Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Excellent Memorial Day editorial

Military Memorial Day Iraq Bush

  • Please log in to reply
52 replies to this topic

#21 Elara

Elara

    Feel the silence of the moonlight.

  • Watchdog
  • 2,905 posts

Posted 30 May 2005 - 10:27 PM

Ogami, on May 30 2005, 09:46 PM, said:

Find me one quote of Bush on Iraq or Afghanistan that is a demonstrable lie. You can't do it because he never did lie.

~.~ Never is a very big word.

I must be confused. I thought the reason we went into Iraq was because we were after bin laden.

Quote

Again, find for me ONE QUOTE where Bush, or Rumsfeld, or Cheney, or Powell, or Rice said, "Saddam Hussein knew of and planned the 9/11 attacks with Bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda network."

~.~ I do not believe my above quote says that bush and co. said that Saddam knew of and planned the attacks. I said I thought that was why we went there, I should have said that differently. I should have said I thought the whole reason to go after anyone in the Middle East was because of 9/11 and that anyone we went after had some tie to bin laden.

Quote

You can't do it because he never said it. Just because every Democrat politician in Washington says it to get out the vote doesn't mean it happened. (You'll have to do like Spectacles and point to a poll that Bush didn't write, but go ahead and look.)

-Ogami

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


~.~ You seem to have me confused with someone who has a party. Like it or not, I have my own views and I don't give a fig what a person's party is, all I care about is the job they do.

Now, how about the fact that bin laden is still free, laughing at us. Don't you want to know why bush has not captured him, don't you wonder why our troops are over there dying while bin laden lives an easy, safe life, don't you wonder when he will attack again because bush did not go after him?

This war began because of 9/11, at least that was the coat-tail bush rode on, yet the one responsible is free. I don't care what party you (general term) are with, I don't care what you think of me, the truth is staring all of us in the face, truth is bush lied and our children are paying the ultimate price.
I want to know why.

~edit to clarify.

I would bet that most of the U.S. citizens believe/d that we went to Iraq because we were after any and all that were involved with 9/11, especially bin laden, this is why my 'coat-tail' comment. President Bush had to be aware of this, so whether he outwardly lied or not, a lie of omission is still a lie.
With that, I take my leave.

Edited by Elara, 30 May 2005 - 11:47 PM.

El
~ blue crystal glows, the dark side unseen, sparkles in scant light, from sun to planet, to me in between ~


I want a job in HRC's "shadow" cabinet. Good pay, really easy hours, lots of time off. Can't go wrong.

"You have a fair and valid point here. I've pointed out, numerous times, that the Left's or Democrats always cry "Racist" whenever someone disagrees with them. I failed to realize that the Right or Republicans do the same thing with "Liberal"." ~ LotS

#22 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 30 May 2005 - 11:19 PM

No we were there because Saddam refused to let inspectors into sites. Now he backed down but after 12 years how many times do you have to be lied to by a guy to know he would keep lying to you before you just take him down.  We do not give drug dealers these sort of breaks why should a guy proven to beat to death citzens his government seized that killed thousands of the people living with in his borders?

We are there becasue to remove Saddam means actually making a country and hoping we can bring a form of representive government to a part of the world which has never had that.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#23 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 30 May 2005 - 11:51 PM

Elara wrote:

I should have said I thought the whole reason to go after anyone in the Middle East was because of 9/11 and that anyone we went after had some tie to bin laden.

Thank you for clarifying. But we didn't suddenly "go" into the Middle East, we've been directly in the Middle East since Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. Bush's critics pretend that Saddam Hussein was just innocently minding his own business until Bush's Inauguration Day. Our history with Saddam Hussein started before this president, and included 8 years of continuous military strikes by Bill Clinton against said regime.

You seem to have me confused with someone who has a party. Like it or not, I have my own views and I don't give a fig what a person's party is, all I care about is the job they do.

Bush never promised a cakewalk. Part of Saddam Hussein's reason to bluff UN inspectors was that invading, occupying, and then rebuilding Iraq, in the center of an Islamic terrorist region, would not be easy work. And it isn't. But we don't cherrypick easy jobs, we removed Saddam Hussein because it was the right thing to do. To paraphrase President Kennedy at the height of the Cold War, we do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard.

