THIS WAR WAS AN UTTER DISASTER AND NO FREEDOM OR GOOD FOR THE PEOPLE OF IRAQ AND AFGANISTAN WILL COME FROM IT

WE UNDERSTAND YOU NOW LIBERALS YOU WERE RIGHT

LETS GO VOTE FOR SOMEBODY WHO WOULD'VE SAT ON THEIR ASS AND WATCH 9/11 AFTER 9/11 HAPPEN


sanks guys for your opinions

[Edited on March 26, 2008 at 10:58 AM. Reason : .]

3/26/2008 10:58:15 AM

Quote :

"what was 'horrible' about liberation of 2 countries at once controlled by terrorists? I still fail to see your viewpoints about this 'horrible' war Mister."

Iraq was controlled by terrorists? I am interested in hearing more of your facts.

Quote :

" LETS GO VOTE FOR SOMEBODY WHO WOULD'VE SAT ON THEIR ASS AND WATCH 9/11 AFTER 9/11 HAPPEN"

Iraq was responsible for 9/11? I am interested in hearing more of your facts.

[Edited on March 26, 2008 at 10:59 AM. Reason : .]

3/26/2008 10:58:37 AM

if you don't believe they were in fact terrorists, then with. all due respect

fuck off and die. none of your opinions matter to this nation and the masses themselves would obliterate you from society if it came down to it.

[Edited on March 26, 2008 at 11:00 AM. Reason : .]

3/26/2008 11:00:02 AM

Quote :

"LETS GO VOTE FOR SOMEBODY WHO WOULD'VE SAT ON THEIR ASS AND WATCH 9/11 AFTER 9/11 HAPPEN"

I don't think anyone disagrees that going into afghanistan was the right thing to do (and not to liberate the citizens). Iraq, however.....

Quote :

"if you don't believe they were in fact terrorists, then will all due respect fuck off and die. none of your opinions matter to this nation and the masses themselves would obliterate you from society if it came down to it."

lol, ran out of cohesive propaganda to spout huh?

[Edited on March 26, 2008 at 11:01 AM. Reason : .]

3/26/2008 11:00:03 AM

Quote :

"if you don't believe they were in fact terrorists, then will all due respect fuck off and die. none of your opinions matter to this nation and the masses themselves would obliterate you from society if it came down to it."

are you being sarcastic now?

3/26/2008 11:00:46 AM

3/26/2008 11:09:33 AM

Rat has got to be an alias or a troll. Or an alias for a troll.

3/26/2008 11:11:19 AM

Quote :

"if you don't believe they were in fact terrorists, then with. all due respect fuck off and die. none of your opinions matter to this nation and the masses themselves would obliterate you from society if it came down to it. "

He thinks all muslims are terrorists.

and Rat - we just turned the middle east even more upside down than it was in 2002. We FUCKED SHIT UP.

Quote :

"LETS GO VOTE FOR SOMEBODY WHO WOULD'VE SAT ON THEIR ASS AND WATCH 9/11 AFTER 9/11 HAPPEN "

Maybe WE would have stopped it from happenning in the first place. Maybe we would have reacted to the warning signs instead of letting it happen to justify a war that has made a select few billions and billions of dollars. Maybe we would have asked about the ridiculous amount of put options placed on United Airlines and American Airlines just before the attacks (saying asked after the attacks).

I mean, we really probably wouldn't have done all that, but what I'm just saying, is that what you're saying is retarded.

3/26/2008 11:13:02 AM

Quote :

" LETS GO VOTE FOR SOMEBODY WHO WOULD'VE SAT ON THEIR ASS AND WATCH 9/11 AFTER 9/11 HAPPEN"

LoL, I see what you did there, connecting Iraq and 9/11. We know how interconnected they were, right?

3/26/2008 11:40:04 AM

so i guess iraq didn't have enough terrorists for you guys to justify a cleanup as well?

