Quote :

""that's why the WMDs were plumped up, not by the media, but by Bush himself ...." thats what he said...so how come its not relevant???"

Haha, are you serious?

His point with that statement was that Bush was the one practically making up stuff about WMDs in order to trick the public and politicians in to supporting his war with Iraq (that is currently being bungled).

Quote :

"i wouldnt bring this up if there werent dozens of threads and posts everyday to the effect of "OMG BUSH LIED WHERE ARE THE WMDS THE WAR IS UNJUST""

So are you saying that Bush didn't lie? What is YOUR take on the WMD thing (wait, this one is coming up, isn't it?)?

Quote :

"^see, you agree...YOU SEE THAT moron...BoBo AGREES, or is at least willing to keep a discussion going...NOW STFU"

It seems to me he was being sarcastic (but you might be too, it's hard to tell).

Quote :

"The media harps on WMDs...the media never even mentions the broken UN sanctions...the media focuses on ONE of the reasons for going to Iraq while essentially ignoring the other dozen plus reasons"

If you were to compare to amount of attention give to Iraq-WMDs and Iraq-AlQaeda and Iraq-sanctions by the Bush admin, guess which would come out on top, by a very significant margin? Which one of those comparisons was the most important aspect in convincing people to support the war?

And you want to know another reason Bush doesn't bring up the broken UN sanctions? Because our good friends Israel and ourselves have broken UN sanctions. That is not a reason to start a poorly thought out war on false premises.

9/21/2006 2:12:52 PM

our "good friends Israel" havent massacred 50,000 of their own citizens...I think if you're ranking what sanctions being broken from bad to not-as-bad, killing 50,000 of your people is on the bad end of the spectrum

if you say Bush lied about WMDs, did he knowingly lie? Do you dismiss the possibility that the intelligence community had bad information? Do you dismiss the possibility that Iraq DID have WMDs and either moved them to Syria or buried them under 30 feet of sand?

plus how competent is Congress, Democrat and Republican, as well as the general public, if they were so easily swayed into this "false" war?

9/21/2006 2:14:47 PM

Quote :

"so killing 50,000+ innocents is just an "adder" to you boy, you sure are compassionate!"

IT SURE DOES MAKE SENSE TO GO TO WAR AND END THE SAME NUMBER OF LIVES THAT YOU WENT TO WAR TO AVENGE!!!!!

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/




TREETWISTA, HOW DUMB CAN YOU BE?

9/21/2006 2:16:48 PM

so State409c, I guess you put complete blame on the United States when insurgents do the vast majority of those killings? I guess its the US's fault that 3,000+ Americans died on 9/11 since we supported Israel? Don't blame the insurgents, blame America first!

9/21/2006 2:18:10 PM

Quote :

"killing 50,000 of your people is on the bad end of the spectrum"

I'm pretty sure Saddam wouldn't claim kurds as "his people" no more than those living in Kurdistan (who just passed a rule banning the Iraqi flag) would claim Iraq as their country.

9/21/2006 2:18:41 PM

please dont reply in this thread until you can see that 50,000 civilian citizens being killed by their own government as more than an "adder"

if you're still on the fence about being socially liberal or conservative, you might want to use your crass views of mass murders to influence that decision

9/21/2006 2:19:36 PM

Quote :

"so State409c, I guess you put complete blame on the United States when insurgents do the vast majority of those killings? I guess its the US's fault that 3,000+ Americans died on 9/11 since we supported Israel? Don't blame the insurgents, blame America first!"

Considering the US decision to invade Iraq on bogus reasons, and then failing to put enough troops on the ground to control the situation has started the civil war where the insurgents are doing the bombing, it's kinda hard to not blame the US.

I mean, it just can't be argued that insurgents wouldn't be blowing up people on the ground if Saddam were still currently in power and we had never invaded.

Keep in mind, a portion of that number from that link we killed with our own weapons.

