I don't think AFA was referring to the last 3 wars the U.S. has fought...
Bush lied about WMD's
- Thread starter jasonk282
- Start date
I don't think AFA was referring to the last 3 wars the U.S. has fought...
This about hits the nail on the head. Its no longer about the people, its about me me me and then the cabinet gets involved and its about them them them. Any good idea of how to stop this Bull shit?:dunno:
If your kid is in the military because of his or your misconceptions of the way the world works, he/she and you are still making the ultimate sacrifice. :dunno:
More directly: If Iraq II is a bogus wars started by a corrupt administration which knew the truth about WMD's, I would call the 4000+ dead US soldiers and the 100,000+ Iraqi's, sacrifices, or maybe more accurately, cannon fodder.
Last edited:
While you have a point, and it's a point that I regularly agree with (Bush is responsible for invading), the rhetoric on "lying" does get rather old.
You not only have to really stretch things on W., but ignore all of the actions of Clinton from 1996-1998, including the Clinton administrations great agitation at Russia, France and Germany in 1996, after they blocked UK and US actions in the UN Security Council in 1995 only to be proven wrong. Iraq was hiding WMDs and proven to be doing so as late as 1997, after Russia, France and Germany stated inspections had removed them all in 1995.
This is the history. People trying to demonize W., say he "lied" but they don't like to talk about the realities of Iraq from 1993-1998 under the Clinton administration when inspections were going on. Clinton also unilaterally ordered missile strikes on Iraq (all of which did not hit their targets and caused a rate of collateral damage far worse than "boots on the ground") and took many other actions without even NATO approval.
So while I utterly agree with blaming W. for many things, but the "lied" is just a little too hypocritical if you're a Democrat. That includes the Democrats -- like Hillary and Kerry -- who very much did have access to the same intelligence. There are many members of Congress that get the same intelligence reports as the W. administration, and drew the same conclusions in 2002.
That's what I really get tired of people ignoring, as much as I did not want to go into Iraq myself, and never voted for W. myself.
W. was also warned on the "reliability" of much of the intelligence too, that some of it was not verified.
Of course if you go back to 1995, there was no verified intelligence that Iraq still had WMDs either. And look what happened in 1996? We found out otherwise, and were "caught with our pants down" in 1996 as much as at the end of the 1991 war. So there was an inclination -- both in the Clinton and W. administrations -- to believe there were WMDs in the country.
In reality, there was no accounting from 1998-2003. So we'll never know what actually happened to any remaining stores that were mobile in 1998 that they had been trying to track down from 1996-1998. We only got the ones that weren't mobile in 1996-1998.
As Hans Blix repeatedly pointed out, and Libya and South Africa were regularly used as examples, inspections NEVER work unless the country FULLY DISCLOSES. Iraq never did. Of that, they were never, ever once, not once, in compliance with any resolution.
Was that justification for invading? Frankly, I could care less. I did not want to invade. But many lawyers agree that Iraq never complied with the terms of the cease fire, so it was continually void. The question was always how much did that give the US right to enforce it.
The "lying" comment is argumentative and has nothing to do with reality. Just like the argument that Iraq was a "sovereign nation." No they were not after 1991, not remotely in any legal context. But it doesn't mean the US should do something about it. Although the UN is as impotent as ... well ... you know, viagra works wonders but not everything.
In my opinion, Clinton's weakness and tolerance of terrorism, in addition to saving his own ass at home because of his lies and indescretions, all this weakness caused 9/11.
There are a lot of assumptions in your post...
And again, there were miscalculations on what the CIA thought Saddam had, but there were weapons of mass destruction. Tons of them. The EOD teams couldn't blow up the chemical warheads fast enough...
A lot of you guys have a political axe to grind, and that's cool, it's your right. But at least know what you're talking about before you state things as "fact." :glugglug:
Jagger69
Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
So, Clinton's escapade with Monica Lewinsky caused 9/11??? How exactly do those two issues relate? Also, what significant shift was there in US terrorism strategies after Bush was elected? Weren't there significant intelligence reports that something was in the works in the weeks preceding the attacks that were basically dismissed by the administration?
As I stated before, Bush is no longer the president so we need to move on. However, the same thing needs to apply to Bill Clinton. How far back do y'all want to go here? Kennedy? FDR? Grover Cleveland?
I feel like a voice drowned out by those who only see their political persuasion as the right path (not picking on you in particular, Nester) and anybody else on the other side is totally to blame for everything that is wrong with this country. I wish it was that simple. All this blind partisanship baffles the shit out of me. Open your eyes, sheeple.
jasonk282
Banned
Indeed, everyone just needs to move on and deal with what is happening today and trying to fix it today in the present.
Facetious
Moderated
Money has a lot to do with it, but there's an element of fear on the public's part as well. For example, there have been several Libertarian or Constitution Party candidates that I have considered over the years, but in every case, even if I liked the 3rd party candidate more, I knew if I voted for them I was essentially taking my vote away from the Republican candidate, and thus making it easier for the Democrat to win. So I ended up voting for the Republican I liked less than the 3rd Party candidate, but far more than the Democrat, purely out of the fear of throwing away my vote.
The best way that I've heard to counteract this problem is to switch from a winner-take-all voting system to an instant-runoff system. In instant-runoff, a person votes for multiple candidates, ranking them in order of preference. All the #1 preference votes are tallied. If someone wins the majority of them, they win. If not, the candidate with the fewest #1 votes is dropped, and anyone who voted for that candidate has their #2 preference bumped up to #1. The votes are then tallied again. This process is repeated until someone has a majority vote.
