Iraq

[Trimdingman]

I'm right here you dumb fascist.

 

My family has been here since it's beginning, so you can go straight to hell, you're not even an American you dumbfuck.

 

Your one of those internet Nazi's, all talk.

 

Just because you're dumb, and constantly get ripped to shreds in every debate doesn't mean you have a right to lash out at people.

 

You need a history lesson. Back during the Depression, people started to believe that the Democratic system was bad. That led to the creation of many socialist states. One was in Italy, under Mussolini. Another was in Russia under Stalin. Another was in Germany under Hitler. Another was in America under Roosevelt. They were all on the left. Germany got too big for its britches. Patten was the only one who saw what was going on. America branded the Nazis as right wing, but actually they were left, the same as themselves at the time. They refused the right wing Jews sanctuary and sent them to the death camps. Many socialists still hate Jews. Many Jews to-day pretend to be socialists to control the left wing morons.

Edited July 25, 2007 by Trimdingman

[Blueblood]

If you so concerned with the truth then why don't you post a valid arguement rather than insulting people.

 

I think you have me confused with Trimdinger..

 

I see we can pull out of Iraq and the Islamic fascist promise never to plot another attack.

 

Iraq never attacked us, if you're talking about the 9-11 hijackers 15 of them were from Bush's buddie's in saudi Arabia, a place really flourishing with radicals.

 

Besides that, I can only imagine how secure the nation would be if the money wasted in Iraq had been spent here, I live only miles from one of the largest ports in the world, and most of the stuff coming here doesn't even get checked out before it enters our country.

 

I can't understand your illogical thinking! Your obviously pissed that your getting opposition because, your posting multiple replies before anyone can answer you.

 

There's nothing "illogical" about doing the best thing, you don't kick a bee hive and hope the bees don't come after you.

[Blueblood]

You need a history lesson. Back during the Depression, people started to believe that the Democratic system was bad. That led to the creation of many socialist states. One was in Italy, under Mussolini. Another was in Russia under Stalin. Another was in Germany under Hitler. Another was in America under Roosevelt. They were all on the left. Germany got too big for its britches. Patten was the only one who saw what was going on. America branded the Nazis as right wing, but actually they were left, the same as themselves at the time. They refused the right wing Jews sanctuary and sent them to the death camps. Many socialists still hate Jews. Many Jews to-day pretend to be socialists to control the left wing morons.

 

If you think the Nazi's were left wing, then it is you who needs a history lesson, it might irk you to know that general Patton was a family friend and was provided help in WW2 by my family which I take great pride in. can we both agree that the nazi's were evil scum and that all who opposed them were fighting the good fight?

[Furious1Auto]

I think you have me confused with Trimdinger..

 

 

 

Iraq never attacked us, if you're talking about the 9-11 hijackers 15 of them were from Bush's buddie's in saudi Arabia, a place really flourishing with radicals.

 

Besides that, I can only imagine how secure the nation would be if the money wasted in Iraq had been spent here, I live only miles from one of the largest ports in the world, and most of the stuff coming here doesn't even get checked out before it enters our country.

There's nothing "illogical" about doing the best thing, you don't kick a bee hive and hope the bees don't come after you.

We didn't enter Iraq because they had directly attacked us, let's not confuse the issue. We went in because they where a likely threat and all intel suggested that they had nuclear weapons. they had ignored 17 U.N. resolutions and or government and citizens where still shuttering over the attacks on 911. Despite the lack of UN support our president got congressional approval before taking action. Are you one of those cooks that asserts the the president lied. Now Saddam is gone and the world is better off for it. And Iraq has a democratically elected government. There people have a real shot at freedom. If we skate Iraqs fragile government will collapse and a civil war will break out. Many will be slaughtered, and likely a larger threat to the US will develop. With no self sufficient government and no war there the terrorist will have nothing to distract them from plotting the next attack on US soil!

Edited July 25, 2007 by Furious1Auto

[ebritt]

There were no "terrorists" in Iraq until we went in there and toppled the government, please get your "facts" straight.

 

I forgot, you went to Iraq and didnt see any , so there werent any. How silly of me.

[ebritt]

Not true, Faux presents one side and one side only, of course, stations like CNN aren't any better..

 

Now that is a lie! Is Bob Beckel a republican? Susan Estrich? Laura Schwartz? Juan Williams?

