I wonder if this is the first time a shoe has been thrown at an american president? At least he dodged it, he'd do well on my highschool's dodge ball team I think thats all he'll be rememberd for in history, the president who dodged a shoe, and started a couple wars.
I don't know if he is the only American President to drop a shoe but I bet he's the first one to cause them to become airborne!!
That reporter liked it better in Iraq when throwing a shoe at the president meant watching his wife and daughter get raped while his toes and ears were cut off. What a piece of human trash.
Some people don't deserve saving, but as Americans we should save them anyway because it is the right thing to do. All men and women of freedom can do no less.
Someday, with that mentaility, you will come to my country. And i will kill you, as any other patriot would do, in order to defend my Patria.
Its amazing that some still write the history like they want. The aim or the reason for the Iraw invasion was not to help or to free iraqi people. Did you forget all that the reason was that the US government believed that Hussein was involved with Al Quaida and it was believed that massive destruction weapons was a threat ? None of the reason was right, there were no massive destruction weapons and saddam was not involved with al quaida, the whole iraq war had nothing in common with 911. Not to mention that there was probably a high interest about the Oil ressources, about economical interests and guess what....much parts of it even failed. How many companies pulled out or just did not reached their financial goals in iraq. The press in the US was so biased at this time it was unbelievable, where were the criticial statements in this time...movies were produced i.e. 21 days to bagdad which are full of propaganda and lies. In the last 8 years the bush government lost faith in the world, they told the world "either you are with us or against us", they refused international UN Resolutions and didnt care about it. The conflicts which arised brought the world problems which did not end until now and will still take years to solve them. Why do you think Obama did win the elections, cause peopel want a change and this change is important. The good bye wishes from the houndred of thousands of iraqi civilian victims in form of two shoes is just a small act from one nervous journalist, but dont you think that bush deserves "at least" two shoes ?
Actually the weapons of mass destruction arguemnet was used primarily to get liberals and the french to go along with it. The primary reason was that he was in violation of the cease-fire agreement, and that was reason enough for hostilities to resume.
It was called "Operation Iraqi Freedom," Not "Operation Disarm Saddam."
That reporter liked it better in Iraq when throwing a shoe at the president meant watching his wife and daughter get raped while his toes and ears were cut off. What a piece of human trash.
Some people don't deserve saving, but as Americans we should save them anyway because it is the right thing to do. All men and women of freedom can do no less.
Someday, with that mentaility, you will come to my country. And i will kill you, as any other patriot would do, in order to defend my Patria.
If your women were being raped in government rape rooms, if your people were being lined up, murdered, and filling mass graves, if your people were being gassed -- you would want things to stay that way? You would let your pride and your patriotism keep you enslaved and oppressed?
This does not happen when I take a liberal position on an issue. No conservative on this forum has ever attacked me for being pro-choice, pro gay marriage, against the Patriot Act, in favor of the legalization of all drugs including hard drugs, anti death penalty, against obscenity laws -- or any of the numerous issues I am not conservative on.
Conservative Christians do not attack me for my somewhat Universalist views.
No, if they do disagree with me, it has always been respectful, and they always stick to the issue, instead of making ME the issue.
I doubt I will be attacked by conservatives for believing Obama should Person of the Year, or being in favor of Caroline Kennedy for NY State Senate.
No, this kinda stuff ONLY happens when I take a position that liberals disagree with me on.
This is why I am asking for a liberal to come forward who knows how decent people argue. Well, other than Beatnik and Daily Buzz whom I have already given credit to in other threads for knowing this.
My build: Sapphire Radeon HD 4850, Asus P5GC-MX/1333 Motherboard, 4gb G.SKILL DDR2 667MHz RAM, Core 2 Duo e7200 CPU, 250gb Western Digital SATA Harddrive, Windows Vista Home Basic 64-bit.
LMAO i love that Gif image... this thread is so stupid... yes 50% of americans think he deserved it and 50% of ppl think its stupid. Yes bush saved iraq from saddam. No bush screwed iraq by taking it from Sadam... what i love is Americans dont see the FUTURE... they see the PAST... and when they see the PAST they only see the BAD...
Is iraq better off with there own president elected or with sadam... (obvious question an elected official)
Is iraq better off with the killings and raping from there own ppl or killings and raping from there government (well 1 out of 6 woman in the U.S get raped every year. so id have too say...) killings and raping from there own ppl better because at least that way justice can be served when killing or imprissoning the ppl that did it where when there govnt was doing it nothing could be done about it.
Is iraq better off overall... Yes... Is it because of Bush.... NO..... its because of the proud americans that made it happen. Bush didnt go too iraq and fight... bush didnt go there too help iraqi ppl... bush didnt do squat. PROUD AMERICANS did...
And NO everyone... im not American just so you know.
Its amazing that some still write the history like they want. The aim or the reason for the Iraw invasion was not to help or to free iraqi people. Did you forget all that the reason was that the US government believed that Hussein was involved with Al Quaida and it was believed that massive destruction weapons was a threat ? None of the reason was right, there were no massive destruction weapons and saddam was not involved with al quaida, the whole iraq war had nothing in common with 911. Not to mention that there was probably a high interest about the Oil ressources, about economical interests and guess what....much parts of it even failed. How many companies pulled out or just did not reached their financial goals in iraq. The press in the US was so biased at this time it was unbelievable, where were the criticial statements in this time...movies were produced i.e. 21 days to bagdad which are full of propaganda and lies. In the last 8 years the bush government lost faith in the world, they told the world "either you are with us or against us", they refused international UN Resolutions and didnt care about it. The conflicts which arised brought the world problems which did not end until now and will still take years to solve them. Why do you think Obama did win the elections, cause peopel want a change and this change is important. The good bye wishes from the houndred of thousands of iraqi civilian victims in form of two shoes is just a small act from one nervous journalist, but dont you think that bush deserves "at least" two shoes ?
Actually the weapons of mass destruction arguemnet was used primarily to get liberals and the french to go along with it. The primary reason was that he was in violation of the cease-fire agreement, and that was reason enough for hostilities to resume.
It was called "Operation Iraqi Freedom," Not "Operation Disarm Saddam."
The cease-fire agreement was ratified by the UN 1991 after gulf war I, only some years later Bush didnt care much about the UN in 2003. The operation was called Iraqi Freedom (a name which denies the real reasons) and not Disarm Saddam, but if you use the internet and research for TV cuts you will see that the reasons they did start the Iraq war were assumptions about WMD aswell Al Quaida, these messages were broadcasted around the world. The internet changed a lot and you can research very well.
"was used primarily to get liberals and the french to go along with it."....thats even worse, if lies needs to be spread to get allience members to go along with.
Its amazing that some still write the history like they want. The aim or the reason for the Iraw invasion was not to help or to free iraqi people. Did you forget all that the reason was that the US government believed that Hussein was involved with Al Quaida and it was believed that massive destruction weapons was a threat ? None of the reason was right, there were no massive destruction weapons and saddam was not involved with al quaida, the whole iraq war had nothing in common with 911. Not to mention that there was probably a high interest about the Oil ressources, about economical interests and guess what....much parts of it even failed. How many companies pulled out or just did not reached their financial goals in iraq. The press in the US was so biased at this time it was unbelievable, where were the criticial statements in this time...movies were produced i.e. 21 days to bagdad which are full of propaganda and lies. In the last 8 years the bush government lost faith in the world, they told the world "either you are with us or against us", they refused international UN Resolutions and didnt care about it. The conflicts which arised brought the world problems which did not end until now and will still take years to solve them. Why do you think Obama did win the elections, cause peopel want a change and this change is important. The good bye wishes from the houndred of thousands of iraqi civilian victims in form of two shoes is just a small act from one nervous journalist, but dont you think that bush deserves "at least" two shoes ?
Actually the weapons of mass destruction arguemnet was used primarily to get liberals and the french to go along with it. The primary reason was that he was in violation of the cease-fire agreement, and that was reason enough for hostilities to resume.
It was called "Operation Iraqi Freedom," Not "Operation Disarm Saddam."
The cease-fire agreement was ratified by the UN 1991 after gulf war I, only some years later Bush didnt care much about the UN in 2003. The operation was called Iraqi Freedom (a name which denies the real reasons) and not Disarm Saddam, but if you use the internet and research for TV cuts you will see that the reasons they did start the Iraq war were assumptions about WMD aswell Al Quaida, these messages were broadcasted around the world. The internet changed a lot and you can research very well.
"was used primarily to get liberals and the french to go along with it."....thats even worse, if lies needs to be spread to get allience members to go along with.
Three reasons, none of which had anything to do with Al Qaeda.
According to the President of the United States George W. Bush and former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Tony Blair, the reasons for the invasion were "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."
I choose to view the first reason listed as primarily a way to get the French and liberals on board, you choose to view the last as false. They never said Al Qaeda, they said "terrorism," which was well demonstrated and is still true. He supported global terrorism, and every investigation has shown that. He never said Al Qaeda. Only Cheney said he "wouldn't be surprised," it was never stated as a reason for the war.
As to WMD, they weren't lies -- everyone on earth thought he had them. The lie is that they were lies. They did not find "stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction," as the British, the French -- as everyone's intelligence thought they would, but they did find as general Franks has said, the equivalent of a "disassembled pistol on the table."
If a cop meets a suspect at the scene of a crime, and he sees the guywith his hand in his pocket, the cop says "take your hand out of your pocket." If the suspect does NOT remove his hand out of his pocket, thus revealing that he had no weapon, the cop is entitled to shoot. If it turns out the guy had a candybar in there, it is still the suspect's fault because he was not willing to come forth and remove the threat which was always in his power to do.
Such was what happened with Saddam and WMD.
The cease-fire agreement was violated in numerous ways. Saddam was a monster subjecting his own people to a reign of terror. Iraqi exiles from every faction were begging us to invade. The shiite people had tried, and failed to rise up against him when George HW Bush betrayed them. Saddam flagrantly flaunted several UN Resolutions against him.
There is no question that resuming hostilities against Iraq was justified, and there are multiple angles of justification, depending on what is mots important to YOU as a human being.
If none of the above matters to you, then I suppose it wasn't justified in your eyes.
For me there were more than enough reasons to resume the war that saddam started.
None of this has to do with whether the war was WISE or prudent. Those are two separate issues, which people are mixing in an attempt to bolster the weak argument against justification. Two different things, two sets of arguments, and in those, you'll get two different opinions from me.
The WISDOM of the war will be determined over the course of the next few decades. If Iraq becomes a flourishing democracy and an ally in the defensive war against the Jihad, it'll be seen as a wise move, if not, not. It is all way too early to tell.
Bush made some choices, and it hurt his popularity. So did Harry Truman. History has turned around on Harry, only time will tell if it will turn around on George.
In fact ,en masse, they have violently attempted to resist. Thousands have given their lives to prevent this outcome. It's an extremely divided society, but that appears to be the one single thing that the entire country can agree upon.
There is absolutely nothing moral about forcing "freedom" on people at gunpoint. That is not what freedom is. I cannot think of a more twisted morality than that which is able to label it so.
Best thing about the shoes thrown at Bush? The smug look on his face when he dodged them.
Iraqi's don't want American Freedom. They didn't ask for it. Enough with the delusions.
In fact ,en masse, they have violently attempted to resist. Thousands have given their lives to prevent this outcome. It's an extremely divided society, but that appears to be the one single thing that the entire country can agree upon. There is absolutely nothing moral about forcing "freedom" on people at gunpoint. That is not what freedom is. I cannot think of a more twisted morality than that which is able to label it so.
Best thing about the shoes thrown at Bush? The smug look on his face when he dodged them.
What you say was also said about Japan and Germany. yes, those people didn't want freedom either. The Jews, Gypies and homosexuals were happy to be slaughtered for the reich.
We forced them into Freedom -- I'd say that wirked out pretty well, regardless of what the isolationists said at the time.
Its amazing that some still write the history like they want. The aim or the reason for the Iraw invasion was not to help or to free iraqi people. Did you forget all that the reason was that the US government believed that Hussein was involved with Al Quaida and it was believed that massive destruction weapons was a threat ? None of the reason was right, there were no massive destruction weapons and saddam was not involved with al quaida, the whole iraq war had nothing in common with 911. Not to mention that there was probably a high interest about the Oil ressources, about economical interests and guess what....much parts of it even failed. How many companies pulled out or just did not reached their financial goals in iraq. The press in the US was so biased at this time it was unbelievable, where were the criticial statements in this time...movies were produced i.e. 21 days to bagdad which are full of propaganda and lies. In the last 8 years the bush government lost faith in the world, they told the world "either you are with us or against us", they refused international UN Resolutions and didnt care about it. The conflicts which arised brought the world problems which did not end until now and will still take years to solve them. Why do you think Obama did win the elections, cause peopel want a change and this change is important. The good bye wishes from the houndred of thousands of iraqi civilian victims in form of two shoes is just a small act from one nervous journalist, but dont you think that bush deserves "at least" two shoes ?
