I have said this from DAY ONE

Psychoblues

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2003
Messages
2,701
Reaction score
142
Points
48
Location
North Missisippi
1. There are no WMD's in Iraq.
2. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant but no threat to the USA.
3. There are many more tyrants in this world, why Saddam and why at this particular time?
4. A WAR upon indigents without political or religious justification acceptable to the masses of the WORLD in which we LIVE will be unwise and unending in our lifetimes.

I've said many other things but let these suffice for the argument for now.

Psychoblues
 

Stephanie

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2004
Messages
70,230
Reaction score
10,859
Points
2,040
And we will say this so many time's about what you say.........

SOOOOOOOOOOOO?

:teeth:
 

Avatar4321

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
82,283
Reaction score
10,122
Points
2,070
Location
Minnesota
1. There are no WMD's in Iraq.
2. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant but no threat to the USA.
3. There are many more tyrants in this world, why Saddam and why at this particular time?
4. A WAR upon indigents without political or religious justification acceptable to the masses of the WORLD in which we LIVE will be unwise and unending in our lifetimes.

I've said many other things but let these suffice for the argument for now.

Psychoblues
1. WMDs were found. Sure not in the stockpiles we expected, but they were found. Pretending otherwise is intellectually dishonest. Nor does it pay attention to the fact that Saddam had clearly constituted weapons programs and was seeking to build more weapons. Clearly our Doctrine of Preemption has helped.
2. Any tryant who is seeking WMDs and supports terrorism is a threat. If you cant see that then you are just so arrogant you are blind.
3. Because we are fighting a war on terror. Saddam supported terror. He continued to ignore UN resolutions against him. He failed to comply with terms of the gulf war ceasefire and rather than verify to inspectors that that he was disarming he played games with them. In a post 911 world, its necessary to take out threats before they have the power to destroy us. If we wait for them to attack us again, we will have missing cities.

besides, anyone with have a brain realizes the strategic location of Iraq in the center of the Middle east and our militaries ability to use that foothold to continue the war on terror.
4. HELLO!?! We have been attacked by Islamic fascist terrorists. What more justification do we need to take down regimes that support these terrorists?! What better justification is there then the fact that he is raping, torturing, and murdering his civilians, that he supported terrorism, that he refused to comply with interenational law, and sought to build weapons of mass destruction? Why the heck are you people so freaking stupid that you cant see what is so freaking obvious.
5. Simply because you keep repeating something doesnt mean its true. this thread is a clear example of you continually repeating your absolutely assinine arguments and expecting them to be true.
 

trobinett

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2004
Messages
1,832
Reaction score
162
Points
48
Location
Arkansas, The Ozarks
1. There are no WMD's in Iraq.
2. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant but no threat to the USA.
3. There are many more tyrants in this world, why Saddam and why at this particular time?
4. A WAR upon indigents without political or religious justification acceptable to the masses of the WORLD in which we LIVE will be unwise and unending in our lifetimes.

I've said many other things but let these suffice for the argument for now.

Psychoblues
Amazing..................:dunno:
 

akiboy

Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2006
Messages
574
Reaction score
39
Points
16
Location
Mumbai
Yes there are no WMD'S in Iraq.
If there were then it was or has been destroyed.
Remember the Israeli Air STrike on the Osirak one and Osirak 2 nuclear complexes in Iraq. The Air strikes virtually destroyed all of them and crippled what was left of Saddam's bombs.
Saddam Hussein was a tyrant , is a tyrant and will be remembered as a tyrant. Yes , right now obviuosly he poses no threat to the U.S , But if U.S haden't invaded Iraq he would be a big , big threat to America now.
I wouldn't be surprised if Saddam and Pres. Mahmoud of Iran became pals and tried to threaten the U.S . THAT WOULD BE A HELL OF A THREAT TO AMERICA!!!

aKSHAY
 

trobinett

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2004
Messages
1,832
Reaction score
162
Points
48
Location
Arkansas, The Ozarks
Yes there are no WMD'S in Iraq.
If there were then it was or has been destroyed.
Remember the Israeli Air STrike on the Osirak one and Osirak 2 nuclear complexes in Iraq. The Air strikes virtually destroyed all of them and crippled what was left of Saddam's bombs.
Saddam Hussein was a tyrant , is a tyrant and will be remembered as a tyrant. Yes , right now obviuosly he poses no threat to the U.S , But if U.S haden't invaded Iraq he would be a big , big threat to America now.
I wouldn't be surprised if Saddam and Pres. Mahmoud of Iran became pals and tried to threaten the U.S . THAT WOULD BE A HELL OF A THREAT TO AMERICA!!!

aKSHAY

EXACTLY................
 

shepherdboy

Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2006
Messages
234
Reaction score
34
Points
16
Location
The occupied zone(CA.)
1. There are no WMD's in Iraq.
2. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant but no threat to the USA.
3. There are many more tyrants in this world, why Saddam and why at this particular time?
4. A WAR upon indigents without political or religious justification acceptable to the masses of the WORLD in which we LIVE will be unwise and unending in our lifetimes.

