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.
Amusing that the part of the report that clearly states Iraq was officially supporting terrorism, "The Iraqi regime was involved in regional and international terrorist operations prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom. . . ." will be ignored. Along with the 9/11 report that stated high level contacts between al-Qaeda and Iraqi security officials.
Hillary herself researched the issue on her own and voted for war.
This has always been the argument and justification for the war.
Defenders of the indefensible have had to wander from one flimsy excuse to the next. There was no justification for the invasion. Bush did it anyway. He (and you) will be answering for that for the rest of eternity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaznjohn
Saddam was required by the resolutions to provide verification that he had destroyed his wmd and ceased his wmd programs. He was required to allow the inspectors into these areas and confirm the same. However, since he refused to do both of these...
Contrary to fact. Did Saddam hem and haw and posture? Certainly. Did he refuse? No. He provided reams of papers. UN inspectors were all over the country. None of this was enough for some because in their minds, there never could have been enough. Invasion was to be the outcome regardless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaznjohn
...and because we knew that he had ties to Hamas and Hezbollah, we had to assume that he would be willing to provided these weapons to these organizations.
He had the same connections to those organizations at the time the US was giving him the weapons to begin with. No word from you guys then...except for those "Buy Iraqi War Bonds" bumper stickers on your cars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaznjohn
We couldn't allow this to happen, so regime change had to be initiated. Though there was no link between Saddam and Al Qaeda, I have no doubt had Osama come to Saddam asking for WMD to attack the U.S., Saddam's enemy, that he would've gladly provided the weapons.
Question: At what point during the period in which Saddam very definitely had chemical and biological weapons did he use those weapons against any entity that would have been construed as being related to the interests of the United States? Answer: He never did. He assiduously avoided using chemical or biological weapons in any case where that use might have provoked the US. Never used them against Israel. Never gave them to others to use against Israel. Never used them in Kuwait. Never used them against coalition forces during the Gulf War.
Yet you have no doubt he would have given them to a man he despised and distrusted because that man would promise only to use them to attack the US??? Not very logical. Sounds more like a sloppy attempt at shameless excusification to me...
Amusing that the part of the report that clearly states Iraq was officially supporting terrorism, "The Iraqi regime was involved in regional and international terrorist operations prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom. . . ." will be ignored. Along with the 9/11 report that stated high level contacts between al-Qaeda and Iraqi security officials.
Hillary herself researched the issue on her own and voted for war.
They are now saying that about Iran. Just a matter of time now before we have to go in to save the world from WMDs.
Defenders of the indefensible have had to wander from one flimsy excuse to the next. There was no justification for the invasion. Bush did it anyway. He (and you) will be answering for that for the rest of eternity.
Sorry but your wrong again.. His justification was that Congress approved and authorized an invasion..
They are now saying that about Iran. Just a matter of time now before we have to go in to save the world from WMDs.
Curious. . . . putting aside intelligence data and politics for a moment, would you knowingly let Iran build a nuclear missile that could reach your home? Would you let the neighborhood tough guy aim a gun at you while you stood by and did nothing?
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,281 posts, read 54,060,469 times
Reputation: 40571
Quote:
Originally Posted by LNTT_Vacationer
Amusing that the part of the report that clearly states Iraq was officially supporting terrorism, "The Iraqi regime was involved in regional and international terrorist operations prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom. . . ." will be ignored. Along with the 9/11 report that stated high level contacts between al-Qaeda and Iraqi security officials.
Hillary herself researched the issue on her own and voted for war.
Where does it say Iraq was sponsoring terrorism aimed at the US?
The key word is authorized, it did notmandate invasion.
Congress apparently gave Bush far more credit for judgement than he deserved.
Follow the thread because the other poster stated there was no authorization.. which is exactly what I stated he had. Never did I say that Congress mandated it..
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,281 posts, read 54,060,469 times
Reputation: 40571
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Follow the thread because the other poster stated there was no authorization.. which is exactly what I stated he had. Never did I say that Congress mandated it..
Ifyou read my post you'd see I didn't say anything about you saying mandate, I pointed out that authorize is in no way the equivalent of mandate. That there were conditions with the authorization and I don't believe they were met.
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.