Actually the weapons of mass destruction arguemnet was used primarily to get liberals and the french to go along with it. The primary reason was that he was in violation of the cease-fire agreement, and that was reason enough for hostilities to resume.
It was called "Operation Iraqi Freedom," Not "Operation Disarm Saddam."
The cease-fire agreement was ratified by the UN 1991 after gulf war I, only some years later Bush didnt care much about the UN in 2003. The operation was called Iraqi Freedom (a name which denies the real reasons) and not Disarm Saddam, but if you use the internet and research for TV cuts you will see that the reasons they did start the Iraq war were assumptions about WMD aswell Al Quaida, these messages were broadcasted around the world. The internet changed a lot and you can research very well.
"was used primarily to get liberals and the french to go along with it."....thats even worse, if lies needs to be spread to get allience members to go along with.
Three reasons, none of which had anything to do with Al Qaeda.
According to the President of the United States George W. Bush and former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Tony Blair, the reasons for the invasion were "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."
I choose to view the first reason listed as primarily a way to get the French and liberals on board, you choose to view the last as false. They never said Al Qaeda, they said "terrorism," which was well demonstrated and is still true. He supported global terrorism, and every investigation has shown that. He never said Al Qaeda. Only Cheney said he "wouldn't be surprised," it was never stated as a reason for the war.
As to WMD, they weren't lies -- everyone on earth thought he had them. The lie is that they were lies. They did not find "stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction," as the British, the French -- as everyone's intelligence thought they would, but they did find as general Franks has said, the equivalent of a "disassembled pistol on the table."
If a cop meets a suspect at the scene of a crime, and he sees the guywith his hand in his pocket, the cop says "take your hand out of your pocket." If the suspect does NOT remove his hand out of his pocket, thus revealing that he had no weapon, the cop is entitled to shoot. If it turns out the guy had a candybar in there, it is still the suspect's fault because he was not willing to come forth and remove the threat which was always in his power to do.
Such was what happened with Saddam and WMD.
The cease-fire agreement was violated in numerous ways. Saddam was a monster subjecting his own people to a reign of terror. Iraqi exiles from every faction were begging us to invade. The shiite people had tried, and failed to rise up against him when George HW Bush betrayed them. Saddam flagrantly flaunted several UN Resolutions against him.
There is no question that resuming hostilities against Iraq was justified, and there are multiple angles of justification, depending on what is mots important to YOU as a human being.
If none of the above matters to you, then I suppose it wasn't justified in your eyes.
For me there were more than enough reasons to resume the war that saddam started.
None of this has to do with whether the war was WISE or prudent. Those are two separate issues, which people are mixing in an attempt to bolster the weak argument against justification. Two different things, two sets of arguments, and in those, you'll get two different opinions from me.
The WISDOM of the war will be determined over the course of the next few decades. If Iraq becomes a flourishing democracy and an ally in the defensive war against the Jihad, it'll be seen as a wise move, if not, not. It is all way too early to tell.
Bush made some choices, and it hurt his popularity. So did Harry Truman. History has turned around on Harry, only time will tell if it will turn around on George.
Well maybe you did forget, but i remember very well what i did hear and read in the media. I suggest to watch the following short TV videos please. After 911, terrorism was linked to Al Quaida thats why we all, most of the main western countries, did invade Iraq besides the other reasons aswell Afghanistan until now.
As it comes to WMD, if it were not lies it was at least a big mistake at the least the CIA did admit they were mistaken. We dont talk only about lies or misleaded politics, we talk also about mistakes which the bush administration is responsible for. We dont talk about wisdom here, we talk about facts i mentioned already in one of the threads above how the USA lost his faith in the world. You can watch a lot of discussion on TV or anywhere and a lot of qualified or specialized discussion members will agree that the bush administration did a lot of damage to the US aswell to our international confederacies.
I dont want to sound harsh or annoy you, its just not easy to discuss in forums or chat rooms when you dont see your discussion partners
Its amazing that some still write the history like they want. The aim or the reason for the Iraw invasion was not to help or to free iraqi people. Did you forget all that the reason was that the US government believed that Hussein was involved with Al Quaida and it was believed that massive destruction weapons was a threat ? None of the reason was right, there were no massive destruction weapons and saddam was not involved with al quaida, the whole iraq war had nothing in common with 911. Not to mention that there was probably a high interest about the Oil ressources, about economical interests and guess what....much parts of it even failed. How many companies pulled out or just did not reached their financial goals in iraq. The press in the US was so biased at this time it was unbelievable, where were the criticial statements in this time...movies were produced i.e. 21 days to bagdad which are full of propaganda and lies. In the last 8 years the bush government lost faith in the world, they told the world "either you are with us or against us", they refused international UN Resolutions and didnt care about it. The conflicts which arised brought the world problems which did not end until now and will still take years to solve them. Why do you think Obama did win the elections, cause peopel want a change and this change is important. The good bye wishes from the houndred of thousands of iraqi civilian victims in form of two shoes is just a small act from one nervous journalist, but dont you think that bush deserves "at least" two shoes ?
Actually the weapons of mass destruction arguemnet was used primarily to get liberals and the french to go along with it. The primary reason was that he was in violation of the cease-fire agreement, and that was reason enough for hostilities to resume.
It was called "Operation Iraqi Freedom," Not "Operation Disarm Saddam."
The cease-fire agreement was ratified by the UN 1991 after gulf war I, only some years later Bush didnt care much about the UN in 2003. The operation was called Iraqi Freedom (a name which denies the real reasons) and not Disarm Saddam, but if you use the internet and research for TV cuts you will see that the reasons they did start the Iraq war were assumptions about WMD aswell Al Quaida, these messages were broadcasted around the world. The internet changed a lot and you can research very well.
"was used primarily to get liberals and the french to go along with it."....thats even worse, if lies needs to be spread to get allience members to go along with.
Three reasons, none of which had anything to do with Al Qaeda.
According to the President of the United States George W. Bush and former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Tony Blair, the reasons for the invasion were "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."
I choose to view the first reason listed as primarily a way to get the French and liberals on board, you choose to view the last as false. They never said Al Qaeda, they said "terrorism," which was well demonstrated and is still true. He supported global terrorism, and every investigation has shown that. He never said Al Qaeda. Only Cheney said he "wouldn't be surprised," it was never stated as a reason for the war.
As to WMD, they weren't lies -- everyone on earth thought he had them. The lie is that they were lies. They did not find "stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction," as the British, the French -- as everyone's intelligence thought they would, but they did find as general Franks has said, the equivalent of a "disassembled pistol on the table."
If a cop meets a suspect at the scene of a crime, and he sees the guywith his hand in his pocket, the cop says "take your hand out of your pocket." If the suspect does NOT remove his hand out of his pocket, thus revealing that he had no weapon, the cop is entitled to shoot. If it turns out the guy had a candybar in there, it is still the suspect's fault because he was not willing to come forth and remove the threat which was always in his power to do.
Such was what happened with Saddam and WMD.
The cease-fire agreement was violated in numerous ways. Saddam was a monster subjecting his own people to a reign of terror. Iraqi exiles from every faction were begging us to invade. The shiite people had tried, and failed to rise up against him when George HW Bush betrayed them. Saddam flagrantly flaunted several UN Resolutions against him.
There is no question that resuming hostilities against Iraq was justified, and there are multiple angles of justification, depending on what is mots important to YOU as a human being.
If none of the above matters to you, then I suppose it wasn't justified in your eyes.
For me there were more than enough reasons to resume the war that saddam started.
None of this has to do with whether the war was WISE or prudent. Those are two separate issues, which people are mixing in an attempt to bolster the weak argument against justification. Two different things, two sets of arguments, and in those, you'll get two different opinions from me.
The WISDOM of the war will be determined over the course of the next few decades. If Iraq becomes a flourishing democracy and an ally in the defensive war against the Jihad, it'll be seen as a wise move, if not, not. It is all way too early to tell.
Bush made some choices, and it hurt his popularity. So did Harry Truman. History has turned around on Harry, only time will tell if it will turn around on George.
Well maybe you did forget, but i remember very well what i did hear and read in the media. I suggest to watch the following short TV videos please. After 911, terrorism was linked to Al Quaida thats why we all, most of the main western countries, did invade Iraq besides the other reasons aswell Afghanistan until now.
As it comes to WMD, if it were not lies it was at least a big mistake at the least the CIA did admit they were mistaken. We dont talk only about lies or misleaded politics, we talk also about mistakes which the bush administration is responsible for. We dont talk about wisdom here, we talk about facts i mentioned already in one of the threads above how the USA lost his faith in the world. You can watch a lot of discussion on TV or anywhere and a lot of qualified or specialized discussion members will agree that the bush administration did a lot of damage to the US aswell to our international confederacies.
I dont want to sound harsh or annoy you, its just not easy to discuss in forums or chat rooms when you dont see your discussion partners
You're not annoying me, I just disagree. Early on, when no one knew anything, people wondered all sorts of things. The fact is we DID have and still do have intelligence that Saddam's people met with Al Qaeda people, but no OPERATIONAL link was discovered that ever came from it. there were links however, and MANY links of Saddam to global terrorism
Either way, for me, that's not why the resumption of hostilities with Iraq was justified.
there were many reasons given and the one that works for me was he was a really bad guy. That's all we need as a MORAL justification.
All the things you mention has nothing to do with what I am saying. They may be right and they may be interesting and worth discussing, but once again as I am often forced to remind people on these forums, read the thread for context, context context. This is what always happens in long threads.
people were attacking Bush MORALLY, and I responded. that set off the usual attacks from the Bushhaters.
I am ONLY discussing moral justification, not the wisdom of it.
Its amazing that some still write the history like they want. The aim or the reason for the Iraw invasion was not to help or to free iraqi people. Did you forget all that the reason was that the US government believed that Hussein was involved with Al Quaida and it was believed that massive destruction weapons was a threat ? None of the reason was right, there were no massive destruction weapons and saddam was not involved with al quaida, the whole iraq war had nothing in common with 911. Not to mention that there was probably a high interest about the Oil ressources, about economical interests and guess what....much parts of it even failed. How many companies pulled out or just did not reached their financial goals in iraq. The press in the US was so biased at this time it was unbelievable, where were the criticial statements in this time...movies were produced i.e. 21 days to bagdad which are full of propaganda and lies. In the last 8 years the bush government lost faith in the world, they told the world "either you are with us or against us", they refused international UN Resolutions and didnt care about it. The conflicts which arised brought the world problems which did not end until now and will still take years to solve them. Why do you think Obama did win the elections, cause peopel want a change and this change is important. The good bye wishes from the houndred of thousands of iraqi civilian victims in form of two shoes is just a small act from one nervous journalist, but dont you think that bush deserves "at least" two shoes ?
Actually the weapons of mass destruction arguemnet was used primarily to get liberals and the french to go along with it. The primary reason was that he was in violation of the cease-fire agreement, and that was reason enough for hostilities to resume.
It was called "Operation Iraqi Freedom," Not "Operation Disarm Saddam."
The cease-fire agreement was ratified by the UN 1991 after gulf war I, only some years later Bush didnt care much about the UN in 2003. The operation was called Iraqi Freedom (a name which denies the real reasons) and not Disarm Saddam, but if you use the internet and research for TV cuts you will see that the reasons they did start the Iraq war were assumptions about WMD aswell Al Quaida, these messages were broadcasted around the world. The internet changed a lot and you can research very well.
"was used primarily to get liberals and the french to go along with it."....thats even worse, if lies needs to be spread to get allience members to go along with.
Three reasons, none of which had anything to do with Al Qaeda.
According to the President of the United States George W. Bush and former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Tony Blair, the reasons for the invasion were "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."
I choose to view the first reason listed as primarily a way to get the French and liberals on board, you choose to view the last as false. They never said Al Qaeda, they said "terrorism," which was well demonstrated and is still true. He supported global terrorism, and every investigation has shown that. He never said Al Qaeda. Only Cheney said he "wouldn't be surprised," it was never stated as a reason for the war.
As to WMD, they weren't lies -- everyone on earth thought he had them. The lie is that they were lies. They did not find "stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction," as the British, the French -- as everyone's intelligence thought they would, but they did find as general Franks has said, the equivalent of a "disassembled pistol on the table."
