Iraq didn't attack us on 9/11
- Thread starter Onceler
- Start date
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
The fundamental problem I have had with Pinheads and Iraq, is they somehow want to think and believe there is this one qualified reason we went into Iraq, and no more! We can't have multiple reasons, it's just too hard for Pinheads to get their heads around, they can't comprehend the concept of having numerous reasons to go to war. I think this is why there are so many Anti-War Pinheads, if I were unable to see more than one reason for war, I would be opposed to it as well!
Another fundamental problem with Pinheads and war, they want to point fingers at examples which are somehow worse, where we didn't go to war. As if, one mistake or lack of resolve, justifies another. Using this logic, the world would have to get to be a pretty bad place before we ever took up arms. There are all sorts of hideous things that have been done to man by other men, and we didn't go to war. Again, the idea that we can not go to war for a variety of reasons, somehow escapes the Pinhead. They can see one clear reason we should have, and that's all they will consider.
Saudi Arabia is our ally, and have been our allies in the region for many years. (The opposite was true with Saddam.) Our largest oil supplier is Saudi Arabia, where we have numerous US interests invested in the country, and operating daily. We also have some joint ventures with Saudi-US companies, who are also entrenched in the sands of Saudi Arabia. Since 9/11, the Saudi government has cooperated fully with the US in trying to track down, arrest or kill, terrorist elements in their country. They are allies with us in the war on terror, of which we only have a few in that region. So why don't you tell me, why we didn't invade Saudi Arabia? It should be easy enough for even a retarded Pinhead to figure out.
Back to the REASONS we went into Iraq. First, was the continued violations of UN sanctions and resolutions, culminating in a resolution which promised "severe consequences" if he didn't abide, which he didn't. These resolutions, including the promise of "severe consequences" were voted on unanimously by the UN security council. The next reason was the danger posed by an unfettered Saddam, who had the technology to mass produce all kinds of nasty stuff, which terrorists would just love to get their hands on. Next would be the tenuous connection between his regime and alQaeda terrorists, they were in his country, his people were meeting their people, and we had no idea what they were discussing, planning, or thinking about. Next reason: The people of Iraq were living in daily terror of being fed into a wood chipper, not being given a voice in their government, and were constantly the target of rape, torture, and murder. Next reason: Iraq is a strategic location in the overall war on terror. When fighting a war (I realize pinheads may not follow this) it is important to control a strategic advantage over the enemy. Iraq gives the US a central point of operations in the middle of the enemy we are at war with. Next reason: Democratization of the region. It makes better sense to attempt to plant democracy in a secular nation first, as opposed to an Islamic state. Democratization is the ideological weapon to combat the ideology of radical Islam, since it is impossible to defeat an ideology with guns. Iraq was the ideal place to implement such a plan. Next reason: Oil! Yep, I said it! Iraq controls a large chunk of the world oil supply, and we need this in the hands of friends and allies, not enemies and terrorists.
So, there are your MANY reasons, none of which include "stockpiles of WMD's" which was one of the biggest blunders of the Bush Administration. They allowed you idiots to construct the idea that WMD stockpiles was the only reason we went to war. They did this by being dumbasses and never articulating the variety of reasons as a whole. The debate over war should have never devolved to the sole issue of WMD's, that was the Bush Administration's fault.
"The debate over war should have never devolved to the sole issue of WMD's, that was the Bush Administration's fault."
It was their intent, you moron. They knew the only way they could sell the war to the American people would be "imminent danger;" America never would have bought into the PNAC vision of the world.
Paul Wolfowicz admitted that, in a moment of amazing candor.
It was their intent, you moron. They knew the only way they could sell the war to the American people would be "imminent danger;" America never would have bought into the PNAC vision of the world.
