| Author | Post |
|---|
okeegator
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jul 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1269 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 4th, 2008 05:01 am |
|
missk wrote: okeegator wrote: Its a good demonstration of how the evidence supports my argument.
Here's another:
Did WMD's go from Iraq to Syria? The possibility is there and likely one could speculate that it did, but read the articles.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/16/iraq/main643989.shtml
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134625,00.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMD_theories_in_the_aftermath_of_the_2003_Iraq_War
What I wonder is IF Saddam still had these WMD's all of these years and then shipped them out, didn't our invasion of Iraq merely stir the hornet's nest and allow them to more likely end up in the hands of terrorists?
More articles with evidence from the Iraqis themselves that no WMD's existed.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188665,00.html
flawed intel - http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-07-14-both-sides-usat_x.htm
Saddam kept fiction of WMDs alive - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/oct/10/iraq1
British review of Iraqi prewar intel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butler_Report
ENJOY!
Wow, more links. What do you do? research all day long 
it took about 30-45 minutes - just gotta know how to look 
|
missk
Member
| Joined: | Thu Oct 2nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 85 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 4th, 2008 04:51 am |
|
okeegator wrote: Its a good demonstration of how the evidence supports my argument.
Here's another:
Did WMD's go from Iraq to Syria? The possibility is there and likely one could speculate that it did, but read the articles.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/16/iraq/main643989.shtml
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134625,00.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMD_theories_in_the_aftermath_of_the_2003_Iraq_War
What I wonder is IF Saddam still had these WMD's all of these years and then shipped them out, didn't our invasion of Iraq merely stir the hornet's nest and allow them to more likely end up in the hands of terrorists?
More articles with evidence from the Iraqis themselves that no WMD's existed.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188665,00.html
flawed intel - http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-07-14-both-sides-usat_x.htm
Saddam kept fiction of WMDs alive - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/oct/10/iraq1
British review of Iraqi prewar intel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butler_Report
ENJOY!
Wow, more links. What do you do? research all day long
|
okeegator
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jul 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1269 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 4th, 2008 04:42 am |
|
Its a good demonstration of how the evidence supports my argument.
Here's another:
Did WMD's go from Iraq to Syria? The possibility is there and likely one could speculate that it did, but read the articles.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/16/iraq/main643989.shtml
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134625,00.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMD_theories_in_the_aftermath_of_the_2003_Iraq_War
What I wonder is IF Saddam still had these WMD's all of these years and then shipped them out, didn't our invasion of Iraq merely stir the hornet's nest and allow them to more likely end up in the hands of terrorists?
More articles with evidence from the Iraqis themselves that no WMD's existed.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188665,00.html
flawed intel - http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-07-14-both-sides-usat_x.htm
Saddam kept fiction of WMDs alive - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/oct/10/iraq1
British review of Iraqi prewar intel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butler_Report
ENJOY!
|
missk
Member
| Joined: | Thu Oct 2nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 85 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 4th, 2008 04:23 am |
|
okeegator wrote:
Title of article, "Piecing together the story of the weapons that weren't"
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-09-02-WMD-indepth_x.htm
Article about a CIA official who says that the Bush admin ignored evidence of no WMD
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/04/23/cia.iraq/
CIA report that no WMD's found in Iraq
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/
Article about Senate Intelligence Committee report that concludes the pre-war assessments were false or misleading.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2735
Some of the most damning evidence - the source codenamed "Curveball" who was the source of much of the bad info about the WMD.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/01/60minutes/main3440577.shtml
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/popup?id=2948620&contentIndex=1&start=false&page=1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/apr/03/iraq.usa1 - I love the title to this article "US relied on 'drunken liar' to justify war"
Curveball by Bob Drogin
Fiasco by Thomas Ricks - I saw a copy of this one at the public library
Thanks , looks like I have a lot to read.
|
okeegator
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jul 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1269 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 4th, 2008 04:18 am |
|
Title of article, "Piecing together the story of the weapons that weren't"
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-09-02-WMD-indepth_x.htm
Article about a CIA official who says that the Bush admin ignored evidence of no WMD
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/04/23/cia.iraq/
CIA report that no WMD's found in Iraq
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/
Article about Senate Intelligence Committee report that concludes the pre-war assessments were false or misleading.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2735
Some of the most damning evidence - the source codenamed "Curveball" who was the source of much of the bad info about the WMD.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/01/60minutes/main3440577.shtml
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/popup?id=2948620&contentIndex=1&start=false&page=1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/apr/03/iraq.usa1 - I love the title to this article "US relied on 'drunken liar' to justify war"
Curveball by Bob Drogin
Fiasco by Thomas Ricks - I saw a copy of this one at the public library
|
Fl Crkr
Member
|
Posted: Sat Oct 4th, 2008 01:10 am |
|
You can blame 9/11 on all the "stan" countries you want to but the fact is all the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia (15), United Arab Emirates (2), Lebanon (1) or Egypt (1). The United States still has normal relations with these countries.