If a cop meets a suspect at the scene of a crime, and he sees the guywith his hand in his pocket, the cop says "take your hand out of your pocket." If the suspect does NOT remove his hand out of his pocket, thus revealing that he had no weapon, the cop is entitled to shoot. If it turns out the guy had a candybar in there, it is still the suspect's fault because he was not willing to come forth and remove the threat which was always in his power to do.
Such was what happened with Saddam and WMD.
The cease-fire agreement was violated in numerous ways. Saddam was a monster subjecting his own people to a reign of terror. Iraqi exiles from every faction were begging us to invade. The shiite people had tried, and failed to rise up against him when George HW Bush betrayed them. Saddam flagrantly flaunted several UN Resolutions against him.
There is no question that resuming hostilities against Iraq was justified, and there are multiple angles of justification, depending on what is mots important to YOU as a human being.
If none of the above matters to you, then I suppose it wasn't justified in your eyes.
For me there were more than enough reasons to resume the war that saddam started.
None of this has to do with whether the war was WISE or prudent. Those are two separate issues, which people are mixing in an attempt to bolster the weak argument against justification. Two different things, two sets of arguments, and in those, you'll get two different opinions from me.
The WISDOM of the war will be determined over the course of the next few decades. If Iraq becomes a flourishing democracy and an ally in the defensive war against the Jihad, it'll be seen as a wise move, if not, not. It is all way too early to tell.
Bush made some choices, and it hurt his popularity. So did Harry Truman. History has turned around on Harry, only time will tell if it will turn around on George.
Well maybe you did forget, but i remember very well what i did hear and read in the media. I suggest to watch the following short TV videos please. After 911, terrorism was linked to Al Quaida thats why we all, most of the main western countries, did invade Iraq besides the other reasons aswell Afghanistan until now.
As it comes to WMD, if it were not lies it was at least a big mistake at the least the CIA did admit they were mistaken. We dont talk only about lies or misleaded politics, we talk also about mistakes which the bush administration is responsible for. We dont talk about wisdom here, we talk about facts i mentioned already in one of the threads above how the USA lost his faith in the world. You can watch a lot of discussion on TV or anywhere and a lot of qualified or specialized discussion members will agree that the bush administration did a lot of damage to the US aswell to our international confederacies.
I dont want to sound harsh or annoy you, its just not easy to discuss in forums or chat rooms when you dont see your discussion partners
You're not annoying me, I just disagree. Early on, when no one knew anything, people wondered all sorts of things. The fact is we DID have and still do have intelligence that Saddam's people met with Al Qaeda people, but no OPERATIONAL link was discovered that ever came from it. there were links however, and MANY links of Saddam to global terrorism
Either way, for me, that's not why the resumption of hostilities with Iraq was justified.
there were many reasons given and the one that works for me was he was a really bad guy. That's all we need as a MORAL justification.
All the things you mention has nothing to do with what I am saying. They may be right and they may be interesting and worth discussing, but once again as I am often forced to remind people on these forums, read the thread for context, context context. This is what always happens in long threads.
people were attacking Bush MORALLY, and I responded. that set off the usual attacks from the Bushhaters.
I am ONLY discussing moral justification, not the wisdom of it.
So what do you say to the videos i posted ? I just try to correct you cause you were wrong with some of your assumptions. Even in 2008 the pentagon did announce there was and is no link between Hussein and Al Quaida/911 terrorism to justify the war with it....just read some news or google for it. All i did was answering to some parts of your conclusions. Of course saddam hussein was a bad guy and he deserved to get kicked off his throne, dont get me wrong but we talk about the reasons the bush administrations did sell to the masses and involved over 35 nations into war which were just not correct.
Its amazing that some still write the history like they want. The aim or the reason for the Iraw invasion was not to help or to free iraqi people. Did you forget all that the reason was that the US government believed that Hussein was involved with Al Quaida and it was believed that massive destruction weapons was a threat ? None of the reason was right, there were no massive destruction weapons and saddam was not involved with al quaida, the whole iraq war had nothing in common with 911. Not to mention that there was probably a high interest about the Oil ressources, about economical interests and guess what....much parts of it even failed. How many companies pulled out or just did not reached their financial goals in iraq. The press in the US was so biased at this time it was unbelievable, where were the criticial statements in this time...movies were produced i.e. 21 days to bagdad which are full of propaganda and lies. In the last 8 years the bush government lost faith in the world, they told the world "either you are with us or against us", they refused international UN Resolutions and didnt care about it. The conflicts which arised brought the world problems which did not end until now and will still take years to solve them. Why do you think Obama did win the elections, cause peopel want a change and this change is important. The good bye wishes from the houndred of thousands of iraqi civilian victims in form of two shoes is just a small act from one nervous journalist, but dont you think that bush deserves "at least" two shoes ?
Actually the weapons of mass destruction arguemnet was used primarily to get liberals and the french to go along with it. The primary reason was that he was in violation of the cease-fire agreement, and that was reason enough for hostilities to resume.
It was called "Operation Iraqi Freedom," Not "Operation Disarm Saddam."
The cease-fire agreement was ratified by the UN 1991 after gulf war I, only some years later Bush didnt care much about the UN in 2003. The operation was called Iraqi Freedom (a name which denies the real reasons) and not Disarm Saddam, but if you use the internet and research for TV cuts you will see that the reasons they did start the Iraq war were assumptions about WMD aswell Al Quaida, these messages were broadcasted around the world. The internet changed a lot and you can research very well.
"was used primarily to get liberals and the french to go along with it."....thats even worse, if lies needs to be spread to get allience members to go along with.
Three reasons, none of which had anything to do with Al Qaeda.
According to the President of the United States George W. Bush and former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Tony Blair, the reasons for the invasion were "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."
I choose to view the first reason listed as primarily a way to get the French and liberals on board, you choose to view the last as false. They never said Al Qaeda, they said "terrorism," which was well demonstrated and is still true. He supported global terrorism, and every investigation has shown that. He never said Al Qaeda. Only Cheney said he "wouldn't be surprised," it was never stated as a reason for the war.
As to WMD, they weren't lies -- everyone on earth thought he had them. The lie is that they were lies. They did not find "stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction," as the British, the French -- as everyone's intelligence thought they would, but they did find as general Franks has said, the equivalent of a "disassembled pistol on the table."
If a cop meets a suspect at the scene of a crime, and he sees the guywith his hand in his pocket, the cop says "take your hand out of your pocket." If the suspect does NOT remove his hand out of his pocket, thus revealing that he had no weapon, the cop is entitled to shoot. If it turns out the guy had a candybar in there, it is still the suspect's fault because he was not willing to come forth and remove the threat which was always in his power to do.
Such was what happened with Saddam and WMD.
The cease-fire agreement was violated in numerous ways. Saddam was a monster subjecting his own people to a reign of terror. Iraqi exiles from every faction were begging us to invade. The shiite people had tried, and failed to rise up against him when George HW Bush betrayed them. Saddam flagrantly flaunted several UN Resolutions against him.
There is no question that resuming hostilities against Iraq was justified, and there are multiple angles of justification, depending on what is mots important to YOU as a human being.
If none of the above matters to you, then I suppose it wasn't justified in your eyes.
For me there were more than enough reasons to resume the war that saddam started.
None of this has to do with whether the war was WISE or prudent. Those are two separate issues, which people are mixing in an attempt to bolster the weak argument against justification. Two different things, two sets of arguments, and in those, you'll get two different opinions from me.
The WISDOM of the war will be determined over the course of the next few decades. If Iraq becomes a flourishing democracy and an ally in the defensive war against the Jihad, it'll be seen as a wise move, if not, not. It is all way too early to tell.
Bush made some choices, and it hurt his popularity. So did Harry Truman. History has turned around on Harry, only time will tell if it will turn around on George.
Well maybe you did forget, but i remember very well what i did hear and read in the media. I suggest to watch the following short TV videos please. After 911, terrorism was linked to Al Quaida thats why we all, most of the main western countries, did invade Iraq besides the other reasons aswell Afghanistan until now.
As it comes to WMD, if it were not lies it was at least a big mistake at the least the CIA did admit they were mistaken. We dont talk only about lies or misleaded politics, we talk also about mistakes which the bush administration is responsible for. We dont talk about wisdom here, we talk about facts i mentioned already in one of the threads above how the USA lost his faith in the world. You can watch a lot of discussion on TV or anywhere and a lot of qualified or specialized discussion members will agree that the bush administration did a lot of damage to the US aswell to our international confederacies.
I dont want to sound harsh or annoy you, its just not easy to discuss in forums or chat rooms when you dont see your discussion partners
You're not annoying me, I just disagree. Early on, when no one knew anything, people wondered all sorts of things. The fact is we DID have and still do have intelligence that Saddam's people met with Al Qaeda people, but no OPERATIONAL link was discovered that ever came from it. there were links however, and MANY links of Saddam to global terrorism
Either way, for me, that's not why the resumption of hostilities with Iraq was justified.
there were many reasons given and the one that works for me was he was a really bad guy. That's all we need as a MORAL justification.
All the things you mention has nothing to do with what I am saying. They may be right and they may be interesting and worth discussing, but once again as I am often forced to remind people on these forums, read the thread for context, context context. This is what always happens in long threads.
people were attacking Bush MORALLY, and I responded. that set off the usual attacks from the Bushhaters.
I am ONLY discussing moral justification, not the wisdom of it.
So what do you say to the videos i posted ? I just try to correct you cause you were wrong with some of your assumptions. Even in 2008 the pentagon did announce there was and is no link between Hussein and Al Quaida/911 terrorism to justify the war with it....just read some news or google for it. All i did was answering to some parts of your conclusions. Of course saddam hussein was a bad guy and he deserved to get kicked off his throne, dont get me wrong but we talk about the reasons the bush administrations did sell to the masses and involved over 35 nations into war which were just not correct.
Parced quotes prove nothing. Show me the whole quotes, in context, and we'll talk. In the olberman quote, we are missing the entire beginning (intentionally so, because that's where the qualifiers are), and the second one one can't even tell what is being said there. Olbermann is famous for doing such things, which is why his ratings are in the tank.
Again show me some real evidence and we'll discuss it. Bush never said that Saddam WAS responsible for 9/11 9although yes he said he MIGHT be), he never said that he WAS operationally connected to Al Qaeda (although yes he said he MIGHT be), but go ahead, try again. Show me something compelete and honest.
The pentagon said that there were no operational links between al qaeda and Saddam. but MANY links between him and global terrorism. I have read the report myself .
I gave you the reasons, and they were stated above.
Its amazing that some still write the history like they want. The aim or the reason for the Iraw invasion was not to help or to free iraqi people. Did you forget all that the reason was that the US government believed that Hussein was involved with Al Quaida and it was believed that massive destruction weapons was a threat ? None of the reason was right, there were no massive destruction weapons and saddam was not involved with al quaida, the whole iraq war had nothing in common with 911. Not to mention that there was probably a high interest about the Oil ressources, about economical interests and guess what....much parts of it even failed. How many companies pulled out or just did not reached their financial goals in iraq. The press in the US was so biased at this time it was unbelievable, where were the criticial statements in this time...movies were produced i.e. 21 days to bagdad which are full of propaganda and lies. In the last 8 years the bush government lost faith in the world, they told the world "either you are with us or against us", they refused international UN Resolutions and didnt care about it. The conflicts which arised brought the world problems which did not end until now and will still take years to solve them. Why do you think Obama did win the elections, cause peopel want a change and this change is important. The good bye wishes from the houndred of thousands of iraqi civilian victims in form of two shoes is just a small act from one nervous journalist, but dont you think that bush deserves "at least" two shoes ?
Actually the weapons of mass destruction arguemnet was used primarily to get liberals and the french to go along with it. The primary reason was that he was in violation of the cease-fire agreement, and that was reason enough for hostilities to resume.
It was called "Operation Iraqi Freedom," Not "Operation Disarm Saddam."
The cease-fire agreement was ratified by the UN 1991 after gulf war I, only some years later Bush didnt care much about the UN in 2003. The operation was called Iraqi Freedom (a name which denies the real reasons) and not Disarm Saddam, but if you use the internet and research for TV cuts you will see that the reasons they did start the Iraq war were assumptions about WMD aswell Al Quaida, these messages were broadcasted around the world. The internet changed a lot and you can research very well.
"was used primarily to get liberals and the french to go along with it."....thats even worse, if lies needs to be spread to get allience members to go along with.
Three reasons, none of which had anything to do with Al Qaeda.
According to the President of the United States George W. Bush and former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Tony Blair, the reasons for the invasion were "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."
I choose to view the first reason listed as primarily a way to get the French and liberals on board, you choose to view the last as false. They never said Al Qaeda, they said "terrorism," which was well demonstrated and is still true. He supported global terrorism, and every investigation has shown that. He never said Al Qaeda. Only Cheney said he "wouldn't be surprised," it was never stated as a reason for the war.
