al-Sadr to disarm his militia!!!!!!

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: TechAZ

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
^ ah!!!! Finally you get it.

exactly!

too bad that's not how the war was sold to the rest of the world. It WAS about WMD. that's ALL.
Remember? it was only 5 years ago.

why are all of you neocons this effing stupid?

I don't remember getting that impression during the pre-war buildup. I'm being completely honest too. It always boggles my mind how the left jams this point down everyone's throat when such a simpleton like myself NEVER once got that impression.

I'll chime in also.

As an established Neocon, I would say that WMD was given as the primary and focal reason, although they were very careful to include other points. The left prefers to ignore those, the right tends to overemphasize them since they F'ed up on the WMD part.

I would pretty much agree with what you said.

I am sure that if we had found WMD the left would be running around screaming "you said that war was to establish a working Democracy and that hasn't happen so the war is a failure!!!!"

That is just as silly as saying that had they been found, the right would have hailed Bush as a prophet and enlisted.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Fern
In the biuld up to the invasion any number of reasons to do so were discussed at lenght. WMD was apparently decided upon as the best, and trumpeted by those on both sides of the aisle.

The reason for that was it was the only way to get the support Bush needed to invade Iraq. If he had just said it was to liberate the Iraqi's the nation would have given him the big FU .

Not to mention it ran exactly opposite Bush's earlier claim that the US was not going to be involved in nation building.

Many reasons were tossed around in the days leading up to the war, but the one that was really hammered was that Saddam Hussein was a threat. The only way Saddam could be a threat, even just to other nations in the Middle East, let alone to the United States, was via WMDs. Hence all the stories about yellow cake, aluminum tubes, mobile weapons labs, etc. It was in the Fall of 2003 when the administration couldn't find any WMDs six months after the fall of Baghdad that other justifications for the war really started in earnest (including liberating the Iraqi people, liberating the Iraqi women, bringing democracy, Al Qaeda and the war on terror, etc.). This was also when radical lefties started trumpeting the "War for Oil" rallying cry with "See? We told you they did it for the oil!"

Bush's comment about nation building was made during the election before 9-11 happened.

9-11 sort of changed things.

Plus the whole 'nation building' argument is total BS. What are we doing in Afghanistan? I don't seem to remember many people complaining about the nation building we are doing there.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Fern
In the biuld up to the invasion any number of reasons to do so were discussed at lenght. WMD was apparently decided upon as the best, and trumpeted by those on both sides of the aisle.

The reason for that was it was the only way to get the support Bush needed to invade Iraq. If he had just said it was to liberate the Iraqi's the nation would have given him the big FU .

Not to mention it ran exactly opposite Bush's earlier claim that the US was not going to be involved in nation building.

Many reasons were tossed around in the days leading up to the war, but the one that was really hammered was that Saddam Hussein was a threat. The only way Saddam could be a threat, even just to other nations in the Middle East, let alone to the United States, was via WMDs. Hence all the stories about yellow cake, aluminum tubes, mobile weapons labs, etc. It was in the Fall of 2003 when the administration couldn't find any WMDs six months after the fall of Baghdad that other justifications for the war really started in earnest (including liberating the Iraqi people, liberating the Iraqi women, bringing democracy, Al Qaeda and the war on terror, etc.). This was also when radical lefties started trumpeting the "War for Oil" rallying cry with "See? We told you they did it for the oil!"

Bush's comment about nation building was made during the election before 9-11 happened.

9-11 sort of changed things.

Plus the whole 'nation building' argument is total BS. What are we doing in Afghanistan? I don't seem to remember many people complaining about the nation building we are doing there.

We shouldn't be nation-building there either. bin Laden has always been the target and Afghanistan has always been a failed state. We should've gone in, got him, and gotten out. Simple as that.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Bush's comment about nation building was made during the election before 9-11 happened.

9-11 sort of changed things.

Plus the whole 'nation building' argument is total BS. What are we doing in Afghanistan? I don't seem to remember many people complaining about the nation building we are doing there.

First off, if 9-11 changed anything about the basic fundamental nature of our government policy regarding when it is appropriate to engage in war, then the terrorists won. That's it. Pure and simple. If the terrorists truly "hate freedom" and their goal is to end it, then they are winning. The Bush administration repeatedly subverts the constitution, holds people indefinitely, continuously redefines torture, and invades two separate countries (one with just cause, one... ehh, not so much). The terrorists won on 9-11 because people like you insisted that "9-11 changed things." 9-11 changed nothing except making cowards renounce their rights for the illusion of safety. It is disgusting and treasonous to the very ideals this country was founded on.

