It's about time it was said

[Againsheila]

Obama campaigned for the 2 bailouts.......which led to our economic meltdown.....

this statement makes you an imbecile.

And yet another person who thinks he can win a debate by namecalling and personal insults.....all I have to say is "look in a mirror when you say that".

 

[SFC Ollie]

do those defending our invasion of iraq with hundreds of thousands of ours and our allies troops still feel that the invasion served its purpose and was worth it as executed?

The war, yes. The peace, No.

what 'peace'?

Exactly. the war was won in weeks, the peace was flubbed.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

WorldNet Daily? Please. That is a known right-wing propaganda rag.

Here is the truth, right from the horse's mouth, i.e., Hans Blix, citizen of neutral Sweden, responsible, honorable and respected Chief U.N. Weapons Inspector assigned to Iraq. Read what he had to say about it. Former UN Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix: Iraq War Was Illegal

You really should stop wiggling on the hook. It is a well-established fact that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And if you just can't stand finding out that you've been duped and insist on holding fast in this faded deception, ask yourself this question:

If Saddam Hussein had these monstrous weapons why didn't he use them on the forces who attacked him? After all, what are weapons for?

Do you suppose he chose not to use them because he didn't want to make us angry?

Blix is certainly entitled to his opinion and that just what it is an opinion. Saddam refused to allow the inspectors to do their job and they were ordered out by the UN in '98. So Blix didn't know with any degree of certainty that no WMDs existed. Enough weapons were found that showed Saddam wasn't as innocent as you seem to paint him.

you do recall that Bush scored a major foreign policy victory by getting Saddam to let Blix back IN in November of 2002. If we had let him do his job, he would have found out what we have since found out... that Saddam didn't have any dangerous stockpiles of WMD's.... thirty year old chemical cannisters are no more "weapons of mass destruction" than a bottle of clorox.

But he wasn't allowed to inspect certain areas.

 

[maineman]

do those defending our invasion of iraq with hundreds of thousands of ours and our allies troops still feel that the invasion served its purpose and was worth it as executed?

The war, yes. The peace, No.

what 'peace'?

and AGAIN... after 9/11...Saddam was doing three things better than we have been able to do them.

1. He kept sunnis and shiites from slaughtering one another
2. He kept Islamic extremists from using his country as a haven
3. He acted as an effective foil against Iranian regional hegemony...

We would be BETTER served today if we had let HIM keep doing those three things and WE had concentrated on Al Qaeda... the folks who DID attack us, after all.

 

[maineman]

Blix is certainly entitled to his opinion and that just what it is an opinion. Saddam refused to allow the inspectors to do their job and they were ordered out by the UN in '98. So Blix didn't know with any degree of certainty that no WMDs existed. Enough weapons were found that showed Saddam wasn't as innocent as you seem to paint him.

you do recall that Bush scored a major foreign policy victory by getting Saddam to let Blix back IN in November of 2002. If we had let him do his job, he would have found out what we have since found out... that Saddam didn't have any dangerous stockpiles of WMD's.... thirty year old chemical cannisters are no more "weapons of mass destruction" than a bottle of clorox.

But he wasn't allowed to inspect certain areas.

Bush never gave him the chance. He ordered them out of the country just as they got started.... because he didn't really give a shit whether Saddam had WMD's or not... he didn't really CARE whether Saddam had any reason to give any weaponry to Osama or not... he just wanted a WAR that would preoccupy the American people and make us think that he was "gettin' some" after 9/11, and make us forget about the fact that he had no ******* idea where the folks who attacked us were.

 

[DiveCon]

The war, yes. The peace, No.

what 'peace'?

and AGAIN... after 9/11...Saddam was doing three things better than we have been able to do them.

1. He kept sunnis and shiites from slaughtering one another
2. He kept Islamic extremists from using his country as a haven
3. He acted as an effective foil against Iranian regional hegemony...

We would be BETTER served today if we had let HIM keep doing those three things and WE had concentrated on Al Qaeda... the folks who DID attack us, after all.

1 and 2 NO HE DIDNT

 

[antagon]

oh, snap! maineman tells it like it is! i need more rep power.

as a representative government, the sooner americans shirk the naivete which empowers action like iraq with popular mandate, the more consideration will be undertaken by our leadership for the costs of war in blood, cash and diplomatic capital. in the wake of the war, i believe this lesson has been taken in by many more who may have supported it to start with. i think that the presidents speech made an acknowledgment of this fact. it is evident from this thread, however, that many are still waiving flags handed out in 2003, and have missed the memo which illuminated the hollow impetus of the war as it played out in all those years since.