As to WMD, they weren't lies -- everyone on earth thought he had them. The lie is that they were lies. They did not find "stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction," as the British, the French -- as everyone's intelligence thought they would, but they did find as general Franks has said, the equivalent of a "disassembled pistol on the table."
If a cop meets a suspect at the scene of a crime, and he sees the guywith his hand in his pocket, the cop says "take your hand out of your pocket." If the suspect does NOT remove his hand out of his pocket, thus revealing that he had no weapon, the cop is entitled to shoot. If it turns out the guy had a candybar in there, it is still the suspect's fault because he was not willing to come forth and remove the threat which was always in his power to do.
Such was what happened with Saddam and WMD.
The cease-fire agreement was violated in numerous ways. Saddam was a monster subjecting his own people to a reign of terror. Iraqi exiles from every faction were begging us to invade. The shiite people had tried, and failed to rise up against him when George HW Bush betrayed them. Saddam flagrantly flaunted several UN Resolutions against him.
There is no question that resuming hostilities against Iraq was justified, and there are multiple angles of justification, depending on what is mots important to YOU as a human being.
If none of the above matters to you, then I suppose it wasn't justified in your eyes.
For me there were more than enough reasons to resume the war that saddam started.
None of this has to do with whether the war was WISE or prudent. Those are two separate issues, which people are mixing in an attempt to bolster the weak argument against justification. Two different things, two sets of arguments, and in those, you'll get two different opinions from me.
The WISDOM of the war will be determined over the course of the next few decades. If Iraq becomes a flourishing democracy and an ally in the defensive war against the Jihad, it'll be seen as a wise move, if not, not. It is all way too early to tell.
Bush made some choices, and it hurt his popularity. So did Harry Truman. History has turned around on Harry, only time will tell if it will turn around on George.
Well maybe you did forget, but i remember very well what i did hear and read in the media. I suggest to watch the following short TV videos please. After 911, terrorism was linked to Al Quaida thats why we all, most of the main western countries, did invade Iraq besides the other reasons aswell Afghanistan until now.
As it comes to WMD, if it were not lies it was at least a big mistake at the least the CIA did admit they were mistaken. We dont talk only about lies or misleaded politics, we talk also about mistakes which the bush administration is responsible for. We dont talk about wisdom here, we talk about facts i mentioned already in one of the threads above how the USA lost his faith in the world. You can watch a lot of discussion on TV or anywhere and a lot of qualified or specialized discussion members will agree that the bush administration did a lot of damage to the US aswell to our international confederacies.
I dont want to sound harsh or annoy you, its just not easy to discuss in forums or chat rooms when you dont see your discussion partners
You're not annoying me, I just disagree. Early on, when no one knew anything, people wondered all sorts of things. The fact is we DID have and still do have intelligence that Saddam's people met with Al Qaeda people, but no OPERATIONAL link was discovered that ever came from it. there were links however, and MANY links of Saddam to global terrorism
Either way, for me, that's not why the resumption of hostilities with Iraq was justified.
there were many reasons given and the one that works for me was he was a really bad guy. That's all we need as a MORAL justification.
All the things you mention has nothing to do with what I am saying. They may be right and they may be interesting and worth discussing, but once again as I am often forced to remind people on these forums, read the thread for context, context context. This is what always happens in long threads.
people were attacking Bush MORALLY, and I responded. that set off the usual attacks from the Bushhaters.
I am ONLY discussing moral justification, not the wisdom of it.
So what do you say to the videos i posted ? I just try to correct you cause you were wrong with some of your assumptions. Even in 2008 the pentagon did announce there was and is no link between Hussein and Al Quaida/911 terrorism to justify the war with it....just read some news or google for it. All i did was answering to some parts of your conclusions. Of course saddam hussein was a bad guy and he deserved to get kicked off his throne, dont get me wrong but we talk about the reasons the bush administrations did sell to the masses and involved over 35 nations into war which were just not correct.
Parced quotes prove nothing. Show me the whole quotes, in context, and we'll talk. In the olberman quote, we are missing the entire beginning (intentionally so, because that's where the qualifiers are), and the second one one can't even tell what is being said there. Olbermann is famous for doing such things, which is why his ratings are in the tank.
Again show me some real evidence and we'll discuss it. Bush never said that Saddam WAS responsible for 9/11 9although yes he said he MIGHT be), he never said that he WAS operationally connected to Al Qaeda (although yes he said he MIGHT be), but go ahead, try again. Show me something compelete and honest.
The pentagon said that there were no operational links between al qaeda and Saddam. but MANY links between him and global terrorism. I have read the report myself .
I gave you the reasons, and they were stated above.
Its amazing that some still write the history like they want. The aim or the reason for the Iraw invasion was not to help or to free iraqi people. Did you forget all that the reason was that the US government believed that Hussein was involved with Al Quaida and it was believed that massive destruction weapons was a threat ? None of the reason was right, there were no massive destruction weapons and saddam was not involved with al quaida, the whole iraq war had nothing in common with 911. Not to mention that there was probably a high interest about the Oil ressources, about economical interests and guess what....much parts of it even failed. How many companies pulled out or just did not reached their financial goals in iraq. The press in the US was so biased at this time it was unbelievable, where were the criticial statements in this time...movies were produced i.e. 21 days to bagdad which are full of propaganda and lies. In the last 8 years the bush government lost faith in the world, they told the world "either you are with us or against us", they refused international UN Resolutions and didnt care about it. The conflicts which arised brought the world problems which did not end until now and will still take years to solve them. Why do you think Obama did win the elections, cause peopel want a change and this change is important. The good bye wishes from the houndred of thousands of iraqi civilian victims in form of two shoes is just a small act from one nervous journalist, but dont you think that bush deserves "at least" two shoes ?
Actually the weapons of mass destruction arguemnet was used primarily to get liberals and the french to go along with it. The primary reason was that he was in violation of the cease-fire agreement, and that was reason enough for hostilities to resume.
It was called "Operation Iraqi Freedom," Not "Operation Disarm Saddam."
The cease-fire agreement was ratified by the UN 1991 after gulf war I, only some years later Bush didnt care much about the UN in 2003. The operation was called Iraqi Freedom (a name which denies the real reasons) and not Disarm Saddam, but if you use the internet and research for TV cuts you will see that the reasons they did start the Iraq war were assumptions about WMD aswell Al Quaida, these messages were broadcasted around the world. The internet changed a lot and you can research very well.
"was used primarily to get liberals and the french to go along with it."....thats even worse, if lies needs to be spread to get allience members to go along with.
Three reasons, none of which had anything to do with Al Qaeda.
According to the President of the United States George W. Bush and former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Tony Blair, the reasons for the invasion were "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."
I choose to view the first reason listed as primarily a way to get the French and liberals on board, you choose to view the last as false. They never said Al Qaeda, they said "terrorism," which was well demonstrated and is still true. He supported global terrorism, and every investigation has shown that. He never said Al Qaeda. Only Cheney said he "wouldn't be surprised," it was never stated as a reason for the war.
As to WMD, they weren't lies -- everyone on earth thought he had them. The lie is that they were lies. They did not find "stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction," as the British, the French -- as everyone's intelligence thought they would, but they did find as general Franks has said, the equivalent of a "disassembled pistol on the table."
If a cop meets a suspect at the scene of a crime, and he sees the guywith his hand in his pocket, the cop says "take your hand out of your pocket." If the suspect does NOT remove his hand out of his pocket, thus revealing that he had no weapon, the cop is entitled to shoot. If it turns out the guy had a candybar in there, it is still the suspect's fault because he was not willing to come forth and remove the threat which was always in his power to do.
Such was what happened with Saddam and WMD.
The cease-fire agreement was violated in numerous ways. Saddam was a monster subjecting his own people to a reign of terror. Iraqi exiles from every faction were begging us to invade. The shiite people had tried, and failed to rise up against him when George HW Bush betrayed them. Saddam flagrantly flaunted several UN Resolutions against him.
There is no question that resuming hostilities against Iraq was justified, and there are multiple angles of justification, depending on what is mots important to YOU as a human being.
If none of the above matters to you, then I suppose it wasn't justified in your eyes.
For me there were more than enough reasons to resume the war that saddam started.
None of this has to do with whether the war was WISE or prudent. Those are two separate issues, which people are mixing in an attempt to bolster the weak argument against justification. Two different things, two sets of arguments, and in those, you'll get two different opinions from me.
The WISDOM of the war will be determined over the course of the next few decades. If Iraq becomes a flourishing democracy and an ally in the defensive war against the Jihad, it'll be seen as a wise move, if not, not. It is all way too early to tell.
Bush made some choices, and it hurt his popularity. So did Harry Truman. History has turned around on Harry, only time will tell if it will turn around on George.
Well maybe you did forget, but i remember very well what i did hear and read in the media. I suggest to watch the following short TV videos please. After 911, terrorism was linked to Al Quaida thats why we all, most of the main western countries, did invade Iraq besides the other reasons aswell Afghanistan until now.
As it comes to WMD, if it were not lies it was at least a big mistake at the least the CIA did admit they were mistaken. We dont talk only about lies or misleaded politics, we talk also about mistakes which the bush administration is responsible for. We dont talk about wisdom here, we talk about facts i mentioned already in one of the threads above how the USA lost his faith in the world. You can watch a lot of discussion on TV or anywhere and a lot of qualified or specialized discussion members will agree that the bush administration did a lot of damage to the US aswell to our international confederacies.
I dont want to sound harsh or annoy you, its just not easy to discuss in forums or chat rooms when you dont see your discussion partners
You're not annoying me, I just disagree. Early on, when no one knew anything, people wondered all sorts of things. The fact is we DID have and still do have intelligence that Saddam's people met with Al Qaeda people, but no OPERATIONAL link was discovered that ever came from it. there were links however, and MANY links of Saddam to global terrorism
Either way, for me, that's not why the resumption of hostilities with Iraq was justified.
there were many reasons given and the one that works for me was he was a really bad guy. That's all we need as a MORAL justification.
All the things you mention has nothing to do with what I am saying. They may be right and they may be interesting and worth discussing, but once again as I am often forced to remind people on these forums, read the thread for context, context context. This is what always happens in long threads.
people were attacking Bush MORALLY, and I responded. that set off the usual attacks from the Bushhaters.
I am ONLY discussing moral justification, not the wisdom of it.
So what do you say to the videos i posted ? I just try to correct you cause you were wrong with some of your assumptions. Even in 2008 the pentagon did announce there was and is no link between Hussein and Al Quaida/911 terrorism to justify the war with it....just read some news or google for it. All i did was answering to some parts of your conclusions. Of course saddam hussein was a bad guy and he deserved to get kicked off his throne, dont get me wrong but we talk about the reasons the bush administrations did sell to the masses and involved over 35 nations into war which were just not correct.
Parced quotes prove nothing. Show me the whole quotes, in context, and we'll talk. In the olberman quote, we are missing the entire beginning (intentionally so, because that's where the qualifiers are), and the second one one can't even tell what is being said there. Olbermann is famous for doing such things, which is why his ratings are in the tank.
Again show me some real evidence and we'll discuss it. Bush never said that Saddam WAS responsible for 9/11 9although yes he said he MIGHT be), he never said that he WAS operationally connected to Al Qaeda (although yes he said he MIGHT be), but go ahead, try again. Show me something compelete and honest.
The pentagon said that there were no operational links between al qaeda and Saddam. but MANY links between him and global terrorism. I have read the report myself .
I gave you the reasons, and they were stated above.
?
Well just google for it, easy to find.
I did and I read the entire speech. Nothing gave as a reason for going to war his links to al qaeda. the state of the Union address was not where he stated his reasons for going to war.
Sorry, nothing you are saying discounts anything I am saying. Our intelligence DID at the time say what Bush said -- just because sybsequent intelligence called that into question (in part, but not completely), doesn't mean he was lying when he said it in january 2003.
There WERE links between Al Qaeda and Saddam, just not operational ones. However, that was NOT one of the stated reasons for war.
Richard B. Myers, MBA, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on Sep. 18, 2002 stated the following in testimony before the US House Armed Services Committee:
"The Iraqi regime has also allowed its country to be a haven for terrorists. Since the 1970s, organizations such as the Abu Nidal Organization, Palestinian Liberation Front and Mujahadeen-e-Khalq have found sanctuary within Iraq's borders. Over the past few months, with the demise of their safe haven in Afghanistan, some al Qaida operatives have relocated to Iraq. Baghdad's support for international terrorist organizations ranges from explicit and overt support to implicit and passive acquiescence."