Saddam Hussein bet that Bush would be a politically-expedient president like his predecessor. Saddam bet wrong. Bush does the hard things, things that can be nitpicked to death 360 degrees by his armchair critics. But he doesn't mind, this is his job. And he won't shirk from it like Clinton did his.

-Ogami

#24 Call Me Robin

Call Me Robin

    red-haired and proud

  • Islander
  • 970 posts

Posted 31 May 2005 - 07:07 AM

[QUOTE]Robin, if you still cannot understand what that means, and why it is called the "Iraq Liberation Act" and not "Iraq let's hope Sanctions Work Act", I can't help you further. There's nothing plainer than the above Article 3 on what Clinton wanted to happen.
[/QUOTE]

The question is how to accomplish this.  Clinton by funding opposition from within; Bush by pre-emptive war from without.

Besides, the sanctions were indeed working.  

[QUOTE]That would be Clinton lying before a Federal Judge, lying before a Grand Jury, lying before the country (as his administration team went to work smearing Monica), and thereby losing his license to practice Law in the State of Arkansas? The Arkansas Bar association disbarred Bill Clinton for a reason. Nothing flimsy about it.
[/QUOTE]

And the country suffered soooooooo greatly for what he did.  Except it didn't.  The impeachment was pure partisanship at work.

[quote]So Iraqi intelligence contacts spruced up their reports, so what? The left accuses Bush of lying and fabricating intelligence. If he did that, why is he still president? He did not.
[/quote]

"The left?"  Stop accusing "the left" of this.  In fact, there are conservative Republicans who oppose Bush and the Iraq war.


[quote]Bush didn't have to claim Saddam Hussein had WMD, the whole world saw him use them! Why are you so determined to protest the innocence of Saddam Hussein? He had WMD, used them, and showed all signs of wanting to acquire more. So he didn't acquire more, that's good. That doesn't mean we should have left him in power.[/quote]

He used those WMDs in 1991.  By 2003, there was no sign of them.  He didn't have them.  There were no weapons in Iraq.  There were no weapons under lock.  There were no weapons here or there.  There were no weapons anywhere.

[quote]That was the determination of the 9/11 Commission, Saddam Hussein was indisputably linked to Al Queda. Did Saddam plan or know of the 9/11 attacks? No evidence. Did Saddam support and pay for Islamic terrorist organizations as a whole? Absolutely. Bush never lied.[/quote]

What the 9/11 commission determined was that Saddam had had contact with al Qaeda in the mid-1990s but that was about it.  Not the same thing as actively supporting them.

Read the Washington Post article I linked to.

[/quote]The invasion had nothing to do with freeing the Iraqi people. If it were, we would not be occupying the country. We would probably be doing what Clinton wanted: supporting opposition groups in Iraq.

This will come as a great surprise to the people of Japan and Germany, who were told we had to occupy them to bring them democracy and freedom. I don't dispute the fervency of your feelings, but I happen to look at history more than feelings. History completely repudiates your above statement.[/quote]

Don't confuse WWII with the Iraq War.  They are two different things.  WWII was not a pre-emptive war.  The Iraquis are not the Germans or Japanese.

[quote]Another straw man: the supposed Saddam sympathizer or appeaser. I know of nobody who called Saddam a victim or who was pro-Saddam.

You yourself just stated it was the wrong thing to do to forcibly remove Saddam Hussein from power. Did I misunderstand your very precise and very clear statement? [/quote]

And this makes me a Saddam supporter, eh?  Saying "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" doesn't make one a Saddam supporter.  Please make this distinction.

And, speaking of concept of time, here's one--if Saddam got rid of all those WMDs, that paperwork, that evidence, why hasn't it shown up by now?  If we've managed to throw the fear of God into dictators like Syria's Assad, why hasn't he turned over the evidence?  Two years is more than enough time to find those WMDs.

[quote]Funny how the crowd who argues "We should have given sanctions a longer chance!" is the same exact crowd who was saying "End Iraq sanctions now!" before Bush made his Axis of Evil speech. You may choose not to remember the position of Bush's critics, but I do.
[/quote]

Don't confuse the issue of sanctions vs. pre-emptive war based on bogus evidence.

