Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-19-2013, 10:33 PM
 
29,409 posts, read 21,967,571 times
Reputation: 5455

Advertisements

Odd how nobody mentions that Abdul Yasin who was one of the '93 trade center bombers was living the high life in the America loving Sadaam ruled Iraq. Nah no terrorists in Iraq. Just Mikey Moore flying his kites around with the dancing and prancing republican guard who loved everybody until the evil Bush decided to make some money for Halliburton.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-19-2013, 10:58 PM
 
2,040 posts, read 2,453,097 times
Reputation: 1066
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddlehead View Post
Do you honestly believe Saddam had ANYTHING to do with 9/11? It was self-evident he did not. Smearing Saddam with it was a set up, plain and simple. Saddam knew damn well the US capabilities. He knew it would end his scam. He was a criminal, not a global terrorist. Think about it.
We've already shown that the Bush Administration never said Iraq was involved in 911.

Posted with TapaTalk
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-20-2013, 03:35 PM
 
Location: Pluto's Home Town
9,982 posts, read 13,732,686 times
Reputation: 5689
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bludy-L View Post
We've already shown that the Bush Administration never said Iraq was involved in 911.

Posted with TapaTalk
Ok, then Bush took his eye off the ball.

Either way, he was a fool, who cost thousands of people their lives for no clear purpose.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-20-2013, 04:05 PM
 
Location: Old Bellevue, WA
18,782 posts, read 17,321,941 times
Reputation: 7990
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddlehead View Post
Well, we launched a ten year war against a thug who was not culpable in 9/11. Big, no MASSIVE, screwup. We don't launch wars against thugs. How the hell can you defend that? Sheesh, you folks have no shame, nor standards.
It's not about 'shame' or 'standards.' I don't even know what you mean by that. Again, I was against going to Iraq after 9/11/01, and for most of 2002. I figured that Saddam was contained. Later I changed my mind. The case for it was that

1)at the time, everyone believed that Saddam still had WMD (even Saddam's own generals did).
'
2)Saddam had plenty of terror connections--Abu Nidal, for example was a Palestinian terrorist responsible for 900 deaths according to the state department, and died in Iraq in 2002.

3)there was a newly formed terror network out there that had proved itself capable of striking on US soil

4)Saddam was a vicious tyrant anyway who slaughtered and tortured hundreds of thousands, if not in the millions. Getting rid of him was a favor to humanity.

5)according to Paul Wolfowitz, the war was to have been financed by Iraqi oil. That turned out to be BS of course, and I think was a huge mistake by the Bush admin to backtrack on that policy.

6)there was the thought that we could plant a seed of democracy in Iraq that would spread to other Middle East countries.

All in all, I thought it was a reasonable case for going to Iraq. It's not the clear cut casus belli that a purist would want, but since when has warfare been a purist exercise? The problem to me was not the plan, but the execution thereof, especially with regard to the occupation of Iraq. That was handled badly, and I think Bush kind of implicitly acknowledged that when he replaced Rumsfeld with Gates.

Also in retrospect, the US is not equipped for this kind of operation, with 8 yrs max per admin. This was probably a 25 year undertaking, but we are only equipped for a max 8 year undertaking.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-20-2013, 04:37 PM
 
2,040 posts, read 2,453,097 times
Reputation: 1066
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz View Post

5)according to Paul Wolfowitz, the war was to have been financed by Iraqi oil. That turned out to be BS of course, and I think was a huge mistake by the Bush admin to backtrack on that policy.


That was the original plan and I agreed with it.

But the whiners and the UN forced Bush into allowing the UN to take control of how Iraq's oil would be traded initially until there was a government to make the decisions.

Good post by the way.


Posted with TapaTalk
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-20-2013, 04:39 PM
 
2,040 posts, read 2,453,097 times
Reputation: 1066
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddlehead View Post
Ok, then Bush took his eye off the ball.