Lebanon is a parlimentary democracy with a Christian President. This is from the US Dept. of State web site. Saudi Arabia is the largest exporter of oil to the US.
Why did we invade a none participant and continue to deal with the bad guys?
GOVERNMENT
Lebanon is a parliamentary democracy in which the people constitutionally have the right to change their government. However, from the mid-1970s until the parliamentary elections in 1992, civil war precluded the effective exercise of political rights. According to the constitution, direct elections must be held for the parliament every 4 years. Parliament, in turn, is tasked to elect a new president every 6 years. A presidential election scheduled for the autumn of 2004 was pre-empted by a parliamentary vote to extend the sitting President's term in office by 3 years. The president and parliament choose the prime minister. Political parties may be formed. However, the political parties that do exist are weak and mostly based on sectarian interests.
Since the emergence of the post-1943 state, national policy has been determined largely by a relatively restricted group of traditional regional and sectarian leaders. The 1943 national pact, an unwritten agreement that established the political foundations of modern Lebanon, allocated political power on an essentially confessional system based on the 1932 census. Until 1990, seats in parliament were divided on a 6-to-5 ratio of Christians to Muslims (with Druze counted as Muslims). With the Ta'if Agreement, the ratio changed to half and half. Positions in the government bureaucracy are allocated on a similar basis. Indeed, gaining political office is virtually impossible without the firm backing of a particular religious or confessional group. The pact also allocated public offices along religious lines, with the top three positions in the ruling "troika" distributed as follows:
- The presidency is reserved for a Maronite Christian;
- The prime minister, a Sunni Muslim, and
- The speaker of parliament, a Shi'a Muslim.
|
missk
Member
| Joined: | Thu Oct 2nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 85 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 3rd, 2008 09:56 pm |
|
outside the box wrote: ask yourself this; was there ever WMD's in Iraq? Did Sadam use them in the past against his people? And, do you think, with all his money do you think he had the opportunity to move them before we went in?
I don't like that we are over there either but we are. Sadam was just ONE of the terrorist based countries that want us wiped of the face of the earth. He had to go too. Osama has eliminated. Iran, Afganistan and the rest of the STAN countries that support terrorism against us have to be addressed. Call it a starting ground.
Over the years, the united states had done several surprise checks in Iraq, and each time, never found anything, to this day, after being there so many years, they have NEVER found any. That's why I ask, why are we there? We need to spend those funds taking care of our own, not re-building Iraq, theya re very well off with their oil.
|
okeegator
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jul 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1269 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 3rd, 2008 06:35 pm |
|
outside the box wrote: okeegator wrote: outside the box wrote: ask yourself this; was there ever WMD's in Iraq? Did Sadam use them in the past against his people? And, do you think, with all his money do you think he had the opportunity to move them before we went in? I love the speculation. Maybe you should read up on it. I will post a series of articles and books you can read about the subject. You and CT are clearly no informed.
I don't like that we are over there either but we are. Sadam was just ONE of the terrorist based countries that want us wiped of the face of the earth. He had to go too.
But why then? He proved to be no threat to the U.S. and was under control. We could gone to Afghanistan, dealt with the problem there, and then gone to Iraq. No need in attacking one that nothing to do with 9/11 while still not dealing with the country from where it all originated. Osama has eliminated. Iran, Afganistan and the rest of the STAN countries that support terrorism against us have to be addressed. Call it a starting ground.
Afghanistan and Pakistan are the only two "stan" countries where this was an issue. Why didn't we do it then rather then 6.5 years of half-heartedness?
Is it speculation that he in fact had WMD's which he in fact used it against people on a large scale in his own country? Apparently, I am misinformed by this. Do I know for fact he moved them before inspectors found them? No I don't. But I will SPECULATE that that twisted (Sadam) SOB still had some somewhere or the capabilities to get his stockpile up and running in a very short period of time.
I'll show some evidence a bit later.
I would also speculate if we went into other countries to fight terrorism near Iraq that without taking him out, he would have supplied Al Quieda with WMD's, finance weapons ect. which would have led to more American soldier deaths. He was a danger. NOW, this IS speculation of course from outside the box. It's my opinion which is shared by others too. Not everyone. Thats OK. There is enough people who share this view that will keep this country safe.
I argue that the Iraq war was not the distraction we needed at the time. Of course Saddam needed to go, but why then? Bush/Cheney and others over-estimated, planned poorly, and ignored conflicting reports.
