LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteAnd I seem to have left my replies to smilingassassin's post inside the quote marks, oops.
I'm sorry, I must have been drunk or asleep when Iraq invaded America. Arguments that Iraq was involved in terrorist acts such as September 11th are shakey at best, and there was no request by any US ally in the Gulf for assistance in a pre-emptive strike on Iraq, because Iraq was not going to be attacking any of it's neighbours any time soon, so there was no basis for a pre-emptive strike on Iraq, there was no reason to consider Iraq to be an imminent threat of top priority, but that's how it was sold by our leaders.Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers
And I seem to have left my replies to smilingassassin's post inside the quote marks, oops.
No but apparently you were asleep during all the other events I've listed.
Not 11 Sept but I've listed three. I could find at least 6 more.
Kuwait.
The Air War. And at least 2 occasions when Iraqi troops moved towards both the Saudi and Kuwaiti borders. You were asleep for those.
Chimo
Milk does help you sleep
War was brought on Iraq to control Iraqi oil and nothing else and in doing so thousands lost their lives.
As George Galloway puts it
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1457415/posts
Tony Blair and George Bush have "far more blood on their hands" than the terrorists who carried out the London tube bombings, George Galloway said today. Mr Galloway, Respect MP for Bethnal Green, said that the attacks on the capital by Islamic extremists could not be separated from the invasion of Iraq and Britain's treatment of the Muslim world.
He said that the "al-Qaida phenomenon" had arisen directly as a result of western policies in the Middle East.
Mr Galloway had already attracted criticism for remarks made to Syrian television, attacking Arab governments which collaborated with foreigners in the "rape" of their "beautiful daughters" of Jerusalem and Baghdad. In an interview with the BBC Radio 4 Today programme this morning, in the wake of the latest al-Qaida video blaming Mr Blair for the destruction in London and warning of more attacks, Mr Galloway insisted that he too condemned the bombings.
"The people who brought destruction to London were primarily the people who committed the acts of mass murder," he said.
"What we say is we refuse to be part of a conspiracy to deny that it has anything to do with the fact that our country is going round the world setting fire to other people's countries and killing them.
"I think there is hardly a sentient being in the land left who doesn't believe these things are connected.
"I am utterly against the punishing of innocent people for the crimes of the guilty, whether it is done on the underground in London or the streets of Fallujah by George Bush's air force."
He repeated his view that it was Mr Bush who was the world's "biggest terrorist" and said that the US president and Mr Blair had shed far more blood than the bombers.
"If it is a question of quantum, there is far more blood on the hands of George Bush and Tony Blair than there is on the hands of the murderers who killed those people in London," he said.
He denied that he was seeking to justify the terrorist attacks.
"If I say a car has four wheels and the Ford Motor Company say it has four wheels, that doesn't make me part of the Ford Motor Company," he said.
However, he said that the rise of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida was the direct result of western policies.
"The al-Qaida phenomenon arose out of the first war on Iraq; arose out of the occupation of Jerusalem and the killing of the Palestinians and the dispersal of the refugees around the world; arose out of our support for the puppet presidents and corrupt kings of the Muslim world," he said. Mr Galloway's comments were condemned as "twisted" and "absurd" by the shadow foreign secretary, Liam Fox.
"I think that George Galloway is a sad and twisted but ultimately irrelevant politician," Mr Fox told the Today programme.
"I think that his self-righteousness is matched only by his stupidity. I think his views are quite ridiculous."
He said that it was "deeply offensive" to describe insurgents and terrorists as "martyrs".
"He talks about them as martyrs which, I think, is language extraordinarily sympathetic to people who kill the innocent. It is the sort of language used by university debaters, not serious politicians," he said.
Then we had 45-minutes claim by Tony Blair which was absolute lie.
No WMDs have been found to this date.
This war was to save Israel only.
