They lied and people died!

Indisputable you ignorant slut, there is a whole thread showing you wrong about your claim that more democrats voted for the war than against it, so it’s time to shut up now.

So, I am to understand that “people with any sense” thought we should murder hundreds of thousands of people for wmds which do not exist? Really.

So now that bush, with your licking approval, has broken international law, and TWO HUNDRED YEARS of American foreign policy by engaging in preemptive war, if “people with any sense” decide that America should be preemptively invaded, and we should burn your child to death in the street while you watch, then that would be ok? Or, would you find there must be a higher standard to burn your child to death in the street Acorn, and only hold the children of “those others” in such low regard?

And do you ever stay up at night wondering if you’re going to burn in hell?
 
"And do you ever stay up at night wondering if you’re going to burn in hell?"

Whever I get into these bashing my head into a brick wall conversations with Bush/war apologists, I find myself wishing that the hell I'm sure most of them believed in actually existed, so they could rot in it....
 
Onceler said:
I refuted everything you said,
Click to expand...

Oh, you proved Saddam didn't violate all the agreements he'd made to stop the Gulf War I invasion?

You proved he didn't invade his neighbors and use WMDs on his own people?

You proved he didn't rebuild his armed forces after agreeing not to?

You proved we somehow "rushed to war" instead of negotiating, backing, filling, tolerating etc. for twelve long years?

Keep dreaming.

I know you desperately want to believe those were not the reasons we went to war. Your entire antiwar agenda would fall apart if they were.

Unfortunately for you and your ilk, they are the reasons. And contrary to your chest-thumping and namecalling, you've yet to lay a glove on any of them. Unsurprisingly, since they are true.

And you still wonder why no one pays attention to your silly agenda, other than your equally-silly hysterics-in-arms? :lolup:
 
Dittohead, in 2001, Rice and Powell said Saddam was not even a threat to his immediate neighbors. As our invasion has proven, he also did not have WMD's. He was certainly no threat to the United States. Beyond all of that, you are being intellectually dishonest in your argument that there were "many overwhelming reasons" for going to war, and you know that very well, as do other Bushies who have tried to press this argument. If you would like, I could post the text from every speech Bush made in 2002 & 2003 to "make the case" for war with Congress & the American people: it's basically all "we can't wait for the mushroom cloud over a U.S. city" kind of stuff, and it's all WMD's. It would be embarassing for you if I did this. Without the threat of WMD's, this war never would have happened, and again - you know that. It was the only justification post-9/11 that would sell. Wolfowicz even admitted that (let me know if you would like that quote, as well).

Beyond all of that, every NIE that has come out since the war started has shown that Al Quaeda is just as strong, the war has been an outstanding recruiting tool for them, and that the U.S. is less safe as a result.

Give me a straight answer on this: in hindsight, with everything that has happened, do you believe that invading Iraq was the right thing to do for our national security?
 
indisputable said:
Yes.
Click to expand...

That might make you certifiable. A war that has cost us dearly in lives & money, undermined our credibility in the globe, gone years past initial estimates, has created a power vacuum for Iran, boosted Al Qaeda recruitment & made us less safe....was the right decision.

Just think about that.
 
Onceler said:
Dittohead, in 2001, Rice and Powell said Saddam was not even a threat to his immediate neighbors. As our invasion has proven, he also did not have WMD's. He was certainly no threat to the United States. Beyond all of that, you are being intellectually dishonest in your argument that there were "many overwhelming reasons" for going to war, and you know that very well, as do other Bushies who have tried to press this argument. If you would like, I could post the text from every speech Bush made in 2002 & 2003 to "make the case" for war with Congress & the American people: it's basically all "we can't wait for the mushroom cloud over a U.S. city" kind of stuff, and it's all WMD's. It would be embarassing for you if I did this. Without the threat of WMD's, this war never would have happened, and again - you know that. It was the only justification post-9/11 that would sell. Wolfowicz even admitted that (let me know if you would like that quote, as well).

Beyond all of that, every NIE that has come out since the war started has shown that Al Quaeda is just as strong, the war has been an outstanding recruiting tool for them, and that the U.S. is less safe as a result.

Give me a straight answer on this: in hindsight, with everything that has happened, do you believe that invading Iraq was the right thing to do for our national security?
Click to expand...


Oh, you proved Saddam didn't violate all the agreements he'd made to stop the Gulf War I invasion?

You proved he didn't invade his neighbors and use WMDs on his own people?

You proved he didn't rebuild his armed forces after agreeing not to?

You proved we somehow "rushed to war" instead of negotiating, backing, filling, tolerating etc. for twelve long years?

