And you thought things in Iraq were bad??

[Dre]

Bush sucks.

'nuff said.

 

[70]

I would like to see the article you are speaking of- The only thing that I have seen reported is a small vial of botulism, which is hardly large quantities. Now on imminent threat- I stated to the american people. Does or did Iraq have the ability to launch ICBM's and strike the US? No. And unless you can show me documentation on the large quantities of WMD's- you are doing nothing but believing the lies you have been fed trying to keep moral high.

I'll see if I can find something about the Ranger's stumbling into the supply. Like I said it was in news for about a day or two. Then disappeared.

If you think it takes an ICBM to threatenm the US, you are sadly mistaken. September 11th wasn't an ICBM...

And, I seriously doubt it was a lie. I was there, in country when it happened...

I'm not lying about anything in an attempt "to keep morale high." I'm tired of people crying about being there, when A) they haven't been there and B) when they spew the democratic BS that they hear on the news...

 

[70]

It's also interesting to me that your initial quote said nothing about WMD's, and your statement was something like if you thought we were in there purely for WMD's you are not informed. How did this change to "there are large amounts of things like mustard gas- My replies were based on your initial statement of our reasons, which you have yet to back up with quotes, statistics, or any kind of proof- Not trying to flame you here, but think before you speak

The original quote didn't mention WMD. You are correct. And I did say that was not the entire reason for going, which is also correct.

However, people then come back with saying that WMDs are the entire reason we went, which is not true.

The way I see what you saying is that because the main stream news hasn't said anything about it, it doesn't exsist. But then you look for main stream news to back up your arguments. This is hypocritical.

How am I supposed to back up that Saddam has been caught? If you haven't seen the news yourself then don't start that argument. Saddam was the lead reason why Iraq was a threat. Since Saddam has been removed, Iraq is less of threat to the US than before.

Are there stats that quantify this? No. But there are no stats quantifying your argument neither.

I beleive you need to think before you speak as well. Not trying to flame neither, but you can;t tell me to substatiate my claims when you don't substatiate yours.

 

[70]

Bush sucks.

'nuff said.

And he's still better than Clinton.

 

[melicha8]

It's amazing what you can do with billions upon billions of dollars

 

[shinzen]

I'll see if I can find something about the Ranger's stumbling into the supply. Like I said it was in news for about a day or two. Then disappeared.

If you think it takes an ICBM to threatenm the US, you are sadly mistaken. September 11th wasn't an ICBM...

And, I seriously doubt it was a lie. I was there, in country when it happened...

I'm not lying about anything in an attempt "to keep morale high." I'm tired of people crying about being there, when A) they haven't been there and B) when they spew the democratic BS that they hear on the news...

Look, I fully support our armed forces- I believe that they are over there to for the wrong reasons. I am far from a democrat, and I completely disagree with many of their policies and am registered independent- so please don't tell me that I am spewing democratic bs. There has been not one single proven link between saddam and 9/11 so don't even bring that up without backup for it. The news I read is not just cnn/fox/etc. I make it a point to read the bbc, the times, matt drudge, the ny post- a lot of different sources, that don't neccessarily qualify as mainstream liberal. I didn't accuse you of lying to bring up moral, I said that you have been fed lies, there is a big difference there. As for me not being there, you are right. I chose not to enlist in the services, I am truly glad that we have a voluntary army that is the most capable in the world, it also happens to be under the control of someone that I don't particularly trust.

 

[shinzen]

The original quote didn't mention WMD. You are correct. And I did say that was not the entire reason for going, which is also correct.

However, people then come back with saying that WMDs are the entire reason we went, which is not true.

The way I see what you saying is that because the main stream news hasn't said anything about it, it doesn't exsist. But then you look for main stream news to back up your arguments. This is hypocritical.

How am I supposed to back up that Saddam has been caught? If you haven't seen the news yourself then don't start that argument. Saddam was the lead reason why Iraq was a threat. Since Saddam has been removed, Iraq is less of threat to the US than before.

Are there stats that quantify this? No. But there are no stats quantifying your argument neither.

I beleive you need to think before you speak as well. Not trying to flame neither, but you can;t tell me to substatiate my claims when you don't substatiate yours.

I guess I am a little confused about your statements here. Was it not the publicly stated reason for us to invade Iraq to find WMD's? I was merely backing up my statements with quotes from the current administration- did you see news articles from cnn quoted? Once again, how was Saddam a threat- no links to al quaida- no links to 9/11, he wasn't invading anyone- I am a little baffled by your argument here. If removing dictators and liberating people was our goal, why do we sit by and let north korea, china, cuba, etc continue with dictators and even have nuclear weapons? Wouldn't you think that a more obvious threat is someone with nuclear capability and the long range missiles to use them?