These guys are regulars and certified Bush haters just like you,but they can be seen regularly on FOX, spouting all the old "I hate Bush " mantra you can shake a stick at.

 

Youre just mad at CNN because Mooorehad a pussy fit on them.

[ebritt]

One doesn't "win" a debate when they rely on lies and propaganda in place of facts.

 

Claiming some kind of victory when you're completely wrong is pretty stupid. It shouldn't be about winning or losing anyways, it should be about learning, and discovering the truth, it's apparent the people who still think the Iraq war was a good idea or justified care little for finding truth, or being accurate.

 

Just some advice..

 

 

So far you havent been right on anything....... :shades:

[ebritt]

I think you have me confused with Trimdinger..

 

 

 

Iraq never attacked us, if you're talking about the 9-11 hijackers 15 of them were from Bush's buddie's in saudi Arabia, a place really flourishing with radicals.

 

Who said they did? Nobody here but you keep coming up with that same lame argument.

Besides that, I can only imagine how secure the nation would be if the money wasted in Iraq had been spent here, I live only miles from one of the largest ports in the world, and most of the stuff coming here doesn't even get checked out before it enters our country.

 

 

 

There's nothing "illogical" about doing the best thing, you don't kick a bee hive and hope the bees don't come after you.

 

But do you let the bees build a nest on your porch?

[Pumpmaster]

Here's what you evil rightwingnuts have caused:

 

http://www.antiwar.com/updates/?articleid=11340

[Trimdingman]

If you think the Nazi's were left wing, then it is you who needs a history lesson, it might irk you to know that general Patton was a family friend and was provided help in WW2 by my family which I take great pride in. can we both agree that the nazi's were evil scum and that all who opposed them were fighting the good fight?

 

Patten wanted to go after Russia, too, You see, he realized that nazis and communists are the same, and both are on the left. I believe the same thing. I'm with him. Back then, socialism was the fad. You had to be sympathetic to the Bolshevics to get elected or invited to anything "highbrow". When Hitler messed up, it threw them all for a loop. They got out of it by somehow spinning him as a rightie because they could not admit that he started out with the same mindset as they did. The delusion still exists to-day.

[methos]

. Now Saddam is gone and the world is better off for it. And Iraq has a democratically elected government. There people have a real shot at freedom. If we skate Iraqs fragile government will collapse and a civil war will break out. Many will be slaughtered, and likely a larger threat to the US will develop. With no self sufficient government and no war there the terrorist will have nothing to distract them from plotting the next attack on US soil!

 

 

 

<lmao>

 

Who says polls are not accurate. One would have to go no further than this thread to see the cogent reasoning Fox news viewers provide to the discussion. It's a shame really, sure, we can have disagreements, in fact, I prefer it. Yet, when I see dribble like this post, you really have to wonder? Prenatal drug or alcohol abuse? Furry suffered some kind of head trauma in his youth? He forgot to say "no" to crack?

 

 

Really, "civil war will break out" - are you kidding? What do call the conflict now? "Saddam is gone and the world is better off for it" - wow! Iraqis are worse off, as are we.

 

This ends it for me in this thread.

[LincolnFan]

Throw away your bumper stickers and really support your troops.

 

Support your troops?! WTF is your damn troops doing right except making EVEN more terrorists!? You think you just eliminated the terrorists? You took out the guy who held the terrorists down. You're only making even more terrorist by each war Amerca goes to.

[Blueblood]

We didn't enter Iraq because they had directly attacked us, let's not confuse the issue. We went in because they where a likely threat and all intel suggested that they had nuclear weapons.

 

Good God, where do you get this stuff??? This is why people laugh at "Fox news", talk about horribly mis-informed, the actual intel, no, not the cherry picked propaganda put out by the Office of Special Plans, the actual intel. There is simply no excuse for not knowing this information, it's been well over 4 years since the start of the war, it was known long before it started that Iraq had no nuclear weapons (A tough feat given the constant surveillance and sanctions on Iraq), and no chemical or biological weapons programs.

 

Even Bush's own said so in 2001 before the neo-cons started their propaganda campaign.

 

"Powell & Rice Declare Iraq Has No WMD and Is Not a Threat

 

The occasion was a press conference on 24 February 2001 during Powell's visit to Cairo, Egypt. Answering a question about the US-led sanctions against Iraq, the Secretary of State said:

We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked.

He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.

So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq...