 

[maineman]

what 'peace'?

and AGAIN... after 9/11...Saddam was doing three things better than we have been able to do them.

1. He kept sunnis and shiites from slaughtering one another
2. He kept Islamic extremists from using his country as a haven
3. He acted as an effective foil against Iranian regional hegemony...

We would be BETTER served today if we had let HIM keep doing those three things and WE had concentrated on Al Qaeda... the folks who DID attack us, after all.

1 and 2 NO HE DIDNT

bullshit.

there were no carbombs or suicide bombers attacking various factions in Iraq during Saddam's reign. AQ was NOT welcome in his country when he was in power.

Arab nationalist terrorists...now that is a different story...they were welcome and were given training...but wahhabist extremists.... not so.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

you do recall that Bush scored a major foreign policy victory by getting Saddam to let Blix back IN in November of 2002. If we had let him do his job, he would have found out what we have since found out... that Saddam didn't have any dangerous stockpiles of WMD's.... thirty year old chemical cannisters are no more "weapons of mass destruction" than a bottle of clorox.

But he wasn't allowed to inspect certain areas.

Bush never gave him the chance. He ordered them out of the country just as they got started.... because he didn't really give a shit whether Saddam had WMD's or not... he didn't really CARE whether Saddam had any reason to give any weaponry to Osama or not... he just wanted a WAR that would preoccupy the American people and make us think that he was "gettin' some" after 9/11, and make us forget about the fact that he had no ******* idea where the folks who attacked us were.

The inspectors were not allowed to search areas they wanted to search. Saddam was simply toying with the inspectors.

You have no idea what Bush thought or what he gave a shit about so don't even start that stupid shit.

 

[DiveCon]

and AGAIN... after 9/11...Saddam was doing three things better than we have been able to do them.

1. He kept sunnis and shiites from slaughtering one another
2. He kept Islamic extremists from using his country as a haven
3. He acted as an effective foil against Iranian regional hegemony...

We would be BETTER served today if we had let HIM keep doing those three things and WE had concentrated on Al Qaeda... the folks who DID attack us, after all.

1 and 2 NO HE DIDNT

bullshit.

there were no carbombs or suicide bombers attacking various factions in Iraq during Saddam's reign. AQ was NOT welcome in his country when he was in power.

Arab nationalist terrorists...now that is a different story...they were welcome and were given training...but wahhabist extremists.... not so.

no, Saddam was the sunni killing the shia, you ******* moron
and the kurds as well
'but yeah, he was so wonderful for Iraqis

 

[DiveCon]

But he wasn't allowed to inspect certain areas.

Bush never gave him the chance. He ordered them out of the country just as they got started.... because he didn't really give a shit whether Saddam had WMD's or not... he didn't really CARE whether Saddam had any reason to give any weaponry to Osama or not... he just wanted a WAR that would preoccupy the American people and make us think that he was "gettin' some" after 9/11, and make us forget about the fact that he had no ******* idea where the folks who attacked us were.

The inspectors were not allowed to search areas they wanted to search. Saddam was simply toying with the inspectors.

You have no idea what Bush thought or what he gave a shit about so don't even start that stupid shit.

"the inspectors" were run around like the keystone cops

and to begin with, their job wasnt to "FIND" things, it was to VERIFY Saddam was DESTROYING THEM
but these morons will never figure that out

 

[maineman]

1 and 2 NO HE DIDNT

bullshit.

there were no carbombs or suicide bombers attacking various factions in Iraq during Saddam's reign. AQ was NOT welcome in his country when he was in power.

Arab nationalist terrorists...now that is a different story...they were welcome and were given training...but wahhabist extremists.... not so.

no, Saddam was the sunni killing the shia, you ******* moron
and the kurds as well
'but yeah, he was so wonderful for Iraqis

saddam had not initiated any wholesale slaughter of either shia or kurd for more than a decade before our invasion. He had, as I said, kept sunnis and shiites from slaughtering one another. But, were you all hot to go invade Iraq a decade earlier when he WAS killing kurds in the north and shia in the south. I guess not

and he certainly did not allow islamic extremists to use Iraq as a safe haven.

and hey.... Were you all hot to go invade Cambodia or Rwanda when THEIR leaders were killing their citizens? and if not, why not? was it because, as I suspect, that yellow skinned people and black skinned people don't have any OIL? I thought so.

 

[maineman]

You have no idea what Bush thought or what he gave a shit about so don't even start that stupid shit.

his actions illuminate his motives quite nicely.

 

[DiveCon]

bullshit.

there were no carbombs or suicide bombers attacking various factions in Iraq during Saddam's reign. AQ was NOT welcome in his country when he was in power.