3/26/2008 12:20:43 PM

Quote :

"Maybe WE would have stopped it from happenning in the first place."

hahaha and maybe kim jong il will be on dancing with the stars next season

3/26/2008 12:24:06 PM

Look how many of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi

Quote :

"Fifteen of the attackers were from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt, and one from Lebanon"

Yet we are still best buds with Saudi Arabia, because we are scurred they'll take away our oil.

3/26/2008 12:30:20 PM

if the hijackers were wearing Saudi military uniforms it might be different

should we nuke the US since we have traitors here?

3/26/2008 12:48:11 PM

yes

3/26/2008 12:50:52 PM

WANT

TO

OF

3/26/2008 12:56:20 PM

Quote :

"f the hijackers were wearing Saudi military uniforms it might be different"

are you serious? You defend the Iraq war based on fabricated ties to terrorist groups, and then justify the lax attitude toward SA based on this?!!?

I understand you're a loyal neocon and everything, but come on.

3/26/2008 1:01:01 PM

Quote :

"You defend the Iraq war based on fabricated ties to terrorist groups"

no, try again...i defend the iraq war because people with a lot more knowledge of the situation than you or I defend the iraq war...the reason the SA hijacker argument is so retarded is because the hijackers werent doing it in the name of Saudi Arabia

Quote :

"I understand you're a loyal neocon"

no, try again, maybe actually try this time

3/26/2008 1:02:17 PM

Quote :

"i defend the iraq war because people with a lot more knowledge of the situation than you or I defend the iraq war."

well, along those same lines, I have no faith in the admin over the war b/c they initially completely disregarded the opinion of:

Quote :

"people with a lot more knowledge of the situation than you or I"

for the sake of furthering their political agenda.

3/26/2008 1:27:05 PM

Quote :

"You try getting two degrees in five years while playing a sport. "

Sure, can I spend most of those years on the bench injured too?

3/26/2008 1:43:15 PM

I HAD TWO JOBS AND WALKED UP THE HILL IN SNOW BOTH WAYS

3/26/2008 1:53:23 PM

Quote :

"the reason the SA hijacker argument is so retarded is because the hijackers werent doing it in the name of Saudi Arabia"

Were they doing it in the name of Iraq?

Man, Afghanistan I understood going to war with, but Iraq? It of been a mistake.

3/26/2008 2:11:14 PM

this thread has snowballed again........back on point...

Its 2001...the country has just been attacked by islamic extremists
We are almost certain that Bin Laden was the mastermind and he is hiding somewhere in Pakastan.

We change our thinking about how to fight terrorism....we will no longer wait to be attacked, since we knew for years that Bin Laden was a major thread to the US.

We know from British, Russian, and US intellegance that Saddam, a major threat to the US, has WMD's, associates with terrorist organizations, and has brutalized his own people for years.

The majority of the country was in support of removing Saddam before he could get WMD's into terrorists hands.....with 911 fresh on everyones mind, we are in a heightened sense of ridding the world of global terrorism...

What do you do, next?

(and dont say anything about how this is not true, because your getting off topic) Any information learned after 2003 cannot be used to rebuttle a decision made prior to that date!

3/26/2008 2:13:08 PM

weren't we planning to invade even before 9/11?

3/26/2008 2:14:07 PM

Quote :

"We know from British, Russian, and US intellegance that Saddam, a major threat to the US, has WMD's, associates with terrorist organizations"

Quote :

"(and dont say anything about how this is not true, because your getting off topic) Any information learned after 2003 cannot be used to rebuttle a decision made prior to that date"

problem is, the wmd argument was dubious at best, and there were just as many reports refuting the possession of wmd's as those that seemed to confirm it. The admin just chose to spotlight the reports that backed thier purposes....Colin Powell himself came out and said he was less than confident about the info in his own speech to the UN.

Sadam was almost universally regarded as a leader who didn't want/allow al qaeda in his country.

all of this was known pre-war but the admin chose to downplay it.

