How the democrats are going to screw up their Golden Chance

[Old_Rooster]

Just becuase you hold a sec clearence doesn't mean the military doesn't still pump you with garbage.  My father went to many breifings on the USSR back in the 80's and they pumped everyone with a bunch of garbage there about dangerous the russian miltary was.

If VX gas did exsist, then it's benefits both the miltary and the BUSH administration to make it public. 

But they haven't.  This mere fact says more about the "the alleged VX gas" than anything else.

One thing you should also know:

Even with the WMD's i was against attacking Saddam.  I thought it was a bad idea at the time and not a good place to focus on at that moment.

What did Saddam gas the kurds with?  87 octane?

[Brixtonbulldog]

They don't have to get visas to kill americans now.  They just take potshots at the GIs stationed on their street corners.  why come to the USA when you can do it at home?

sucker.

Let's see...

fight em on their turf with SOLDIERS or...

fight em on our streets with CIVILIANS...

yep, tough one there genius.

[Brixtonbulldog]

who said anything about defending terrorists or dictators.

BTW - how's the job search going? 

You seem completely opposed to anthing that's against them...so yeah

got two good offers today thanx

[OzmO]

What did Saddam gas the kurds with?  87 octane?

I'm sure he had left over gas,  and probably other things.....  but was he a threat then?  Back on 1990 when he used it?  Or was he a threat in 2001 when America was looking for any excuse to invade a country? 


Think about it.

[Brixtonbulldog]

I'm sure he had left over gas,  and probably other things.....  but was he a threat then?  Back on 1990 when he used it?  Or was he a threat in 2001 when America was looking for any excuse to invade a country? 


Think about it.

There were no excuses necessary to invade iraq.  Saddam gave us all the reason we ever needed.

[Straw Man]

You seem completely opposed to anthing that's against them...so yeah

got two good offers today thanx

congrat's on the offers.

BTW - my ONLY comment on this thread is that you can't make the claim that our fighting in the middle east is somehow keeping "the terrorist" from hitting us again.  I could make the same claim that I have taken a dump every morning since 9-11 and that's why we haven't been hit again. Can you prove that's not true.   Other than that - I take things issue by issue.  If Bush had just been honest about his reasons for going to war I most likely would have been in favor although it's was still poorly planned (actually he had lot's of excellent advice that he simply chose to ignore)and executed but that's a whole other discussion.

[Old_Rooster]

I say Florida upsets the buckeyes tonight and wins 31-21

[Straw Man]

I'm sure he had left over gas,  and probably other things.....  but was he a threat then?  Back on 1990 when he used it?  Or was he a threat in 2001 when America was looking for any excuse to invade a country? 


Think about it.

Well if you believe Powell and Rice then he was essentially nuetralized: 

&mode=related&search=

[Brixtonbulldog]

congrat's on the offers.

BTW - my ONLY comment on this thread is that you can't make the claim that our fighting in the middle east is somehow keeping "the terrorist" from hitting us again.  I could make the same claim that I have taken a dump every morning since 9-11 and that's why we haven't been hit again. Can you prove that's not true.   Other than that - I take things issue by issue.  If Bush had just been honest about his reasons for going to war I most likely would have been in favor although it's was still poorly planned (actually he had lot's of excellent advice that he simply chose to ignore)and executed but that's a whole other discussion.

How bout the camps harboring terrorists we were watching from satellites in iraq?  We gutted them.  Is that a good start?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84291,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,779359,00.html

[OzmO]

There were no excuses necessary to invade iraq.  Saddam gave us all the reason we ever needed.

My point is, is they were much more of a threat in 1992 or what ever than in 2003 when we were out for blood.  So  the logic of "them being a threat" coupled with what Iran and N. Korea were doing in 2003 is invalid. 

[240 is Back]

who said anything about defending terrorists or dictators.

some people believe that disagreeing with pre-emptive wars, regime changing, and nation building = supporting bad guys.

Not true.

It just means that you want your nation's resources used IN AMERICA, not overseas.  That 250million a day we're spending there sure could make the USA much better, eh?

[Straw Man]

How bout the camps harboring terrorists we were watching from satellites in iraq?  We gutted them.  Is that a good start?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84291,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,779359,00.html

were these terrorist enclaves in Iraq prior to our invasion.  If so, why didn't Bush use as the reason rather than manufacturing reasons.   

[Brixtonbulldog]

My point is, is they were much more of a threat in 1992 or what ever than in 2003 when we were out for blood.  So  the logic of "them being a threat" coupled with what Iran and N. Korea were doing in 2003 is invalid. 

Iran and Korea have to be handled differently because we weren't able to stop them from aquiring nukes.

Iraq should've been knocked off in 91, you're right about that.  But it was obvious to me they were not only still a threat but a GROWING threat.

[OzmO]

were these terrorist enclaves in Iraq prior to our invasion.  If so, why didn't Bush use as the reason rather than manufacturing reasons.   