Keep dreaming.

I know you desperately want to believe those were not the reasons we went to war. Your entire antiwar agenda would fall apart if they were.

Unfortunately for you and your ilk, they were the reasons. And contrary to your chest-thumping and namecalling, you've yet to lay a glove on any of them. Unsurprisingly, since they are true.

Still waiting. :lolup:
 
Little-Acorn said:
Oh, you proved Saddam didn't violate all the agreements he'd made to stop the Gulf War I invasion?

You proved he didn't invade his neighbors and use WMDs on his own people?

You proved he didn't rebuild his armed forces after agreeing not to?

You proved we somehow "rushed to war" instead of negotiating, backing, filling, tolerating etc. for twelve long years?

Keep dreaming.

I know you desperately want to believe those were not the reasons we went to war. Your entire antiwar agenda would fall apart if they were.

Unfortunately for you and your ilk, they were the reasons. And contrary to your chest-thumping and namecalling, you've yet to lay a glove on any of them. Unsurprisingly, since they are true.

Still waiting. :lolup:
Click to expand...


Didn't you just post this?

I appreciate your position; I can't imagine what it must be like on your side of this "debate", trying to justify what sane Americans now understand to be a foreign policy & national security disaster. I wouldn't be able to argue anything in an intellectually honest way, either.

Enjoy the liberal wonderland that you & Bush have created for the next decade or so.
:clink:
 
"They take time and cost money and lives."

Uh-huh. That's exactly what I tried to tell you & yours in 2003 when you were all gung-ho to invade when there were still other options on the table.

Why didn't you listen then?
 
I did listen

War sometimes is the price of security for America and our interests around the world. It's a last resort.

It's natural to be afraid of combat. Nobody's asking you to fight, are they? Last I checked, our Armed Forces are staffed by volunteers.
 
indisputable said:
War sometimes is the price of security for America and our interests around the world. It's a last resort.

.
Click to expand...

Yes, it IS a last resort. We finally agree!

So...why do you support Iraq, which was a pre-emptive war, that was decided upon when we still had other options, against a country that we now know for a fact was no threat to us whatsoever, and which has - according to several NIE's - actually strengthened Al Qaeda & made America less safe?

Why would you support something like that? Doesn't that seem insane?
 
And yes, our armed forces are volunteers, but that doesn't mean they are fodder, and it doesn't mean we should waste their lives carelessly. That's despicable to view it that way.
 
Onceler said:
Didn't you just post this?
Click to expand...

Yep, and you ignored it rather than address the facts. So I just thought I'd give you another chance to approach the issue honestly for a change.

Should have known I was wasting my time.

We went to war for the reasons listed, not just WMDs as you keep trying to pretend (and which even Hans Blix's report said DID exist). When you want to quit ducking and dodging these facts, let me know (yawn).
 
Not sure how you sleep, dittohead. Like I said, I addressed the points in your post. You failed to address mine (mainly, because you can't.)
 
Indeed...adorable pictures....

:rolleyes:
Darla said:
Worldwide, millions marched against this war before it began...millions.

I marched against it BEFORE it began in NYC, with hundreds of thousands of others, as hundreds of thousands more marched in SanFrancisco, Seattle, and millions in Paris, in Germany...all over the world.

We all did more than "bitched when it was time to bitch". We acted like good little communist idiots. But easy for righties who supported the war to pretend none of that ever happend now.
Click to expand...


www.indybay.org/newsitems/2005/09/25/17702721.php?show_comments=1
 
Insane?

If you read the legislation, you'd see that it cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:

Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.

Iraq's programs to develop weapons of mass destruction posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."

Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."

Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".

Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.

Members of al-Qaeda were "known to be in Iraq."

Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.

The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, including the September 11th, 2001 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them.

The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.

Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.

The resolution "supported" and "encouraged" diplomatic efforts by President Bush to "strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" and "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

The resolution specifically authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

Some of these seem doubtful in retrospect to many people, yet the WMD (the most disputed factor) did exist and there's no verifiable record of their destruction. So where are they? That's what still worries me. If they're not buried in the desert, they could be in Syria or Iran.
 
"So where are they? That's what still worries me. If they're not buried in the desert, they could be in Syria or Iran."

Don't worry too much. If I were you, I'd worry much more about the dozens of terrorist cells that have started in this hemisphere since the war started.
 
btw

Onceler said:
"So where are they? That's what still worries me. If they're not buried in the desert, they could be in Syria or Iran."

Don't worry too much. If I were you, I'd worry much more about the dozens of Code Pink terrorist cells that have started in this hemisphere since the war started.
Click to expand...


:eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top