 

[70]

Look, I fully support our armed forces- I believe that they are over there to for the wrong reasons. I am far from a democrat, and I completely disagree with many of their policies and am registered independent- so please don't tell me that I am spewing democratic bs. There has been not one single proven link between saddam and 9/11 so don't even bring that up without backup for it. The news I read is not just cnn/fox/etc. I make it a point to read the bbc, the times, matt drudge, the ny post- a lot of different sources, that don't neccessarily qualify as mainstream liberal. I didn't accuse you of lying to bring up moral, I said that you have been fed lies, there is a big difference there. As for me not being there, you are right. I chose not to enlist in the services, I am truly glad that we have a voluntary army that is the most capable in the world, it also happens to be under the control of someone that I don't particularly trust.

It doesn't matter how you register to vote, the arguments you are saying we are in Iraq for the "wrong reasons" are pure democratic BS. Democrats are the ones who say that.

I never said that Saddam was connected to Al Quaeda nor 9/11, I was making the point however, that Saddam was dangerous and an unstable element in the Mid East. Removing him, removed the threat to the US and our allies.

The reason we haven't followed the same measures in other countries is because they represent a different problem. You cannot use the same tactics to solve different problems.

I'm confused as to what lies I have been fed? My original post was a quote from the commanding officer of a large unit of Marines who were there! They are not lies.

And to clarify, if you say I am being fed lies, which I am then posting on here, I perceive as being called a liar.

Out of the list, the BBC would probably be the most reliable source. The main topic that has been in the media as to why we went into Iraq as been WMD. WHY? Because it is the easiest one to attack.

Do you see the democrats whining now that Saddam is out of power and been caught? A number of democrats were the loudest voices regarding Iraq and Saddam before Bush took over. But they changed their tune once it looked liek Bush was going to send troops over there for alarge scale campaign.

They have stopped that story because they have nothing to support their claims. They have nothing to support their claims about WMD neither.

There are a ton of stories on Fox News and CNN and a number of other news sources regarding the search for WMD and the findings.

Have you ever noticed how none of those stories have ever been followed up on? Why? Is it because the findings would prove that they exsisted? Or is it that they are still testing the findings? No answer has been given. Does that mean WMDs did not exsist? No, it doesn't.

There are other reason as to why we went into Iraq. Some of which I have stated. If those reasons are worng, then say which ones. And state why.

 

[70]

I guess I am a little confused about your statements here. Was it not the publicly stated reason for us to invade Iraq to find WMD's? I was merely backing up my statements with quotes from the current administration- did you see news articles from cnn quoted? Once again, how was Saddam a threat- no links to al quaida- no links to 9/11, he wasn't invading anyone- I am a little baffled by your argument here. If removing dictators and liberating people was our goal, why do we sit by and let north korea, china, cuba, etc continue with dictators and even have nuclear weapons? Wouldn't you think that a more obvious threat is someone with nuclear capability and the long range missiles to use them?

I wonder what you consider a threat if you thought Saddam was not one, but think China, North Korea and Cuba are...

 

[shinzen]

It doesn't matter how you register to vote, the arguments you are saying we are in Iraq for the "wrong reasons" are pure democratic BS. Democrats are the ones who say that.

I never said that Saddam was connected to Al Quaeda nor 9/11, I was making the point however, that Saddam was dangerous and an unstable element in the Mid East. Removing him, removed the threat to the US and our allies.

The reason we haven't followed the same measures in other countries is because they represent a different problem. You cannot use the same tactics to solve different problems.

I'm confused as to what lies I have been fed? My original post was a quote from the commanding officer of a large unit of Marines who were there! They are not lies.

And to clarify, if you say I am being fed lies, which I am then posting on here, I perceive as being called a liar.

Out of the list, the BBC would probably be the most reliable source. The main topic that has been in the media as to why we went into Iraq as been WMD. WHY? Because it is the easiest one to attack.

Do you see the democrats whining now that Saddam is out of power and been caught? A number of democrats were the loudest voices regarding Iraq and Saddam before Bush took over. But they changed their tune once it looked liek Bush was going to send troops over there for alarge scale campaign.

They have stopped that story because they have nothing to support their claims. They have nothing to support their claims about WMD neither.

