Question for Iraq war supporters

[Taomon]

Go read the war resolution dumbshit. Ohh and provide some of those quotes where Bush or Cheney "referenced" 9/11 and Iraq as being tied together.

The War resolution is public history. Even you can access it. I though need some of those "secret" subliminal" messages from Bush and Cheney quoted for me.

No need for name calling. I know why we invaded Iraq and now occupy it hostilly. I wanted to know if you understood why.

 

[maineman]

provide some of those quotes where Bush or Cheney "referenced" 9/11 and Iraq as being tied together.

when Cheney talked about Atta and Iraqi intelligence agents in discussions about 9/11, that is an implication that they are tied together. You aren't suggesting that in the middle of months and months of planning the attacks on us, that Cheney was implying that Atta simply dropped that planning effort and met with the Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague to get his recipe for couscous, are you?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Aside from every reason given being proved wrong, inaccurate or a lie?

Every reason?
Proven wrong, inaccurate or a lie?
Can you show this to be true?

 

[Taomon]

Every reason?
Proven wrong, inaccurate or a lie?
Can you show this to be true?

Oh, I am sorry...did they find weapons of mass destruction? I must have missed that news flash.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Oh, I am sorry...did they find weapons of mass destruction? I must have missed that news flash.

You said "every" reason.

 

[maineman]

You said "every" reason.

that WAS the main mission

 

[Annie]

that WAS the main mission

But that's not what he said.

 

[Taomon]

You said "every" reason.

You cannot name one reason given, reason given, that we are in Iraq that holds true.

I defy you to name one.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You cannot name one reason given, reason given, that we are in Iraq that holds true.
I defy you to name one.

You said "every reason given [was] proved wrong".
Its up to you to support your claim.
Show that EVERY reason we gave was proven wrong.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You said "every reason given [was] proved wrong".
Its up to you to support your claim.
Show that EVERY reason we gave was proven wrong.

He can't and he won't. Aided and abetted by people like Maineman he will scoff and ignore demands to prove HIS own claim. And as he already has done try to shift the burden of proving his claim onto us to disprove it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

This was proven wrong? Or was a lie?

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

or this...

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);

how about this one?

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

how about...

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Perhaps this one?

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

 

[M14 Shooter]

He can't and he won't. Aided and abetted by people like Maineman he will scoff and ignore demands to prove HIS own claim. And as he already has done try to shift the burden of proving his claim onto us to disprove it.

Obvuiously, he needs to do two things:

-List ALL the reasons we went to war
-Show that ALL of them were proven wrong, proven inaccurate or proven a lie

I dont expect that he will even try.

 

[Taomon]

You said "every reason given [was] proved wrong".
Its up to you to support your claim.
Show that EVERY reason we gave was proven wrong.

You really are a piece of work. If a neo-con posted anything at all, you would not question it. As soon a s a liberal does, you have to insist on proof. Total double standard.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

"Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;"

The weapons caches and programs were destroyed by weapons inspectors and our economic sanctions.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6190720/

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

How does this fit when Saudi Arabia, our biggest Middle East Ally is far worse to their citizens than Iraq? Saudi Arabia even trafficks in human slavery:
http://www.gvnet.com/humantrafficking/SaudiArabia.htm
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/saudi/

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

When? When did this happen after Desert Storm? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

If we attempt or succeed to assassinate foreign leaders throughout the world, and that is okay, we have no room to not allow retaliative actions. We must first stop our wayward foreign policies and intelligence agencies who cause more problems than they solve. We are constantly caught in blow back, 9/11 being the most intense.

Whereas members of al Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

There are al Qaeda operatives in America, should we attack ourselves? There are al Qaeda operatives in Israel, should we invade and occupy Israel?
There are al Qaeda operatives and financiers in Saudi Arabia, should we attack and occupy Saudi Arabia? Well, yes, we should do that.

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

There is no proof that Saddam ever harbored any terrorist organization. That burden of proof is on you.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C03E3DE1F31F93AA35752C0A9629C8B63

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Refusing to comply with UN directives does not authorize any one country, the US included, to attack that country in non-compliance. Preemptive strikes can now be justified by North Korea, China, Russia and any terrorist group. The logic behind a pre-empitive strike is hubris and hegemony at it's worst, and sets a dangerous precedent.

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Diplomatic and economic means should have been used and not aggression. Now we will be bogged down in a quagmire worse than Vietnam.

And here is a couple of nice links in case you want to get a better sense of what I am talking about.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0919-14.htm
http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2002/10/03_kucinich_vote-no.htm

 

[maineman]

But that's not what he said.

it's what I said....

and, oddly enough, it is what George Bush said before we invaded.

 

[Taomon]

it's what I said....

and, oddly enough, it is what George Bush said before we invaded.

Exactly, but any proof we give, any logical argument given will never be accepted by this lot. They only seek to raise the President and America into mythic realms of nationalist dreams.

Exalted we stand, the questioners must fall.

 

[Annie]

it's what I said....

and, oddly enough, it is what George Bush said before we invaded.

To ask TM to back up what he said was not wrong. He follows your post with his chirping with you that 'you' gave proof and no one believes it. He is less than the chattering masses on both sides, why do you keep rescuing his nonsense?

 

[Taomon]

To ask TM to back up what he said was not wrong. He follows your post with his chirping with you that 'you' gave proof and no one believes it. He is less than the chattering masses on both sides, why do you keep rescuing his nonsense?

I responed Kathianne, I would not call it nonsense.

 

[maineman]

To ask TM to back up what he said was not wrong. He follows your post with his chirping with you that 'you' gave proof and no one believes it. He is less than the chattering masses on both sides, why do you keep rescuing his nonsense?

did he use rhetorical hyperbole?

shame on him. I bet that's the first time that's ever happened here!

 

[M14 Shooter]

You really are a piece of work. If a neo-con posted anything at all, you would not question it. As soon a s a liberal does, you have to insist on proof.

Its your claim that the reaons were PROVEN false.
If you dont like having to support your claims then don't make them,

The weapons caches and programs were destroyed by weapons inspectors and our economic sanctions.

Show this to be true.

How does this fit when Saudi Arabia, our biggest Middle East Ally is far worse to their citizens than Iraq?

This is not proof that the attending claim was false.

When? When did this happen after Desert Storm?

This is not proof that the attending claim was false.

If we attempt or succeed to assassinate foreign leaders throughout the world, and that is okay, we have no room to not allow retaliative actions. We must first stop our wayward foreign policies and intelligence agencies who cause more problems than they solve. We are constantly caught in blow back, 9/11 being the most intense.

This is not proof that the attending claim was false.

There are al Qaeda operatives in America, should we attack ourselves?

This is not proof that the attending claim was false.

There is no proof that Saddam ever harbored any terrorist organization. That burden of proof is on you.

This is not proof that the attending claim was false.

Refusing to comply with UN directives does not authorize any one country, the US included, to attack that country in non-compliance.

This is not proof that the attending claim was false.

Diplomatic and economic means should have been used and not aggression.

This is not proof that the attending claim was false.

You said "every reason given [was] proved wrong".
Its up to you to support your claim.
To do that, you must show EVERY reason we gave, and that EVER reason was proven wrong.

So far, you havent proven anything.

 

[Taomon]

Its your claim that the reaons were PROVEN false.
If you dont like having to support your claims then don't make them

The point is that if it is a neo-con or conservative view, you don't demand that they prove it because you agree (and that makes it infallibly correct in your mind).