Elara and Spectacles have already done an excellent job of providing links.  I suggest you also check out the story on the Downing Street memo.
Of all the varieties of virtues, liberalism is the most beloved.
--Aristotle

The fanatic is not really a stickler to principle. He embraces a cause not primarily because of its justness or holiness but because of his desperate need for something to hold onto.
--Eric Hoffer

#25 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 31 May 2005 - 11:45 AM

Robin wrote:

In fact, there are conservative Republicans who oppose Bush and the Iraq war.

Would those be the same "conservative Republicans" that won re-election in 2002 and 2004 by riding the President's coattails? If such "mavericks" win universal praise from Bush's critics, I wonder why Democrat mavericks who support the president don't win similar accolades. Could it be... politics? (Bad Dana Carvey impression, sorry.)

He used those WMDs in 1991. By 2003, there was no sign of them. He didn't have them.

So Saddam only murdered his own people by 2003, so it's okay? Let's give him a big hug for being such a swell guy.

What the 9/11 commission determined was that Saddam had had contact with al Qaeda in the mid-1990s but that was about it. Not the same thing as actively supporting them.

Thank you for clarifying your previous post. Saddam Hussein had extensive contacts with many Islamic terrorist groups. To say we shouldn't have invaded Iraq, just because he was closer to some islamic terror groups instead of Al Queda, is willfull blindness. Newsflash, Saddam Hussein needed removed because of any support of any islamic terror group. He gave us a whole host of reasons to remove him, even if not one single functioning WMD was left in his country by 2003.

Don't confuse WWII with the Iraq War. They are two different things. WWII was not a pre-emptive war. The Iraquis are not the Germans or Japanese.

Are you stating that the Iraqi people don't want freedom and democracy, like the Germans and Japanese? I do not assign a subhuman status to arabs, Robin. They are people like everyone else, and while it may be fashionable for Bush's critics to claim Iraqis don't want freedom that bad, the Iraqi elections put to rest that particularly outrageous claim.

I thought all people wanted freedom and democracy, and guess what, we imposed both of those on a defeated Germany and Japan. Arabs are not a different category of people, they want these things as much as anyone.

And this makes me a Saddam supporter, eh? Saying "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" doesn't make one a Saddam supporter. Please make this distinction.

Ah, so you do prefer it if Saddam was still murdering and killing his own people in a ruthless police state, filling one mass grave after another. It is amazing to me to see the lengths people will go in order to oppose Bush. All this just because Gore or Kerry isn't president. Amazing.

if Saddam got rid of all those WMDs, that paperwork, that evidence, why hasn't it shown up by now? If we've managed to throw the fear of God into dictators like Syria's Assad, why hasn't he turned over the evidence? Two years is more than enough time to find those WMDs.


If you have no conception of what an absolute police state is, and how every scrap of information is ruthlessly suppressed and controlled by the dictator's cronies, then you can't understand how Saddam Hussein could have disposed of everything in the 9 months Bush gave him between the Summer of 2002 and March 2003.

Don't confuse the issue of sanctions vs. pre-emptive war based on bogus evidence.

What was bogus evidence about Saddam Hussein being a deadly threat to his own people, his neighboring countries, and our allies in the region? I guess Bush used a time machine and fabricated Saddam's invasions of Iran and Kuwait as well!

-Ogami

#26 Zwolf

Zwolf
  • Islander
  • 3,683 posts

Posted 31 May 2005 - 12:21 PM

Quote

Thank you for clarifying your previous post. Saddam Hussein had extensive contacts with many Islamic terrorist groups. To say we shouldn't have invaded Iraq, just because he was closer to some islamic terror groups instead of Al Queda, is willfull blindness.

****** You can keep on repeating this all you want, but it's never going to be the truth.   Talk about willful blindness...

Repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat.  So boring.