I've said many other things but let these suffice for the argument for now.

Psychoblues
And your doing what to stop Radical Islam? And your solution is?
 

Kagom

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2006
Messages
2,161
Reaction score
141
Points
48
Location
Vicksburg, MS
Yes there are no WMD'S in Iraq.
If there were then it was or has been destroyed.
Remember the Israeli Air STrike on the Osirak one and Osirak 2 nuclear complexes in Iraq. The Air strikes virtually destroyed all of them and crippled what was left of Saddam's bombs.
Saddam Hussein was a tyrant , is a tyrant and will be remembered as a tyrant. Yes , right now obviuosly he poses no threat to the U.S , But if U.S haden't invaded Iraq he would be a big , big threat to America now.
I wouldn't be surprised if Saddam and Pres. Mahmoud of Iran became pals and tried to threaten the U.S . THAT WOULD BE A HELL OF A THREAT TO AMERICA!!!

aKSHAY
I'm sorry, but I believe that Saddam doesn't take well to Mahmoud or Iranians for that matter.
 

nt250

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2006
Messages
1,013
Reaction score
72
Points
48
1. There are no WMD's in Iraq.
2. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant but no threat to the USA.
3. There are many more tyrants in this world, why Saddam and why at this particular time?
4. A WAR upon indigents without political or religious justification acceptable to the masses of the WORLD in which we LIVE will be unwise and unending in our lifetimes.

I've said many other things but let these suffice for the argument for now.

Psychoblues
Masses of the WORLD? Since when does the United States have to get the permission of Pierre in Paris, or Otto in Ontario, before we defend our honor?

The invasion of Iraq was a huge mistake. George W. Bush wanted to show the world that he is a better man than his father. We had the support of the entire world when we invaded Afghanistan, and we had the chance to show the Muslim world what the West could accomplish there. But Bush 43 was too intent on showing up his old man by "finishing the job" his father didn't. It's a real shame and the biggest mistake this country has ever made.

But it's done. It can't be undone. We invaded a country of peoples who do not want to live in peace, who are incapable of civilized behavior, and would rather kill each other than take the opportunity they've been given. But it's not Bush's fault and it's not the fault of every member of Congress who gave him the power to invade.

It's their fault. And in my opinion, we should get every single one of our service members out of Iraq as soon as possible. Because these people are not worth the life of one more American. They don't deserve us.
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
I'm sorry, but I believe that Saddam doesn't take well to Mahmoud or Iranians for that matter.
It would if Saddam thought it would benefit him. You wouldn't think Saddam would take well to Hezbollah either -- an Iranian-backed terrorist organization, but he was willing to compensate the families of murderers.

Likewise, if he thought Iran was the answer to his problem with US, he'd have been kissing that ass as fast as he could get there.
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
Masses of the WORLD? Since when does the United States have to get the permission of Pierre in Paris, or Otto in Ontario, before we defend our honor?

The invasion of Iraq was a huge mistake. George W. Bush wanted to show the world that he is a better man than his father. We had the support of the entire world when we invaded Afghanistan, and we had the chance to show the Muslim world what the West could accomplish there. But Bush 43 was too intent on showing up his old man by "finishing the job" his father didn't. It's a real shame and the biggest mistake this country has ever made.

But it's done. It can't be undone. We invaded a country of peoples who do not want to live in peace, who are incapable of civilized behavior, and would rather kill each other than take the opportunity they've been given. But it's not Bush's fault and it's not the fault of every member of Congress who gave him the power to invade.

It's their fault. And in my opinion, we should get every single one of our service members out of Iraq as soon as possible. Because these people are not worth the life of one more American. They don't deserve us.
I disagree with your theory on Bushg finishing the job his father didn't. That is quite frankly a liberal lie, and I am rather surprized you believe it.

In order for the US to have unrestricted use of Arab airspace and to get an air base in Saudi Arabia, he had to agree to only kicking Saddam out of Kuwait, and not to pursue the Iraqi Army beyond Iraq's borders. As it was, we ventured a good ways into Iraq, destroying everything those maggots tried to take with them.

Now, if you were to say Bush did what Clinton would not and held Saddam accountable for his behavior post-Desert Storm 91, I might agree.