Paul Wolfowicz admitted that, in a moment of amazing candor.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Another thing I often hear from Pinheads, this notion that "war" is used to "punish" people. That is not the case when it comes to the US. Our objective was never to "punish" those responsible for 9/11, it was to "eliminate" them. To render their organization impotent and prevent them from ever attacking us again. War always has an objective other than "punishment" and there are numerous other ways to "punish" people, if that is what your objective is. Perhaps this contributes to the pinheads anti-war position, they view it as the US exacting "punishment" on someone, a reactionary response controlled by emotions and fear. We didn't liberate Europe and destroy Hitler to punish him! We didn't drop two nukes on Japan to punish them for Pearl Harbor! War always has specific reasons and multiple purposes, none of which are "punishment" for something.
"Our objective was never to "punish" those responsible for 9/11, it was to "eliminate" them. To render their organization impotent and prevent them from ever attacking us again. "
So...what do you think about the recent report showing that Al Qaeda is just as strong now as they were prior to 9/11? How do you gauge the effectiveness of our policy when weighed against the costs, given those results?
So...what do you think about the recent report showing that Al Qaeda is just as strong now as they were prior to 9/11? How do you gauge the effectiveness of our policy when weighed against the costs, given those results?
C
Cancel3
Guest
You say we are allies with Saudi Arabia, and that they have oil. Don't be redundant. We are allies with Saudi BECAUSE they have oil. And they have done SQUAT to help stop the flow of money and support for Al Qaeda.
Now, if you are going to use the UN Sanctions and Saddam's continued refusal to abide by UN resolutions, then you would have wanted this to be a UN operation. When, in fact, the UN did not want us to attack Iraq. The majority of the nations in the UN did not want us to attack.
Your reasons concerning what a menace Saddam was is bullshit. What did he actrually do? He invaded Kuwait. And then he retreated when the UN forces showed up. Wow, that means he could take Kuwait. Hell, the 6 guys in a Hummer could probably take Kuwait. Other than that, Saddam didn't do much to anyone outside his own country. Well, except for against Iran, but we were paying him to do that.
As for your "The people of Iraq were living in daily terror of being fed into a wood chipper, not being given a voice in their government, and were constantly the target of rape, torture, and murder", that is just more political horseshit and excuses. Saddam was not even in the top 10 worst dictators. Iraq was not even in the top 10 worst places. So until we are going to invade the places that are worse, or replace dictators that are wrose, this reason does not hold water.
And no one constructed a damn thing. The WMDs were the REASON we were given by our president. If its bullshit then its presidential bullshit.
And this whole "we want to spread democracy" crap is getting old too. The present administration hasn't even worked to keep democracy working in THIS country. They could give a damn about democracy in other countries.
Oil? Yeah, that makes sense.
But what do you think gives us the right to change a sovereign nation's government? Is it because YOU think its a better government?
And what do you think gives us the right to go in and take the oil? Is this some "divine right" because we need it?
Its all horseshit , smoke & mirrors. Its all propaganda. We had no legitimate reason to invade Iraq. Calling me a retarded pinhead doesn't change that.
Its just pure bullshit. And now OUR boys are dying because of this mess. People who live in OUR country are having to bury their children because of these lame reasons. Kids will grow up without a father because of some stupid ass politician's attempt at glory.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
That is your opinion, and it is not rooted in reality. A legitimate and binding legal case had to be made before the UN security council, and the administration felt the best avenue to pursue such a legal case, was the imminent danger of stockpiled WMD's. It had absolutely nothing to do with "selling the war to the American people" as they are represented by Congress, who gave authorization to use force on Saddam.
In my opinion, Bush should have never gone to the UN. His Axis of Evil speech should have been given on the eve of invasion into Iraq, and we would have probably found plenty of WMD's to justify the claim. Where Bush went wrong, was pussyfooting around with the UN for two years, and giving Saddam time to clean up his act. In the meantime, the administration just kept pounding on this issue of WMD stockpiles, which they should have realized, were NOT going to be found inside Saddam's house, any more than a meth cooker is going to be caught with crystal meth in his house two years after hearing the cops are on to him. It was just pure stupidity on Bush's part, to assume we would find these WMD's, and "the case" should have never included such.
