Syria and political hypocrisy

evince said:
how we got hit on 911 was that we ignored a country giving harbor to people who clearly wanted to kill us on our own soil.


Thank Bush for that.
Click to expand...

I see. So Clinton's eight years in office, that began with the first World Trade Center terrorist attack in 1993, and ended with the attack on the USS Cole, was a model for suppressing international terrorism? He had everything so under control he was even able to say "No thanks" when offered the location of Osama Bin Laden for a missile attack.

But that awful Bush, he undid all the brilliant counter-terrorism efforts that genius Clinton enacted over the course eight years.... Bush undid that all in the course of a mere eight months?

Hhahaha, I'm new here, but I'm starting to get the joke. haha... you're not really a liberal are you? You're a conservative trolling as a liberal to make fellow conservatives looks smart. hahaha, that's good, I've seen this before. Thanks brother, but I don't need the help. :)
 
Taft2016 said:
It's not really "the strictest sense of the word." We agreed to allow Saddam to remain in power, he agreed to weapons inspections. He agreed to no-fly zones. That was how hostilities ended. He nullified the cease fire. He rolled the dice, he lost.

If the terrorist camps he was harboring in Iraq were never going to hurt America, who would Saddam have wished to harm more? Israel? Maybe, but that would only be striking back at the USA by proxy. On his hate list the USA had to be a close #2.

If not #1b.
Click to expand...

IF? the fact was that the terrorists he was harboring in Iraq were NOT a direct threat to the US. period. the fact was that arab states throughout the region were assisting a whole variety of elements and initiatives whose sole purpose was to attack Israel.. singling out Iraq was ridiculous. the fact was that Saddam did NOT have stockpiles of WMD's which was Bush's PRIMARY rationale for the invasion. Lots of countries in the world hate the USA... we don't go invading all of them because of it.
 
evince said:
how we got hit on 911 was that we ignored a country giving harbor to people who clearly wanted to kill us on our own soil.
Click to expand...

Hahhaha, bro, you're killing me. hahah

Hey, just for kicks...

Tell us what Obama did when the Russians and Saudis both warned him about the Boston Marathon bombers....

hahaha, or when the military was told the Fort Hood shooter was becoming radicalized and unhinged....

hahahahah
 
maineman said:
IF? the fact was that the terrorists he was harboring in Iraq were NOT a direct threat to the US. period. the fact was that arab states throughout the region were assisting a whole variety of elements and initiatives whose sole purpose was to attack Israel.. singling out Iraq was ridiculous. the fact was that Saddam did NOT have stockpiles of WMD's which was Bush's PRIMARY rationale for the invasion. Lots of countries in the world hate the USA... we don't go invading all of them because of it.
Click to expand...

What is expedient in a debate is not a "fact."

Al Qaeda was in Iraq. Al Qaeda attacked us on 9-11.

Pretending that the Al Qaeda chapter in Iraq was somehow indifferent to the USA is head in the sand thinking.

And as I have repeatedly pointed out, there were a host of other reasons for singling out Iraq for invasion, not merely WMDs.
 
Last edited:
Taft2016 said:
Hahhaha, bro, you're killing me. hahah

Hey, just for kicks...

Tell us what Obama did when the Russians and Saudis both warned him about the Boston Marathon bombers....

hahaha, or when the military was told the Fort Hood shooter was becoming radicalized and unhinged....

hahahahah
Click to expand...


prove your claims with facts.


remember the memo "Bin Ladin determined to strike us soil"
 
evince said:
prove your claims with facts.


remember the memo "Bin Ladin determined to strike us soil"
Click to expand...

hahahaha, yeah! That's good bro, that's good! ahahahha

hahahaha, but I think even your sock puppet here would agree that "Bin Laden determined to strike US soil" is a lot vaguer (which means "less specific") than the Russians and Saudis identifying two guys living in the USA, whose names, addresses, phone numbers, bank accounts, and social security numbers we already have... and who in fact we'd already mailed $100K worth of government benefits to.

ahahaha, you're good at this. Thanks
 
Taft2016 said:
What is expedient in a debate is not a "fact."