Either way, he was a fool, who cost thousands of people their lives for no clear purpose.
No....there were quite a few clear purposes. The only one that didn't turn out as planned was that Saddam had the whole world fooled that he had WMD.

Posted with TapaTalk
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-20-2013, 04:44 PM
 
Location: Long Island
57,060 posts, read 26,024,198 times
Reputation: 15527
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bludy-L View Post
Again......


World News & World Report - reprinted at Real Politics:


Bush, Cheney and the administration have the truth on their side. Exhaustive and authoritative examinations of the prewar intelligence, by the bipartisan report of the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2004, by the Silberman-Robb Commission in 2005 and by the British commission headed by Lord Butler, have established that U.S. intelligence agencies, and the intelligence organizations of leading countries like Britain, France and Germany, believed that Saddam Hussein's regime was in possession of or developing weapons of mass destruction -- chemical and biological weapons, which the regime had used before, and nuclear weapons, which it was working on in the 1980s.

To the charges that Bush "cherry-picked" intelligence, the commission co-chaired by former Democratic Sen. Charles Robb found that the intelligence available to Bush but not to Congress was even more alarming than the intelligence Congress had.

The Silberman-Robb panel also concluded, after a detailed investigation, that in no instance did Bush administration authorities pressure intelligence officials to alter their findings.

Much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. But Bush didn't lie about it.

RealClearPolitics - Commentary - The (Very) Big Lie by Michael Barone

Posted with TapaTalk
I am not questioning that there was intelligence that indicated that there were chemical weapons, I am speaking to the Al Qaeda ties with Hussein that were exaggerated. Also many have mentioned that Bush wanted to invade Iraq before 911, maybe as payback for a planned assassination on his father.

Yes there was bad intelligence but a president needs to be sure it is correct before invading a country, the same bad intelligence existed under Clinton. Bush manipulated the public and congress in a post 911 world for what he, Rumsfeld and Cheney thought would be a quick and easy victory, it was a huge mistake. I don't think he lied but his administration was incompetent, no other way to view it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-20-2013, 04:50 PM
 
Location: Tyler, TX
23,665 posts, read 23,982,865 times
Reputation: 14995
Wow. I opened this thread expecting to see some 7 or 8 year old thread that had been revived, but to my surprise, it's new.

Dude, google is your friend. This stuff has been hashed out over and over and over again, and it ended LONG ago. You're not just beating a dead horse - you're pounding a skeleton. Get over it. Sheesh.

And what are all you guys feeding this troll for? Thirty two pages? Seriously??

Damn. Y'all need to get a life, or something. This is OLD.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-20-2013, 05:04 PM
 
5,762 posts, read 11,615,068 times
Reputation: 3870
Quote:
everyone believed that Saddam still had WMD
Certainly not "everyone" - an entire magazine (The American Conservative) was set up during the prewar debate to offer space for conservative-leaning writers to express their doubts about the war, including the alleged "intelligence" behind a lot of the prewar claims. Pat Buchanan was one of the notable dissenters; Ron Paul's articles for Lew Rockwell and other sites also expressed doubt.

Lew Rockwell's site itself carried dozens of articles disputing the notion that Saddam had "WMD;" most are still online.

Iraq and the United States: Who's Menacing Whom? - By Robert Higgs, August 6, 2002

Quote:
Nobody has presented any evidence that the Iraqis now possess weapons of mass destruction or the effective means, such as ballistic missiles, to deliver such weapons over long distances. Senator Richard Lugar himself admits, "We haven't found the evidence."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-20-2013, 05:11 PM
 
46,892 posts, read 25,860,181 times
Reputation: 29354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bludy-L View Post
No....there were quite a few clear purposes. The only one that didn't turn out as planned was that Saddam had the whole world fooled that he had WMD.
There was considerable public debate about the validity of the WMD claims. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, the infamous aluminum tubes that Condoleeza Rice insisted were solid evidence of a clandestine centrifuge-based enrichment plant were decried as unusable by bona fide US experts.

Who turned out to be right, once it was way too late and didn't do anyone any good.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:04 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top