Study: False Statements Preceded War

You oughta see the 2008 thompson model, I have to keep a tarp over it.

It has so many wrinkles everyone knows it was totaled out.
 
Desh said:
14-page report contradicts Bush's contention that lawmakers saw all the evidence before U.S. troops invaded in March 2003, stating that the president and a small number of advisers "have access to a far greater volume of intelligence and to more sensitive intelligence information."
Click to expand...

You quite obviously are content to continue posting that quote rather than taking a moment to actually READ the report.

Pages 9-13 Desh. The Intel committees had access to the intel they needed. For the more sensitive info, they had the ability to request a briefing.

But please, continue to ignore that little fact desh.
 
Onceler said:
Does anyone remember that scene in "Aliens", where Paul Reiser's character is saying "it was a bad call, Ripley...a bad call," and Ripley grabs him by the collar, throws him up against the wall and screams "Bad call? These people are DEAD, Burke! They're dead!"

That's kind of how I feel with Superfreak at the moment. I can't comprehend the level of stupidity or simply sheer stubborness that refuses to abandon the "Iraq was inevitable" argument, even now, in light of all of the death & cost of what we now know resulted from the decision. I fail to see any scenario, where "good timing" or "better management" would have somehow made this the "right war, at the right time"....
Click to expand...

Oh wow, that is the best analogy I have seen…that’s exactly how I feel.
That’s why I try not to argue about the war anymore. Sometimes I do, but I try not to because I found that I can’t keep civility in the discussion. After a while it just becomes two people screaming at each other, and you start to feel like you really despise them, and those feelings are what gets us into wars in the first place. I mean, money and greed gets us into wars, but if people at large didn’t hate so easily, then the handful that benefit so much financially, couldn’t manipulate people into supporting the war.
 
Superfreak said:
Lorax is of the opinion that the UN would have succeeded if we had built up troops and used the threat of force to finally force Saddam to comply. As stated, that is an opinion and he could well be correct. I do not share his opinion. Mine is that eventually we were going to be forced to go in and remove Saddam. As stated, it is my opinion. Like his, we will never know whether mine was correct or incorrect.
Click to expand...

And exactly what was going to force us to go in? We don't even go in to those lengths when people are victims genocide to this day. Specifically what event would have forced us to go in? Keep in mind we basically sat idly by this:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/01/23/congo/index.html
IRC President George Rupp said the loss of life is equivalent to the entire population of Denmark, or the state of Colorado, dying within a decade.
 
Superfreak said:
Ah, listening to the resident idiot Cypress again. How quaint. Right, my whole argument equates to Saddam thumbing his nose at the UN.

You are above falling for Cypress's idiocy Lorax.
Click to expand...



there was no WMD, no imminent threats, and Saddam considered Al Qaeda to be his mortal enemy.

Yet, you would still support invading Iraq "at a different time".

Why?
 
Superfreak said:
Thank you. We had been going on so long with people only calling me a Bush appologist I was getting apprehensive awaiting the war apologist label.

thank you for relieving that mounting tension.

I do not use the UN as a sole reason for going in. The ceasefire agreement was between all parties. Saddam did not live up to it. The fact that the UN failed to make him do so is part of my belief that millitary action was inevitable.... but it was not the sole reason.

In hind-sight we now know why the Iraqi people were starving (as was the chant from those who wanted us to lift sanctions despite Saddams failure to comply). The UN failed to monitor the program that was designed to hurt Saddam and help the people but in reality the reverse occured due to fraud. Coincidentally this fraud involved (among others) certain countries with UN Sec Council veto authority that just happened to block UN approval for going into Iraq. Funny how those coincidences occur.

and yes, for the parrots that are about to start spouting off... YES, I think we should have taken action in Rwanda too. YES, I think we should be taking action in Sudan. YES, I think we should be assisting in the Congo. As a superpower, I do believe we have a responsibility to protect those that cannot protect themselves from genocide. (when we have the power to do so that is)
Click to expand...

I don't recall you saying on politics.com or fullpolitics that we should simply invade iraq for humanitarian reasons. I think you started saying that when the WMD went missing.
 