1. George Galloway might as well learn Arabic so he can broadcast from Al Jazeera. The content is the same.
2. The intel on the WMD was bad, and there is no getting around that. However, Saddam was the master of his own destiny; he tried to bluff his way through the whole process, and lost. If he had been forthright with UN weapons inspectors following ODS, hadn't fired on planes patrolling the no-fly zone, hadn't tried to avoid the return of inspectors, etc. etc., he would most likely be in power today.
3. The war was not about oil, it was about removing a dictator that was a regional menace whose past aspirations made him a global menace.
4. Israel didn't need OIF. They kicked Arab a$$ four times in a quarter century, and the Arabs have been smart to not try and stir the pot too much, lest they lose more outdated milsitary equipment through Israeli destruction, especially since free replacement by the USSR is impossible now. That doesn't even factor in the huge technological gap that the Israelis have opened up over their Arab neighbors in the 30 years since an Arab-Israeli war.
5. If you look at the website that carries the statistics, it is obvious that the insurgents are the ones responsible for almost all of the deaths outside of the 8 weeks that encompass the ground war and Fallujah I and II.
The war was deinfelty unjust. Iraq was probably better off under Saddam than it is now. Atleast under Saddam, there were not bombings that killed dozens of civilians every single day and they was law and order. The WMD argument is complete bs...Bush was jsut angry the Saddam tried to kill his father, so he lauched his personal vendetta agaisnt him and sacrificed the lives of 1800 US soldiers and thousands of innocent civilians.
Pointing.
Laughing.
At you.
Dumbass.
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell
Tyrants that murder their own people are good? Is Stalin your hero?
Instead of bombings conducted by the Baathists under the cover of "the resistance," the mukharbat showed up to your doorstep, shot you with a pistol, and then billed your family for the bullets. Of course, this wasn't reported since CNN compromised their integrity to report the news in order to remain in the graces of Saddam.
Yes, the intel turned out to be wrong. Then again, Saddam's deception and lies were the reasons for 17 UN Security Council Resolutions. Also, Saddam was the one who expelled the entire UN weapons inspection team in 1998, creating over a four year gap of boots on the ground coverage and resulting in the run up to OIF.
[QUOTE=Su-47MKI]Bush was jsut angry the Saddam tried to kill his father
Just one of many terrorist links where Saddam's hands were dirty
Lives that have been given to the noble cause of securing US national security interests by ridding the world of a dangerous tyrant who had used WMD before, had started two wars against two neighboring states, had numerous terrorist links, and had WMD programs that were awaiting the collapse of the faltering containment efforts of the UN that were undermined by several UN members.
He kicked them out cause they found nothing in Iraq. They were just trying to get media attention by entering prohibitied areas. At the same time the whole world media went crazy about Saddam not allowing inspectors to visit sensitive sites.Yes, the intel turned out to be wrong. Then again, Saddam's deception and lies were the reasons for 17 UN Security Council Resolutions. Also, Saddam was the one who expelled the entire UN weapons inspection team in 1998, creating over a four year gap of boots on the ground coverage and resulting in the run up to OIF.
Even Hans Blix said Iraq destroyed its WMDs.
Iraq war was completely baseless and was meant to control Iraqi oil only
1. He defied a UNSCR authorizing the inspections regime to be in place until everything was destroyed. It wasn't Saddam's decision to make. Saddam never could account for all the WMD, and in fact, in 1995, an active bio program was found that had not been disclosed. Next, the fact that he wanted palaces off limits was BS.
2. Please quote Hans Blix if you want to use him as a source. He said that Saddam couldn't account for all the anthrax and WMD that had been produced. That 100% contradicts what you are claiming.
3. OIF was not baseless. It removed a dictator that was a threat if left up to his own devices. The containment regime was crumbling thanks to Russia, France, Syria, and Oil for Food.
4. Finally, if it was meant to control Iraqi oil, why am I not receiving free Iraqi oil with a minimum mark up for refinement into gas and heating fuel products? The answer is that we're not controlling Iraqi oil. The Iraqi people are the sole benefactors of the oil revenues, which is different than under Saddam, where the Baath Party was the major beneficiary and the people were left to rot in their own sewage while watching Saddam's palaces multiply like rabbits.