Arab nationalist terrorists...now that is a different story...they were welcome and were given training...but wahhabist extremists.... not so.

no, Saddam was the sunni killing the shia, you ******* moron
and the kurds as well
'but yeah, he was so wonderful for Iraqis

saddam had not initiated any wholesale slaughter of either shia or kurd for more than a decade before our invasion. He had, as I said, kept sunnis and shiites from slaughtering one another. But, were you all hot to go invade Iraq a decade earlier when he WAS killing kurds in the north and shia in the south. I guess not

and he certainly did not allow islamic extremists to use Iraq as a safe haven.

and hey.... Were you all hot to go invade Cambodia or Rwanda when THEIR leaders were killing their citizens? and if not, why not? was it because, as I suspect, that yellow skinned people and black skinned people don't have any OIL? I thought so.

the point is i proved you wrong, once again
and YOU cant handle it'

 

[maineman]

no, Saddam was the sunni killing the shia, you ******* moron
and the kurds as well
'but yeah, he was so wonderful for Iraqis

saddam had not initiated any wholesale slaughter of either shia or kurd for more than a decade before our invasion. He had, as I said, kept sunnis and shiites from slaughtering one another. But, were you all hot to go invade Iraq a decade earlier when he WAS killing kurds in the north and shia in the south. I guess not

and he certainly did not allow islamic extremists to use Iraq as a safe haven.

and hey.... Were you all hot to go invade Cambodia or Rwanda when THEIR leaders were killing their citizens? and if not, why not? was it because, as I suspect, that yellow skinned people and black skinned people don't have any OIL? I thought so.

the point is i proved you wrong, once again
and YOU cant handle it'

you proved me wrong?

how so? I said:

Saddam was doing three things better than we have been able to do them.

1. He kept sunnis and shiites from slaughtering one another
2. He kept Islamic extremists from using his country as a haven
3. He acted as an effective foil against Iranian regional hegemony...

all three of those statements are fact.

 

[DiveCon]

saddam had not initiated any wholesale slaughter of either shia or kurd for more than a decade before our invasion. He had, as I said, kept sunnis and shiites from slaughtering one another. But, were you all hot to go invade Iraq a decade earlier when he WAS killing kurds in the north and shia in the south. I guess not

and he certainly did not allow islamic extremists to use Iraq as a safe haven.

and hey.... Were you all hot to go invade Cambodia or Rwanda when THEIR leaders were killing their citizens? and if not, why not? was it because, as I suspect, that yellow skinned people and black skinned people don't have any OIL? I thought so.

the point is i proved you wrong, once again
and YOU cant handle it'

you proved me wrong?

how so? I said:

Saddam was doing three things better than we have been able to do them.

1. He kept sunnis and shiites from slaughtering one another
2. He kept Islamic extremists from using his country as a haven
3. He acted as an effective foil against Iranian regional hegemony...

all three of those statements are fact.

and he didnt do either 1 or 2 in your list

Al Qaeda was ALREADY IN IRAQ BEFORE OIF
to deny it is denying reality
he was a Sunni Muslim and he was killing both Shia and Kurd the whole time, maybe not the mass amounts he had done before but he was STILL killing them'?

 

[asterism]

from that link:

"A CIA report in late 2004 concluded that there was no evidence Saddam's government was involved or even aware of this medical treatment, and found no conclusive evidence the regime had harbored Zarqawi. A US official told Reuters that the report was a mix of new information and a look at some older information and did not make any final judgments or come to any definitive conclusions. "To suggest the case is closed on this would not be correct," the official said."[84] A US official familiar with the report told Knight-Ridder that "what is indisputable is that Zarqawi was operating out of Baghdad and was involved in a lot of bad activities." Another U.S. official summarized the report as such: "The evidence is that Saddam never gave Zarqawi anything."

That doesn't negate who Zarqawi was (al Qaeda) where he was before we invaded Afghanistan (Afghanistan) and where he went after his camp was routed (Iraq) before we invaded Iraq. It doesn't matter if Saddam harbored him or simply couldn't stop al Qaeda from setting up a base of operations there. The results would have been the same, Al Qaeda in Iraq.

We fought Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and followed them to Iraq. What's so difficult to understand about that?

except you got your timing wrong. Zarqawi was NOT part of AQ until AFTER he came to Iraq and until AFTER we invaded. AQ in Iraq was a home grown group of Iraqis angry at the US for invading their country, and Zarqawi became their leader.

What information do you have that contradicts this?