Cheers,

Zwolf
"I've moved on and I'm feeling fine
And I'll feel even better
When your life has nothing to do with mine."
-Pittbull, "No Love Lost"

"There are things that I'd like to say
But I'm never talking to you again
There's things I'd like to phrase some way
But I'm never talking to you again

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you

I'd put you down where you belong
But I'm never talking to you again
I'd show you everywhere you're wrong
But I'm never talking to you again

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you

I'm never talking to you again
I'm never talking to you
I'm tired of wasting all my time
Trying to talk to you."
- Husker Du, "Never Talking To You Again"

#27 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 31 May 2005 - 12:49 PM

Quote

You watched CNN same as I did during early 2003. Every day that Colin Powell would go before the UN and state that Iraq was putting on a dog-and-pony show for the Inspectors, Tariq Aziz would shake his head and say "No no no, we are fully cooperating with inspectors."

I happen to believe Tariq Aziz was a liar, Spectacles. Why should we believe Tariq Azis over Colin Powell? Your side posted every week about how he's the most honorable man in the Administration, was Colin Powell lying about inspection access so that Bush would cook him a hot dog at the ranch?

There's nothing vague here, Spectacles. One of the men was lying. You just stated you choose to believe what Saddam Hussein's best friend said about the access of the inspectors. Why?

:wacko:

Golly gee, Ogami. Tariq Aziz was the furthest person from my mind. I was just questioning the validity of your assertion that we had to invade Iraq because "Saddam Hussein refused to permit full access for our inspectors, as was signed by his generals in the 1991 Cease Fire and specified in UN resolutions.." I pointed out that I didn't think that was true and provided a link to a report to the UN from Hans Blix on March 7, 2003. At that time, he seemed to think that the inspectors who had been on the ground in Iraq since November 2002 were conducting inspections at will and without notice.  

If it's true that inspectors were in Iraq from November 2002 until the start of the war and that they had full access to sites, isn't your statement false?
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#28 Call Me Robin

Call Me Robin

    red-haired and proud

  • Islander
  • 970 posts

Posted 31 May 2005 - 12:57 PM

Quote

Ah, so you do prefer it if Saddam was still murdering and killing his own people in a ruthless police state, filling one mass grave after another. It is amazing to me to see the lengths people will go in order to oppose Bush. All this just because Gore or Kerry isn't president. Amazing.

One thing, Ogami.  I'd appreciate it if you'd stop inferring that I, or anyone else on this board, is a Saddam sympathizer or would prefer that Saddam Hussein were still in power.  I've already stated that we would've been better off funding opposition groups, as Clinton wanted.

Stop putting words in people's mouths.

NOBODY ON THIS BOARD IS PRO-SADDAM.  PERIOD!

Edited by Call Me Robin, 31 May 2005 - 12:59 PM.

Of all the varieties of virtues, liberalism is the most beloved.
--Aristotle

The fanatic is not really a stickler to principle. He embraces a cause not primarily because of its justness or holiness but because of his desperate need for something to hold onto.
--Eric Hoffer

#29 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 31 May 2005 - 01:06 PM

Robin, please explain what you mean. We were already funding Iraq opposition groups throughout from 1998, that's where we got Ahmed Chalabi. Funding an opposition group who operates in countries other than Iraq is lip service, nothing more. That was Clinton's intention, even if regime change was our official policy since 1998.

We also had 12 years of sanctions, no effect on Saddam's power. Saddam ensured the loyalty of his cronies by skimming off the humanitarian Oil for Food program, while keeping Iraqis from getting adequate medical supplies. We all recall the endless news stories by CNN on how cruel sanctions were keeping the hospitals empty of supplies, when it was Saddam doing so deliberately.

Please show us where the sanctions were "just about" to get Saddam to crack. Please show us where the outside opposition groups were "just about" to get Saddam out.

You say you do not support Saddam, but everything you argue would have left Saddam Hussein in power, killing his people to this very day. If Bush was wrong, then what was right?

-Ogami

#30 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,149 posts

Posted 31 May 2005 - 03:23 PM

Quote

If Bush was wrong, then what was right?


Finishing up in Afganiststan first would have been a good move, catching or killing Osama Bin Laden, the architect of the 9/11 attacks. He could probably have done whatever he wanted if we had caught/killed Bin Laden.
Can't Touch This!!