[Edited on March 26, 2008 at 2:39 PM. Reason : .]

3/26/2008 2:39:43 PM

NO FREEDOM OR GOOD FOR THE PEOPLE OF IRAQ AND AFGANISTAN WILL COME FROM IT anyone who thinks like this

fixed that for you

[Edited on March 26, 2008 at 2:43 PM. Reason : sdf]

Also, this thread is pointless because of all the information we have now that we didnt have before we invaded.

[Edited on March 26, 2008 at 2:45 PM. Reason : pointless blather]

3/26/2008 2:43:18 PM

Quote :

"Also, this thread is pointless because of all the information we have now that we didnt have before we invaded."

kind of like a monday morning quarterback....20/20 hindsight perhaps

3/26/2008 2:50:30 PM

No this thread is pointless because none of us have strategic military planning training outside of Civilization.

So uhh, stack up on the chariots I guess.

3/26/2008 2:59:38 PM

Quote :

"kind of like a monday morning quarterback....20/20 hindsight perhaps"

and again,

Quote :

"point is, none of us know enough to say we should have done this or that, the admin included so they should have let the real experts handle it from the beginning."

how is it monday morning QB or 20/20 hindsight to say they should have listened to the military commanders? If it takes hindsight for the admin to know that, they have no business commanding our military.

[Edited on March 26, 2008 at 3:12 PM. Reason : .]

3/26/2008 3:12:22 PM

well they obviously got some of their pre-war input from the military commanders

but i still dont know how you can act like theres not a lot of monday morning quarterbacking going on...the consensus was that iraq had wmds, that they would try to sell them to terrorists, that iraq was a threat...that was the way of thinking back then...you cant just act like it wasnt the way of thinking back then, based on what we know now

3/26/2008 3:14:33 PM

Quote :

"the consensus was that iraq had wmds, that they would try to sell them to terrorists, that iraq was a threat"

that's what i'm saying...It wasn't the consensus. There was just as much intel suggesting that they didn't have any capable weapons systems, if any at all. The admin just highlighted the intel that was to thier liking and disregared everything else.

I saw an interview last night with a former Bush official (on the final installment of the history channel's "the presidents" i believe). He said that even during his 'Axis of Evil' speech, Bush really didn't have any direct plans to take military action against NK or Iran, he just included them to make the Iraq WMD/terrorism threat seem more dire, since Iran has known ties to terrorist camps, and NK had/or was very close to developing nuclear capability.

[Edited on March 26, 2008 at 3:25 PM. Reason : .]

3/26/2008 3:23:15 PM

Quote :

"It wasn't the consensus. There was just as much intel suggesting that they didn't have any capable weapons systems, if any at all. "

i'm sure they had intelligence that suggested iraq didnt have wmds, etc...but how are you going to tell me that was the consensus? to the large majority of people, whether it be politicans or citizens, Iraq had WMDs, was a threat, etc...how is that not a consensus

we're getting off topic a little bit but whats wrong with admitting what the consensus was? the consensus doesnt have to be right, its just what most people think

3/26/2008 3:26:08 PM

Quote :

"Conclusion 1. Most of the major key judgments in the Intelligence Community's October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction, either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting. A series of failures, particularly in analytic trade craft, led to the mischaracterization of the intelligence. "

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmd-intell_intro-b.htm

Also, if you'll research, you will see that cheney had a huge role in the 2002 NIE. It is almost unheard of for a member of the executive office to directly oversee a NIE report like Cheney did.

Quote :

"we're getting off topic a little bit but whats wrong with admitting what the consensus was? the consensus doesnt have to be right, its just what most people think"

if the average american is fed false info from their major news sources, of course they're going to agree.

[Edited on March 26, 2008 at 3:30 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on March 26, 2008 at 3:33 PM. Reason : .]

3/26/2008 3:29:15 PM

that report is from 2004, and its talking about a report from 2002 being wrong or exaggerated

how was the 2002 exaggerated report not the consensus in 2002? how was it anything but the consensus UNTIL the 2004 report?