There are a ton of stories on Fox News and CNN and a number of other news sources regarding the search for WMD and the findings.

Have you ever noticed how none of those stories have ever been followed up on? Why? Is it because the findings would prove that they exsisted? Or is it that they are still testing the findings? No answer has been given. Does that mean WMDs did not exsist? No, it doesn't.

There are other reason as to why we went into Iraq. Some of which I have stated. If those reasons are worng, then say which ones. And state why.

First off- you should go to second creek raceway, it was an absolute blast, and now to the subject at hand.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4943.htm
Article regarding the statement of David Kay head of the iraqi security group, regarding the findings, or the lack therof of WMD's.

Everything in your first post is talking about the good things we have accomplished in Iraq, I won't disagree that we have done good things while we have been there.

But, the ends do not justify the means.
What I mean by this, is that our stated reasons in the address by GW on January 29th were he is pursuing WMD's and currently has them. Here is the link to that speech.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html

From the horses mouth. You can talk all you want about other reasons, but what called this country to war was this speech, any other reasons you list were not part of this speech, and there was nothing in there about liberating the iraqi people.

I apologize for calling you a liar- what was originally stated probably has happened- but once again, the call to war was not for any other reason- this was the speech that set our country into war.

 

[shinzen]

I wonder what you consider a threat if you thought Saddam was not one, but think China, North Korea and Cuba are...

Saddam didn't have nuclear weapons... Never did

 

[sundeepg]

if saddam, then why not moamar ghadafi or the shah in iran? or even the syrian government who have been known to harbour al qaeda? why not invade zimbabwe? if the reason was to free the people of the country, then why not those stated above before iraq? north korea is so much more of a threat that they scare even the more powerful chinese with their craziness? they have nukes and are even crazy enough to use them...

the reason is those other places are of no geographic or financial strategic importance to the US. we went in looking for oil because bush couldn't get it from alaska. that is it...

saddam was threat that was so poor and closed off he couldn't even scare iran.

 

[sundeepg]

whatever happened to the hunt for osama bin laden? i thought he was the biggest priority in the fight against terrorism? seems hes been forgotten about now....

 

[70]

Saddam didn't have nuclear weapons... Never did

Not that they have found, yet.

But to be technical about this, North Korea doesn't neither. They claim to have done things and claimed other things. But, then again, so did Saddam, or rather the Ministry of Information before they were shut down.

How much of it is true and proven in North Korea. None of it. We have to take their word for it.

 

[shinzen]

N Korea has openly admitted that they have a nuclear program- Saddam denied it from the beginning. The intelligence reports that stated Iraq were trying to obtain uranium were later found to be false-

I don't know anybody that I can think of who has contended that the Iraqis had nuclear weapons I don't know anybody in any government or any intelligence agency who suggested that the Iraqis had nuclear weapons. That's fact number one.
Donald Rumsfeld June 2003

 

[Dre]

Saddam didn't have nuclear weapons... Never did

I'm guessing you and Saddam are tight? You say this like you know him. For **** sake, nobody knows what this dude does or does not have. For all we know, he might have some clones running around the desert.

 

[shinzen]

I am basing this statement from the intellegence reports that came out after the state of the union address, showing that the documentation that showed that Iraq was trying to purchase uranium was falsified- a pretty widely accepted fact. Unless perhaps you have been living in a cave.

 

[unwrittenLaw]

if saddam, then why not moamar ghadafi or the shah in iran? or even the syrian government who have been known to harbour al qaeda? why not invade zimbabwe? if the reason was to free the people of the country, then why not those stated above before iraq? north korea is so much more of a threat that they scare even the more powerful chinese with their craziness? they have nukes and are even crazy enough to use them...

the reason is those other places are of no geographic or financial strategic importance to the US. we went in looking for oil because bush couldn't get it from alaska. that is it...

saddam was threat that was so poor and closed off he couldn't even scare iran.

Well for starters, Canada could tighten up its borders a bit and stop letting everyone and their mother in....

 

[Dre]

I am basing this statement from the intellegence reports that came out after the state of the union address, showing that the documentation that showed that Iraq was trying to purchase uranium was falsified- a pretty widely accepted fact. Unless perhaps you have been living in a cave.

The the Government (or the media) tells you that Earth is flat, will you believe them?

 

[shinzen]

The the Government (or the media) tells you that Earth is flat, will you believe them?

Ok, you lost me here. The same administration that said that Iraq has WMD's backpedals and admits that the intelligence was wrong, what are you getting at?