9/21/2006 2:23:19 PM

Quote :

"It is interesting how you seem to be hung up on a failure to fulfill evidence on 1 part of 18 different charges against this country and it's leadership. Perhaps your politically skewed ideas get in the way of logical thought? Or are you simply incapable of such rationality? "

let me ask you this State409c...let me ask everyone this...what do you value more...freedom, or safety/security?

9/21/2006 2:24:16 PM

Quote :

"our "good friends Israel" havent massacred 50,000 of their own citizens...I think if you're ranking what sanctions being broken from bad to not-as-bad, killing 50,000 of your people is on the bad end of the spectrum"

Once again, you completely miss the point of what I posted. I wasn't even talking about the morality of the war or what sanctions were broken. I was talking about how the media didn't point out sanctions because it wasn't Bush's primary focus. You're basically making straw-man arguments.

Quote :

"if you say Bush lied about WMDs, did he knowingly lie? Do you dismiss the possibility that the intelligence community had bad information? Do you dismiss the possibility that Iraq DID have WMDs and either moved them to Syria or buried them under 30 feet of sand?"

I do believe he knowingly lied, but there's no way to prove this now. However, numerous investigations has pointed out that Iraq had no WMDs before the invasion, and the Bush admin. cherry picked known specious intelligence (like solely relying on the word of a expat Iraqi who hated Saddam). Colin Powell's dog and pony mobile WMD lab (which his aides revealed that Powell was suspect of the whole thing), and the resignations Bush's admin saw during the fallout. Considering all that's come out since then, the only 2 options for Bush were that his people were grossly incompetent, or that they lied.

Quote :

"plus how competent is Congress, Democrat and Republican, as well as the general public, if they were so easily swayed into this "false" war?"

Congress and the general public were competent. Bush had far more credibility before the Iraq war, and they pretty much didn't let anyone else know what intel they were using. If you remember, they would tell the media and public, and even congress that they couldn't say how they arrived at their conclusions because of security issues. So all we (the people) knew was that Bush said Iraq was a threat. From what Bush was telling us was the case (Iraq was a threat, teaming with Al-qaeda, and had WMDs ready to use), who WOULDN'T be against the invasion? I personally outwardly supported it, but inwardly knew they were being shady, because they wouldn't tell anyone HOW they knew.

Basically, congress's only option was to call Bush out as a liar, but since they weren't revealing what intel they were using, they were unable to do this. And at this point in time, it wasn't politically acceptable to question Bush. So they had no choice but to take Bush at his word, and go ahead with the war.

[Edited on September 21, 2006 at 2:33 PM. Reason : ]

9/21/2006 2:31:33 PM

Quote :

"as well as the general public, if they were so easily swayed into this "false" war?""

We were easily swayed?

http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/442

I mean, if all the available[to the public] information says Iran has a nuke and plans to use it this weekend, then yea, we have to go to war if we tend to trust our administration isn't lying to us.

9/21/2006 2:47:32 PM

exxxxxxcellent
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5368360.stm

Quote :

"Iraq torture 'worse after Saddam' Torture may be worse now in Iraq than under former leader Saddam Hussein, the UN's chief anti-torture expert says. Manfred Nowak said the situation in Iraq was "out of control", with abuses being committed by security forces, militia groups and anti-US insurgents. "

9/21/2006 11:53:04 PM

not exxxxxxcellent

but you'll probably choose to ignore THE FIRST HAND ACCOUNTS, instead relying on a UNITED NATIONS "EXPERT" who says it may be worse...I wonder if that guy was in on the corrupt Oil-for-Food program?

http://wbt.com/news/detail_ap.cfm;jsessionid=96304997d8c467144153TR?ap_id=D8JLGI300

Quote :

