Oops!

Good Luck said:
LOL Do you have ANY idea what a moron you make yourself out to be every time you pull out your bullshit strawman lies? The average 5 year old demonstrates better reading comprehension than you do.

The POINT (which, as always, passed straight over your head) is Bush was not the only one who felt getting rid of Saddam was a very good idea. Bush & cronies were also not the only ones who believed Saddam had hidden stockpiles of chemical weapons, and possible components of bio-weapons, nor were they the only ones of the opinion that Saddam holding those weapons was a threat to international peace. In fact the only ones who did NOT feel Saddam was a threat were the molar-sucking morons who helped him gain power to combat Iran.

That said, a ground war was an asininely stupid and unnecessarily expensive - in lives and dollars - way to deal with the situation.
Click to expand...

The guys bravo mentioned ARE Bush cronies.

Duh.
 
NigelTufnel said:
I think it's really weird that the resident wing-nuts defend Bush, Rummy and the rest on Iraq. I don't get it.
Click to expand...
What you imagine is defending Bush is undeniable historical facts...
My post is 100% fact....not one word of opinion....

Onceler can't make that claim...all his bullshit is either his opinion or someone else's opinion that agrees with him.....

My post even reinforces his in a way....except, as a smarter, open-minded adult, I point out the distinction between admitting the option of invading Iraq was in the open and not a secret.( It was in the R platform before election in 2000)....and saying the decision to invade was made and definite...it was not made and definite....
Bush, himself required an open vote in Congress to allow any invasion.....
pinheads aren't capable of making that distinction....
 
Last edited:
The true nature of what has transpired and what remains to transpire in Iraq is not and cannot yet be known. It will be at least another generation before we see the true impact of our decision, for better or worse.
 
Conscience said:
"If the Bush administration had known there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, it probably wouldn't have decided to invade in 2003, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in an interview broadcast Sunday."

Which is why you DON'T invade countries without proper evidence!
Click to expand...

They had ears and eyes shut tight. That's why they would not allow Hans Blix to return for fear of spoiling their PNAC plan.
 
christiefan915 said:
Yeah, that's what RW websites claim. Yet the fact that Saddam's son-in-law said "no WMDs" is just ignored by righties.

http://www.casi.org.uk/info/unscom950822.pdf
Click to expand...

really? only RW websites claim this?

christiefan915 said:
Saddam was a dictator with total control. He didn't have the same relationship with his generals that ours have with our president. He controlled the message and the plans. Saddam wanted the world to think he still had WMD in order to put up a false front to Iran. Read the link from the National Security Archive, it's an eye-opener.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB279/index.htm

Why Saddam Hussein lied about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction
The former dictator was afraid of looking weak to Iran, according to newly declassified interviews he had with an FBI agent.

Saddam Hussein encouraged the perception that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) because he was afraid of appearing weak in Iran’s eyes, according to nearly two dozen declassified transcripts of an FBI agent’s conversations with the former Iraqi dictator released Wednesday.

http://features.csmonitor.com/globa...lied-about-iraqs-weapons-of-mass-destruction/
Click to expand...

ooooops....:)
 
Yurt said:
really? only RW websites claim this?



ooooops....:)
Click to expand...


Uh, read the entire thread you linked. It's not the "gotcha" you think it is.

As far as RW websites, check this google page and point out the LW sources.