The argument presented by the administration was dire, it was urgent that we take immediate action because we just didn't know what Saddam was up to, what he had or didn't have, or what he might be able to produce or already have in stock. His history of defiance against the US, and his repeated attacks on our aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones, were ample justification for Bush to issue an executive order and take him out. We didn't need to go to the UN, we didn't need their permission or blessing, we have an obligation to protect our own national interests and security. If Saddam was this much of a threat, we were not required, nor should we be expected, to go to the UN and get permission to act. The "mistake" Bush made, was allowing the debate to take place, then allowing the debate to be defined by the sole issue of WMD stockpiles. Had he done as Clinton did, and unilaterally attacked Iraq in the dead of night, we wouldn't even be calling this a "war" now.
"That is your opinion, and it is not rooted in reality."
Really? My opinion is rooted in the statements of people like Paul Wolfowicz & Scott McLellan, who worked closely with the admin; it is rooted in the recent Senate report (signed off on by both Dems & Republicans) that represented part II of their investigation on the manipulation of pre-war intelligence; it is rooted in the Downing Street memo, and another British report stating tha the Bush admin was fixing the intel around the policy.
It's a mountain of evidence; irrefutable, at this point. I don't know what your reality is, or what it's rooted in. Do you discredit all of these sources...from Democrats to Republicans, from people in the admin to British sources? Do they all have to be lying for your "truth" to be reality?
Really? My opinion is rooted in the statements of people like Paul Wolfowicz & Scott McLellan, who worked closely with the admin; it is rooted in the recent Senate report (signed off on by both Dems & Republicans) that represented part II of their investigation on the manipulation of pre-war intelligence; it is rooted in the Downing Street memo, and another British report stating tha the Bush admin was fixing the intel around the policy.
It's a mountain of evidence; irrefutable, at this point. I don't know what your reality is, or what it's rooted in. Do you discredit all of these sources...from Democrats to Republicans, from people in the admin to British sources? Do they all have to be lying for your "truth" to be reality?
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Since our entire economy, society, and civilization, depends on oil, I think it is a good idea not to attack our allies who sell us oil, don't you? And you are wrong about the Saudi's helping us eliminate terrorists, they have arrested and killed thousands since 9/11. As for money going to alQaeda, that is difficult to stop, and I expect there are probably some pinhead jonny bin walker types in the US who have sent alQaeda money as well. Hell, the democrats damn near nominated one for president. Tell me about the squat you have done to help stop the flow of money and support to alQaeda?
It was. In fact, aside from the Gulf War I coalition, it was the largest UN coalition in history.
Also untrue. The UNSC voted UNANIMOUSLY for serious consequences, if Iraq did not comply with UN resolutions. When it came time to act on that promise, the corrupt governments of France, Russia and Germany threatened to veto our attempt to enforce UNR1440, and we didn't allow that shit to happen. The majority of UN nations not only wanted us to attack, but committed troops to the effort and were part of the coalition.
You really need to read some accounts or talk to some people who lived under the Saddam regime. You also need to study some world history, and examine the reason we have US forces in Saudi Arabia (the supposed reason alQaeda is pissed). Yes, the horror and nightmare was largely confined to within the borders of Iraq, but the horror and nightmares of the Holocaust was largely confined to inside Germany too. This is not a refutation of the reason given, it is simple-minded idiocy at its best.
See above.
Well it wasn't bullshit, but it was stupidity. When people make the statement that Saddam never had WMD's, it is wholly inaccurate. The UNSCOM inspectors tagged and logged over 80,000 liters of VX, Sarin, and Anthrax, in Iraq, in Saddam's possession as late as 1996. So the WMD's were certainly there, they DID exist at one time. Remember, one of the reasons I gave above was "we didn't know" and that is especially true regarding intelligence from inside of Iraq. Because Saddam was so paranoid and brutal, it was difficult to obtain reliable information through intelligence. In essence, we simply did not know what Saddam was doing or not doing. Our concern was, he had developed a mass production system for WMD's and was working on a nuke! The fact that we found no evidence in the aftermath, doesn't negate the fact that we didn't know and couldn't take the chance, and it doesn't mean we were necessarily wrong, he may have concealed the evidence before we arrived, he had two years to do this.