""The villagers were blinded and they were vomiting - only God knows what it was like that night," said Najiba Khider Ahmed, a 41-year-old woman from Sheik Wasan. She described being held in a detention camp for nine days, where her brother and niece disappeared. "During those nine days, it was like the apocalypse. Even Hitler didn't do this," she said, breaking down into tears repeatedly. "Saddam Hussein used to shout about 'the Iraqi People.' If we were his people, why did he bomb us with all sorts of weapons?" She said she had two pregnancies after the attack - the baby in the first was born with skin peeling off, and the second miscarried, born with malformed limbs, which she blamed on the gas attacks. Another survivor, Ali Mostafa Hama, said the chemical bombs let off "greenish smoke. It was if there was a rotten apple or garlic smell minutes later. People were vomiting ... we were blind and screaming. There was no one to rescue us. Just God." Hama, wearing a traditional Kurdish headdress, said he saw a newborn die during the bombardment. "The infant was trying to smell life, but he breathed in the chemicals and died," he said, speaking in Kurdish with an Arabic translator. "

9/22/2006 9:40:52 AM

If im not mistaken that happened in 1988 and a war with Iraq followed not soon after. And regardless of the fact that the first war was for different reasons you think Reagan or Bush would have cared to stop Saddam when he gassed a shitload of people. You say that "liberals" are some how not wanting to help the kurds, well it would have been great if those two shitheads would have helped when it was actually happening.

Also, how does something that happend 18 years ago become something you worry about and even care about today. That same shit is happening to people throughout africa and asia.

and yes I know we need to start some where to stop bad people but the fact that this bad thing happened almost two decades ago seems like some major fuckin back peddling when there are more important things to worry about.....getting nuked by countries that have nukes and hate us.

9/22/2006 10:07:01 AM

Yea, he has been clinging to the whole "the iraqis are better without saddam argument" for awhile now, and uses this incident 18 years ago as the basis.

[Edited on September 22, 2006 at 10:09 AM. Reason : x]

9/22/2006 10:09:02 AM

once 9/11 happened, we actually took this shit seriously...plain and simple...we actually addressed the threats instead of just sitting on our asses

but i'm sure you'll ignore the truth in that statement and talk shit to me for using "right wing talking points"...whatever

9/22/2006 10:09:38 AM

But you do use right wing talking points. I'm not sure you have had an original thought in the week or so I have been here, probably longer.

Quote :

"once 9/11 happened, we actually took this shit seriously...plain and simple...we actually addressed the threats instead of just sitting on our asses"

Oh yea I remember the discussion from earlier, we got attacked by al qaida and turned around and invaded Iraq. I remember now. I guess we do take threats seriously. You know, the ones without weapons or no capability to harm us.

[Edited on September 22, 2006 at 10:17 AM. Reason : a]

9/22/2006 10:15:33 AM

oh look, you ignored the truth and accused me of talking points...go beat off to jon stewart you fucking faggot

you are the most closeminded person on tww

[Edited on September 22, 2006 at 10:18 AM. Reason : .]

9/22/2006 10:18:23 AM

So because of 9/11 we now care about the Kurds now.

thats kinda fucked up.

"oh guys sit tight while we give you false hopes and dreams and then fuck you over..oh shit we just got attack....WE WILL SAVE YOU!!!!!!!"

oh and Afganistan is still a fucking mess

9/22/2006 10:19:07 AM

How many times has this thread gone in a circle?

I just want to see you post an original thought. I don't think it's possible.

[Edited on September 22, 2006 at 10:21 AM. Reason : ps, I don't have standard cable and havent watched TDS in months]

9/22/2006 10:20:34 AM

because of 9/11, we care about THREATS now...threats that previously we sat idle by

State409c have you posted a single original thought? No? ok...

9/22/2006 10:46:06 AM

yeah I thought thats why we invaded Afganistan.

9/22/2006 11:23:56 AM

^^ Iraq was not a threat to us.

Now before you say "yeah, well Sadaam was a threat to his own people", that doens't have anything to do with 9/11. If 9/11 made us go after threats to the US, great. But it can't be used as an excuse to go into any country where a dictator is/was a threat to his own people. If it is, then as has been said many times before, Iraq should not have been at the top of that list.