I support what we did. It was not a popular decision to make. BUT it had to be made. When we have a new president in the house, I hope he has the balls to make the tough decisions to act to keep our freedoms alive and well. As far as I'm concerned, Hussein Obama doesn't. As soon as he is pressured by the Nation of Islam, he will hesitate. This hesitation could be devistating.
This is simply my opinion. The facts that these nations want us to convert to Islam or die is very clear. There is absolutely no room for Sharia Law in our lives and should never be recognized or practiced in this country. It goes against everything this country is made of. Agreed.
|
okeegator
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jul 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1269 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 3rd, 2008 06:32 pm |
|
Concerned Taxpayer wrote: okeegator wrote: Concerned Taxpayer wrote: okeegator wrote: He proved to be no threat to the U.S. and was under control. We could gone to Afghanistan, dealt with the problem there, and then gone to Iraq. No need in attacking one that nothing to do with 9/11 while still not dealing with the country from where it all originated.
Hillary disagrees with you: "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.
That's fine because I disagree with Hilary and I'm not a fan. She is one of those spineless Democrats who gave Bush the go-ahead based on faulty intelligence. They took his word and the word of George Tenet without any real debate. They were too afraid of getting labeled as un-American by the right.
Obviously, you have no knowledge of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, signed by President Bill Clinton on October 31, 1998. So many of the problems that have occurred during the Bush Administration have their beginnings back to Bill Clinton.
It was Bush's decision/push to go to war based on the context of the time, and in that context Iraq was not the threat that Bush claimed it to be (I will provide more proof later today). We had a more fundamental threat with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and its cells in other parts of the world. Iran's and North Korea's drive for nuclear weapons were/are more credible threats than Hussein. Containment of Saddam and regime change had been the policy of the U.S. government as you demonstrate, but the first one was working well enough to make the second one not yet necessary - not until the Bush administration made its decision for war when we were already fighting one.
You are obviously suffering from acute BDS - "Bush Derangement Syndrome," an irrational and reflexive opposition to anything associated with George W. Bush, which interferes with the mental capacity to think and reason logically and factually. Not quite guilty of that since I did support the surge and his current about-face in terms of Iran.
|
Concerned Taxpayer
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 239 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 3rd, 2008 06:08 pm |
|
okeegator wrote: Concerned Taxpayer wrote: okeegator wrote: He proved to be no threat to the U.S. and was under control. We could gone to Afghanistan, dealt with the problem there, and then gone to Iraq. No need in attacking one that nothing to do with 9/11 while still not dealing with the country from where it all originated.
Hillary disagrees with you: "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.
That's fine because I disagree with Hilary and I'm not a fan. She is one of those spineless Democrats who gave Bush the go-ahead based on faulty intelligence. They took his word and the word of George Tenet without any real debate. They were too afraid of getting labeled as un-American by the right.
Obviously, you have no knowledge of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, signed by President Bill Clinton on October 31, 1998. So many of the problems that have occurred during the Bush Administration have their beginnings back to Bill Clinton.
You are obviously suffering from acute BDS - "Bush Derangement Syndrome," an irrational and reflexive opposition to anything associated with George W. Bush, which interferes with the mental capacity to think and reason logically and factually.
Last edited on Fri Oct 3rd, 2008 06:13 pm by Concerned Taxpayer
|
outside the box
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jul 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 259 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 3rd, 2008 03:44 pm |
|
okeegator wrote: outside the box wrote: ask yourself this; was there ever WMD's in Iraq? Did Sadam use them in the past against his people? And, do you think, with all his money do you think he had the opportunity to move them before we went in? I love the speculation. Maybe you should read up on it. I will post a series of articles and books you can read about the subject. You and CT are clearly no informed.
I don't like that we are over there either but we are. Sadam was just ONE of the terrorist based countries that want us wiped of the face of the earth. He had to go too.
But why then? He proved to be no threat to the U.S. and was under control. We could gone to Afghanistan, dealt with the problem there, and then gone to Iraq. No need in attacking one that nothing to do with 9/11 while still not dealing with the country from where it all originated. Osama has eliminated. Iran, Afganistan and the rest of the STAN countries that support terrorism against us have to be addressed. Call it a starting ground.
Afghanistan and Pakistan are the only two "stan" countries where this was an issue. Why didn't we do it then rather then 6.5 years of half-heartedness?
Is it speculation that he in fact had WMD's which he in fact used it against people on a large scale in his own country? Apparently, I am misinformed by this. Do I know for fact he moved them before inspectors found them? No I don't. But I will SPECULATE that that twisted (Sadam) SOB still had some somewhere or the capabilities to get his stockpile up and running in a very short period of time.
I would also speculate if we went into other countries to fight terrorism near Iraq that without taking him out, he would have supplied Al Quieda with WMD's, finance weapons ect. which would have led to more American soldier deaths. He was a danger. NOW, this IS speculation of course from outside the box. It's my opinion which is shared by others too. Not everyone. Thats OK. There is enough people who share this view that will keep this country safe.