Laurie Mylroie, PhD, Adjunct Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, stated in an Oct. 19, 2004 New York Sun article titled "Saddam's Terrorist Ties":
"The report of the Iraq Survey Group presents further evidence of Iraq's involvement in hostile activities. It includes the most comprehensive account ["Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq's WMD" Sep. 30, 2004] of the Iraqi Intelligence Service ever published in open-source literature, depicting an organization that consisted of 'over twenty compartmentalized directorates.' Section M-14 included the 'Tiger Group' - 'primarily composed of suicide bombers.' It also supervised the 'Challenge Project,' a highly secretive enterprise involved with explosives, about which the Iraq Survey Group could learn little. Another section - M-21 - was formed in 1990 to create explosive devices for Iraqi intelligence. Its chemistry department developed explosive materials; its electronics department prepared timers and wiring; and its mechanical department produced igniters and designed the bombs.
This picture shows the substantial, longstanding involvement of Iraq's intelligence services in terrorist training and support operations, including collaboration with Islamic militants. Its activities were infinitely more sophisticated than anything that was taught to the mujahideen fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan."
Intelligence said -- Plenty of operational links to world terrorism. plenty of operational links to Islamist groups, plenty of links with Al Qaeda, and history has proven that out.
Again he never said used Saddam and Al Qaeda as a REASON to go to war, and never said there were definitive, operational links between him and Al Qaeda, or between him and 9-11.
The case was more complex than you are making it, if you actually read the words he said.
THE SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE has once again released a report claiming that the Bush administration hyped prewar intelligence. The so-called Phase Two report is supposed to investigate the Bush administration's handling of prewar intelligence. In reality, the report is little more than yet another attempt by partisan Democrats to make political hay out of flawed prewar intelligence. (The only Republicans to endorse the report were two of the Senate's most liberal GOP members.) The committee focused exclusively on prewar statements by Bush administration officials, ignoring similar statements by leading Democrats. Therefore, the report is intended to portray the Bush administration in the worst possible light. But even with this bias, the committee came to a noteworthy conclusion: The Bush administration was right to claim that Saddam's regime was harboring al Qaeda members.
The Senate Intelligence Committee's report includes this conclusion at the end of a terse section on the Bush administration's claims about Saddam's prewar terror ties:
Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other al Qaeda-related terrorist members were substantiated by the intelligence assessments.
Intelligence assessments noted Zarqawi's presence in Iraq and his ability to travel and operate within the country. The intelligence community generally believed that Iraqi intelligence must have known about, and therefore at least tolerated, Zarqawi's presence in the country.
Regarding postwar information collected by the U.S. intelligence community, the report reads:
Postwar information supports prewar assessments and statements that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was in Baghdad and that al Qaeda was present in northern Iraq."
Once again, none of this was used as a REASON for going to war, it was part of the conversation that led up to the war, but the reasons were what I stated about.
Now granted, neither of us were clear in our discussion: you claimed it was due to "assumptions" about WMD and assumptions about al qaeda, without stating what those assumptions were -- and I said it wasn't, without asking what those assumptions were. and since you weren't clear about what you meant, mine even strayed further from clarity. This kinda stuff often happens in internet conversations, where people aren't clear enough because they use too much brevity.
bush and Cheney did say there were connections, and that Saddam harbored people from Al Qaeda, and it turns out that HE DID.
However, and this is my key point -- those were never stated as reasons for resuming hostilities.
"Once again, none of this was used as a REASON for going to war, it was part of the conversation that led up to the war, but the reasons were what I stated about."
The reason why bush is in trouble with arguementations about this subject is that the CIA did also missinform him. But it was broadcasted around the world that one of the main points iraq get or got attacked was informations about WMD, links to alquaida .....its nice to see that you distinguish beween operational and none operational links to al quaida but that was not sold to the masses in the media.
I never posted anything which leads to the assumption that saddam was responsible for 911, but the messages around the world that saddam was linked to terrorism around al quaida. The media is and was full of these informations in every kind of release about the three main points why the US with their partner nations did start the war. That all did lead to the situation which the US is in at the moment, the world lost faith and that will hopefully change with the new president and a different foreign policy.
"Once again, none of this was used as a REASON for going to war, it was part of the conversation that led up to the war, but the reasons were what I stated about." The reason why bush is in trouble with arguementations about this subject is that the CIA did also missinform him. But it was broadcasted around the world that one of the main points iraq get or got attacked was informations about WMD, links to alquaida .....its nice to see that you distinguish beween operational and none operational links to al quaida but that was not sold to the masses in the media. The media is and was full of these informations in every kind of release about the three main points why the US with their partner nations did start the war. That all did lead to the situation which the US is in at the moment, the world lost faith and that will hopefully change with the new president and a different foreign policy.
Sorry, that's just wrong. Links to al qeada were never stated as reasons for going to war, and nothing you say shows that.
According to the President of the United States George W. Bush and former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Tony Blair, the reasons for the invasion were "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. American and coalition forces have begun a concerted campaign against the regime of Saddam Hussein. In this war, our coalition is broad, more than 40 countries from across the globe. Our cause is just, the security of the nations we serve and the peace of the world. And our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people.
No al qaeda in that statement, which was where the reasons were actually stated.
Comments
I don't know if he is the only American President to drop a shoe but I bet he's the first one to cause them to become airborne!!
Some people don't deserve saving, but as Americans we should save them anyway because it is the right thing to do. All men and women of freedom can do no less.
Someday, with that mentaility, you will come to my country. And i will kill you, as any other patriot would do, in order to defend my Patria.
Actually the weapons of mass destruction arguemnet was used primarily to get liberals and the french to go along with it. The primary reason was that he was in violation of the cease-fire agreement, and that was reason enough for hostilities to resume.
It was called "Operation Iraqi Freedom," Not "Operation Disarm Saddam."
fishermage.blogspot.com
Some people don't deserve saving, but as Americans we should save them anyway because it is the right thing to do. All men and women of freedom can do no less.
Someday, with that mentaility, you will come to my country. And i will kill you, as any other patriot would do, in order to defend my Patria.
If your women were being raped in government rape rooms, if your people were being lined up, murdered, and filling mass graves, if your people were being gassed -- you would want things to stay that way? You would let your pride and your patriotism keep you enslaved and oppressed?
fishermage.blogspot.com
This does not happen when I take a liberal position on an issue. No conservative on this forum has ever attacked me for being pro-choice, pro gay marriage, against the Patriot Act, in favor of the legalization of all drugs including hard drugs, anti death penalty, against obscenity laws -- or any of the numerous issues I am not conservative on.
Conservative Christians do not attack me for my somewhat Universalist views.
No, if they do disagree with me, it has always been respectful, and they always stick to the issue, instead of making ME the issue.
I doubt I will be attacked by conservatives for believing Obama should Person of the Year, or being in favor of Caroline Kennedy for NY State Senate.
No, this kinda stuff ONLY happens when I take a position that liberals disagree with me on.
This is why I am asking for a liberal to come forward who knows how decent people argue. Well, other than Beatnik and Daily Buzz whom I have already given credit to in other threads for knowing this.
fishermage.blogspot.com
My build: Sapphire Radeon HD 4850, Asus P5GC-MX/1333 Motherboard, 4gb G.SKILL DDR2 667MHz RAM, Core 2 Duo e7200 CPU, 250gb Western Digital SATA Harddrive, Windows Vista Home Basic 64-bit.
LMAO i love that Gif image... this thread is so stupid... yes 50% of americans think he deserved it and 50% of ppl think its stupid. Yes bush saved iraq from saddam. No bush screwed iraq by taking it from Sadam... what i love is Americans dont see the FUTURE... they see the PAST... and when they see the PAST they only see the BAD...
Is iraq better off with there own president elected or with sadam... (obvious question an elected official)
Is iraq better off with the killings and raping from there own ppl or killings and raping from there government (well 1 out of 6 woman in the U.S get raped every year. so id have too say...) killings and raping from there own ppl better because at least that way justice can be served when killing or imprissoning the ppl that did it where when there govnt was doing it nothing could be done about it.
Is iraq better off overall... Yes... Is it because of Bush.... NO..... its because of the proud americans that made it happen. Bush didnt go too iraq and fight... bush didnt go there too help iraqi ppl... bush didnt do squat. PROUD AMERICANS did...
And NO everyone... im not American just so you know.
Actually the weapons of mass destruction arguemnet was used primarily to get liberals and the french to go along with it. The primary reason was that he was in violation of the cease-fire agreement, and that was reason enough for hostilities to resume.
It was called "Operation Iraqi Freedom," Not "Operation Disarm Saddam."
The cease-fire agreement was ratified by the UN 1991 after gulf war I, only some years later Bush didnt care much about the UN in 2003. The operation was called Iraqi Freedom (a name which denies the real reasons) and not Disarm Saddam, but if you use the internet and research for TV cuts you will see that the reasons they did start the Iraq war were assumptions about WMD aswell Al Quaida, these messages were broadcasted around the world. The internet changed a lot and you can research very well.
"was used primarily to get liberals and the french to go along with it."....thats even worse, if lies needs to be spread to get allience members to go along with.
Actually the weapons of mass destruction arguemnet was used primarily to get liberals and the french to go along with it. The primary reason was that he was in violation of the cease-fire agreement, and that was reason enough for hostilities to resume.
It was called "Operation Iraqi Freedom," Not "Operation Disarm Saddam."
The cease-fire agreement was ratified by the UN 1991 after gulf war I, only some years later Bush didnt care much about the UN in 2003. The operation was called Iraqi Freedom (a name which denies the real reasons) and not Disarm Saddam, but if you use the internet and research for TV cuts you will see that the reasons they did start the Iraq war were assumptions about WMD aswell Al Quaida, these messages were broadcasted around the world. The internet changed a lot and you can research very well.
"was used primarily to get liberals and the french to go along with it."....thats even worse, if lies needs to be spread to get allience members to go along with.
Three reasons, none of which had anything to do with Al Qaeda.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq
According to the President of the United States George W. Bush and former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Tony Blair, the reasons for the invasion were "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."
I choose to view the first reason listed as primarily a way to get the French and liberals on board, you choose to view the last as false. They never said Al Qaeda, they said "terrorism," which was well demonstrated and is still true. He supported global terrorism, and every investigation has shown that. He never said Al Qaeda. Only Cheney said he "wouldn't be surprised," it was never stated as a reason for the war.
As to WMD, they weren't lies -- everyone on earth thought he had them. The lie is that they were lies. They did not find "stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction," as the British, the French -- as everyone's intelligence thought they would, but they did find as general Franks has said, the equivalent of a "disassembled pistol on the table."
If a cop meets a suspect at the scene of a crime, and he sees the guywith his hand in his pocket, the cop says "take your hand out of your pocket." If the suspect does NOT remove his hand out of his pocket, thus revealing that he had no weapon, the cop is entitled to shoot. If it turns out the guy had a candybar in there, it is still the suspect's fault because he was not willing to come forth and remove the threat which was always in his power to do.
Such was what happened with Saddam and WMD.
The cease-fire agreement was violated in numerous ways. Saddam was a monster subjecting his own people to a reign of terror. Iraqi exiles from every faction were begging us to invade. The shiite people had tried, and failed to rise up against him when George HW Bush betrayed them. Saddam flagrantly flaunted several UN Resolutions against him.
There is no question that resuming hostilities against Iraq was justified, and there are multiple angles of justification, depending on what is mots important to YOU as a human being.
If none of the above matters to you, then I suppose it wasn't justified in your eyes.
For me there were more than enough reasons to resume the war that saddam started.
None of this has to do with whether the war was WISE or prudent. Those are two separate issues, which people are mixing in an attempt to bolster the weak argument against justification. Two different things, two sets of arguments, and in those, you'll get two different opinions from me.
The WISDOM of the war will be determined over the course of the next few decades. If Iraq becomes a flourishing democracy and an ally in the defensive war against the Jihad, it'll be seen as a wise move, if not, not. It is all way too early to tell.
Bush made some choices, and it hurt his popularity. So did Harry Truman. History has turned around on Harry, only time will tell if it will turn around on George.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Iraqi's don't want American Freedom.
They didn't ask for it.
Enough with the delusions.
In fact ,en masse, they have violently attempted to resist. Thousands have given their lives to prevent this outcome. It's an extremely divided society, but that appears to be the one single thing that the entire country can agree upon.
There is absolutely nothing moral about forcing "freedom" on people at gunpoint. That is not what freedom is. I cannot think of a more twisted morality than that which is able to label it so.
Best thing about the shoes thrown at Bush? The smug look on his face when he dodged them.
Actually, they asked for it for years.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_National_Congress
What you say was also said about Japan and Germany. yes, those people didn't want freedom either. The Jews, Gypies and homosexuals were happy to be slaughtered for the reich.