9/22/2006 11:28:58 AM

and to think other wise you must not believe Iran or North Korea exist

9/22/2006 11:30:19 AM

Quote :

"I guess we do take threats seriously. You know, the ones without weapons or no capability to harm us."

PLEASE, TELL ME ONCE AGAIN HOW WE WERE THREATENED BY IRAQ? AND YOU CAN'T USE HIM GASSING THE KURDS 18 YEARS AGO AS A THREAT TO US YOU MORONIC FOOL.

9/22/2006 11:30:28 AM

Germany wasnt a threat to us in WW2 by you guys' rationale...Hitler was only a threat to his own people and neighboring countries by you guys' rationale...not a direct threat to the United States right?

^sounds like somebody has sand in their vagina...you been swimming too close to the sea floor big boy?

9/22/2006 11:34:29 AM

Quote :

"Germany wasnt a threat to us in WW2 by you guys' rationale"

And you prove yet again that you just are completely incapable of comprehending what you read because this is simply a false statement.

Keep responding though, please, because I think the casual observers of this thread must be amused at the heights your stupidity continues to acheive.

9/22/2006 11:36:27 AM

its more amusing you cant see the obvious potential parallels that I'm attempting to teach you at an 8th grade reading level

Germany - Hitler - oppressed his people - threat to his neighbors, not directly US
Iraq - Saddam - oppressed his people - threat to his neighbors, not directly US

please correct any misinformation here

9/22/2006 11:38:31 AM

thats why we didnt go to war until Japan attacked us. Which forced us into war with Geramny.



[Edited on September 22, 2006 at 11:43 AM. Reason : !]

9/22/2006 11:43:01 AM

A swing and a miss by TreeTwista!!

Still batting 0-infiinity in the soap box.


Besides the reasons we actually went to war in WWII, a batshit crazy dictator wielding a very formidable army, navy, and air force wanting to take over the world is a much greater threat than some guy with basically no military force at all that we kicked the shit out of a decade before.

[Edited on September 22, 2006 at 11:46 AM. Reason : x]

9/22/2006 11:45:00 AM

Quote :

"thats why we didnt go to war until Afghanistan attacked us. Which forced us into war with Iraq. "

sorry did i misread that?

Quote :

"a batshit crazy dictator"

saddam

9/22/2006 11:48:43 AM

Point?

9/22/2006 11:50:04 AM

Germany didnt directly attack us, neither did Iraq

I'm trying to take you through baby steps and you can't even go at that slow of a speed

9/22/2006 11:50:33 AM

Afganistan and Iraq are not allies with massive military might who are attacking the US and a large portion of its allies with a chance of winning.

you just compared Germany and Japan to Iraq and Afganistan....do you even think?

9/22/2006 11:51:26 AM

no you're right...the war on terror is not a bunch of uniformed soldiers with organized troops and a home country...its completely different...we cant wait to be attacked on US soil before we deal with each of our enemies

9/22/2006 11:56:01 AM

honestly I wish you would just go to Iraq and fight some arabs for me.

oh and Im done with this becacause ive got class and im losing brain cells for your backwards logic.

9/22/2006 11:58:57 AM

is that what it would take? Would Iraq have to launch a military attack on our country before you all recognized them as a threat? Is Iran going to have to directly attack the US or are we going to have to have explicit proof that they have a nuclear bomb completed and in working order to recognize them as a threat? Is one of N. Korea's missiles going to have to hit US soil before we recognize them as a threat?

some of you are acting like Saddam was a bumbling idiot with a few jeeps and guns that shot bullets made of sand...course oversimplifying the mental capacity of leaders is something you guys are good at

pre-9/11 you would probably call Usama a bumbling, incompetent, incapable towelhead thats not an immediate threat to the US

9/22/2006 11:59:47 AM

oh Iran and North Korea are threats which need to be dealt with.

too bad we waisted abunch of time, money, and men in Iraq.

and do you even understand how fast we destroyed the Iraq military...twice. It wasnt even really a fight. How the fuck is he going to attack us on US soil?