I also disagree with you that we should not have invaded Iraq. Saddam was going to have to be dealt with sooner or later. Nothing had changed in 13 years. Were we supposed to just babysit him in perpetuum? I know I didn't appreciate the Christmas's I spent with him instead of my family simply because he refused to comply with the terms of the cease fire.

I will however agree that the subsequent occupation has been pretty jacked-up.
 

nt250

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2006
Messages
1,013
Reaction score
72
Points
48
I disagree with your theory on Bushg finishing the job his father didn't. That is quite frankly a liberal lie, and I am rather surprized you believe it.

In order for the US to have unrestricted use of Arab airspace and to get an air base in Saudi Arabia, he had to agree to only kicking Saddam out of Kuwait, and not to pursue the Iraqi Army beyond Iraq's borders. As it was, we ventured a good ways into Iraq, destroying everything those maggots tried to take with them.

Now, if you were to say Bush did what Clinton would not and held Saddam accountable for his behavior post-Desert Storm 91, I might agree.

I also disagree with you that we should not have invaded Iraq. Saddam was going to have to be dealt with sooner or later. Nothing had changed in 13 years. Were we supposed to just babysit him in perpetuum? I know I didn't appreciate the Christmas's I spent with him instead of my family simply because he refused to comply with the terms of the cease fire.

I will however agree that the subsequent occupation has been pretty jacked-up.
I don't believe the liberal lie. The liberal lie is that George W. Bush invaded Iraq to avenge his father. The liberal lie is that George W. wanted to get revenge for Saddam putting out the "hit" on his father.

I don't believe that for a second. I've read enough about the dynamic of that father/son relationship to come to the conclusion that George W. Bush hates his father and his invasion of Iraq was to show his father up. To prove that he is not only a better president, but a better man. Bush 41 may have been a lot of things, but he was smart enough to listen to the people that told him that going after Saddam was a mistake. He got a lot of criticism for that decision. Bush 43 wanted to show the world he could do what his old man couldn't or wouldn't.

Bush didn't invade Iraq by himself. Congress gave him the power. They, more than him, are to blame because they are the checks and balances that the Constitution intended them to be. For them to turn around now and claim they were lied to is beyond the pale.

The next Constitutional amendment should be one that prevents a son from becoming president in his fathers lifetime. We had a real chance with Afghanistan. Bush blew it to show up his old man. And Congress gave him the power.
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
I don't believe the liberal lie. The liberal lie is that George W. Bush invaded Iraq to avenge his father. The liberal lie is that George W. wanted to get revenge for Saddam putting out the "hit" on his father.

I don't believe that for a second. I've read enough about the dynamic of that father/son relationship to come to the conclusion that George W. Bush hates his father and his invasion of Iraq was to show his father up. To prove that he is not only a better president, but a better man. Bush 41 may have been a lot of things, but he was smart enough to listen to the people that told him that going after Saddam was a mistake. He got a lot of criticism for that decision. Bush 43 wanted to show the world he could do what his old man couldn't or wouldn't.

Bush didn't invade Iraq by himself. Congress gave him the power. They, more than him, are to blame because they are the checks and balances that the Constitution intended them to be. For them to turn around now and claim they were lied to is beyond the pale.

The next Constitutional amendment should be one that prevents a son from becoming president in his fathers lifetime. We had a real chance with Afghanistan. Bush blew it to show up his old man. And Congress gave him the power.
Can't say as I agree with this particular theory either. Saddam periodically rattled his saber at us. Happened about every six months during Clinton's administration. He rattled it one time too many, right after 9/11.

If it's anyone's fault Iraq was invaded it's Saddam's. Had he honored his side of the ceasefire agreement he would have ceased to be an issue before 2000 rolled around.

The it falls on Clinton who should have taken Saddam to task the first two or three times he defied the terms of the ceasefire and UN resolution. The Saddam bluster and bluff worked on Clinton. He just played it one time too many and with the wrong President who was in no frame of mind to tolerate fools.

Bush hating his dad and wanting to outdo him is a new one on me and sorry, but I find it a bit far-fetched.
 

nt250

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2006
Messages
1,013
Reaction score
72
Points
48
Can't say as I agree with this particular theory either. Saddam periodically rattled his saber at us. Happened about every six months during Clinton's administration. He rattled it one time too many, right after 9/11.

If it's anyone's fault Iraq was invaded it's Saddam's. Had he honored his side of the ceasefire agreement he would have ceased to be an issue before 2000 rolled around.

The it falls on Clinton who should have taken Saddam to task the first two or three times he defied the terms of the ceasefire and UN resolution. The Saddam bluster and bluff worked on Clinton. He just played it one time too many and with the wrong President who was in no frame of mind to tolerate fools.