3/26/2008 3:31:22 PM

they were looking at the very same intelligence. and see Cheney overseeing the NIE.

3/26/2008 3:33:45 PM

in 2002 (and lets just say from 2001 to 2003), the majority of the american public and congress thought iraq was a threat, had WMDs, etc

that is the definition of a consensus

3/26/2008 3:37:25 PM

Quote :

"We know from British, Russian, and US intellegance that Saddam, a major threat to the US, has WMD's, associates with terrorist organizations, and has brutalized his own people for years."

10 pages and the thread will not get beyond this point.

intelligence

3/26/2008 3:40:39 PM

Quote :

"in 2002 (and lets just say from 2001 to 2003), the majority of the american public and congress thought iraq was a threat, had WMDs, etc that is the definition of a consensus "

and again, if the average american is fed false information from a source they trust, of course they will believe it....has your argument now fell to the gullibility of the american people?

the congress vote was a spillover effect from the deception of the public....at that time it was very unpopular to go against the admin.

3/26/2008 3:46:59 PM

Quote :

"the majority of the american public"

I think that's a stretch.

3/26/2008 3:48:13 PM

its completely irrelevant to my point that the public thought one thing and the administration knew another thing

the consensus at the time was that iraq had wmds, was a threat, etc

i dont know whats so complicated about that

the consensus back in the day was that the sun revolved around the earth...no matter how wrong they were, at the time, it was still the consensus, and if you're trying to go back to that time somehow, you couldnt change the consensus of that time

3/26/2008 3:49:16 PM

^^no, he is right about that, but it was support under false pretences....as rummy would say, it was an unknown unknown for the american people.

Quote :

"its completely irrelevant to my point that the public thought one thing and the administration knew another thing "

^so you admit you think the admin blatantly misrepresented info to gain the case for war?



[Edited on March 26, 2008 at 3:54 PM. Reason : .]

3/26/2008 3:49:59 PM

i dont know if they did on purpose or not

i've just been trying to repeat what the pre-war consensus was and point out that you cant change that consensus and you cant take data from 2004 into account and that for those reasons as well as others, this is just a monday morning QB situation

3/26/2008 3:55:59 PM

Quote :

"you cant take data from 2004"

lol, the report from 04 just went back and independently reviewed the very same intell from 02, no new intelligence, but this time they didn't have cheney breathing down their neck to skew the data.

3/26/2008 4:02:04 PM

thats fine, but you didnt have that independently reviewed insight before the war, and we're supposed to be thinking "how would we plan..." as if it was before the war

3/26/2008 4:03:13 PM

^^you may have a point...however, you must remember that our allies independantly came to the same conclusions as we did at this time. Did Cheney someone fool other intelligance agencies?

^correct

3/26/2008 10:25:16 PM

^^you may have a point...however, you must remember that our allies independantly came to the same conclusions as we did at this time. Did Cheney somehow fool other intelligance agencies?

^correct

3/26/2008 10:26:15 PM

No, he pressured them to make a snap decision rather than review the material.

Kinda like how when you sit down to take a test you haven't studied for and try and read about 3 weeks worth of notes. You don't exactly do well on the test.

Smoker4 and I argued for PAGES about it when Iraq released the information above.

The 600,000 pages of documents the Pentagon just finished reviewing that the poster is referencing was part of those conciliatory gestures of cooperating with the UNSC that Iraq was making in February 2003. Frankly, nobody paid any attention, and IIRC, people presumed the documents were just rehashes of old material. Nobody reported on any findings based on actually reading them in the immediate aftermath.

We invaded days after their release, so the issue died in the press.

Agreed re: the pointlessness of this thread.

[Edited on March 26, 2008 at 11:42 PM. Reason : ...]

3/26/2008 11:34:07 PM

This isn't the first time TreeTwista10's argument has been lacking in the intelligence department.

3/27/2008 10:03:28 AM