 

But Powell wasn't the only senior administration official telling the truth before the truth became highly inconvenient. On 29 July 2001, Condoleezza Rice appeared on CNN Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer (an anonymous reader sent me the full transcript from Lexis-Nexis). Guest host John King asked Rice about the fact that Iraq had recently fired on US planes enforcing the "no-fly zones" in Iraq. Rice craftily responds:

Well, the president has made very clear that he considers Saddam Hussein to be a threat to his neighbors, a threat to security in the region, in fact a threat to international security more broadly.

 

Notice that she makes it clear that Bush is the one who considers Hussein a threat. She doesn't say, "I consider..." or even, "We consider..."

Then King asks her about the sanctions against Iraq. She replies:

But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.

 

King doesn't think to ask Rice, if Hussein hasn't been getting arms and his forces weren't rebuilt after the 1991 Gulf War, why Bush considers him a threat."

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm

 

 

It is nothing but a lie from the neo-cons that pre-war intelligence said he had nukes or other WMD's, a lie to justify their war.

 

 

they had ignored 17 U.N. resolutions and or government and citizens where still shuttering over the attacks on 911. Despite the lack of UN support our president got congressional approval before taking action. Are you one of those cooks that asserts the the president lied.

 

UN resolutions don't mean squat, Israel ignores all sorts of UN resolutions against it, do you support the bombing and invasion of them too?

 

And again you are lying, Bush did NOT get congressional approval for a pre-emptive war.

 

LOL, you can't even spell "kook", and it is you and the rest of the deluded neo-cons who support this war that are the kooks, Bush and the neo-cons have lied so many times it's hard to keep track of them all.

 

Here's a few of his whoppers..

 

"

So many lies have been spread by the Administration and their minions that it is hard to keep track. I suppose that’s part of their strategy. Overwhelm the opposition and the public with so much misinformation that the truth will never be clear. They can then press forward in an ambiguous cloud of fear and “what if?” scenarios. Thus, we should take pains to document the trail of deceit. As our part, we have created this list, sort of a handy tip-sheet to refute the arguments of the tin-pot, would-be murderers who insist on seizing Iraqi oil in exchange for the blood of our military men and women and the Iraqi citizenry..

 

So here we go.

 

1) It is only appropriate that we start the list with the most recent fabrication:

 

“A key piece of evidence linking Iraq to a nuclear weapons program appears to have been fabricated, the United Nations' chief nuclear inspector said [March 6] in a report that called into question U.S. and British claims about Iraq's secret nuclear ambitions.”

 

“Documents that purportedly showed Iraqi officials shopping for uranium in Africa two years ago were deemed "not authentic" after careful scrutiny by U.N. and independent experts, Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told the U.N. Security Council.”

 

And the Administration’s response?

 

"’We fell for it,’ said one U.S. official who reviewed the documents."

 

Yeah right! As though the Administration had absolutely nothing to do with this "mysterious" fabrication.

 

Anyway, in no particular order, here are the other top lies currently being circulated by the Administration and the right-wing propaganda machine.

 

2) The Bush Administration insists Iraq is developing an 800-mile-plus range missile. A prior UN resolution made it illegal for Iraq to build missiles that had a range in excess of 93 miles.

 

In fact, The al-Samoud 2, the missile to which the administration refers, has indeed been flying too far in tests… …by about 15 miles and that is because it isn't yet loaded down with its guidance system.

 

3) The administration claimed they had satellite photographs that showed new research buildings at Iraqi nuclear sites. However, when the U.N. went into the new buildings they found "nothing".

 

4) The administration asserted that specific presidential palaces were places the inspectors would find incriminating evidence. Again, they found "nothing".

 

5) It was reported that an al Qaeda informant claimed that terrorists had found a way of smuggling radioactive material through airports without being detected.

 

Unfortunately, the “informant” then failed a polygraph test.

 

"'This piece of that puzzle turns out to be fabricated and therefore the reason for a lot of the alarm, particularly in Washington this week, has been dissipated after they found out that this information was not true,' Vince Cannistraro, former CIA counter-terrorism chief, told the news network."

 

Even so, the “Orange” alert status, which was activated when the Administration made these claims public, remained. But wait, if the reason for the heightened alert status was proven false, then why keep it? Good Question. Let’s see…if I were Bush and I wanted to paralyze the populace with fear in order to force them behind me in all my criminal dealings, I would certainly take advantage of this miscue by allowing the alert to remain. Nothing like a little orange to make people see red. Besides, how many people could have possibly even heard about the whole “Hoax” thing?

