Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And they fought with Iran all through the '80s. Part of the reason we sold them weapons to begin with. The enemy of my enemy is my friend...that sort of thing.
We(the USA) never sold them weapons.
Iraq was a quasi-soviet client state,armed heavily with soviet weapons systems.
We(the USA) never sold them weapons.
Iraq was a quasi-soviet client state,armed heavily with soviet weapons systems.
That's just a lie. It's well documented that under the Regan/Bush presidencies we sold Saddam millions in chemical, biological and conventional weapons.
Many Democrats in Congress thought so. That is probably why they voted for the invasion.
Because much of the information was false (or, inaccurate, to be more precise).
Because different countries can be handled in different ways. Unlike what the left-wing wackos claim, Bush is not a "warmonger."
The Democrats who said the same things also don't talk about it anymore.
You can turn this into Democrats vs. Republicans as much as your hearts desire, my claim is that any politician that voted for the war was foolish. No one talks about WMDs anymore because it was a retarded claim from the start, and now:
many politicians who voted for the war now try to conveniently separate themselves from Bush because now they are able to speak against the war...
Agreed that different countries need to be handled differently, but Iraq wasn't handled properly, and it seems that we feel that invasion always seem to work....the track record suggests otherwise
And yes, I do believe Bush is somewhat of a warmonger...sorry
I am simply pointing out a seeming incongruity in the lefts 'logic'...
As to the danger of those WMDs, well they sure hurt like the dickens when applied to those innocent Kurds...
So, I guess we better load up and get into Darfur already...while we're at it, let's go into China for their human rights record. N. Korea supposedly has nukes too so lets finish what they started in the 50's
I believe that our fights should be chosen very very carefully. I bet dollars to oil that if all who voted for the war knew this would be the turnout, they wouldn't have been so quick to think 'it'd be easy'. consequences influence decisions
You can turn this into Democrats vs. Republicans as much as your hearts desire, my claim is that any politician that voted for the war was foolish. No one talks about WMDs anymore because it was a retarded claim from the start, and now:
many politicians who voted for the war now try to conveniently separate themselves from Bush because now they are able to speak against the war...
Banned weapons were found. In fact, enough to qualify as Iraq having WMD.
Quote:
Agreed that different countries need to be handled differently, but Iraq wasn't handled properly, and it seems that we feel that invasion always seem to work....the track record suggests otherwise
We don't know yet if it was a success. I mean, the invasion itself was obviously a success... Saddam was removed from power, but we don't know yet if Iraq can become a democratic nation instead of a terrorist nation.
Quote:
And yes, I do believe Bush is somewhat of a warmonger...sorry
Do you think that about the last President? Because he sent more U.S. troops to foreign countries than Bush has.
Banned weapons were found. In fact, enough to qualify as Iraq having WMD.
We don't know yet if it was a success. I mean, the invasion itself was obviously a success... Saddam was removed from power, but we don't know yet if Iraq can become a democratic nation instead of a terrorist nation.
Do you think that about the last President? Because he sent more U.S. troops to foreign countries than Bush has.
Banned weapons were found? All I remember them finding were several Iran-Iraq war facilities that were full of empty or decaying chemical vials, and none even remotely capable of large scale use
As I said, there's a reason no of the politicians talk about WMDs anymore. And, if any Iraqi WMDs were then why would Bush be blaming the intelligence community on 'faulty intel'? I mean, if it were a justified invasion then why the need to spread blame?
Don't see exactly how Clinton sent more troops to foreign countries, in fact, that's not even possible (unless you mean European bases; and not for war)
but what I do know is that these wars have reserve deployments up to levels that succeeded WWII to support a military that's simply stretched too thin
Since no one wishes to adhere to the topic, then I guess this topic is finished.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
and not for war) 