You offer only unsupported opinions that are worthless when held up against evidence. No soup for you.
First of all, i mnever said that Saddam was good or anything and i do not support him or his actions in anyway.
Second of all, Iraq wasn't the only country breaking UN resolutions. 90 resolutions were being broken by other countries. Also, since when did the US care about UN resolutions anyhway? THe US has the wrost record in the UN when it comes to enforcing resolutions.
As for terrorist links, there is plenty of evidence that Saddam had no connection to terrorists. Osama Bin Laden was even agaisnt him. All the terrorists in Iraq right now came in after the US came in.
As for WMDs, if he had a WMD program, how come NO evidence of them was found? Also, who are we to tell others not to use WMDs when we are the only country that has used the atom bomb on innocent people. So its ok when America uses wmds, but its wrong when someone else uses them, right?
Anyway, i think your watching too much fox news man.
Last edited by Su-47MKI; 12 Aug 05, at 17:02.
1. You stated that Saddam would have been better off under Saddam. I assumed that you knew of his regime's murdering of their own countrymen and the mass graves and were thus giving implicit support.First of all, i mnever said that Saddam was good or anything and i do not support him or his actions in anyway.
Second of all, Iraq wasn't the only country breaking UN resolutions. 90 resolutions were being broken by other countries. Also, since when did the US care about UN resolutions anyhway? THe US has the wrost record in the UN when it comes to enforcing resolutions.
As for terrorist links, there is plenty of evidence that Saddam had no connection to terrorists. Osama Bin Laden was even agaisnt him. All the terrorists in Iraq right now came in after the US came in.
As for WMDs, if he had a WMD program, how come NO evidence of them was found? Also, who are we to tell others not to use WMDs when we are the only country that has used the atom bomb on innocent people. So its ok when America uses wmds, but its wrong when someone else uses them, right?
Anyway, i think your watching too much fox news man.
2. Can you lead me to these 90 resolutions and do any of them speak of force as a tool to enforce them (some of Saddam's UNSCRs do!)? I'll admit that I'm not too up to speed on all the UNSCRs and who's in violation.
3. What's the evidence that Saddam didn't have links? I've seen plenty of open source reporting that demonstrate his links to terrorism. I'm not claiming that he was involved as Libya, Iran, or Syria, but then again, none of those countries have ever used WMD before.
4. Fox News - yes, I do use Fox News as my primary television source of news (outside of local news, where I typically watch NBC). However, television is not my primary source, the internet is. With the internet, I read a mixture of news sites (Fox News is a major one, although the reality is the large majority of their articles come straight from the AP wire), blogs (mostly milblogs and a handful of conservative blogs). However, the biggest asset I find on the internet are the primary sources themselves. I don't let the news outlets (to include Fox News) tell me how to interpret the Senate Intelligence Committee's Report on Iraq and Terrorism, the Duelfer Report on Iraqi WMD, the 9/11 Commission's Report, etc. I go straight to the source so I am not fooled by cherry picking or misinterpretations. For example, the 9/11 Commission is often reported as stating that their aren't links between Saddam and terrorism. Dead wrong. It only states that there isn't any evidence that shows that Saddam knew about 9/11 before it happened. It doesn't conclude that Saddam wasn't involved in terrorism. If you'd like me to dig up these primary source links, I'll do it again.
5. WMD. Saddam had WMD programs. He was planning to fully reconstitute these once UN sanctions were lifted and produce WMD. Read the Deulfer Report (I'm sure I misspelled his name, but it is stored on the CIA website as well as the Carnegie Endowment for Peace website, too).
6. Atomic Bomb. You are correct that the US is the only country to ever use a nuclear weapon in anger . . . against a country at which we were with war and had started the war. . . who had refused offers to accept a surrender . . . to prevent an invasion whose cost in human life would have been 1-2 orders of magnitude greater than the life lost through the use of two low yield nuclear weapons. Maybe Japan shouldn't have started a war they weren't prepared to finish. Would you rather have millions of people die or less than 100,000 to end World War II?
ROTFL
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: