Page 3 of 3 [ 34 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

toddjh
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 8 Nov 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 277
Location: Champaign, IL, USA

13 Nov 2005, 6:34 pm

Klytus wrote:
It was the security of the Middle East that was allowing terrorism to flourish. There were terrorist training camps in Iraq before the invasion. The links between Saddam and Al Qaeda have been well-established, though rarely reported by the leftist media in the West. Saddam and Al Qaeda had an agreement whereby Al Qaeda would refrain from attacking Iraq in return for Iraq sponsoring Al Qaeda's worldwide terror campaign.


With all due respect, you seem to be stuck in 2002. Bush himself backed off from the Saddam/al Qaeda claim when the 9/11 commission concluded that no such connection existed in June 2004. In fact, al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden were very critical of the secular government of Iraq, calling them "infidels" on many occasions. It's unlikely they'd cooperate.

But even when Bush was playing up the al Qaeda/Iraq angle, he made only very vague claims. And that's all he had to do -- a 2002 survey indicated that 70% of Americans thought that Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks even though neither Bush nor any other administration official ever made that claim. There's a lot of propaganda and misinformation floating around; make sure you get the facts before you jump to conclusions.

Bush and Cheney have continued to say that Saddam had connections to terrorists, which is true: it's common knowledge that Saddam offered money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. But that's a very different situation, because it has nothing to do with the security of the U.S.

Quote:
It would obviously be better for the world if every Arab country was democratic.


It's premature to say that -- let's see if it takes in Iraq, first. The fact that they have enshrined Islam as "the major source of law" in their new Constitution does not bode well. Even a democracy can become a theocracy. I'm not sure the social structures of the Arab world are compatible with western-style democracy.

As an example, Iran is fairly democratic already, and they're one of the most hostile nations on the planet.

Quote:
Anyway, now that Saddam has gone, American troops don't need to bother defending that craphole country, Saudi Arabia anymore.


No, now we just need three times as many defending the craphole that Iraq has become. The situation may still be salvageable; we'll have to wait and see.

Jeremy



irishmic
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jan 2005
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 405
Location: Los Angeles

15 Nov 2005, 12:38 am

Bush Escalates Bitter Iraq War Debate

"The war in Iraq was and remains one of the great acts of misleading and deception in American history." Senator John Kerry
Why can't Bush say "I'm sorry"?
Why is that phrase not in the George W. vernacular?
Instead it's "They spoke the truth then and they're speaking politics now."
America isn't buying it anymore George!

Quote:
Bush is expected to get a warmer welcome in Asia than he did earlier this month in Argentina
Might be because China and Japan kill people who dare to speak out against the government.

George W. wrote:
Our debate at home must also be fair-minded. One of the hallmarks of a free society and what makes our country strong is that our political leaders can discuss their differences openly, even in times of war.

Bush Rewrites History
Congress did not vote to go to war with IRAQ. Congress passed a resolution to allow Bush to do so if he deemed that it was absolutely necessary. At that time George W. was arguing that Saddam was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction that he was not allowing the UN to inspect. In fact, Saddam was telling the truth when he repeatedly said that no weapons stockpile existed. Bush claimed that Saddam was developing a nuclear weapons program. We know that this also was a lie. (A lie that members of the White House were willing to commit treason to protect.) Bush claimed that all he wanted was for UN Inspectors to be allowed to do their job. Bush repeatedly lied to get exactly what he wanted, the colonization of IRAQ. Now that the his lies are rapidly unraveling, and the majority of the American population views him as a lier and a poor leader, does he say "I'm sorry." No, he just tells another lie.

Sorry folks, but the majority of the world is no longer buying it.
Nor are they buying that the Republican party represents American Values.
As I've said before, his own party will need to increasingly distance themselves from him if they expect any success in next years election.

It's time to unelect George W.



Endersdragon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jun 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,666

15 Nov 2005, 1:22 am

I love how you quote Kerry there knowing how much he said Iraq had weapons of mass distruction (dont believe me look it up.) I forget when he appolgised to America :-/. How many times has the United States actually went to war (5 notable exceptions would be the Civil War and the Korean War) do you dare say that the exceptions were illegal wars, do you think we shouldnt have started the first Gulf War after Iraq invaded Kuwait? If Bush wanted to go into Darfur tomarrow would you call that an illegal war, despite all the human rights violations there because the UN Security Council doesnt go far it (as it isnt in some of the countries best interest)? Then why bring up the lack of war declared and the UN not going for it.


_________________
"we never get respect ... never a fair trial
[swearing removed by lau] ... as long as we smile"
Im tired of smiling.

Vote for me in 2020 :-D


irishmic
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jan 2005
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 405
Location: Los Angeles

15 Nov 2005, 2:49 am

Endersdragon, I appreciate your zeal.
No, I don't think that we should have sold slant drilling technology to Kuwait.
I think Kuwait should have sold the oil at a fair market value to allow Saddam to continue to pay back his war debt from the war with Iran at a reasonable rate.
I think that our UN representative should have answered correctly the first time she was asked about whether or not the US would involve itself in a conflict between a war between Iraq and Kuwait, a war that I was stationed in the Persian Gulf for.
So no, I do not think that the US should have helped create the situations that we fought Iraq to resolve the first time.

I will have to look into the Darfur issue more before I can give a proper answer.
As to my feelings about US military involvement to prevent human rights abuses, I wrote my undergraduate political science thesis on the need for US Involvement in former Yugoslavia to halt further atrocities by Slobodan Milosevic. I wrote a letter to the Clinton White House asking for US involvement in the region a month before we actually became fully militarily involved. I debated a retired three star general on a talk radio show in Los Angeles arguing for US involvement in the region and won whilst he called me an idiot. So, you want a legitimate military engagement to prevent wide spread human rights abuses, I'm all for it. You want another Vietnam based on lies and manufactured evidence, I have to say NO.

I am not saying that Kerry never said that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction.
If he did say that, it was due in a large part because of the fabricated intelligence from the Bush White House. I think "The war in Iraq was and remains one of the great acts of misleading and deception in American history" by Senator John Kerry is a pretty good declaration of, hey I was wrong, I blew it, and I'm sorry.

Yet, you never addressed any of the calls I made as to the character of George W's statements.
So, I stand by what I said. America and the world are getting tired of George W's continuous lies coupled with his inability to say: I was wrong, or I am sorry.