That little rant aside, we went into Afghanistan to get bin Laden, who was allowed to run Al Qaeda with the consent of the Taliban leadership. Bin Laden masterminded a scheme that killed thousands of American citizens on American soil with the backing of the Afghanistan government. That's a phenomenally good reason to pursue someone in a foreign country and take steps to remove the ruling power there. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, working with Taliban approval, committed an act of war against the United States, and it's easy to justify going into Afghanistan. What has happened in the years since has been an absolute joke; we still don't have bin Laden because the Bush administration took us into Iraq.

And that's the crux of your OP; the Iraq war. While we're talking justifications, what reasonable justification was there for going into Iraq? The declaration you posted included multiple mentions of WMDs, and the threat posed by Saddam seeking and having them. It also spent some time talking about terrorists, and countries that harbor them, when Iraq was known to have zero ties to Al Qaeda, or anyone involved in the attacks of 9/11 (specifically mentioned in the declaration, no less). That leaves us with overthrowing Saddam as the sole justification that held up. And that's a really poor reason to go to war, especially under a President who swore he wasn't going to do exactly that.

 

[Lemon law]

While I can agree with almost all off the Atomic Playboy post, the error I object to is the idea that any war in Iraq caused GWB to take our eyes off of Ossama Bin Laden. The totally bungled initial Afghanistan invasion and choosing the wrong allies allowed Ossama to escape long before GWB&co even started his campaign to sell us an optional war in Iraq. The train had long ago left the Station in regards to capturing Ossama Bin Laden and its was already clear that GWB was not going to be deterred in his real objectives in Iraq.

 

[OrByte]

no matter how many people agreed with the fact that Saddaam was a bad guy. No matter how many people believed that we need to free Iraqis from Saddamm's control it was never enough to go to war over. And we never militarily removed a sitting dictator because he was a bad person.

Once you factor in 9/11 and WMDs then GWB had enough "ammo" to get people to support the war.

And confusing/conflating Iraq with 9/11 is lying.

And cooking intel for WMDs in Iraq is lying.

Both of which there is enough doubt to never fully clear the admin of any wrongdoing.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

And no matter how many times people whine and bitch about the lack of finding WMDs, a moaning which is incessant in here, it won't change the fact that we're in Iraq. We're also not leaving until Iraq is right. We broke it, we fix it? Remember that trite little phrase?

As far as Sadr, I'll believe he'll disarm his militia when it actually happens. It seems that right now he's trying to jump on the political train to atempt to maintain far more relevance in the Iraqi political process than he actual has. He's like the Iraqi version of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton in that regard.

 

[nonameo]

Good news, but not an excuse to continue dumping truckloads of money on the military.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
And no matter how many times people whine and bitch about the lack of finding WMDs, a moaning which is incessant in here, it won't change the fact that we're in Iraq. We're also not leaving until Iraq is right. We broke it, we fix it? Remember that trite little phrase?

As far as Sadr, I'll believe he'll disarm his militia when it actually happens. It seems that right now he's trying to jump on the political train to atempt to maintain far more relevance in the Iraqi political process than he actual has. He's like the Iraqi version of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton in that regard.

usually whoever "breaks" something is held accountable.

I guess you don't care about that part...seeing as how those that should be held accountable are your heroes.

:roll:

I wonder how you would feel about the matter if it was Clinton instead of Gdub?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
And no matter how many times people whine and bitch about the lack of finding WMDs, a moaning which is incessant in here, it won't change the fact that we're in Iraq. We're also not leaving until Iraq is right. We broke it, we fix it? Remember that trite little phrase?

As far as Sadr, I'll believe he'll disarm his militia when it actually happens. It seems that right now he's trying to jump on the political train to atempt to maintain far more relevance in the Iraqi political process than he actual has. He's like the Iraqi version of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton in that regard.

usually whoever "breaks" something is held accountable.

I guess you don't care about that part...seeing as how those that should be held accountable are your heroes.

:roll:

I wonder how you would feel about the matter if it was Clinton instead of Gdub?

I believe we ARE paying for breaking it. Quite a bit, as a matter of fact. We're even trying to fix what Saddam broke and never bothered to fix.

If Clinton were in charge instead I'd have been much happier. At least he could have sold it properly and knew how to use words to blow sunshine up our asses, which is what Bush fails miserably at doing. Then again, I actually voted for Clinton, twice. I never voted for Bush because I just don't like the guy, contrary to the prevailing stereotyping about me that goes on in here. But that's the kind of weak "apologist" and "heroes" arguments some in here feel the need to foist on others. Truthfully it does nothing but demonstrate the weak position those using that sort of argument are in if lame accusations are the best they can come up with.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
And no matter how many times people whine and bitch about the lack of finding WMDs, a moaning which is incessant in here, it won't change the fact that we're in Iraq. We're also not leaving until Iraq is right. We broke it, we fix it? Remember that trite little phrase?