I support what we did. It was not a popular decision to make. BUT it had to be made. When we have a new president in the house, I hope he has the balls to make the tough decisions to act to keep our freedoms alive and well. As far as I'm concerned, Hussein Obama doesn't. As soon as he is pressured by the Nation of Islam, he will hesitate. This hesitation could be devistating.
This is simply my opinion. The facts that these nations want us to convert to Islam or die is very clear. There is absolutely no room for Sharia Law in our lives and should never be recognized or practiced in this country. It goes against everything this country is made of.
Last edited on Fri Oct 3rd, 2008 03:47 pm by outside the box
|
okeegator
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jul 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1269 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 3rd, 2008 01:31 pm |
|
Concerned Taxpayer wrote: okeegator wrote: He proved to be no threat to the U.S. and was under control. We could gone to Afghanistan, dealt with the problem there, and then gone to Iraq. No need in attacking one that nothing to do with 9/11 while still not dealing with the country from where it all originated.
Hillary disagrees with you: "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.
That's fine because I disagree with Hilary and I'm not a fan. She is one of those spineless Democrats who gave Bush the go-ahead based on faulty intelligence. They took his word and the word of George Tenet without any real debate. They were too afraid of getting labeled as un-American by the right.Last edited on Fri Oct 3rd, 2008 01:33 pm by okeegator
|
Concerned Taxpayer
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 239 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 3rd, 2008 01:00 pm |
|
okeegator wrote: He proved to be no threat to the U.S. and was under control. We could gone to Afghanistan, dealt with the problem there, and then gone to Iraq. No need in attacking one that nothing to do with 9/11 while still not dealing with the country from where it all originated.
Hillary disagrees with you: "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.
|
okeegator
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jul 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1269 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 3rd, 2008 05:19 am |
|
outside the box wrote: ask yourself this; was there ever WMD's in Iraq? Did Sadam use them in the past against his people? And, do you think, with all his money do you think he had the opportunity to move them before we went in? I love the speculation. Maybe you should read up on it. I will post a series of articles and books you can read about the subject. You and CT are clearly no informed.
I don't like that we are over there either but we are. Sadam was just ONE of the terrorist based countries that want us wiped of the face of the earth. He had to go too.
But why then? He proved to be no threat to the U.S. and was under control. We could gone to Afghanistan, dealt with the problem there, and then gone to Iraq. No need in attacking one that nothing to do with 9/11 while still not dealing with the country from where it all originated. Osama has eliminated. Iran, Afganistan and the rest of the STAN countries that support terrorism against us have to be addressed. Call it a starting ground.
Afghanistan and Pakistan are the only two "stan" countries where this was an issue. Why didn't we do it then rather then 6.5 years of half-heartedness?
|
Concerned Taxpayer
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 239 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 3rd, 2008 04:57 am |
|
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb. 18, 1998.
"[W]e urge you ... to take necessary actions to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998.
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton’s Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002,
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.
"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23, 2003.
Instead of searching Iraq for its weapons of mass destruction, perhaps we need only ask the Democrats where they are hidden.
|
outside the box
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jul 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 259 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 3rd, 2008 04:17 am |
|
ask yourself this; was there ever WMD's in Iraq? Did Sadam use them in the past against his people? And, do you think, with all his money do you think he had the opportunity to move them before we went in?
I don't like that we are over there either but we are. Sadam was just ONE of the terrorist based countries that want us wiped of the face of the earth. He had to go too. Osama has eliminated. Iran, Afganistan and the rest of the STAN countries that support terrorism against us have to be addressed. Call it a starting ground.
|
okeegator
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jul 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1269 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 3rd, 2008 04:08 am |
|
missk wrote: They always talk about when they are going to pull out,etc. They never talk about why we are really there or why we went there. Does anyone really know why we are at war? Why are we in iraq? Is it really for their oil? They had no weapons of destruction, so why are we there?
911 came and went, we were focused on osama bin laden (sp?), we had to get him in afghanistan, then all of a sudden we are in Iraq. Can anyone explain?
Simple - George Bush/Dick Cheney/spineless Congress. Nuff said.
|
missk
Member
| Joined: | Thu Oct 2nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 85 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 3rd, 2008 03:37 am |
|
They always talk about when they are going to pull out,etc. They never talk about why we are really there or why we went there. Does anyone really know why we are at war? Why are we in iraq? Is it really for their oil? They had no weapons of destruction, so why are we there?
911 came and went, we were focused on osama bin laden (sp?), we had to get him in afghanistan, then all of a sudden we are in Iraq. Can anyone explain?
|
Current time is 03:49 pm | |
|
|
|