We forced them into Freedom -- I'd say that wirked out pretty well, regardless of what the isolationists said at the time.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Actually the weapons of mass destruction arguemnet was used primarily to get liberals and the french to go along with it. The primary reason was that he was in violation of the cease-fire agreement, and that was reason enough for hostilities to resume.
It was called "Operation Iraqi Freedom," Not "Operation Disarm Saddam."
The cease-fire agreement was ratified by the UN 1991 after gulf war I, only some years later Bush didnt care much about the UN in 2003. The operation was called Iraqi Freedom (a name which denies the real reasons) and not Disarm Saddam, but if you use the internet and research for TV cuts you will see that the reasons they did start the Iraq war were assumptions about WMD aswell Al Quaida, these messages were broadcasted around the world. The internet changed a lot and you can research very well.
"was used primarily to get liberals and the french to go along with it."....thats even worse, if lies needs to be spread to get allience members to go along with.
Three reasons, none of which had anything to do with Al Qaeda.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq
According to the President of the United States George W. Bush and former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Tony Blair, the reasons for the invasion were "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."
I choose to view the first reason listed as primarily a way to get the French and liberals on board, you choose to view the last as false. They never said Al Qaeda, they said "terrorism," which was well demonstrated and is still true. He supported global terrorism, and every investigation has shown that. He never said Al Qaeda. Only Cheney said he "wouldn't be surprised," it was never stated as a reason for the war.
As to WMD, they weren't lies -- everyone on earth thought he had them. The lie is that they were lies. They did not find "stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction," as the British, the French -- as everyone's intelligence thought they would, but they did find as general Franks has said, the equivalent of a "disassembled pistol on the table."
If a cop meets a suspect at the scene of a crime, and he sees the guywith his hand in his pocket, the cop says "take your hand out of your pocket." If the suspect does NOT remove his hand out of his pocket, thus revealing that he had no weapon, the cop is entitled to shoot. If it turns out the guy had a candybar in there, it is still the suspect's fault because he was not willing to come forth and remove the threat which was always in his power to do.
Such was what happened with Saddam and WMD.
The cease-fire agreement was violated in numerous ways. Saddam was a monster subjecting his own people to a reign of terror. Iraqi exiles from every faction were begging us to invade. The shiite people had tried, and failed to rise up against him when George HW Bush betrayed them. Saddam flagrantly flaunted several UN Resolutions against him.
There is no question that resuming hostilities against Iraq was justified, and there are multiple angles of justification, depending on what is mots important to YOU as a human being.
If none of the above matters to you, then I suppose it wasn't justified in your eyes.
For me there were more than enough reasons to resume the war that saddam started.
None of this has to do with whether the war was WISE or prudent. Those are two separate issues, which people are mixing in an attempt to bolster the weak argument against justification. Two different things, two sets of arguments, and in those, you'll get two different opinions from me.
The WISDOM of the war will be determined over the course of the next few decades. If Iraq becomes a flourishing democracy and an ally in the defensive war against the Jihad, it'll be seen as a wise move, if not, not. It is all way too early to tell.
Bush made some choices, and it hurt his popularity. So did Harry Truman. History has turned around on Harry, only time will tell if it will turn around on George.
Well maybe you did forget, but i remember very well what i did hear and read in the media. I suggest to watch the following short TV videos please. After 911, terrorism was linked to Al Quaida thats why we all, most of the main western countries, did invade Iraq besides the other reasons aswell Afghanistan until now.
TV Cut with Bush
www.youtube.com/watch
TV Cut with Vice President
www.youtube.com/watch
As it comes to WMD, if it were not lies it was at least a big mistake at the least the CIA did admit they were mistaken. We dont talk only about lies or misleaded politics, we talk also about mistakes which the bush administration is responsible for. We dont talk about wisdom here, we talk about facts i mentioned already in one of the threads above how the USA lost his faith in the world. You can watch a lot of discussion on TV or anywhere and a lot of qualified or specialized discussion members will agree that the bush administration did a lot of damage to the US aswell to our international confederacies.
I dont want to sound harsh or annoy you, its just not easy to discuss in forums or chat rooms when you dont see your discussion partners
Actually the weapons of mass destruction arguemnet was used primarily to get liberals and the french to go along with it. The primary reason was that he was in violation of the cease-fire agreement, and that was reason enough for hostilities to resume.
It was called "Operation Iraqi Freedom," Not "Operation Disarm Saddam."
The cease-fire agreement was ratified by the UN 1991 after gulf war I, only some years later Bush didnt care much about the UN in 2003. The operation was called Iraqi Freedom (a name which denies the real reasons) and not Disarm Saddam, but if you use the internet and research for TV cuts you will see that the reasons they did start the Iraq war were assumptions about WMD aswell Al Quaida, these messages were broadcasted around the world. The internet changed a lot and you can research very well.
"was used primarily to get liberals and the french to go along with it."....thats even worse, if lies needs to be spread to get allience members to go along with.
Three reasons, none of which had anything to do with Al Qaeda.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq
According to the President of the United States George W. Bush and former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Tony Blair, the reasons for the invasion were "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."
I choose to view the first reason listed as primarily a way to get the French and liberals on board, you choose to view the last as false. They never said Al Qaeda, they said "terrorism," which was well demonstrated and is still true. He supported global terrorism, and every investigation has shown that. He never said Al Qaeda. Only Cheney said he "wouldn't be surprised," it was never stated as a reason for the war.
As to WMD, they weren't lies -- everyone on earth thought he had them. The lie is that they were lies. They did not find "stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction," as the British, the French -- as everyone's intelligence thought they would, but they did find as general Franks has said, the equivalent of a "disassembled pistol on the table."
If a cop meets a suspect at the scene of a crime, and he sees the guywith his hand in his pocket, the cop says "take your hand out of your pocket." If the suspect does NOT remove his hand out of his pocket, thus revealing that he had no weapon, the cop is entitled to shoot. If it turns out the guy had a candybar in there, it is still the suspect's fault because he was not willing to come forth and remove the threat which was always in his power to do.
Such was what happened with Saddam and WMD.
The cease-fire agreement was violated in numerous ways. Saddam was a monster subjecting his own people to a reign of terror. Iraqi exiles from every faction were begging us to invade. The shiite people had tried, and failed to rise up against him when George HW Bush betrayed them. Saddam flagrantly flaunted several UN Resolutions against him.
There is no question that resuming hostilities against Iraq was justified, and there are multiple angles of justification, depending on what is mots important to YOU as a human being.
If none of the above matters to you, then I suppose it wasn't justified in your eyes.
For me there were more than enough reasons to resume the war that saddam started.
None of this has to do with whether the war was WISE or prudent. Those are two separate issues, which people are mixing in an attempt to bolster the weak argument against justification. Two different things, two sets of arguments, and in those, you'll get two different opinions from me.
The WISDOM of the war will be determined over the course of the next few decades. If Iraq becomes a flourishing democracy and an ally in the defensive war against the Jihad, it'll be seen as a wise move, if not, not. It is all way too early to tell.
Bush made some choices, and it hurt his popularity. So did Harry Truman. History has turned around on Harry, only time will tell if it will turn around on George.
Well maybe you did forget, but i remember very well what i did hear and read in the media. I suggest to watch the following short TV videos please. After 911, terrorism was linked to Al Quaida thats why we all, most of the main western countries, did invade Iraq besides the other reasons aswell Afghanistan until now.
TV Cut with Bush
www.youtube.com/watch
TV Cut with Vice President
www.youtube.com/watch
As it comes to WMD, if it were not lies it was at least a big mistake at the least the CIA did admit they were mistaken. We dont talk only about lies or misleaded politics, we talk also about mistakes which the bush administration is responsible for. We dont talk about wisdom here, we talk about facts i mentioned already in one of the threads above how the USA lost his faith in the world. You can watch a lot of discussion on TV or anywhere and a lot of qualified or specialized discussion members will agree that the bush administration did a lot of damage to the US aswell to our international confederacies.
I dont want to sound harsh or annoy you, its just not easy to discuss in forums or chat rooms when you dont see your discussion partners
You're not annoying me, I just disagree. Early on, when no one knew anything, people wondered all sorts of things. The fact is we DID have and still do have intelligence that Saddam's people met with Al Qaeda people, but no OPERATIONAL link was discovered that ever came from it. there were links however, and MANY links of Saddam to global terrorism
Either way, for me, that's not why the resumption of hostilities with Iraq was justified.
there were many reasons given and the one that works for me was he was a really bad guy. That's all we need as a MORAL justification.
All the things you mention has nothing to do with what I am saying. They may be right and they may be interesting and worth discussing, but once again as I am often forced to remind people on these forums, read the thread for context, context context. This is what always happens in long threads.
people were attacking Bush MORALLY, and I responded. that set off the usual attacks from the Bushhaters.
I am ONLY discussing moral justification, not the wisdom of it.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Actually the weapons of mass destruction arguemnet was used primarily to get liberals and the french to go along with it. The primary reason was that he was in violation of the cease-fire agreement, and that was reason enough for hostilities to resume.
It was called "Operation Iraqi Freedom," Not "Operation Disarm Saddam."
The cease-fire agreement was ratified by the UN 1991 after gulf war I, only some years later Bush didnt care much about the UN in 2003. The operation was called Iraqi Freedom (a name which denies the real reasons) and not Disarm Saddam, but if you use the internet and research for TV cuts you will see that the reasons they did start the Iraq war were assumptions about WMD aswell Al Quaida, these messages were broadcasted around the world. The internet changed a lot and you can research very well.
"was used primarily to get liberals and the french to go along with it."....thats even worse, if lies needs to be spread to get allience members to go along with.
Three reasons, none of which had anything to do with Al Qaeda.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq
According to the President of the United States George W. Bush and former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Tony Blair, the reasons for the invasion were "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."
I choose to view the first reason listed as primarily a way to get the French and liberals on board, you choose to view the last as false. They never said Al Qaeda, they said "terrorism," which was well demonstrated and is still true. He supported global terrorism, and every investigation has shown that. He never said Al Qaeda. Only Cheney said he "wouldn't be surprised," it was never stated as a reason for the war.
As to WMD, they weren't lies -- everyone on earth thought he had them. The lie is that they were lies. They did not find "stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction," as the British, the French -- as everyone's intelligence thought they would, but they did find as general Franks has said, the equivalent of a "disassembled pistol on the table."
If a cop meets a suspect at the scene of a crime, and he sees the guywith his hand in his pocket, the cop says "take your hand out of your pocket." If the suspect does NOT remove his hand out of his pocket, thus revealing that he had no weapon, the cop is entitled to shoot. If it turns out the guy had a candybar in there, it is still the suspect's fault because he was not willing to come forth and remove the threat which was always in his power to do.
Such was what happened with Saddam and WMD.
The cease-fire agreement was violated in numerous ways. Saddam was a monster subjecting his own people to a reign of terror. Iraqi exiles from every faction were begging us to invade. The shiite people had tried, and failed to rise up against him when George HW Bush betrayed them. Saddam flagrantly flaunted several UN Resolutions against him.
There is no question that resuming hostilities against Iraq was justified, and there are multiple angles of justification, depending on what is mots important to YOU as a human being.
If none of the above matters to you, then I suppose it wasn't justified in your eyes.
For me there were more than enough reasons to resume the war that saddam started.
None of this has to do with whether the war was WISE or prudent. Those are two separate issues, which people are mixing in an attempt to bolster the weak argument against justification. Two different things, two sets of arguments, and in those, you'll get two different opinions from me.
The WISDOM of the war will be determined over the course of the next few decades. If Iraq becomes a flourishing democracy and an ally in the defensive war against the Jihad, it'll be seen as a wise move, if not, not. It is all way too early to tell.
Bush made some choices, and it hurt his popularity. So did Harry Truman. History has turned around on Harry, only time will tell if it will turn around on George.
Well maybe you did forget, but i remember very well what i did hear and read in the media. I suggest to watch the following short TV videos please. After 911, terrorism was linked to Al Quaida thats why we all, most of the main western countries, did invade Iraq besides the other reasons aswell Afghanistan until now.
TV Cut with Bush
www.youtube.com/watch
TV Cut with Vice President
www.youtube.com/watch
As it comes to WMD, if it were not lies it was at least a big mistake at the least the CIA did admit they were mistaken. We dont talk only about lies or misleaded politics, we talk also about mistakes which the bush administration is responsible for. We dont talk about wisdom here, we talk about facts i mentioned already in one of the threads above how the USA lost his faith in the world. You can watch a lot of discussion on TV or anywhere and a lot of qualified or specialized discussion members will agree that the bush administration did a lot of damage to the US aswell to our international confederacies.
