Muenkel 0 #26 July 28, 2004 QuoteCome on Jeff. Don't be silly. We could have said, "pretty please." That would have surly done the trick. I don't know. Maybe a big group hug would have been more effective. _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zennie 0 #27 July 28, 2004 QuoteWe found plenty of WMDs. You really think we went to war over a bunch of sarin-filled artillery shells? C'mon. - Z "Always be yourself... unless you suck." - Joss Whedon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #28 July 28, 2004 QuoteYou really think we went to war over a bunch of sarin-filled artillery shells? No. We went to war as a pre-emptive strike against a country that was preparing to assault our country through terrorist acts. Bush saw to it that Iraq would not impose another 9/11 against us. Oh. And there was more than just a few sarin-filled shells. You're forgetting many other weapons found. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zennie 0 #29 July 28, 2004 QuoteNo. We went to war as a pre-emptive strike against a country that was preparing to assault our country through terrorist acts. Bush saw to it that Iraq would not impose another 9/11 against us. So it's back to the old terrorist excuse again huh? One small problem... THE TERRORISTS AREN'T IN IRAQ. They're in Afghanistan and Pakistan (and to a lesser degree, Iran). If we spent 1/4 of the energy & resources in those places that we did in Iraq... Osama would be long since captured or dead. This was wasn't about terrorism and it wasn't about WMD. It was about oil and family grudges. - Z "Always be yourself... unless you suck." - Joss Whedon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #30 July 28, 2004 QuoteOne small problem... THE TERRORISTS AREN'T IN IRAQ. Who said terrorists were in Iraq? Re-read my statement. Raise your hand if you need assistance. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #31 July 28, 2004 Quote So it's back to the old terrorist excuse again huh? That is just great, now it's an old issue. We can forget about it now."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #32 July 28, 2004 QuoteQuote So it's back to the old terrorist excuse again huh? That is just great, now it's an old issue. We can forget about it now. According to Bush it is. He said they never claimed their was a 9/11 link with Iraq. Many conservatives on here have been quick to point out that the 9/11 commission confirmed that. So, how exactly does it go....when justifying Iraq, use 9/11, but when discussing 9/11 don't blame Iraq? I'm trying to figure this out so that I can be a good little republican. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zennie 0 #33 July 28, 2004 The please explain this statement... QuoteWe went to war as a pre-emptive strike against a country that was preparing to assault our country through terrorist acts. He was planning terrorist attacks but had no terrorists? - Z "Always be yourself... unless you suck." - Joss Whedon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #34 July 28, 2004 According to Bush the war on terror is over? first time I heard of this novel yet insane expression."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #35 July 28, 2004 QuoteAccording to Bush the war on terror is over? No, according to Bush, Iraq was never about terrorism. It was about WMD..errr, freeing an oppressed people. But definitely not terrorim. We didn't invade that terrorist supporing, WMD making, people oppressing regime because of ...ummm, yeah, why did we invade again? I forget the excuse du jour. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jimbarry 0 #36 July 28, 2004 QuoteGet real. The war was based on false premises Get real. The war was based on the premise that SH had 12 years to show or prove the destruction of wmd he had (ask the kurds or shiites if you don't believe he had them). SH knew that use of military force was an option given non-compliance. He threw every roadblock he could in the way of UN inspectors, including oil-for-food bribes to UN cronies to keep the US off his back. More time? The inspectors' job wasn't to search and find wmd, it was their job to verify their destruction. SH never believed GWB would come over the hill. SH made a bad move. He had the power to avoid the whole thing. He and his sons could be torturing and murdering as we speak. Then the extreme-left would be cryin' about how Bush's oil deals are keeping him from putting pressure on SH's human rights abuses. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zennie 0 #37 July 28, 2004 QuoteThen the extreme-left would be cryin' about how Bush's oil deals are keeping him from putting pressure on SH's human rights abuses. If I'm not mistaken, we were already embargoing Iraqi oil. - Z "Always be yourself... unless you suck." - Joss Whedon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jimbarry 0 #38 July 28, 2004 QuoteIf I'm not mistaken, we were already embargoing Iraqi oil. Actually, up until the war started, 5-6% of US oil imports were still coming from Iraq. edited to add source: american petroleum institute http://api-ec.api.org Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #39 July 28, 2004 QuoteBy jove, you're absolutely right! We could have asked him AGAIN to not build weapons of mass destruction!! - Unnecessary. From what we've found so far, apparently one of the earlier requests worked...unless of course we've found some indication that he WAS building WMDs. Please fill me in if this is the case as I must have missed it. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #40 July 28, 2004 QuoteQuote "One way or the other", i.e. Clinton's way or GWB's way. Both were effective, but Clinton's way didn't require the lives of a thousand American troops and tens of thousands of Iraqis. You might also recall that it didn't get the job done, either. Really? What evidence have we found that Saddam Hussein was developing WMDs? Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #41 July 29, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuote "One way or the other", i.e. Clinton's way or GWB's way. Both were effective, but Clinton's way didn't require the lives of a thousand American troops and tens of thousands of Iraqis. You might also recall that it didn't get the job done, either. Really? What evidence have we found that Saddam Hussein was developing WMDs? Blues, Dave He tried before, and only an idiot would stop trying. If Iran has succeeded in building the bomb, they will become invasion proof. North Korea is. For all his faults, I never saw him as being a dummy. He was very good at violating the letter and spirit of his surrender agreement, and then jumping back into compliance right as the threat of retribution came into play. His tactics right before the war started in 2003 were stalling tactics to make it to the hot summer. Unfortunately for him, Bush was already committed to making that deadline. Short of rolling in the tanks, there was never going to be a way to be even 90% sure that the weapons were gone. "The" terrorists were not in Iraq. But terrorists, and support for it had always been there. Paying off families of suicide bombers in Israel is reason enough for me. If PeeWee Herman spent 10 years giving the finger to Mike Tyson, who's fault is it exactly when Iron Mike fucks him up? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jimbarry 0 #42 July 29, 2004 QuoteReally? What evidence have we found that Saddam Hussein was developing WMDs? It was Saddam's obligation to prove he got rid of them. The war is Saddam's fault, no one else's. Like a cop car chase. Someone gets hurt by the criminal being chased, there's allllways plenty of people eager to blame the cops... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #43 July 29, 2004 QuoteQuoteBy jove, you're absolutely right! We could have asked him AGAIN to not build weapons of mass destruction!! - Unnecessary. From what we've found so far, apparently one of the earlier requests worked...unless of course we've found some indication that he WAS building WMDs. Please fill me in if this is the case as I must have missed it. "Worked"? As in, we requested he get rid of his WMDs and he DID? Why then the big problem getting him to show us just how he got rid of them, and where they or their components ended up? You're pretty credulous, it seems, when believing that in the absence of proof S.H. could easily have given us, he did eliminate the weapons, just because we haven't yet found them in great substance. I think that it is less compelling that we haven't found them in a sea of sand than it is that S.H. could easily have proven to us he had dismantled his program if he had, but he never did give the proof. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #44 July 29, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuote "One way or the other", i.e. Clinton's way or GWB's way. Both were effective, but Clinton's way didn't require the lives of a thousand American troops and tens of thousands of Iraqis. You might also recall that it didn't get the job done, either. Really? What evidence have we found that Saddam Hussein was developing WMDs? The fact that we have no proof from him of the dismantling and disposition of weapons he was known to have had, and used. I find it troubling that you would sooner give the benefit of the doubt to a murderous genocidal madman whose sons tortured for sport (and who probably did, himself), when that man could easily have hidden his program (remember, he was not letting U.N. inspections happen -- so who knows what he might have been busy doing all that time). You are quicker to give him the benefit of the doubt than the president of the freest nation on earth. Strange. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #45 July 29, 2004 QuoteIf PeeWee Herman spent 10 years giving the finger to Mike Tyson, who's fault is it exactly when Iron Mike fucks him up? Probably either the fault of the boxing commission or the parole board, for letting that shit-sculpture ever be out on the streets or in a ring again. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #46 July 29, 2004 QuoteHe tried before, and only an idiot would stop trying. If Iran has succeeded in building the bomb, they will become invasion proof. North Korea is. For all his faults, I never saw him as being a dummy. He was very good at violating the letter and spirit of his surrender agreement, and then jumping back into compliance right as the threat of retribution came into play. His tactics right before the war started in 2003 were stalling tactics to make it to the hot summer. Unfortunately for him, Bush was already committed to making that deadline. Short of rolling in the tanks, there was never going to be a way to be even 90% sure that the weapons were gone. Damn Kelp...We agree on something....How did that happen? Quote"The" terrorists were not in Iraq. But terrorists, and support for it had always been there. Paying off families of suicide bombers in Israel is reason enough for me. Agreed, and I take it one step more...If you claim to be my enemy and make claims that you want to kill me..Shazam! I now consider you my enemy...You get what you ask for. QuoteIf PeeWee Herman spent 10 years giving the finger to Mike Tyson, who's fault is it exactly when Iron Mike fucks him up? This was both funny as hell, and accurate."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #47 July 29, 2004 QuoteHe tried before, and only an idiot would stop trying. Why did we drop sanctions against Libya then? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #48 July 29, 2004 "Why did we drop sanctions against Libya then?" Beats me how we can even comtemplate doing business with Gadaffi after all the shit he was involved with. Ah, maybe it has something to do with this.... http://www.mbendi.co.za/indy/oilg/af/lb/p0005.htm Its getting busy down there.......-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #49 July 29, 2004 Quote"Why did we drop sanctions against Libya then?" Beats me how we can even comtemplate doing business with Gadaffi after all the shit he was involved with. Maybe it has something to do with him making reperations for his past actions and willing giving up his WMD program? Nah, that would make sense, and not nearly as glib as, and would not fit on a bumber sticker as "It's for the Oil"..."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #50 July 29, 2004 "Maybe it has something to do with him making reperations for his past actions" So, if OBL came up with some loot he would be forgiven? Nah, I don't think so. "would not fit on a bumber sticker as "It's for the Oil"... Och Ron, you should know by now that I'm one the stronger critics of that particular theory. -------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