I can;t rmember who i was talking to,  but the person said they couldn't use these photographs which are now found ont he internet becuase it would tip the iraqis off on our satelllite capbilities ......................hi larious!   

[Brixtonbulldog]

were these terrorist enclaves in Iraq prior to our invasion.  If so, why didn't Bush use as the reason rather than manufacturing reasons.   

These reasons were included along with the wmd reason.  However when not as many were found as we expected the dems and the media latched onto that as the only reason and then claimed bush lied... completely false.

[OzmO]

Iran and Korea have to be handled differently because we weren't able to stop them from aquiring nukes.

Iraq should've been knocked off in 91, you're right about that.  But it was obvious to me they were not only still a threat but a GROWING threat.

How?  their economy was crippled...their army was virtually non-exsistant........ Any move of aggression direct or indirect from saddam would have gave us all the justification we needed.  Instead we had to wave a faulty WMD threat in the mist of terrorism histeria to justify this war. 

Not a very tangible reason to me.

[Brixtonbulldog]

I can;t rmember who i was talking to,  but the person said they couldn't use these photographs which are now found ont he internet becuase it would tip the iraqis off on our satelllite capbilities ......................hi larious!   

When you get into the details of the technology available and the reasons of when we invaded at the time we chose it becomes very clear why we wouldn't have let those out at that time.  Not like we didn't have a million other reasons to invade.

Of course they would be found on the internet now after the fact.  So what.

[Brixtonbulldog]

How?  their economy was crippled...their army was virtually non-exsistant........ Any move of aggression direct or indirect from saddam would have gave us all the justification we needed.  Instead we had to wave a faulty WMD threat in the mist of terrorism histeria to justify this war. 

Not a very tangible reason to me.

N Koreas economy is aweful... are they still a problem?  Of course.

So suddenly being jolted by terrorism and going on a rampage to stop it from happening again (which bush has done a great job at that by the way) is hysteria?

[OzmO]

When you get into the details of the technology available and the reasons of when we invaded at the time we chose it becomes very clear why we wouldn't have let those out at that time.  Not like we didn't have a million other reasons to invade.

Of course they would be found on the internet now after the fact.  So what.

Dude,  our satillite capabilities are very well documented and common knowledge.  Everyone knows we ca read small road signs from space...com  on dude....  they even talked about in some clancy books.  What's not common knowledge at the moment is Global Hawk.   

[Brixtonbulldog]

Dude,  our satillite capabilities are very well documented and common knowledge.  Everyone knows we ca read small road signs from space...com  on dude....  they even talked about in some clancy books.  What's not common knowledge at the moment is Global Hawk.   

I guess you just don't get it.. but all that is really besides the point.

So what do you think about the camps, what does that mean to you?

[240 is Back]

Iraq should've been knocked off in 91, you're right about that.  But it was obvious to me they were not only still a threat but a GROWING threat.

No, a weakening threat actually.  Look at the Iraqi economy, army, infrastructure, and everything else from 93 to 2003.

We crippled the f'ckers.

[kh300]

OMG... You are a complete idiot if you think Clinton's blowjob from Monica is worse than Bush lying to take us into war... Old Dipshit more like it...

did clinton get impeached because of a blow job? i thought it was about lying under oath and committing perjury.

[Straw Man]

These reasons were included along with the wmd reason.  However when not as many were found as we expected the dems and the media latched onto that as the only reason and then claimed bush lied... completely false.

really?

Here's an excerpt from Bush's address to the nation on the eve of the war:

Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly -- yet, our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder

You'd think if there was more than one reason he would have taken the time to mention it here.  It would have only taken another 10 seconds or so.   Notice he said purpose and not purposes.

Here's a link to the entire address.  Please show me where he mentions anything but WMD's:  http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-17.html

btw - isn's this whole debate getting a bit stale?

[Brixtonbulldog]

really?

Here's an excerpt from Bush's address to the nation on the eve of the war:

Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly -- yet, our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder

You'd think if there was more than one reason he would have taken the time to mention it here.  It would have only taken another 10 seconds or so.   Notice he said purpose and not purposes.

Here's a link to the entire address.  Please show me where he mentions anything but WMD's:  http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-17.html

btw - isn's this whole debate getting a bit stale?

So he didn't say it that time... do you mean to say that at no other time he gave no other reasons than wmds?  If that was the focus at the time then he would've done just that... focused on it. 

Yes it is... and when confronted with the truth that we needed to go there liberals really don't care about it.  It's just more ammo to hate bush and they cling to it for that reason alone. 

[Straw Man]

So he didn't say it that time... do you mean to say that at no other time he gave no other reasons than wmds?  If that was the focus at the time then he would've done just that... focused on it. 

Yes it is... and when confronted with the truth that we needed to go there liberals really don't care about it.  It's just more ammo to hate bush and they cling to it for that reason alone. 

Obviously that would been the best time to mention ALL the reasons if he had them.  The reality is that he only started bringing up other reasons after the WMD reason proved to be bogus so why don't we put that little bit of revisionist history to bed once and for all.