The end result is that if you vote for a 3rd Party candidate, you never have to worry about that vote being wasted, since even if they receive a tiny percentage of the vote, your 2nd choice (the major party candidate) will still count. The downside is that this system is kinda complicated and... well... people are stupid
The system works in mysterious ways, that's for certain. Remember the condition of John McCain's campaign just prior to the Iowa caucus ? The guy was dead last and stone cold broke and if memory serves, many of his principal campaign staffers called it quits. Well, to make a long story short, the rest is history. So what did McCain do that was so special to finally get the nomination ?
I subscribe to the theory that somebody with great wealth and influence, an international currency trader and hedge fund manipulator (did I give it away yet ?
) found an opportunity to juice up the worst possible republican in John McCain to run against an inspiring energetic "man of the people" in Barry Obama. 'Can't prove it but if anybody could have rescued McCain's pathetic ass it would be a one George Soros. Who needs McCain / Feingold campaign legislation, right ?
The difference between Bush and Clinton in this situation is that Bush has left politics and spends his time writing memoirs and giving self-help speeches, while Clinton goes on a diplomatic mission to North Korea. If he's going to insert himself as an agent of the State Department, then his presidential record on foreign affairs is still very relevant.
I don't think we'll know if that's the case until we leave Iraq. What develops in the vacuum that will follow could be far worse than Saddam.
Also many now see him as a martyr, which could lend itself to enthusiastic anti-west militant recruiting.
jasonk282
Banned
martyr's die for a cause, not cower in a spider hole. I can tell you from personal experiences that people are happy Saddam is gone. really i donlt know if anything worse can take it place, unless Iran invaded Iraq.
From your perspective, yes.
From theirs he was unjustly deposed and executed by western invaders as the central piece of a phony, imperialistic war.
I'm sure the majority are. That doesn't change the fact there are thousands who aren't, and that the region may actually turn out to be more unstable with him gone.
That or civil war.
jasonk282
Banned
Iraqi's actually excuted him and gave him his trialtrial.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_of_Saddam_Hussein
here are the judges of the Iraqi Special tribunal
Rizgar Mohammed Aminsho
Rauf Rashid Abd al-Rahman
Said Hameesh
Raed al-Juhi,
Barwize Mohammed Mahmoud al-Merani,
Lets not for get whay Saddam was Excuted, for the murder of 148 Iraqi Shi'ites in the town of Dujail in 1982, in retaliation for an assassination attempt against him.
Which is why the US will not fully leave Iraq, we will always have a military pressence there.
Sunni and Shi'ites will fight each other till the end of days.
Yes, but....under the auspices of an interim government and a tribunal created by The Coalition, correct?
And anyway, when I said "theirs" in post 73 I was only referring to those who see him as a martyr.
I fought in two wars for the US. I don't like any political party and identify myself as independent.
You can go back and forth over Iraq but there had always been contingent plans drawn up from a while ago. Read Cobra 2.
Then again any major military organization likely has plans drawn up just in case. In the end only God will know.
I tend to believe the truth falls in the middle of a two sided story.
You can go back and forth over Iraq but there had always been contingent plans drawn up from a while ago. Read Cobra 2.
Then again any major military organization likely has plans drawn up just in case. In the end only God will know.
I tend to believe the truth falls in the middle of a two sided story.
Please keep in mind that Iraq has 3 different ethnic and/or religious groups.
1. The Shiites (60-65% of pop.) - Happy Saddam is gone, since they were heavily oppressed by him, but want the U.S. gone as well..
2. The Sunni (32-37% pop. - 15-20% of pop (see below)) - Not Happy Saddam is gone. They had everything they wanted when Saddam was in power, as long as they agreed with him.. Would like Saddam back & obviously want the U.S. to leave (but please keep in mind that most surrounding countries, except for Iran, are Sunni.)
3. The Kurds (15-20% of pop) - They're happy Saddam is gone & they've finally achieved something no Kurd in any other country (Iran, Turkey, Syria, etc.) has ever achieved, some kind of semi-independence. I don't believe they want the U.S. to leave, since I think they're smart enough to know that without the U.S. troops, their semi-independence will be taken away from them in no time.
Anyway, you are correct that people are happy he's gone. A majority anyway, but the minority can still cause a lot of problems.
With all that has been said... based on CIA information which was flawed... and the way Bush Jr. used that information adn got the Brits to get on the same page.... How in the Fuck, did it warrant Bush Jr. to Invade Iraq... when Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11..
and the fact that Al-Queda and the hijacker.... were Saudi Arabs... Saddam was a Sunni... and Bin Laden is a Wahhabi.... so how is it that Saddam would be in bed with OBL when he ran a very SECULAR Iraq, a SECULAR country, ran by SECULAR Sunni Muslims, the very same Sunnis that wanted to overthrow the Fundamentalist Islamic Sharia-loving Shiites in Iran during the Iraq/Iran War over two decades ago and the same Sunnis that we in the US govt. under Reagan and Bush I supported.... with WMD... the Chemical weapons type... and funny its the same Administration provided support to the very same Mujaheddin that was at the time ... Osama Bin Laden....
if you sincerely find that statement politically incorrect and offensive, then you should be even more offended by the harmful actions of a greedy few in powerful positions than just mere words of someone who is critical of the corruption in high places. You should sincerely be offended at how some greedy corporations have bought off our elected officials, the media and how they have stolen our country from us and use our troops to make the already rich and wealthy, richer and wealthier and the poor poorer, by using lies to enrich themselves at our own lives and expense
Should have proof read my post... But should be also & I mentioned that because I believe that as soon as the U.S. army is gone a civil war will break out & the surrounding countries, except for Iran, will probably support the Sunni population.
Similar threads