As far as Sadr, I'll believe he'll disarm his militia when it actually happens. It seems that right now he's trying to jump on the political train to atempt to maintain far more relevance in the Iraqi political process than he actual has. He's like the Iraqi version of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton in that regard.

usually whoever "breaks" something is held accountable.

I guess you don't care about that part...seeing as how those that should be held accountable are your heroes.

:roll:

I wonder how you would feel about the matter if it was Clinton instead of Gdub?

I believe we ARE paying for breaking it. Quite a bit, as a matter of fact. We're even trying to fix what Saddam broke and never bothered to fix.

If Clinton were in charge instead I'd have been much happier. At least he could have sold it properly and knew how to use words to blow sunshine up our asses, which is what Bush fails miserably at doing. Then again, I actually voted for Clinton, twice. I never voted for Bush because I just don't like the guy, contrary to the prevailing stereotyping about me that goes on in here. But that's the kind of weak "apologist" and "heroes" arguments some in here feel the need to foist on others. Truthfully it does nothing but demonstrate the weak position those using that sort of argument are in if lame accusations are the best they can come up with.

I level the "lame accusations" because lets face it..you're lame

but if you voted for BC twice then you aren't as lame as I originally thought.

there is a difference between paying for something we broke and holding those accountable for breaking it in the first place. Or am I wrong?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: OrByte
I level the "lame accusations" because lets face it..you're lame

but if you voted for BC twice then you aren't as lame as I originally thought.

there is a difference between paying for something we broke and holding those accountable for breaking it in the first place. Or am I wrong?

Yeah, I got accused of being lame back in the 90s by the unhinged right-wingers beating on Clinton continually too. According to them it was a result of all those Clinton cigars up my ass.

In regard to accountability, Bush will always be accountable for the mistakes made. He can't escape that, just like Clinton will always be held accountable for the mistakes he made. What you reeally mean is that you want to see Bush be taken down. Neither deserve(d) that fate and only partisan hacks from either side would be focused on that.

 

[heyheybooboo]

I think the subtle twists from the history revisionists are quite telling but clearly more of the typical modus operandi we've seen from this bunch in the last 7 years. It does no good to argue with the pig for when you do you are reduced to the level of the swine.

I don't have ADD, and thankfully two-thirds of the American people don't have it. Nor do the proud people of Iraq to whom all I can say is "We're sorry and hope you find it in your heart to forgive us".

Declare victory and come home. 17 years of hegemonic 'support' from the US is probably all they can stand.

 

[heyheybooboo]

LOL at only the 'partisan hacks'

W - The Worst

Keep trying to put lipstick on that Pig

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
or are you trying to indicate that others, not just Bush, thought Iraq had WMD, too? That merely means they are just as stupid, although to their defense they didn't start a war over it. What ARE you getting at?

The fact is, WMD was the overarching issue of the war. WMD wasn't there. The basis for the war never existed.

I'm no supporter of the war, but why are these people stupid for believing our intelligence reports? They're stupid for not spending more on intelligence before going to war with Iraq.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: OrByte
I level the "lame accusations" because lets face it..you're lame

but if you voted for BC twice then you aren't as lame as I originally thought.

there is a difference between paying for something we broke and holding those accountable for breaking it in the first place. Or am I wrong?

Yeah, I got accused of being lame back in the 90s by the unhinged right-wingers beating on Clinton continually too. According to them it was a result of all those Clinton cigars up my ass.

In regard to accountability, Bush will always be accountable for the mistakes made. He can't escape that, just like Clinton will always be held accountable for the mistakes he made. What you reeally mean is that you want to see Bush be taken down. Neither deserve(d) that fate and only partisan hacks from either side would be focused on that.

No I dont think its partisan hackery to want the administration whether R or D be held accountable if laws were violated.

I think sometimes people are relegated to partisan status in order to dismiss their positions.

And as for taking Bush down. I don't think its enough that he is held accountable only on forum boards.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: Skoorb
or are you trying to indicate that others, not just Bush, thought Iraq had WMD, too? That merely means they are just as stupid, although to their defense they didn't start a war over it. What ARE you getting at?

The fact is, WMD was the overarching issue of the war. WMD wasn't there. The basis for the war never existed.

I'm no supporter of the war, but why are these people stupid for believing our intelligence reports? They're stupid for not spending more on intelligence before going to war with Iraq.

People could have done more, definitely the media should have been more strenuous on this, but overall I would say that if the top levels of the gov are calling it a smoking gun and giving various examples you're going to believe them, so I don't really hold the average joe responsible for believing the WMD lines. I don't think they were necessarily incompetent intelligence only. I think intelligence was far less convicted than the administration led us all to believe and in that they were more than negligent, they were deceitful. Lies, be they through ommission or systematic bending of "maybes" into "definitelies", were the name of the game. There's no other reasonable way to see it that I've heard.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
And no matter how many times people whine and bitch about the lack of finding WMDs, a moaning which is incessant in here, it won't change the fact that we're in Iraq. We're also not leaving until Iraq is right. We broke it, we fix it? Remember that trite little phrase?