Yes, I understand that Socialist Liberals are really tired of hearing about Democracy and Capitalism, but until you turn us into the Soviet Union, it is what this country stands for. The simple principle is easy to understand if you try just a little... Democracies don't go to war with each other.... have you noticed this? It's because the people are in charge of government, through the democratic process, they can decide if it's worth losing their lives to go to war, and unless they have some compelling reason for it, they generally don't support it, at least not to the extent a tyrant megalomaniac dictator may. Most democracies are peaceful toward each other, and practice diplomacy, work together on things, etc. Now, this "ideology" is much better for peace, and much better for prosperity of the people, as you can easily see.
Put yourself in the sandals of a middle-easterner for a moment, and think about it... which would you rather have, endless terrorism, killings, beheadings, seeing the rotting corpses hanging from bridges and lying in the streets, watching this carnage day after day in the relentless authoritarian power struggle, or... peaceful democracy where every man and woman gets a vote, and elects representatives to speak for them in government function, where prosperity and liberty flourishes? Even if you are a die-hard-hard-liner, you have to look at the grass on the other side and find it a little appealing. Especially if your next door neighbor is doing it and showing you it can work. This is the idea of establishing "democracy" in the region, and it's not "getting old" because it has only recently been attempted. It is important here to remember, we can't change hearts and minds at the point of a gun, it has to be done through ideology, and we can't force anyone to accept our ideology, they have to see and realize it on their own. Liberated Democratic Iraqi's are the ones who will ultimately change the hearts and minds of middle-easterner's, we can't do it, it's impossible for the US to do. Yet, in order to defeat radical Islamic terror ideology, it HAS to be done, it's the ONLY way to defeat an ideology.
No, it's because I KNOW it's a better government. Millions of US servicemen have made the ultimate sacrifice for this type of government, and it has been the most successful form of government in the history of mankind. 9/11 gave me the right to change any government which involves itself with terrorism.
To the best of my knowledge, the US has never taken a drop of oil from any nation in the region. We buy oil on the world market, at an astronomically high price. We even fuel our military vehicles with $5 US gas, while their citizens enjoy $0.79 gas down the road. No one has "taken" a damn thing from Iraq, or any other nation in that region.
Nothing I've said is propaganda, horseshit, or smoke & mirrors, it is all factual and accurate. I gave you the entire list of reasons, but you can't handle multiple reasons for war, that is too much for you to comprehend. I also don't think I called you retarded, you seem to be at least capable of reasoned thought at times, and make some interesting points. Prissy is more of a "retard pinhead" he never has anything of substance to say. You at least give it a shot.
Awww... it's so sweet to see a pinhead liberal heart bleed! You really care about our troops! WOW! I am touched! However, I need to make several points here...
1. Fewer soldiers have died in Iraq than in some single battles of other wars.
2. Every soldier who has died, understood and knew the risk he took when he voluntarily chose to enlist in military service.
3. If we do not defeat alQaeda in Iraq, and we lose in Iraq, more soldiers will ultimately die.
Now, it is sad that our boys have to die over there, and I can sympathize with the loss of the families involved, and I can even understand why pinheads go crazy over this. What I can't seem to understand, is what is your plan? We can't abandon this in the middle, we have committed ourselves to see it through, and if we don't do it, we will pay a much greater price in both blood and treasure, before it is all said and done. alQaeda is not going to suddenly start planting daisies and singing 'we are the world' because we withdraw from the central front in the war against them! What is your plan for dealing with that?
That's right, you have no plan! You want us to withdraw from Iraq and let it collapse in chaos, and continue to try and appease the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11, because you are a chicken shit liberal who doesn't have the first clue of how to defend yourself, much less the country. You are scared shitless by alQaeda, and think if you keep feeding the alligator, it will not eat you first. Like every other problem, you don't have solutions, just more finger pointing and blame to cast and complaints to make. Instead of supporting what is the logical and simple solution to the problem, you want to turn it into a philosophical debate over myopic details which mostly do not pertain to the real issue or solving the problem.