I dont want to sound harsh or annoy you, its just not easy to discuss in forums or chat rooms when you dont see your discussion partners
You're not annoying me, I just disagree. Early on, when no one knew anything, people wondered all sorts of things. The fact is we DID have and still do have intelligence that Saddam's people met with Al Qaeda people, but no OPERATIONAL link was discovered that ever came from it. there were links however, and MANY links of Saddam to global terrorism
Either way, for me, that's not why the resumption of hostilities with Iraq was justified.
there were many reasons given and the one that works for me was he was a really bad guy. That's all we need as a MORAL justification.
All the things you mention has nothing to do with what I am saying. They may be right and they may be interesting and worth discussing, but once again as I am often forced to remind people on these forums, read the thread for context, context context. This is what always happens in long threads.
people were attacking Bush MORALLY, and I responded. that set off the usual attacks from the Bushhaters.
I am ONLY discussing moral justification, not the wisdom of it.
So what do you say to the videos i posted ? I just try to correct you cause you were wrong with some of your assumptions. Even in 2008 the pentagon did announce there was and is no link between Hussein and Al Quaida/911 terrorism to justify the war with it....just read some news or google for it. All i did was answering to some parts of your conclusions. Of course saddam hussein was a bad guy and he deserved to get kicked off his throne, dont get me wrong but we talk about the reasons the bush administrations did sell to the masses and involved over 35 nations into war which were just not correct.
Actually the weapons of mass destruction arguemnet was used primarily to get liberals and the french to go along with it. The primary reason was that he was in violation of the cease-fire agreement, and that was reason enough for hostilities to resume.
It was called "Operation Iraqi Freedom," Not "Operation Disarm Saddam."
The cease-fire agreement was ratified by the UN 1991 after gulf war I, only some years later Bush didnt care much about the UN in 2003. The operation was called Iraqi Freedom (a name which denies the real reasons) and not Disarm Saddam, but if you use the internet and research for TV cuts you will see that the reasons they did start the Iraq war were assumptions about WMD aswell Al Quaida, these messages were broadcasted around the world. The internet changed a lot and you can research very well.
"was used primarily to get liberals and the french to go along with it."....thats even worse, if lies needs to be spread to get allience members to go along with.
Three reasons, none of which had anything to do with Al Qaeda.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq
According to the President of the United States George W. Bush and former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Tony Blair, the reasons for the invasion were "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."
I choose to view the first reason listed as primarily a way to get the French and liberals on board, you choose to view the last as false. They never said Al Qaeda, they said "terrorism," which was well demonstrated and is still true. He supported global terrorism, and every investigation has shown that. He never said Al Qaeda. Only Cheney said he "wouldn't be surprised," it was never stated as a reason for the war.
As to WMD, they weren't lies -- everyone on earth thought he had them. The lie is that they were lies. They did not find "stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction," as the British, the French -- as everyone's intelligence thought they would, but they did find as general Franks has said, the equivalent of a "disassembled pistol on the table."
If a cop meets a suspect at the scene of a crime, and he sees the guywith his hand in his pocket, the cop says "take your hand out of your pocket." If the suspect does NOT remove his hand out of his pocket, thus revealing that he had no weapon, the cop is entitled to shoot. If it turns out the guy had a candybar in there, it is still the suspect's fault because he was not willing to come forth and remove the threat which was always in his power to do.
Such was what happened with Saddam and WMD.
The cease-fire agreement was violated in numerous ways. Saddam was a monster subjecting his own people to a reign of terror. Iraqi exiles from every faction were begging us to invade. The shiite people had tried, and failed to rise up against him when George HW Bush betrayed them. Saddam flagrantly flaunted several UN Resolutions against him.
There is no question that resuming hostilities against Iraq was justified, and there are multiple angles of justification, depending on what is mots important to YOU as a human being.
If none of the above matters to you, then I suppose it wasn't justified in your eyes.
For me there were more than enough reasons to resume the war that saddam started.
None of this has to do with whether the war was WISE or prudent. Those are two separate issues, which people are mixing in an attempt to bolster the weak argument against justification. Two different things, two sets of arguments, and in those, you'll get two different opinions from me.
The WISDOM of the war will be determined over the course of the next few decades. If Iraq becomes a flourishing democracy and an ally in the defensive war against the Jihad, it'll be seen as a wise move, if not, not. It is all way too early to tell.
Bush made some choices, and it hurt his popularity. So did Harry Truman. History has turned around on Harry, only time will tell if it will turn around on George.
Well maybe you did forget, but i remember very well what i did hear and read in the media. I suggest to watch the following short TV videos please. After 911, terrorism was linked to Al Quaida thats why we all, most of the main western countries, did invade Iraq besides the other reasons aswell Afghanistan until now.
TV Cut with Bush
www.youtube.com/watch
TV Cut with Vice President
www.youtube.com/watch
As it comes to WMD, if it were not lies it was at least a big mistake at the least the CIA did admit they were mistaken. We dont talk only about lies or misleaded politics, we talk also about mistakes which the bush administration is responsible for. We dont talk about wisdom here, we talk about facts i mentioned already in one of the threads above how the USA lost his faith in the world. You can watch a lot of discussion on TV or anywhere and a lot of qualified or specialized discussion members will agree that the bush administration did a lot of damage to the US aswell to our international confederacies.
I dont want to sound harsh or annoy you, its just not easy to discuss in forums or chat rooms when you dont see your discussion partners
You're not annoying me, I just disagree. Early on, when no one knew anything, people wondered all sorts of things. The fact is we DID have and still do have intelligence that Saddam's people met with Al Qaeda people, but no OPERATIONAL link was discovered that ever came from it. there were links however, and MANY links of Saddam to global terrorism
Either way, for me, that's not why the resumption of hostilities with Iraq was justified.
there were many reasons given and the one that works for me was he was a really bad guy. That's all we need as a MORAL justification.
All the things you mention has nothing to do with what I am saying. They may be right and they may be interesting and worth discussing, but once again as I am often forced to remind people on these forums, read the thread for context, context context. This is what always happens in long threads.
people were attacking Bush MORALLY, and I responded. that set off the usual attacks from the Bushhaters.
I am ONLY discussing moral justification, not the wisdom of it.
So what do you say to the videos i posted ? I just try to correct you cause you were wrong with some of your assumptions. Even in 2008 the pentagon did announce there was and is no link between Hussein and Al Quaida/911 terrorism to justify the war with it....just read some news or google for it. All i did was answering to some parts of your conclusions. Of course saddam hussein was a bad guy and he deserved to get kicked off his throne, dont get me wrong but we talk about the reasons the bush administrations did sell to the masses and involved over 35 nations into war which were just not correct.
Parced quotes prove nothing. Show me the whole quotes, in context, and we'll talk. In the olberman quote, we are missing the entire beginning (intentionally so, because that's where the qualifiers are), and the second one one can't even tell what is being said there. Olbermann is famous for doing such things, which is why his ratings are in the tank.
Again show me some real evidence and we'll discuss it. Bush never said that Saddam WAS responsible for 9/11 9although yes he said he MIGHT be), he never said that he WAS operationally connected to Al Qaeda (although yes he said he MIGHT be), but go ahead, try again. Show me something compelete and honest.
The pentagon said that there were no operational links between al qaeda and Saddam. but MANY links between him and global terrorism. I have read the report myself .
I gave you the reasons, and they were stated above.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Actually the weapons of mass destruction arguemnet was used primarily to get liberals and the french to go along with it. The primary reason was that he was in violation of the cease-fire agreement, and that was reason enough for hostilities to resume.
It was called "Operation Iraqi Freedom," Not "Operation Disarm Saddam."
The cease-fire agreement was ratified by the UN 1991 after gulf war I, only some years later Bush didnt care much about the UN in 2003. The operation was called Iraqi Freedom (a name which denies the real reasons) and not Disarm Saddam, but if you use the internet and research for TV cuts you will see that the reasons they did start the Iraq war were assumptions about WMD aswell Al Quaida, these messages were broadcasted around the world. The internet changed a lot and you can research very well.
"was used primarily to get liberals and the french to go along with it."....thats even worse, if lies needs to be spread to get allience members to go along with.
Three reasons, none of which had anything to do with Al Qaeda.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq
According to the President of the United States George W. Bush and former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Tony Blair, the reasons for the invasion were "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."
I choose to view the first reason listed as primarily a way to get the French and liberals on board, you choose to view the last as false. They never said Al Qaeda, they said "terrorism," which was well demonstrated and is still true. He supported global terrorism, and every investigation has shown that. He never said Al Qaeda. Only Cheney said he "wouldn't be surprised," it was never stated as a reason for the war.
As to WMD, they weren't lies -- everyone on earth thought he had them. The lie is that they were lies. They did not find "stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction," as the British, the French -- as everyone's intelligence thought they would, but they did find as general Franks has said, the equivalent of a "disassembled pistol on the table."
If a cop meets a suspect at the scene of a crime, and he sees the guywith his hand in his pocket, the cop says "take your hand out of your pocket." If the suspect does NOT remove his hand out of his pocket, thus revealing that he had no weapon, the cop is entitled to shoot. If it turns out the guy had a candybar in there, it is still the suspect's fault because he was not willing to come forth and remove the threat which was always in his power to do.
Such was what happened with Saddam and WMD.
The cease-fire agreement was violated in numerous ways. Saddam was a monster subjecting his own people to a reign of terror. Iraqi exiles from every faction were begging us to invade. The shiite people had tried, and failed to rise up against him when George HW Bush betrayed them. Saddam flagrantly flaunted several UN Resolutions against him.
There is no question that resuming hostilities against Iraq was justified, and there are multiple angles of justification, depending on what is mots important to YOU as a human being.
If none of the above matters to you, then I suppose it wasn't justified in your eyes.
For me there were more than enough reasons to resume the war that saddam started.
None of this has to do with whether the war was WISE or prudent. Those are two separate issues, which people are mixing in an attempt to bolster the weak argument against justification. Two different things, two sets of arguments, and in those, you'll get two different opinions from me.
The WISDOM of the war will be determined over the course of the next few decades. If Iraq becomes a flourishing democracy and an ally in the defensive war against the Jihad, it'll be seen as a wise move, if not, not. It is all way too early to tell.
Bush made some choices, and it hurt his popularity. So did Harry Truman. History has turned around on Harry, only time will tell if it will turn around on George.
Well maybe you did forget, but i remember very well what i did hear and read in the media. I suggest to watch the following short TV videos please. After 911, terrorism was linked to Al Quaida thats why we all, most of the main western countries, did invade Iraq besides the other reasons aswell Afghanistan until now.
TV Cut with Bush
www.youtube.com/watch
TV Cut with Vice President
www.youtube.com/watch
As it comes to WMD, if it were not lies it was at least a big mistake at the least the CIA did admit they were mistaken. We dont talk only about lies or misleaded politics, we talk also about mistakes which the bush administration is responsible for. We dont talk about wisdom here, we talk about facts i mentioned already in one of the threads above how the USA lost his faith in the world. You can watch a lot of discussion on TV or anywhere and a lot of qualified or specialized discussion members will agree that the bush administration did a lot of damage to the US aswell to our international confederacies.
I dont want to sound harsh or annoy you, its just not easy to discuss in forums or chat rooms when you dont see your discussion partners
You're not annoying me, I just disagree. Early on, when no one knew anything, people wondered all sorts of things. The fact is we DID have and still do have intelligence that Saddam's people met with Al Qaeda people, but no OPERATIONAL link was discovered that ever came from it. there were links however, and MANY links of Saddam to global terrorism
Either way, for me, that's not why the resumption of hostilities with Iraq was justified.
there were many reasons given and the one that works for me was he was a really bad guy. That's all we need as a MORAL justification.
All the things you mention has nothing to do with what I am saying. They may be right and they may be interesting and worth discussing, but once again as I am often forced to remind people on these forums, read the thread for context, context context. This is what always happens in long threads.
people were attacking Bush MORALLY, and I responded. that set off the usual attacks from the Bushhaters.
I am ONLY discussing moral justification, not the wisdom of it.
So what do you say to the videos i posted ? I just try to correct you cause you were wrong with some of your assumptions. Even in 2008 the pentagon did announce there was and is no link between Hussein and Al Quaida/911 terrorism to justify the war with it....just read some news or google for it. All i did was answering to some parts of your conclusions. Of course saddam hussein was a bad guy and he deserved to get kicked off his throne, dont get me wrong but we talk about the reasons the bush administrations did sell to the masses and involved over 35 nations into war which were just not correct.