#31 tennyson

tennyson
  • Islander
  • 6,173 posts

Posted 31 May 2005 - 04:16 PM

My plan would have had another year focusing on Afghanistan to make sure it was stabilized and dealt with for the moment and then going into Iraq at the end of that extra year with more available force and hopefully better planning and base access. But then I wasn't consulted. What gets lost here is that while I supported Saddam's overthrow I don't think it was done in the best way but such nuances get lost in the shuffle.
"Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts."

— Londo, "Ceremonies of Light and Dark" Babylon-5


#32 Balderdash

Balderdash
  • Islander
  • 5,729 posts

Posted 31 May 2005 - 04:54 PM

Ogami, on May 31 2005, 02:06 PM, said:

Robin, please explain what you mean. We were already funding Iraq opposition groups throughout from 1998, that's where we got Ahmed Chalabi. Funding an opposition group who operates in countries other than Iraq is lip service, nothing more. That was Clinton's intention, even if regime change was our official policy since 1998.

We also had 12 years of sanctions, no effect on Saddam's power. Saddam ensured the loyalty of his cronies by skimming off the humanitarian Oil for Food program, while keeping Iraqis from getting adequate medical supplies. We all recall the endless news stories by CNN on how cruel sanctions were keeping the hospitals empty of supplies, when it was Saddam doing so deliberately.

Please show us where the sanctions were "just about" to get Saddam to crack. Please show us where the outside opposition groups were "just about" to get Saddam out.

You say you do not support Saddam, but everything you argue would have left Saddam Hussein in power, killing his people to this very day. If Bush was wrong, then what was right?

-Ogami

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



This is what is so infuriating about the way you "debate".   :glare:   I don't know anyone who didn't support the war in Iraq who supported Saddam.  If you are anti-war for whatever reasons it doesn't mean that you are pro-insanemurderingbastard.

There are a lot of terrible people running countries out there but you don't see Mr. Bush bringing democracy to them.  We've got some "allies" right now that could give Saddam a good run for his money for tyrant of the year.

Another Democrat leaning Independent that has to search for truth because it can't be found on Fox News OR MSNBC.



"Being gay is not a Western invention, it is a human reality"  by HRC


#33 Enkanowen

Enkanowen
  • Islander
  • 1,533 posts

Posted 31 May 2005 - 06:43 PM

And when all else fails: give war a fancy name so people think it was for the greater good.

"Iraq Liberation Act" ... *snort*

'people we killed' was replaced with "casualties" it's all about candy coating. I mean this is coming from the country that petitioned to rename french fries to freedom fries. I've read this thread and some of the arguments are downright hilarious. Particularly when people cite CNN as their major source of reference... when CNN is the most biased news station in north america. But enough about my amusement.

The war on Iraq was wrong and self righteous. Anyone who is pro-war can argue their little hearts out. It was wrong and your government lied to you about why it was going to war.

There were no WMDs. Well there used to be in the 80s and early 90s,  when the US helped fund them, but by 2000 there weren't any left.

Saddam was not in kahoots with Bin Laden. Besides, angry at Saddam for shipping money to Bin Laden? How angry are you going to be at the CIA for training him and setting him out into the world?

WHat would be right? Well, instead of having Saddam kill his people, the US is killing his people, insurgents are killing his people, warlords are killing his people... so is this right? I don't think so.

What would be right? Spending the billions poured into warfare on education, healthcare and social insurance. Clean up your own yard before complaining about someone else's. We sit on our high and mighty horse pointing the finger at 'less civilized' countries, when here in north America things are just as bad. Only up here, we hide them better.

Everything boils down to money. This war was not fought because the US government wanted to make the world a better place, but because of money and oil. Notice the gasoline prices? They've gone up 20 cents in the past year. Coincidence? I don't think so.

#34 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 01 June 2005 - 01:54 AM

Balderdash wrote:

This is what is so infuriating about the way you "debate".  I don't know anyone who didn't support the war in Iraq who supported Saddam. If you are anti-war for whatever reasons it doesn't mean that you are pro-insanemurderingbastard.

Yes, it must indeed be frustrating to have the morally-high stance of opposing war in Iraq, and then have mean ol' Ogami question what the alternative would be.