Darla said:
Oh wow, that is the best analogy I have seen…that’s exactly how I feel.
That’s why I try not to argue about the war anymore. Sometimes I do, but I try not to because I found that I can’t keep civility in the discussion. After a while it just becomes two people screaming at each other, and you start to feel like you really despise them, and those feelings are what gets us into wars in the first place. I mean, money and greed gets us into wars, but if people at large didn’t hate so easily, then the handful that benefit so much financially, couldn’t manipulate people into supporting the war.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I tried not to get involved but when obtuseness like this is presented, I can't help myself.

I'm going to back to the cleaning lady thread.
 
Cypress said:
I don't recall you saying on politics.com or fullpolitics that we should simply invade iraq for humanitarian reasons. I think you started saying that when the WMD went missing.
Click to expand...

I don't recall Superfreak or any cons for that matter saying that.
 
LadyT said:
Again, why are WE supposed to be the enforcers? Iraq posed no immiment threat to us and Saddam was not committing acts of genocide. Why do you think we were obligated to invade and occupy?
Click to expand...

again... ENOUGH of the imminent threat crap. I have already stated multiple times that he was not an imminent threat. To continue acting like you cannot comprehend this is sad.
 
Onceler said:
Does anyone remember that scene in "Aliens", where Paul Reiser's character is saying "it was a bad call, Ripley...a bad call," and Ripley grabs him by the collar, throws him up against the wall and screams "Bad call? These people are DEAD, Burke! They're dead!"

That's kind of how I feel with Superfreak at the moment. I can't comprehend the level of stupidity or simply sheer stubborness that refuses to abandon the "Iraq was inevitable" argument, even now, in light of all of the death & cost of what we now know resulted from the decision. I fail to see any scenario, where "good timing" or "better management" would have somehow made this the "right war, at the right time"....
Click to expand...

Yes, I recall that Aliens scene.

Not a single one of them said, before the WMD went missing, that we should invade for humanitarian reasons, or because Saddam was a bad guy.

That's how you know they're lying now.
 
Darla said:
Oh wow, that is the best analogy I have seen…that’s exactly how I feel.
That’s why I try not to argue about the war anymore. Sometimes I do, but I try not to because I found that I can’t keep civility in the discussion. After a while it just becomes two people screaming at each other, and you start to feel like you really despise them, and those feelings are what gets us into wars in the first place. I mean, money and greed gets us into wars, but if people at large didn’t hate so easily, then the handful that benefit so much financially, couldn’t manipulate people into supporting the war.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I totally agree with that. Wars like Iraq start because our hate & fear are manipulated so easily; they're irrational emotions anyway, so they're easy for others to work with.

I don't know why I keep discussing this one with Superfreak. He's really dug in on the "if we had only timed it better" thing. To me, it's much more simple: no threat = no war.
 
Superfreak said:
again... ENOUGH of the imminent threat crap. I have already stated multiple times that he was not an imminent threat. To continue acting like you cannot comprehend this is sad.
Click to expand...

Fine, we'll leave the "imminent threat crap" off the table. You still have not given one reason as to why the United states out of the 100+ countries around teh world had to invade an occupy Iraq due to their non compliance with the UN decrees.

We're ALL eagerly awaiting.
 
especially since they started complying with the UN thingy before we invaded.

The stated objective of bush had been achhieved, making Iraq comply with the UN by THREATENING to use force.
That was what he sold to congress.
 
Onceler said:
Does anyone remember that scene in "Aliens", where Paul Reiser's character is saying "it was a bad call, Ripley...a bad call," and Ripley grabs him by the collar, throws him up against the wall and screams "Bad call? These people are DEAD, Burke! They're dead!"

That's kind of how I feel with Superfreak at the moment. I can't comprehend the level of stupidity or simply sheer stubborness that refuses to abandon the "Iraq was inevitable" argument, even now, in light of all of the death & cost of what we now know resulted from the decision. I fail to see any scenario, where "good timing" or "better management" would have somehow made this the "right war, at the right time"....
Click to expand...

That is because you only see the deaths that resulted from this war. You shall continue to ignore the dead during the sanctions and those that would have continued should we have kept Saddam "contained" (translated: He could only kill rape and maim his own people and not us). You will continue to ignore all the chants for the end of sanctions because of their ineffictiveness and resulting consequences to the people of Iraq.

It is because you equate the death and cost from what has occured and project it to mean that there were no other ways to manage it to different outcomes.

But that is ok. I respect your opinion on what you think would have been the best way to go. I disagree with it, but as I stated you could be right, you could be wrong. There is no way for us to know. It is all conjecture based on our beliefs of "what might have been".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top