 

True to form, Tom Ridge made no mention of the “Hoax” to anyone so why should Bush.

 

"We have not received any additional intelligence that would lead us to either raise or lower the threat level at this time."

 

6) Rupert Murdoch helped the Administration by spreading this lie (as though Fox News and the NY Post wasn't enough):

 

"Saddam Hussein's senior bodyguard has fled with details of Iraq's secret arsenal. His revelations have supported US President George W. Bush's claim [that] there is enough evidence from UN inspectors to justify going to war. [The bodyguard] has provided Israeli intelligence with a list of sites that the inspectors have not visited."

 

They include:

 

~ An underground chemical weapons facility at the southern end of the Jadray Peninsula in Baghdad.

 

~ A SCUD assembly area near Ramadi. The missiles come from North Korea.

 

~ Two underground bunkers in Iraq's Western Desert. These contain biological weapons.

 

And…

 

"William Tierney, a former UN weapons inspector who has continued to gather information on Saddam's arsenal, said Mahmoud's information is 'the smoking gun'."

 

Needless to say, all of these have proven to be 100% false.

 

7) As a centerpiece to it's argument for invading Iraq, the Administration has boldly pursued the idea that Saddam and al Qaeda are in cahoots. The CIA and the FBI disagree:

 

"…analysts at the Central Intelligence Agency have complained that senior administration officials have exaggerated the significance of some intelligence reports about Iraq, particularly about its possible links to terrorism, in order to strengthen their political argument for war, government officials said."

 

and…

 

"At the Federal Bureau of Investigation, some investigators said they were baffled by the Bush administration's insistence on a solid link between Iraq and Osama bin Laden's network. "We've been looking at this hard for more than a year and you know what, we just don't think it's there," a government official said."

 

This is consistent with what they were saying back in October:

 

"They are politicizing intelligence, no question about it," said Vincent M. Cannistraro, a former CIA counterterrorism chief. "And they are undertaking a campaign to get George Tenet [the director of central intelligence] fired because they can't get him to say what they want on Iraq."

 

In addition, in a January 30, interview, Blix revealed that:

 

“ …he had seen no persuasive indications of Iraqi ties to al Qaeda, which Mr. Bush also mentioned in his speech.”

 

Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice alleged that al-Qaeda operatives have had a direct relationship with the Iraqi government:

 

"There clearly are contacts between al-Qaeda and Iraq that can be documented,"

 

She did not document them and a U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, indicated the evidence for linkage is tenuous, based on sources of varying reliability.

 

8) Central to the Saddam - al Qaeda connection claim is the assertion that Czech authorities had evidence of a meeting between one of the September 11 hijackers, Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi agent in Prague in April 2001.

 

Both Czech President Vaclav Havel and Czech intelligence refuted this report. To this day, members of the Administration cite the Prague report as evidence of an Iraq - al Qaeda connection.

 

9) The Administration latched onto the idea that Ramzi Yousef, who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993, escaped from New York on a false passport provided by Iraqi intelligence. The reasoning for this speculation is so far-fetched as to be laughable.

 

10) Bush and Co. claimed that al-Qaeda refugees from the war in Afghanistan have found refuge in Iraq. Some of this relates to a group called Ansar al, which has taken over a small area near the Iranian border. This part of Iraq, however, is in Kurdish hands and outside the direct control of the Iraqi Government."

 

http://www.politicalstrategy.org/2003_03_1...log_archive.htm

 

 

There's so many it would be impossible to post them all in one post, and since these are all proven lies that are very well documented, the only kooks around here are the Bush kool-Aid drinkers who can't accept reality..

 

 

Now Saddam is gone and the world is better off for it.

 

More BS. The world is a much more dangerous place, according to the CIA, again, you talking points are wrong.

 

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2005Jan13.html

 

 

You care more about defending the actions of your party than you do being right.

 

 

And Iraq has a democratically elected government.

 

Yea, that's going great! And that's not what this war was about, how's that democracy in saudi Arabia, or Pakistan? Is Bush gonna invade them??

 

There people have a real shot at freedom.

 

The neo-cons could care less about giving people they hate "freedom", if they did they'd be talking about liberating all the oppresive regimes around the world, many of which Bush is buddy-buddy with.

 

If we skate Iraqs fragile government will collapse and a civil war will break out.