C
Cancel3
Guest
Firs of all, Dixie, it may make you feel better to call everyone who disagrees with you a pinheaded liberal, but you ought to make sure.
I am not a pinhead. I am not a liberal. If you will look at the topics I debate on, I am usually on the conservative side of things.
I am not a pinhead. I am not a liberal. If you will look at the topics I debate on, I am usually on the conservative side of things.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
No, your opinion is based on a mountain of liberal propaganda, spun from the lies of Scott McClellan and others, who have decided to contribute to the propaganda campaign. The mountain of evidence is comprised of this mountain of books published published by the irrelevant, for great sums of money because you idiots keep buying it.
Actually, your opinion was formed early on, and you are so closed minded, you are unable to see or appreciate any other opinion. You have collected a mountain of propaganda to support your already-formed opinion. Sorry, that doesn't make you right.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
McClellan and Clarke outright lied in 'tell-all' books after becoming disgruntled employees. The information disseminated from the various committee reports, was twisted into propaganda by the liberal left propagandists. And Bush has told the truth, or else he would be undergoing impeachment hearings.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Believe what? That Clarke and McClellan were disgruntled ex-employees? It's a matter of public record, yes I believe this. That they lied? Again, this has been established. I read every committee report on the Iraq War, and I heard liberals take it all out of context as quickly as they published it. It's political season after all. And Bush? Like I said, if he had deceived and lied as you all claim, you could have impeached him years ago.
I'm not a rube, and I seriously doubt the Administration even knows or cares that I exist. They certainly would be disappointed in the criticisms I've made of them, but of course, you don't hear those, you only hear what you want to hear. Your party depends on closed-minded fools like you.
You know, on Sept 11th, Richard Clarke stayed at his post in washington DC, believing, as did those few who stayed with him, that another plane was on the way (it was), and that they might very well not live out the day.
But Richard Clarke did not leave, he stayed. That man is a hero, who should have received a medal.
Condi Rice and Dick Cheney, after a quick and frantic meeting with Clarke, told him that SS wanted them in the bomb shelter. Clarke nodded and told them, you should go. Clarke then went into the situation room and along with some other unsung heroes and, because there were women who stood their post, heroines, ran crisis control that day, as the rest of the white house was evacuated.
You should be shining his shoes with your tongue.
That you repukes smear heroes every day, while you kiss the asses of lowly cowards, makes you, quite frankly, nothing but dirty traitors.
Really well said.
It's stunning that someone would argue that such a wide range of sources, all telling essentially the same story, are all lying, because Bush just HAS to be telling the truth. British intel, Senate Republicans, top aides, Paul friggin' Wolfowicz - all are "disgruntled ex-employees" and liberal propogandists in Dixieland.
Seconded, this is awesome.
Also, what's awesome is what Richard Clark on MSNBC said about what should be done with the architects of this war. And I think it's equally applicable to Dixie and other war supporters:
Yeah I think he’s got that right. I also think history is going to give him his medal, while it consigns these other criminals their own proper spots. I really believe the history books are going to do right by him, and the others who really did put their lives on the line for their country that day. And they were not recognized for it. I don’t understand it, but I think it’s because to highlight what those civil servants did, would have had to highlight, by contrast, what George and condi and dick did. But I think that Americans are adult enough to understand that the country was under attack and you cannot put your entire executive branch in harm’s way. But they were too small of people to do it. That’s what they are. Just very small, very petty, little cowards.
I am so sick and tired of these faux super-patriots, who are in reality nothing more than bush asslickers, like Dixie, smearing these good Americans. I’ve just had it after 8 years of their shit, sorry, they don’t even qualify as Americans anymore.
I am so sick and tired of these faux super-patriots, who are in reality nothing more than bush asslickers, like Dixie, smearing these good Americans. I’ve just had it after 8 years of their shit, sorry, they don’t even qualify as Americans anymore.