As far as Sadr, I'll believe he'll disarm his militia when it actually happens. It seems that right now he's trying to jump on the political train to atempt to maintain far more relevance in the Iraqi political process than he actual has. He's like the Iraqi version of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton in that regard.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What What TLC, surely you are not backing off from your prior position that Al Sadr was cooked, checkmated finished kaput which was your position a month ago. And now you promote Al Sadr to a mere also ran who is likely to hang around for awhile with just some minority support. An Iraqi version of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

Make up your redacted mind chicken man, and stand by original predictions.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
And no matter how many times people whine and bitch about the lack of finding WMDs, a moaning which is incessant in here, it won't change the fact that we're in Iraq. We're also not leaving until Iraq is right. We broke it, we fix it? Remember that trite little phrase?

As far as Sadr, I'll believe he'll disarm his militia when it actually happens. It seems that right now he's trying to jump on the political train to atempt to maintain far more relevance in the Iraqi political process than he actual has. He's like the Iraqi version of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton in that regard.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What What TLC, surely you are not backing off from your prior position that Al Sadr was cooked, checkmated finished kaput which was your position a month ago. And now you promote Al Sadr to a mere also ran who is likely to hang around for awhile with just some minority support. An Iraqi version of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

Make up your redacted mind chicken man, and stand by original predictions.

Nice, now you and Chick are going to bring your little bitch slap fight from that other thread to this one:disgust:

 

[First]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

The war is over!!!!

ROFL. This is going to be great bump material.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I am sure that if we had found WMD the left would be running around screaming "you said that war was to establish a working Democracy and that hasn't happen so the war is a failure!!!!"

Not me. I would have asked whether Saddam had the means to attack the US (answer: now) and why we weren't focusing on removing other nations' illegal WMDs (e.g., Israel).

One of the biggest problems with the neocon war on Iraq is that it is inconsistent anyway you look at it.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: OrByte
No I dont think its partisan hackery to want the administration whether R or D be held accountable if laws were violated.

I think sometimes people are relegated to partisan status in order to dismiss their positions.

And as for taking Bush down. I don't think its enough that he is held accountable only on forum boards.

I agree it's not partisan hackery to want an administration, R or D, to be held accountable IF laws were violated. IF Bush violated laws and it could be proven I have no doubt that the Dems would have taken that route too. The fact that they haven't says a lot. So whaqt partisan hackery involves are those who want to see Bush taken down regardless of whether he violated any laws or not.

Look at the bright side though. You got a Scooter.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
And no matter how many times people whine and bitch about the lack of finding WMDs, a moaning which is incessant in here, it won't change the fact that we're in Iraq. We're also not leaving until Iraq is right. We broke it, we fix it? Remember that trite little phrase?

As far as Sadr, I'll believe he'll disarm his militia when it actually happens. It seems that right now he's trying to jump on the political train to atempt to maintain far more relevance in the Iraqi political process than he actual has. He's like the Iraqi version of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton in that regard.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What What TLC, surely you are not backing off from your prior position that Al Sadr was cooked, checkmated finished kaput which was your position a month ago. And now you promote Al Sadr to a mere also ran who is likely to hang around for awhile with just some minority support. An Iraqi version of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

Make up your redacted mind chicken man, and stand by original predictions.

Nice, now you and Chick are going to bring your little bitch slap fight from that other thread to this one:disgust:

Nah. Sometimes bitches just ain't worth slapping.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
And no matter how many times people whine and bitch about the lack of finding WMDs, a moaning which is incessant in here, it won't change the fact that we're in Iraq. We're also not leaving until Iraq is right. We broke it, we fix it? Remember that trite little phrase?

As far as Sadr, I'll believe he'll disarm his militia when it actually happens. It seems that right now he's trying to jump on the political train to atempt to maintain far more relevance in the Iraqi political process than he actual has. He's like the Iraqi version of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton in that regard.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What What TLC, surely you are not backing off from your prior position that Al Sadr was cooked, checkmated finished kaput which was your position a month ago. And now you promote Al Sadr to a mere also ran who is likely to hang around for awhile with just some minority support. An Iraqi version of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

Make up your redacted mind chicken man, and stand by original predictions.

Nice, now you and Chick are going to bring your little bitch slap fight from that other thread to this one:disgust:

Nah. Sometimes bitches just ain't worth slapping.

Don't be so hard on yourself.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Darth Cheney

"Last throes"