Bush hating his dad and wanting to outdo him is a new one on me and sorry, but I find it a bit far-fetched.
I think the invasion has proved that Saddam should have been left in power. Aside from splitting the country into three sections, which someone suggested on another thread, there is no hope that these people can live in peace with each other.

Of course that's the Wests fault, too, since the creation of the country of Iraq is just one more example of Western Imperialism. I'm sure you've gotten that perspective from the peanut gallery.

I think my theory is right about Bush. Oil? Nah. We don't need their oil. The Neocon agenda as the TFHB likes to promote? Nah. We could have done that in Afghanistan.

Think about it. George W. Bush was a complete waste of space until he turned 40. Before that, he was the black sheep of the family and an embarassment to his father, and he knew it.

Getting Saddam was Bush's prize. He had to do it. Maybe those around him had other reasons like oil, and the grandiose vision of PNAC, but Bush was only interested in flipping the bird to his old man.
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
I think the invasion has proved that Saddam should have been left in power. Aside from splitting the country into three sections, which someone suggested on another thread, there is no hope that these people can live in peace with each other.

The invasion was not required to prove that. The US military knew it as far back as the first Gulf War and considered leaving Saddam in power as the lesser of two evils.

Having said that, it does not mean there was not justification to remove him from power, and he definitely didn't wise up after his ass-whooping. Had he any brains at all, he'd have laid low instead of ensuring he was the focal point of the US's attention for over a decade.


Of course that's the Wests fault, too, since the creation of the country of Iraq is just one more example of Western Imperialism. I'm sure you've gotten that perspective from the peanut gallery.

I think my theory is right about Bush. Oil? Nah. We don't need their oil. The Neocon agenda as the TFHB likes to promote? Nah. We could have done that in Afghanistan.

Think about it. George W. Bush was a complete waste of space until he turned 40. Before that, he was the black sheep of the family and an embarassment to his father, and he knew it.

Getting Saddam was Bush's prize. He had to do it. Maybe those around him had other reasons like oil, and the grandiose vision of PNAC, but Bush was only interested in flipping the bird to his old man.
I can't say as I see it. I think after 9/11 Bush was looking for a gunfight and Saddam provided him an excuse. At teh time we had recently ousted the Taliban from power and had them hiding in caves and Bush, IMO, overestimated that seeming victory as "cleaning up" the Middle East was going to be easy.

In that regard, I think Bush allowed politics to override the opinions of his military advisors. But I see it more as a lack of appreciation for the reality of what is actually on the ground in the Middle East than any problem with showing up George HW.
 

Kagom

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2006
Messages
2,161
Reaction score
141
Points
48
Location
Vicksburg, MS
It would if Saddam thought it would benefit him. You wouldn't think Saddam would take well to Hezbollah either -- an Iranian-backed terrorist organization, but he was willing to compensate the families of murderers.

Likewise, if he thought Iran was the answer to his problem with US, he'd have been kissing that ass as fast as he could get there.
I'm sure he would kiss Mahmoud's ass if he was put into the position to do so, but doing so would've cost him what sense of dignity he has in his own mind. Also, let's say Saddam somehow regains power over Iraq (I know, it isn't happening, but let's say it did), Mahmoud would be a direct enemy of the state and of Saddam. Mahmoud wants Iraq for himself.
 

nt250

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2006
Messages
1,013
Reaction score
72
Points
48
I can't say as I see it. I think after 9/11 Bush was looking for a gunfight and Saddam provided him an excuse. At teh time we had recently ousted the Taliban from power and had them hiding in caves and Bush, IMO, overestimated that seeming victory as "cleaning up" the Middle East was going to be easy.

In that regard, I think Bush allowed politics to override the opinions of his military advisors. But I see it more as a lack of appreciation for the reality of what is actually on the ground in the Middle East than any problem with showing up George HW.

Agreed.

I didn't mean to impy it was the only reason, just his main one.

It's a real shame, too. We really could have shown the Muslim world how the West could have helped Afghanistan. People were digging up TV's and VCR's after years of "oppression". Women were having their hair done in the open.

We could have accomplished so much and the whole world was with us.

It's a real shame.
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,852
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
Agreed.

I didn't mean to impy it was the only reason, just his main one.

It's a real shame, too. We really could have shown the Muslim world how the West could have helped Afghanistan. People were digging up TV's and VCR's after years of "oppression". Women were having their hair done in the open.

We could have accomplished so much and the whole world was with us.

It's a real shame.
What is a shame as that different tactics -- military ones that addressed the reality of the situation as opposed to political ones -- would have achieved the same in Iraq.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top