Al Qaeda was in Iraq. Al Qaeda attacked us on 9-11.

Pretending that the Al Qaeda chapter in Iraq was somehow indifferent to the USA is head in the sand thinking.

And as I have repeatedly pointed out, there were a host of other reasons for singling out Iraq for invasion, not merely WMDs.
Click to expand...

AQ was NEVER in Iraq until we went there... and they knew that it was a shorter trip to kill Americans THERE than coming all the way here.
Our president at the time stated quite unequivocally that THE reason for invading Iraq was to disarm Saddam of his arsenal of WMD's.
 
Taft2016 said:
Do your homework and look into our history with Iran, Iraq, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chile, Vietnam, for starters.
Click to expand...

Which civil war in Iran are you speaking of? We started the Iraqi civil war. And there were sides friendly to the US in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chile, and Vietnam. So WTF are you talking about?

I'm talking about the history YOU seem apt to ignore (or are ignorant of....DO YOUR HOMEWORK). For your education: Shah Pahvil of Iran was installed with the direct help of our CIA in Iran....even helped train his Savak (secret police). We also help create the Basq Party (spelling) in Iraq...the party that spawned Hussein...and we supplied them with the materials for his WMD program back in the day. The democratically elected leader in Chile was assassinated by Pinochet & company (we supplied the intel, etc.) And I hope you remember what the Iran/Contra scandal was all about....as we supported vicious despots and dictators in both those countries. So WTF are YOU talking about?

We gave training to one of it's founders, Osama Bin Ladin...don't you remember?
Click to expand...

OBL was part of the Mujahudeen resistance at the time, not Al Qaeda. And was friendly to US interests at the time.

Bin Ladin was a rich kid from Saudi Arabia who got the fundamentalist bug and went to Afghanistan (we didn't care, thought we could control him). After which, he was diametrically opposed to US military bases on sacred Saudi soil and solidified his position as the black sheep of the Bin Ladin family (rich contractors in Saudi Arabia).

Is Syria part of the international agreement not to use chemical weapons? No.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what that has to do with the price of eggs in Guam, but whatever...

God, you are either willfully ignorant or just plain dumb. Pay attention: if there is a country's gov't that is doing what Syria (allegedly) is, but is NOT part of the international treaty banning the use of such weapons, then there is a INTERNATIONAL PROCEDURE for UN and Nato allies to follow: meeting to decide what is to be done AS A GROUP. Obama's actions simply throw that out the window....similar to what the Shrub did regarding Iraq. Essentially, it's an act of war to bomb/invade another country because you don't like how they are handling their CIVIL war.
And weren't the weapons inspectors temporarily halted due to heavy fighting in the areas they wanted to start? Yep!
Click to expand...

And the fighting started because the weapons inspections were a farce orchestrated by Saddam and the world agreed (unlike the Syrian proposal). Unrestricted weapons inspections would have prevented the invasion.
Click to expand...

Whoa, back it up there toodles. First lets dismantle your revisionist take on what went down with Hussein and the UN weapons inspectors. The first wave by Butler had done over 300 inspections and only met "difficulty" with 5....Slick Willy used that as an excuse to start up the "strategic" or "surgical" bombing again to get the GOP off his back(resulting in the infamous "aspirin factory" debacle). Then after some time, Blix and company went in, were they had met some resistance initially, but were getting the job done before the Shrub & company decided they couldn't wait any longer. BOTH INSPECTIONS WERE INTERRUPTED BY MILITARY ACTION BY USA PRESIDENTS, NOT BECAUSE OF HUSSEIN. When ALL UN inspectors were interviewed later, they had concluded that all the viable WMD's in Iraq were dismantled LONG before the Shrub & company decided to invade.

The Syrians let in the inspectors upon request, barring fighting in the areas of inspection that did not guarantee their safety.

Look it up yourself if you don't believe me, because quite frankly I'm damned tired of doing homework for willing neocon/teabagger parrots like yourself.
 
maineman said:
AQ was NEVER in Iraq until we went there... and they knew that it was a shorter trip to kill Americans THERE than coming all the way here.
Our president at the time stated quite unequivocally that THE reason for invading Iraq was to disarm Saddam of his arsenal of WMD's.
Click to expand...

