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.
They use speeches made by career politicians to justify the lies spread about non existent WMD's and to cover up the fact that the neocons strongarmed Congress, and the nation, into a disastrous war that killed over 4,000 Americans, an untold number of Iraqi's, all so these evil people could gain access to Iraqi crude.
What I really like hearing is them hiding behind the United Nations, an organization they love disparaging until it lined up with their "legal" plans to invade Iraq, then they showcase it as though everything was "legal" and the world supported them.
Some of the largest anti war rallies ever took place in 2003, all over the world. Except for the U.S., of course. Elsewhere millions took to the streets.
I'll bet your head is ready to blow a gasket. You have been proven wrong so many times and you just can't accept that you are wrong.
The quotes were BEFORE bush ever took office. They believed in what they said and voted accordingly and you just can't stand it because it doesn't fit what you want it to be.
I'll bet your head is ready to blow a gasket. You have been proven wrong so many times and you just can't accept that you are wrong.
The quotes were BEFORE bush ever took office. They believed in what they said and voted accordingly and you just can't stand it because it doesn't fit what you want it to be.
I love it!
"Proven" wrong? Maybe to a wingnut, but a wingnut believes that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was not done under false pretense, and is scrambling to spread the blame.
There is no reasoning with that mindset, as to these people, war is a football game.
I really don't care what they "prove", as if using chemical weapons on Kurds, weapons the U.S. provided him, somehow justified an invasion 19 years later.
If chemical weapons justified the removal of this man, why was he not removed in 1991, when the world would have not only approved but helped in his removal?
"Proven" wrong? Maybe to a wingnut, but a wingnut believes that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was not done under false pretense, and is scrambling to spread the blame.
There is no reasoning with that mindset, as to these people, war is a football game.
I really don't care what they "prove", as if using chemical weapons on Kurds, weapons the U.S. provided him, somehow justified an invasion 19 years later.
If chemical weapons justified the removal of this man, why was he not removed in 1991, when the world would have not only approved but helped in his removal?
there were a number of good reasons to invade iraq, only a couple of which dealt with WMDs. dont forget that an armistice was NEVER signed between the US, the UN, and iraq, only a cease fire agreement WHICH saddam CONTINUALLY violated.
If chemical weapons justified the removal of this man, why was he not removed in 1991, when the world would have not only approved but helped in his removal?
Interestingly, Bush was criticized in 1991 for not, "finishing the job". However Bush stuck to the U.N. mandate that stipulated Iraq be removed from Kuwait.
there were a number of good reasons to invade iraq, only a couple of which dealt with WMDs. dont forget that an armistice was NEVER signed between the US, the UN, and iraq, only a cease fire agreement WHICH saddam CONTINUALLY violated.
There are an equally good number of reasons to invade Iran, North Korea, Libya but that doesn't mean it's a good idea.
there were a number of good reasons to invade iraq, only a couple of which dealt with WMDs. dont forget that an armistice was NEVER signed between the US, the UN, and iraq, only a cease fire agreement WHICH saddam CONTINUALLY violated.
So there were "a number of good reasons" to wage a guerrilla war against the Iraqi people that has killed at least 100,000, but more likely over 500,000, innocent civilians? Whether or not WE killed them or whether or not "insurgents" killed them, we lit the fuse and started the fighting.
Furthermore, the rationale for starting the war, as told to not only the American people but the world, was a complete and utter lie. We hold no moral high ground, and we likely never will again after the death and destruction WE caused.
All so we could gain control of the worlds second largest oil reserves. The world knows this, but as this thread proves, much of America does not.
So there were "a number of good reasons" to wage a guerrilla war against the Iraqi people that has killed at least 100,000, but more likely over 500,000, innocent civilians? Whether or not WE killed them or whether or not "insurgents" killed them, we lit the fuse and started the fighting.
Furthermore, the rationale for starting the war, as told to not only the American people but the world, was a complete and utter lie. We hold no moral high ground, and we likely never will again after the death and destruction WE caused.
All so we could gain control of the worlds second largest oil reserves. The world knows this, but as this thread proves, much of America does not.
What you are essentially saying is: "The U.S. is bad and the terrorists are good."
Why don't you direct your criticism to terrorists and Saddam, who had over 500,000 people killed?
When do we "gain control of the world's second largest oil reserves?" Any oil the U.S. receives the U.S. pays for.
There are an equally good number of reasons to invade Iran, North Korea, Libya but that doesn't mean it's a good idea.
really? what good reasons? iran has not recently attacked us directly, and libya was toeing the line in many regards, and while we only have a cease fie agreement with north korea, they have more or less followed the terms of that cease fire agreement since 1953.
so if you think there are good reasons to attack any of the countries you names, lay out your case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by odanny
,
So there were "a number of good reasons" to wage a guerrilla war against the Iraqi people that has killed at least 100,000, but more likely over 500,000, innocent civilians? Whether or not WE killed them or whether or not "insurgents" killed them, we lit the fuse and started the fighting.
Furthermore, the rationale for starting the war, as told to not only the American people but the world, was a complete and utter lie. We hold no moral high ground, and we likely never will again after the death and destruction WE caused.
All so we could gain control of the worlds second largest oil reserves. The world knows this, but as this thread proves, much of America does not.
saddam was a brutal dictator that killed his own citizens, and violated the cease fire agreement continually. in fact he killed more of his own citizens than the coalition ever did in BOTH gulf wars.
as to your charge of the US gaining control of iraqs oil fields, that is pure rubbish, especially when you consider that iraq has already contracted out to sell the oil they produce to europe and china as well as the US and india. your shrill accusations have no merit.
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.
