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.
We found nothing of any significance that even remotely posed any threat at all. Every single justification for war has been proven wrong. Period!
I didn't say we found depots of weapons but they were there whether you want to believe it or not. It amazes me how many people will give SH a pass but Bush is the devil. I find it amazing.
I didn't say we found depots of weapons but they were there whether you want to believe it or not. It amazes me how many people will give SH a pass but Bush is the devil. I find it amazing.
Nobodies giving SH a pass, but for Gods sake we never ever ever should have gone to war. There was absolutely no reason for it. it has jepordized our safety, compromised the war in afghanistan, created the largest anti-american islamic insurgency EVER that we will now have to fight for decades to come because we slaughtered so many innocent families and children in Iraq. I honestly can't blame some of them for joining the insurgency when there entire families have been wiped out. Its disgusting what we have done there. So horrible. Too awful for words....
Nobodies giving SH a pass, but for Gods sake we never ever ever should have gone to war. There was absolutely no reason for it. it has jepordized our safety, compromised the war in afghanistan, created the largest anti-american islamic insurgency EVER that we will now have to fight for decades to come because we slaughtered so many innocent families and children in Iraq. I honestly can't blame some of them for joining the insurgency when there entire families have been wiped out. Its disgusting what we have done there. So horrible. Too awful for words....
I agree that we should not have gone to war the difference between you and me is that I do not place all the blame on one man. I do not blame Bush solely. He was given Intel that was bad and was told by Dems and Reps that SH was dangerous. Again I don't think we should have gone, I lost my brother in Iraq so I am very aware of what can be lost because of war but again I don't blame Bush becuase everyone thought SH had WMD including other countries. Bush became the fall guy and that is simply not right.
I agree that we should not have gone to war the difference between you and me is that I do not place all the blame on one man. I do not blame Bush solely. He was given Intel that was bad and was told by Dems and Reps that SH was dangerous. Again I don't think we should have gone, I lost my brother in Iraq so I am very aware of what can be lost because of war but again I don't blame Bush becuase everyone thought SH had WMD including other countries. Bush became the fall guy and that is simply not right.
Im sorry you lost your brother. I feel for you. But I do blame Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfwitz because they knew exactly what they were doing. Saturating the media with these mushroom cloud scenarios, while they cherrypicked unverified intelligence and put that into the NIE. They set up there own intelligence unit inside the Defense Department and used everything that they totally knew was erronious and fake but it supported their case and their grand plans for democracy in the mid-east. they knew exactly what they were doing, and were going to war no matter what. it was never about the intelligence it was about their neoconservative ideology.
Only the truly intellectually dishonest people refuse the facts of history. 9/11 was named the worst attack in US history for a reason. Presidents have plans when they enter the office that more than not never have a chance to be enacted due to having to take reactionary stances. For the first time in history a president took a preemptive stance. In any other situation you can't possibly think of preemptive being a bad thing. But in our national security it is?.... You can disregard 9/11 for whatever fallacy you want. The truth is this has been a truly agitated presidency in which hindsight seems to have played a bigger role while foresight was totally disregarded. In other words you expected Bush to see the future but you didn't/don't expect Clinton or Obama to do the same.
Im sorry you lost your brother. I feel for you. But I do blame Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfwitz because they knew exactly what they were doing. Saturating the media with these mushroom cloud scenarios, while they cherrypicked unverified intelligence and put that into the NIE. They set up there own intelligence unit inside the Defense Department and used everything that they totally knew was erronious and fake but it supported their case and their grand plans for democracy in the mid-east. they knew exactly what they were doing, and were going to war no matter what. it was never about the intelligence it was about their neoconservative ideology.
I'm sorry but you have no way to prove that. It is your hate that makes you believe it. People have said it so many times but that does not make it true. I have read what Dems and Reps in office have said way before Bush decided to go to war and if you think all that talk from people on the Intelligence commity did not help weigh his decision you are mistaken. He was told by other conutires Intel that SH had WMD's. As I said it is easy to sit back and make assumptions when you are not the one getting the info and needing to make the decission. The man had tough choices to make with many people whispering in his ear and I would never want to be in his shoes needing to make those choices.
Nobodies giving SH a pass, but for Gods sake we never ever ever should have gone to war. There was absolutely no reason for it. it has jepordized our safety, compromised the war in afghanistan, created the largest anti-american islamic insurgency EVER that we will now have to fight for decades to come because we slaughtered so many innocent families and children in Iraq. I honestly can't blame some of them for joining the insurgency when there entire families have been wiped out. Its disgusting what we have done there. So horrible. Too awful for words....
So...you think we should have waited until Saddam had nukes pointed at us before we tried to negotiate? Thats what Clinton would do
9/11 was named the worst attack in US history for a reason. Presidents have plans when they enter the office that more than not never have a chance to be enacted due to having to take reactionary stances. For the first time in history a president took a preemptive stance. In any other situation you can't possibly think of preemptive being a bad thing. But in our national security it is?....
No, when it involves spending six+ years, a trillion+ dollars, 4100+ American and 500000+ Iraqi lives, invading the wrong country and letting the actual attackers of our own country go unpunished, it is.
So...you think we should have waited until Saddam had nukes pointed at us before we tried to negotiate? Thats what Clinton would do
Saddam was only our enemy because Bush Sr. and his neocon advisers decided he ought to be. There was never any fundamental reason for the U.S. and Iraq to be enemies.
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.