Yes, yes, yes. The same old mantra.

"Al Qaeda was all over the world, especially in the Middle East. But by God they were nowhere to be found in Iraq.

In fact, Saddam specifically only provided a haven to anti-Israeli terrorists, and did not allow any anti-American terrorists within his borders. Even though the USA was the nation that humiliated him before the whole world."

There; now that your argument is laid before you.... doesn't it sound silly?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/al-qaeda-iraq

From Tony Blair:

There is an interesting sidebar to this. It later emerged that [Abu Musab] al-Zarqawi, the deputy to bin Laden, had come to Iraq in May 2002, had had meetings with senior Iraqis and established a presence there in October 2002. This intelligence has not been withdrawn, by the way. Probably we should have paid more attention to its significance, but we were so keen not to make a false claim about al Qaeda and Saddam that we somewhat understated it, at least on the British side.
Click to expand...


There's a lot more if you care to read... but somehow I doubt you're interested in the truth.
 
Taichiliberal said:

'm talking about the history YOU seem apt to ignore (or are ignorant of....DO YOUR HOMEWORK). For your education: Shah Pahvil of Iran was installed with the direct help of our CIA in Iran....even helped train his Savak (secret police).
Click to expand...


My brother, you're as dumb as duck shit.

I specifically said ... and repeated...when did the USA get involved in a civil war where neither side was friendly to US interests?

What's so hard to follow about that? What's with all of the irrelevant blather?

If someone is working with the CIA.... at that moment anyway, he's working with US interests.
 
evince said:
Tell me why you want this country to retain a delivery system for chemical weapons and chemical weapons no matter who wins the civil war?
Click to expand...

Let's get real, I don't want ANY country to own nuclear or chemical weapons....but that isn't going to change anytime soon. Syria has used chem weapons in the past AND NO ONE SAID A FUCKING THING ABOUT IT!

All this current hoopla is REALLY about the Benjamins, like I said in the opening post. The USA does NOT have the resources
to run around to correct every country that is slaughtering it's population on its own....that's what the UN is for.

Think about it: in the Sudan you had people being genocided the old fashion way (guns, bombs, knives) and there was NO discussion about cruise missiles.
 
NOVA said:
Maybe you ought to re-read the question.....ie....when did CONSERVATIVES....etc....and brush up on your own history.
Click to expand...

You need to READ CAREFULLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY MY ANSWERS AND ORIGINAL STATEMENTS. Taft is just a knee jerk neocon/teabagger who is doing EXACTLY what I said his mindset are doing...somehow trying to rewrite history and blame Obama (i.e., democrats, liberals, etc.) for all ills.
 
Big money said:
President Bush was expected to sign detailed plans for a worldwide war against al-Qaida two days before Sept. 11 but did not have the chance before the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, U.S. and foreign sources told NBC News.

The document, a formal National Security Presidential Directive, amounted to a “game plan to remove al-Qaida from the face of the earth,” one of the sources told NBC News’ Jim Miklaszewski.

The plan dealt with all aspects of a war against al-Qaida, ranging from diplomatic initiatives to military operations in Afghanistan, the sources said on condition of anonymity.

In many respects, the directive, as described to NBC News, outlined essentially the same war plan that the White House, the CIA and the Pentagon put into action after the Sept. 11 attacks. The administration most likely was able to respond so quickly to the attacks because it simply had to pull the plans “off the shelf,” Miklaszewski said.

The United States first would have sought to persuade other countries to cooperate in the campaign by sharing intelligence and using their law enforcement agencies to round up al-Qaida suspects.




http://www.nbcnews.com/id/4587368/ns/us_news-security/t/us-sought-attack-al-qaida/#.Uis4QfKBWSo
Click to expand...


And just how in the hell does all that lead up to invading Iraq? No one had a problem with going into Afghanistan, remember? The Shrub & company lied and fucked up, plain and simple.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top