http://tinyurl.com/4exhjqk

# ►
#
NY Times: Saddam's generals believed they had WMD to repel US
Mar 13, 2006 ... NY Times: Saddam's generals believed they had WMD to repel US ... Iraq's dictator Saddam Hussein informed his top generals that he had ...
www.renewamerica.com/columns/kouri/060314 - Cached
#
Defector admits to WMD lies that triggered Iraq war - Page 2 ...
9 posts - 6 authors - Last post: 5 days ago
Saddam's generals had been told by Saddam he still had them. ... All the intelligence agencies thought Saddam had WMD? NO they didn't! ...
www.digitalspy.com › Forums › General Discussion Forums › Politics - Cached
Get more discussion results
#
Fmr. Saddam General, Georges Sada, on WMDs (VIDEO)
51 posts - 29 authors - Last post: Jan 25, 2006
Saddam didn't have 50 Boeings. If he had said 50 Ilyushins or 50 ... The vessels are thought to have spent much of their time in the deep ...
www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1565160/posts - Cached - Similar
Get more discussion results
#
Saddam general: WMDs in Syria
Feb 15, 2006 ... A former general and friend of Saddam Hussein who defected but maintains close ... he said, because they were thought to be civilian flights ... "After Saddam denied he had such weapons, why would he use them or leave ...
www.wnd.com/?pageId=34818 - Cached
#
News Flash: Saddam General Says WMDs Were Flown To Syria Six Weeks ...
Feb 15, 2006 ... Saddam General: WMDs In Syria ... "After Saddam denied he had such weapons, why would he use them or leave them readily available to be ...
www.calvaryprophecy.com/q595.html - Cached
 
what? you clearly contradicted yourself. you said only RW sites claim that saddam's generals thought he had WMDs....and yet, you also claimed that and used a non RW website to back your claim up....
 
Yurt said:
what? you clearly contradicted yourself. you said only RW sites claim that saddam's generals thought he had WMDs....and yet, you also claimed that and used a non RW website to back your claim up....
Click to expand...

I really don't know what you're getting at. Where in that post is the comment that Saddam's general believed he had WMD? Clearly you didn't read either the CSM article or anything out of the National Security Archive. And you didn't read my comments on the thread, like this one:

"Which generals believed this, and when?

Saddam's own son-in-law stated that the program had been dismantled after the first Gulf War, and he was killed for saying so.

Kamel says that Iraq had destroyed all of its banned weapons after the First Gulf War. “I ordered destruction of all chemical weapons. All weapons—biological, chemical, missile, nuclear were destroyed,” he tells his interviewers. With regard to Anthrax, which Kamel says had been the “main focus” of Iraq’s biological program, Kamel says, “nothing remained.” Regarding the nerve gas, VX, Kamel says, “they put it in bombs during last days of the Iran-Iraq war. They were not used and the program was terminated.”

See the actual transcript here: http://www.casi.org.uk/info/unscom950822.pdf
Reply With Quote

You're cherry-picking.
 
are you suggesting that saddam didn't lie to his generals? it was all over the news back then. saddam generals were counting on the WMD's to repel a US invasion. NY times had an article on it.
 
christiefan915 said:
Why is Hans Blix a phony? Because his statements contradicted the bush administration?
Click to expand...

Could there be people who do not want Hans Blix to speak?

negotiatione.com/hans-blix-top-diplomat-who-seeks-truth-strives-for-world- peace.html
 
christiefan915 said:
Yeah, that's what RW websites claim. Yet the fact that Saddam's son-in-law said "no WMDs" is just ignored by righties.

http://www.casi.org.uk/info/unscom950822.pdf
Click to expand...
You got something there christiefool....

Why the fuck would we believe Saddam's son-in-law?:palm:

I guess if Hitlers first cousin told us there are no concentration camps, baking Jews in Poland, FDR would have just ignored the Germans all together....

Your stupidity is shining like a beacon...
 
Was not about WMD's?!!

Conscience said:
"If the Bush administration had known there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, it probably wouldn't have decided to invade in 2003, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in an interview broadcast Sunday."

Which is why you DON'T invade countries without proper evidence!
Click to expand...

saddamkill.jpg


http://rt.com/politics/remember-this-man-tried-to-kill-my-dad/
 
bravo said:
You got something there christiefool....

Why the fuck would we believe Saddam's son-in-law?:palm:

I guess if Hitlers first cousin told us there are no concentration camps, baking Jews in Poland, FDR would have just ignored the Germans all together....

Your stupidity is shining like a beacon...
Click to expand...

The question is why would anyone believe Saddam's rival, Curveball?

Well, we know why. The Repubs are war mongers. Afghanistan. Iraq. Iran. North Korea. Throw enough names out there and some will stick. Get a good war going and fill the coffers of companies which prosper from war.

And fill a few vacant graveyard spots while they're at it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top