[Edited on September 22, 2006 at 12:02 PM. Reason : ?]

9/22/2006 12:01:18 PM

I agree Iran and N. Korea need to be dealt with, even though they havent attacked us directly...yet

doesnt change the fact that Saddam was also a threat that needed to be dealt with at some point

Quote :

"and do you even understand how fast we destroyed the Iraq military...twice. It wasnt even really a fight. How the fuck is he going to attack us on US soil?"

we fucked up afghanistan pretty good with our air strikes as well...i mean how the fuck is al queda going to attack us on US soil...oh wait

9/22/2006 12:01:53 PM

they have the ability, Iraq had no such ability

9/22/2006 12:02:34 PM

YOU

CAN'T

BE

THIS

STUPID

CAN

YOU

?

9/22/2006 12:03:34 PM

^that really has nothing to do with anything related to anything relevant

^^Iraq was on their way to having the ability...luckily we got to them before they actually had the ability and attacked us

9/22/2006 12:04:32 PM

so two countries have the ability and one "might" have the ability at some point in the future.

which one should we attack?

9/22/2006 12:07:32 PM

all eventually

but since when does Iran already have the ability?

and in the case of N. Korea, I think we're trying to get China on our side first

9/22/2006 12:09:22 PM

YOU

CAN'T

BE

THIS

STUPID

CAN

YOU

?

9/22/2006 12:28:07 PM

TreeTwista:

Quote :

"I guess you put complete blame on the United States when insurgents do the vast majority of those killings? we fucked up afghanistan pretty good with our air strikes as well...i mean how the fuck is al queda going to attack us on US soil...oh wait"

Thank you Twista ... for helping make the point. The question is, "Is the world safer?"

Before we got involved, there were no insurgents, Saddam didn't have the ability to threaten anyone, and with the way we fucked up Afghanistan, Al Queda was on the skids.

In the eyes of the Muslim countries, using trumped up intellegence to invade a Muslim country smacked of a crusader mentality. It lit a fire under Iran and served as a rallying cry for Al Queda recruitment. Iran had just ended a war with Iraq. The didn't want to go back in there, until the US got involved.

Despite our fondest hopes, it made the world a more dangerous place.

P.S. - We fucked up Afghanistan with airstrikes after 9/11. They didn't do it in spite of our air strikes. They did it before our air strikes.

[Edited on September 23, 2006 at 3:31 PM. Reason : *~<]Bo]

9/23/2006 3:30:03 PM

"hate America first"

9/24/2006 10:08:07 AM

I had no clue pointing out the reality of the situation was "hating America".

9/24/2006 12:49:00 PM

^^ Are you refuting anything, or just calling names? ... I don't hate America. I don't make intentally inflamitory posts. I'm just presenting the facts as I see them. You would make a better case better if you argued with facts, or at least added something.

This just out though, a resent study analyzing data from all 16 of America's intelligence agencies made somewhat the same conclusion that I did. Hot off the presses:

"US report says Iraq fuels terror"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5375064.stm

[Edited on September 24, 2006 at 12:56 PM. Reason : *~<]Bo]

9/24/2006 12:55:52 PM

Quote :

"But White House spokesman Peter Watkins hit back at the newspaper's report, saying: "Their [terrorists'] hatred for freedom and liberty did not develop overnight, those seeds were planted decades ago. "Instead of waiting while they plot and plan attacks to kill innocent Americans, the United States has taken the initiative to fight back." "

Is this guy a fuckhead? Sure, plant seeds, they don't grow until you water em (with the piss from our soldiers) and give them sunlight (from the exploding bombs).

9/24/2006 1:27:59 PM