 

LOL, and what do you call what's going on there now?

 

Many will be slaughtered, and likely a larger threat to the US will develop.

 

That's already happened.

 

 

With no self sufficient government and no war there the terrorist will have nothing to distract them from plotting the next attack on US soil!

 

That doesn't even make sense, do you think US soldiers are in the homes of every Iraqi, monitoring their every move and thought? All we are doing is giving people in Iraq more motivation to resort to terrorism, your scare tactics don't prove a thing. It is far too easy for anyone to come into this country, our ports and our chemical facilities are under-secured and under-funded, yet we've thrown hundreds of billions in the black hole called Iraq and made it an actual danger where there was none to us before. Yet you support this insanity! Unreal..

 

Now please, get educated before wasting my time again...

[Trimdingman]

Not true, Faux presents one side and one side only, of course, stations like CNN aren't any better..

 

 

They have Cannity and Holmes. They have Rivera, and others. What do you call that? Bill O'Reilly always gives his opponent the last word. That means that the opponent is giving an opposing view. When you are trying to bullshit someone, you cannot withstand too much scrutiny. When you deliver the straight goods, you thrive on it.

[ebritt]

Support your troops?! WTF is your damn troops doing right except making EVEN more terrorists!? You think you just eliminated the terrorists? You took out the guy who held the terrorists down. You're only making even more terrorist by each war Amerca goes to.

 

You sir , may go staright to hell!

[Blueblood]

I forgot, you went to Iraq and didnt see any , so there werent any. How silly of me.

 

Are you actually still of the belief that there were any prior to the invasion??? Or that any evidence has been found since then to prove any of this?

 

Even Bush himself had to admit the truth finally.

[Trimdingman]

By that line of reasoning, we should not ever attack any enemy because they may fight back. I believe that he has a serious bowel blockage problem. it is called "caputinrectumitis".

Edited July 25, 2007 by Trimdingman

[Blueblood]

Now that is a lie! Is Bob Beckel a republican? Susan Estrich? Laura Schwartz? Juan Williams?

These guys are regulars and certified Bush haters just like you,but they can be seen regularly on FOX, spouting all the old "I hate Bush " mantra you can shake a stick at.

 

"Bush haters", did you hear that on Faux or from Rush? which one?

 

What is with you Constitution-haters? Why do you hate America? Why do you put party over country?

 

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fox_News

 

Youre just mad at CNN because Mooorehad a pussy fit on them.

 

 

Impressive!!

 

How about CNN being a mouthpiece for the federal government??

 

Of course, you probably think that's a good thing, not knowing about the watchdog role our media is supposed to take.

[Blueblood]

So far you havent been right on anything....... :shades:

 

 

I guess in the Orwellian world you and the neo-cons live in being right is actually being wrong.

 

I have the facts on my side, you guys have talking points.

[Blueblood]

"Who said they did? Nobody here but you keep coming up with that same lame argument."

 

He implied that.

 

"But do you let the bees build a nest on your porch?"

 

No, which is why you don't throw away the precious lives of thousands of our best soldiers, and billions in attacking a country that had nothing todo with 9-11, and had no terrorists.

[LincolnFan]

You sir , may go staright to hell!

 

I should go to hell because I support a neighbour country (to me) which we share culture and religion and other things?

 

By that line of reasoning, we should not ever attack any enemy because they may fight back. I believe that he has a serious bowel blockage problem. it is called "caputinrectumitis".

 

I didn't knew Saddam declared war on America. Instead of cooprating with ME governments to root out the terrorists you're take out the government and forget about the terrorists...

[ebritt]

And again you are lying, Bush did NOT get congressional approval for a pre-emptive war.

 

Wrong again turdbutt.....

http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf

 

Maybe YOU are lying now???

[Trimdingman]

I guess in the Orwellian world you and the neo-cons live in being right is actually being wrong.

 

I have the facts on my side, you guys have talking points.

 

I'm still waiting to hear some that make any sense. I think that you are badly screwed up. Orwell, in his book "1984" was describing the world of the extreme left, or your Utopia. The right seeks to cast off the shackles of government control and allow people to take their lives back.

[ebritt]

I should go to hell because I support a neighbour country (to me) which we share culture and religion and other things?

 

Maybe my DAMN TROOPS can pay you a visit Mr Towelhead

[LincolnFan]

Racism hawt, two people can play that game.