Parced quotes prove nothing. Show me the whole quotes, in context, and we'll talk. In the olberman quote, we are missing the entire beginning (intentionally so, because that's where the qualifiers are), and the second one one can't even tell what is being said there. Olbermann is famous for doing such things, which is why his ratings are in the tank.
Again show me some real evidence and we'll discuss it. Bush never said that Saddam WAS responsible for 9/11 9although yes he said he MIGHT be), he never said that he WAS operationally connected to Al Qaeda (although yes he said he MIGHT be), but go ahead, try again. Show me something compelete and honest.
The pentagon said that there were no operational links between al qaeda and Saddam. but MANY links between him and global terrorism. I have read the report myself .
I gave you the reasons, and they were stated above.
?
Well just google for it, easy to find.
Plus the more times I listen to them, there is nothing in any of those quotes that has anything to do with what I said.
Please explain the case you are trying to make and what I actually said that you are trying to correct with those quotes of yours.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Actually the weapons of mass destruction arguemnet was used primarily to get liberals and the french to go along with it. The primary reason was that he was in violation of the cease-fire agreement, and that was reason enough for hostilities to resume.
It was called "Operation Iraqi Freedom," Not "Operation Disarm Saddam."
The cease-fire agreement was ratified by the UN 1991 after gulf war I, only some years later Bush didnt care much about the UN in 2003. The operation was called Iraqi Freedom (a name which denies the real reasons) and not Disarm Saddam, but if you use the internet and research for TV cuts you will see that the reasons they did start the Iraq war were assumptions about WMD aswell Al Quaida, these messages were broadcasted around the world. The internet changed a lot and you can research very well.
"was used primarily to get liberals and the french to go along with it."....thats even worse, if lies needs to be spread to get allience members to go along with.
Three reasons, none of which had anything to do with Al Qaeda.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq
According to the President of the United States George W. Bush and former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Tony Blair, the reasons for the invasion were "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."
I choose to view the first reason listed as primarily a way to get the French and liberals on board, you choose to view the last as false. They never said Al Qaeda, they said "terrorism," which was well demonstrated and is still true. He supported global terrorism, and every investigation has shown that. He never said Al Qaeda. Only Cheney said he "wouldn't be surprised," it was never stated as a reason for the war.
As to WMD, they weren't lies -- everyone on earth thought he had them. The lie is that they were lies. They did not find "stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction," as the British, the French -- as everyone's intelligence thought they would, but they did find as general Franks has said, the equivalent of a "disassembled pistol on the table."
If a cop meets a suspect at the scene of a crime, and he sees the guywith his hand in his pocket, the cop says "take your hand out of your pocket." If the suspect does NOT remove his hand out of his pocket, thus revealing that he had no weapon, the cop is entitled to shoot. If it turns out the guy had a candybar in there, it is still the suspect's fault because he was not willing to come forth and remove the threat which was always in his power to do.
Such was what happened with Saddam and WMD.
The cease-fire agreement was violated in numerous ways. Saddam was a monster subjecting his own people to a reign of terror. Iraqi exiles from every faction were begging us to invade. The shiite people had tried, and failed to rise up against him when George HW Bush betrayed them. Saddam flagrantly flaunted several UN Resolutions against him.
There is no question that resuming hostilities against Iraq was justified, and there are multiple angles of justification, depending on what is mots important to YOU as a human being.
If none of the above matters to you, then I suppose it wasn't justified in your eyes.
For me there were more than enough reasons to resume the war that saddam started.
None of this has to do with whether the war was WISE or prudent. Those are two separate issues, which people are mixing in an attempt to bolster the weak argument against justification. Two different things, two sets of arguments, and in those, you'll get two different opinions from me.
The WISDOM of the war will be determined over the course of the next few decades. If Iraq becomes a flourishing democracy and an ally in the defensive war against the Jihad, it'll be seen as a wise move, if not, not. It is all way too early to tell.
Bush made some choices, and it hurt his popularity. So did Harry Truman. History has turned around on Harry, only time will tell if it will turn around on George.
Well maybe you did forget, but i remember very well what i did hear and read in the media. I suggest to watch the following short TV videos please. After 911, terrorism was linked to Al Quaida thats why we all, most of the main western countries, did invade Iraq besides the other reasons aswell Afghanistan until now.
TV Cut with Bush
www.youtube.com/watch
TV Cut with Vice President
www.youtube.com/watch
As it comes to WMD, if it were not lies it was at least a big mistake at the least the CIA did admit they were mistaken. We dont talk only about lies or misleaded politics, we talk also about mistakes which the bush administration is responsible for. We dont talk about wisdom here, we talk about facts i mentioned already in one of the threads above how the USA lost his faith in the world. You can watch a lot of discussion on TV or anywhere and a lot of qualified or specialized discussion members will agree that the bush administration did a lot of damage to the US aswell to our international confederacies.
I dont want to sound harsh or annoy you, its just not easy to discuss in forums or chat rooms when you dont see your discussion partners
You're not annoying me, I just disagree. Early on, when no one knew anything, people wondered all sorts of things. The fact is we DID have and still do have intelligence that Saddam's people met with Al Qaeda people, but no OPERATIONAL link was discovered that ever came from it. there were links however, and MANY links of Saddam to global terrorism
Either way, for me, that's not why the resumption of hostilities with Iraq was justified.
there were many reasons given and the one that works for me was he was a really bad guy. That's all we need as a MORAL justification.
All the things you mention has nothing to do with what I am saying. They may be right and they may be interesting and worth discussing, but once again as I am often forced to remind people on these forums, read the thread for context, context context. This is what always happens in long threads.
people were attacking Bush MORALLY, and I responded. that set off the usual attacks from the Bushhaters.
I am ONLY discussing moral justification, not the wisdom of it.
So what do you say to the videos i posted ? I just try to correct you cause you were wrong with some of your assumptions. Even in 2008 the pentagon did announce there was and is no link between Hussein and Al Quaida/911 terrorism to justify the war with it....just read some news or google for it. All i did was answering to some parts of your conclusions. Of course saddam hussein was a bad guy and he deserved to get kicked off his throne, dont get me wrong but we talk about the reasons the bush administrations did sell to the masses and involved over 35 nations into war which were just not correct.
Parced quotes prove nothing. Show me the whole quotes, in context, and we'll talk. In the olberman quote, we are missing the entire beginning (intentionally so, because that's where the qualifiers are), and the second one one can't even tell what is being said there. Olbermann is famous for doing such things, which is why his ratings are in the tank.
Again show me some real evidence and we'll discuss it. Bush never said that Saddam WAS responsible for 9/11 9although yes he said he MIGHT be), he never said that he WAS operationally connected to Al Qaeda (although yes he said he MIGHT be), but go ahead, try again. Show me something compelete and honest.
The pentagon said that there were no operational links between al qaeda and Saddam. but MANY links between him and global terrorism. I have read the report myself .
I gave you the reasons, and they were stated above.
?
Well just google for it, easy to find.
I did and I read the entire speech. Nothing gave as a reason for going to war his links to al qaeda. the state of the Union address was not where he stated his reasons for going to war.
Sorry, nothing you are saying discounts anything I am saying. Our intelligence DID at the time say what Bush said -- just because sybsequent intelligence called that into question (in part, but not completely), doesn't mean he was lying when he said it in january 2003.
There WERE links between Al Qaeda and Saddam, just not operational ones. However, that was NOT one of the stated reasons for war.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Here's what was said, time and again:
Richard B. Myers, MBA, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on Sep. 18, 2002 stated the following in testimony before the US House Armed Services Committee:
"The Iraqi regime has also allowed its country to be a haven for terrorists. Since the 1970s, organizations such as the Abu Nidal Organization, Palestinian Liberation Front and Mujahadeen-e-Khalq have found sanctuary within Iraq's borders. Over the past few months, with the demise of their safe haven in Afghanistan, some al Qaida operatives have relocated to Iraq. Baghdad's support for international terrorist organizations ranges from explicit and overt support to implicit and passive acquiescence."
Laurie Mylroie, PhD, Adjunct Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, stated in an Oct. 19, 2004 New York Sun article titled "Saddam's Terrorist Ties":
"The report of the Iraq Survey Group presents further evidence of Iraq's involvement in hostile activities. It includes the most comprehensive account ["Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq's WMD" Sep. 30, 2004] of the Iraqi Intelligence Service ever published in open-source literature, depicting an organization that consisted of 'over twenty compartmentalized directorates.' Section M-14 included the 'Tiger Group' - 'primarily composed of suicide bombers.' It also supervised the 'Challenge Project,' a highly secretive enterprise involved with explosives, about which the Iraq Survey Group could learn little. Another section - M-21 - was formed in 1990 to create explosive devices for Iraqi intelligence. Its chemistry department developed explosive materials; its electronics department prepared timers and wiring; and its mechanical department produced igniters and designed the bombs.
This picture shows the substantial, longstanding involvement of Iraq's intelligence services in terrorist training and support operations, including collaboration with Islamic militants. Its activities were infinitely more sophisticated than anything that was taught to the mujahideen fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan."
fishermage.blogspot.com
Intelligence said -- Plenty of operational links to world terrorism. plenty of operational links to Islamist groups, plenty of links with Al Qaeda, and history has proven that out.
Again he never said used Saddam and Al Qaeda as a REASON to go to war, and never said there were definitive, operational links between him and Al Qaeda, or between him and 9-11.
The case was more complex than you are making it, if you actually read the words he said.
fishermage.blogspot.com
From the weekly standard (www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/206xwlcs.asp):
THE SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE has once again released a report claiming that the Bush administration hyped prewar intelligence. The so-called Phase Two report is supposed to investigate the Bush administration's handling of prewar intelligence. In reality, the report is little more than yet another attempt by partisan Democrats to make political hay out of flawed prewar intelligence. (The only Republicans to endorse the report were two of the Senate's most liberal GOP members.) The committee focused exclusively on prewar statements by Bush administration officials, ignoring similar statements by leading Democrats. Therefore, the report is intended to portray the Bush administration in the worst possible light. But even with this bias, the committee came to a noteworthy conclusion: The Bush administration was right to claim that Saddam's regime was harboring al Qaeda members.
The Senate Intelligence Committee's report includes this conclusion at the end of a terse section on the Bush administration's claims about Saddam's prewar terror ties:
Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other al Qaeda-related terrorist members were substantiated by the intelligence assessments.
Intelligence assessments noted Zarqawi's presence in Iraq and his ability to travel and operate within the country. The intelligence community generally believed that Iraqi intelligence must have known about, and therefore at least tolerated, Zarqawi's presence in the country.
Regarding postwar information collected by the U.S. intelligence community, the report reads:
Postwar information supports prewar assessments and statements that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was in Baghdad and that al Qaeda was present in northern Iraq."
Once again, none of this was used as a REASON for going to war, it was part of the conversation that led up to the war, but the reasons were what I stated about.
Now granted, neither of us were clear in our discussion: you claimed it was due to "assumptions" about WMD and assumptions about al qaeda, without stating what those assumptions were -- and I said it wasn't, without asking what those assumptions were. and since you weren't clear about what you meant, mine even strayed further from clarity. This kinda stuff often happens in internet conversations, where people aren't clear enough because they use too much brevity.
bush and Cheney did say there were connections, and that Saddam harbored people from Al Qaeda, and it turns out that HE DID.
However, and this is my key point -- those were never stated as reasons for resuming hostilities.
fishermage.blogspot.com
"Once again, none of this was used as a REASON for going to war, it was part of the conversation that led up to the war, but the reasons were what I stated about."
The reason why bush is in trouble with arguementations about this subject is that the CIA did also missinform him. But it was broadcasted around the world that one of the main points iraq get or got attacked was informations about WMD, links to alquaida .....its nice to see that you distinguish beween operational and none operational links to al quaida but that was not sold to the masses in the media.
I never posted anything which leads to the assumption that saddam was responsible for 911, but the messages around the world that saddam was linked to terrorism around al quaida. The media is and was full of these informations in every kind of release about the three main points why the US with their partner nations did start the war. That all did lead to the situation which the US is in at the moment, the world lost faith and that will hopefully change with the new president and a different foreign policy.
Sorry, that's just wrong. Links to al qeada were never stated as reasons for going to war, and nothing you say shows that.
Please show me where that was given.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Once again:
According to the President of the United States George W. Bush and former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Tony Blair, the reasons for the invasion were "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."
That's from this article:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq
fishermage.blogspot.com
the original statement from Bush:
www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030322.html
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. American and coalition forces have begun a concerted campaign against the regime of Saddam Hussein. In this war, our coalition is broad, more than 40 countries from across the globe. Our cause is just, the security of the nations we serve and the peace of the world. And our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people.
No al qaeda in that statement, which was where the reasons were actually stated.
fishermage.blogspot.com