In April or May 2002, the Iranians passed Zarqawi across the border into Iraqi Kurdistan, and the camps of Ansar al-Islam, an al-Qaeda-backed Islamic terrorist organisation led by Mullah Krekar.11 Iran is believed to have supported Ansar al-Islam as a way of undermining the larger, secular Kurdish parties.

Jordanian members of Zarqawi's network, including an explosives expert, had already been with Ansar al-Islam since 1998-1999, so he was able to establish a new base of operations strategically located on the edge of the Arab world.

Jordanian authorities have claimed that Zarqawi entered Jordan through Syria in late 2002. One month after this alleged visit, US Ambassador Laurence Foley was assassinated. Three suspects were arrested, and they claimed that Zarqawi had instigated the attack.
Various accusations have been made about Zarqawi's time with Ansar al-Islam - that Zarqawi was treated in a hospital in Baghdad, that he and Ansar al-Islam were working with Saddam through the alleged mukhabarat agent Abu Wa'il, and that Ansar al-Islam manufactured ricin that later surfaced in Europe. These accusations are difficult to verify, but what is clear is that Zarqawi was well positioned to lead the Islamic wing of the insurgency when March 2003 invasion took place. Whether he remained in Ansar al-Islam camps until April 2003 or laid the preparations for the war during extensive visits to Baghdad and the Sunni Triangle14 is uncertain, but clearly he emerged as an important figure in the insurgency soon after the Coalition invasion.

Although Zarqawi had still not declared bayat to bin Laden, he met with al-Qaeda's military chief, Muhammad 'Ibrahim Makawi, aka Saif al-Adel, in March 2003. Zarqawi agreed to coordinate the entry of al-Qaeda operatives into Iraq from Syria. This essentially made Zarqawi the terrorist 'Emir' of Iraq.

PWHCE Middle East Project: Abu Musab al-Zarqawi Profile

Kurdish connection

The next stop on his itinerary was his old stamping ground - Afghanistan.

He is believed to have set up a training camp in the western city of Herat, near the border with Iran.

Students at his camp supposedly became experts in the manufacture and use of poison gases.

It is during this period that Zarqawi is thought to have renewed his acquaintance with al-Qaeda.

He is believed to have fled to Iraq in 2001 after a US missile strike on his Afghan base, though the report that he lost a leg in the attack has not been verified.

US officials argue that it was at al-Qaeda's behest that he moved to Iraq and established links with Ansar al-Islam - a group of Kurdish Islamists from the north of the country.

He is thought to have remained with them for a while - feeling at home in mountainous northern Iraq.

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Profile: Abu Musab al-Zarqawi

Between Sept. 11, 2001, and the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003, Zarqawi is believed to fled U.S. bombing in Afghanistan, traveled through Iran and sought medical treatment in Baghdad, Iraq between May and July 2002. He may have also gone to Syria and Palestine at some point.

Several associates also arrived in Iraq during his stay in Baghdad. Some remained until at least February 2003.

Around May 2002, a Kurdish militant group, Ansar al-Islam, built a explosives and poisons training camp in northern Iraq, in a region outside of Saddam's control. Associates of Zarqawi were said to be running this camp.

He is believed to have orchestrated the killing of American diplomat Lawrence Foley on Oct. 28, 2002.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi

 

[asterism]

thirty year old chemical cannisters are no more "weapons of mass destruction" than a bottle of clorox.

First off, they weren't 30 years old, that would put their manufacture in 1973.

Also, sarin in the form of a binary agent is most certainly lethal even if it's decades old. Binary agents were found.

CIA ALSO BELIEVES THAT A SUBSTANTIAL

PORTION OF IRAQ'S NERVE AGENT STOCKPILE

NOW CONSISTS OF BINARY CHEMICAL WEAPONS

WHICH WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO

DEGRADATION.

Subject: STABILITY OF IRAQ'S CW STOCKPILE

 

[asterism]

do those defending our invasion of iraq with hundreds of thousands of ours and our allies troops still feel that the invasion served its purpose and was worth it as executed?

Yes and yes. The US is no longer considered a "paper tiger" and Iraq was one of many significant efforts to diminish Al Qaeda's capability as well as the entire structure of terrorism.

 

[shintao]

do those defending our invasion of iraq with hundreds of thousands of ours and our allies troops still feel that the invasion served its purpose and was worth it as executed?

Yes and yes. The US is no longer considered a "paper tiger" and Iraq was one of many significant efforts to diminish Al Qaeda's capability.

Who doesn't think we are a paper Tiger? How badly did we "diminish Al Qaeda's capability?" What was the ratio of deaths to one AQ? If you don't know, that is ok. jus asking....