Those who argue that it was the "wrong time" to remove Saddam Hussein might as well grab shovels and help him fill those mass graves. How many more people should Saddam have been allowed to kill, in order to massage the egos of Bush's critics? I say to you, Balderdash, that not one more murder by Saddam Hussein would have been preferable to what Bush did. Do you find the concept of Saddam Hussein filling mass graves acceptable? It's his country, who cares, right?

Well Bush cared, and so do I.

There are a lot of terrible people running countries out there but you don't see Mr. Bush bringing democracy to them. We've got some "allies" right now that could give Saddam a good run for his money for tyrant of the year.

Sorry, but "there are a lot of dictators" is not an answer to the question of why Bush was wrong to remove Saddam Hussein. This assertion implies that sanctions were just about to change Saddam Hussein's big heart. But after 12 years, there was no such evidence of that happening, and if anything, Saddam grew more comfortable in his repression of his own people.

Frustrating to debate me? Of course, when you cannot answer the questions I put forth. Because my questions go to the root of the political nature of opposition to war in Iraq. No one can certainly cite a good reason for leaving Saddam Hussein in power, other than the "order" a dictator brings, eh?

-Ogami

Edited by Ogami, 01 June 2005 - 02:03 AM.


#35 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 01 June 2005 - 02:11 AM

please note

'Serious consequences' is not synonymous with 'Invasion'

#36 Enkanowen

Enkanowen
  • Islander
  • 1,533 posts

Posted 01 June 2005 - 07:53 AM

You got that right, Ogami, Bush cared.... about MONEY.

#37 Call Me Robin

Call Me Robin

    red-haired and proud

  • Islander
  • 970 posts

Posted 01 June 2005 - 11:04 AM

If Bush could've proven that Saddam was a threat to the US or that he was in cahoots with bin Laden, then I would've supported a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq.  

Of course Saddam was a bad guy.  But in the case of the Iraq war, the cure is much, much worse than the disease.  Iraq has gone from being a fourth-rate dictatorship run by a monster to a war-torn nation with a ruined infrastructure.  And it's thisclose to outright civil war.  I predict that within 20 years, there may not even be an Iraq.
Of all the varieties of virtues, liberalism is the most beloved.
--Aristotle

The fanatic is not really a stickler to principle. He embraces a cause not primarily because of its justness or holiness but because of his desperate need for something to hold onto.
--Eric Hoffer

#38 Nick

Nick

    ...

  • Islander
  • 7,132 posts

Posted 01 June 2005 - 11:04 AM

[puts on moderator hat]

I'd like to caution and remind everyone to keep the discussion about the topics at hand, and not your fellow posters.  Please refrain from assuming motives and opinions of other posters, as that quickly leads to the kind of accusations, baiting and flaming we try to avoid.

Take a deep breath and do a group hug, everyone!!

{{{{everyone}}}}

;)

-Nick
[/Mod hat off]

#39 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 01 June 2005 - 11:19 AM

Godeskian wrote:

'Serious consequences' is not synonymous with 'Invasion'

Absolutely. France and Germany thought serious consequences would mean reducing Saddam's skimming off the Oil for Food program by a few thousand dollars. The intelligence failure here was Saddam Hussein's, not Bush's. Saddam Hussein had put up with 12 years of bullcrap sanctions, 8 years of a bullcrap president, and he figured the new American president would roll over for him. Saddam figured wrong.

-Ogami

#40 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 01 June 2005 - 11:22 AM

Robin wrote:

If Bush could've proven that Saddam was a threat to the US or that he was in cahoots with bin Laden, then I would've supported a pre-emptive invasion of Iraq.

If Bill Clinton couldn't convince you, how could Bush? Every Democrat in the House and Senate gave long-winded speeches in 1998, about how they must pass the Iraq Liberation Act because Saddam Hussein was known to desire and have WMD at that time, our intelligence said so. Bill Clinton signed that bill into law, and then when a new President comes along, the entire left pretends that we never had any history with Saddam Hussein prior to Bush's inauguration. The Democratic party may play pretend all they want, the rest of us live in the real world.

This isn't a theoretical flight of fancy, Saddam Hussein was a proven threat before Bush was even governor of Texas. To pretend otherwise is anyone's priviledge, but it's not backed up by historical fact.

-Ogami



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Military, Memorial Day, Iraq, Bush

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users