need to check your ideology at the door first. It clouds your thinking.

I wasn't talking time; I was talking inspectors. However long it took them to finish their job would have been the proper time. The notion that there was some reason they couldn't do that, implied intel Bush obviously didn't have.

When I suspected my son was smoking pot when he was younger.....

I approached him with it. He denied it. I asked if I can check his room and pockets. He allowed me. I found nothing.

A week later, I suspected it again based on my finding him using visine when I saw him walking in the house at midnight.

SO I again asked him if I could check his room and pockets.

He allowed me to check the clothes in the laundry....but got very defensive when I asked to check his nightable draws.

As his father, he had no choice and I found rolling papers.

I knew I would find something as soon as he made it difficult for me to look.

It is not rocket science.

 

[Article 15]

Yeah.....what a far fetched threat.

I mean...the thought that a couintry with a military can hit our shores is rediculous.

Only a band of nomads have the ability to do that.

No doubt our shores can be hit by a country or a pack of nomads.

Just don't try to tell me that American planes getting shot at while flying over Iraq at all equates to a threat to our own shores or justification for a full scale invasion and occupation of a country.

I am not equating that.

I responded to your post that implied that we should not have done anything until they were in OUR airspace.

I disagree with that.

If there is a threat to our country....it is best to do all we can to keep the front as far from our shores as possible.

When his justification of a "threat" to our country is our planes getting shot at while enforcing a no fly zone over Iraqi air space, my response was perfectly apropos.

 

[konradv]

All it deserves. with you being mentally unstable dont even address me.

Fine, sounds like a plea to "ignore my rantings"!

 

[Jarhead]

Depends on the country. Iraq had no way of attacking us militarily beyond potshots at planes, if they happened at all. Anyone got a cite? The only thing I remember are radar sites locking on and then getting blasted. If there was any shooting, it was us doing it.

So a band of nomads without a military has greater military capability than a country with an established military.

Like I said in post before this...check your ideology at the door. It stifles your ability to apply logic.

Now...that being said.....I do not support the Iraq invasion. But I do not hold Bush or Congress irresponsible for reacting to intel form countries all over the world.

Don't put words into my mouth. Tell me what YOU think. That being said, you post makes no sense. I don't recall ever saying anything like your first line. Check your ideology at the door, I still haven't seen the logic in your posts.

you said what I put in red bold.

I said what I put in blue bold in response.

There is plenty of logiuc for my response.

You just dont know how to respond to the logic.

 

[Jarhead]

No doubt our shores can be hit by a country or a pack of nomads.

Just don't try to tell me that American planes getting shot at while flying over Iraq at all equates to a threat to our own shores or justification for a full scale invasion and occupation of a country.

I am not equating that.

I responded to your post that implied that we should not have done anything until they were in OUR airspace.

I disagree with that.

If there is a threat to our country....it is best to do all we can to keep the front as far from our shores as possible.

When his justification of a "threat" to our country is our planes getting shot at while enforcing a no fly zone over Iraqi air space, my response was perfectly apropos.

No. His justification was that Iraq had WMD's based on the intel of many countries...including 4 years worth of intel from the US...AND the previous president telling him they existed as well.
It was then supported by Hussein being in breach of the treaty HE SIGNED when he did not allow FULL inspections.

The planes being shot at? Nothing more than an explanation point. But by no means used as justification.

Why are you spinning what really happened?

 

[konradv]

It must make you feel so knowledgable to be a monday morning quarterback.

So lets say he got the "updated" intel 2 weeks laer and it still said the same thing.

And he invaded.

And there were none.

Then you would say "he could have waited ANOTHER 2 weeks for the NEW updated intel."

Clinton's intel said there were WMD's.

4 years later the intel still said the same thing.

Another 2 weeks would have made a difference?

Start applying logic....but you will need to check your ideology at the door first. It clouds your thinking.

I wasn't talking time; I was talking inspectors. However long it took them to finish their job would have been the proper time. The notion that there was some reason they couldn't do that, implied intel Bush obviously didn't have.

When I suspected my son was smoking pot when he was younger.....

I approached him with it. He denied it. I asked if I can check his room and pockets. He allowed me. I found nothing.

A week later, I suspected it again based on my finding him using visine when I saw him walking in the house at midnight.

SO I again asked him if I could check his room and pockets.

He allowed me to check the clothes in the laundry....but got very defensive when I asked to check his nightable draws.

As his father, he had no choice and I found rolling papers.

I knew I would find something as soon as he made it difficult for me to look.

It is not rocket science.

And yet we didn't find anything amounting to a stockpile of working WMDs to justify an invasion. Giving the inspectors time could have told us that. By your logic, before you found the papers, someone would have ordered you out of the house and burned it down. Problem solved or should I say "Mission Accomplished"?!?!

 

[Article 15]

I am not equating that.

I responded to your post that implied that we should not have done anything until they were in OUR airspace.

I disagree with that.

If there is a threat to our country....it is best to do all we can to keep the front as far from our shores as possible.

When his justification of a "threat" to our country is our planes getting shot at while enforcing a no fly zone over Iraqi air space, my response was perfectly apropos.

No. His justification was that Iraq had WMD's based on the intel of many countries...including 4 years worth of intel from the US...AND the previous president telling him they existed as well.
It was then supported by Hussein being in breach of the treaty HE SIGNED when he did not allow FULL inspections.

The planes being shot at? Nothing more than an explanation point. But by no means used as justification.

Why are you spinning what really happened?

his = the poster I was quoting, not the Bush Team