Hussein Was Right & Bush Was Wrong

[webekyle]

this needs my bump

 

[SparkyJJO]

I can't 100% believe this "report" because we have no idea where it came from. For all we know it could be just a scam by someone who hates Bush and just wants to spread lies about him. Typical of a liberal..... :roll:

Now if there were some more supporting evidence of this stuff then I'd be apt to believe it. But considering there isn't, well, enough said.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
The only one exposing themselves in this thread as anything is YOU showing yourself to be an imbecile. Read above: As far as I know, they never said that Saddam was directly responsible for 9/11. What WAS said was that Iraq was known to have ties to various terrorist groups who may have had ties to Al Queada, which DID commit the attacks. It is NOT a direct connection, and your insistence that it was only illustrates for all to see that you are willing to stretch the truth to ANY length to try and prove the point of your own bigotry and blind hatred. Is Bush an imbecile and shoddy president? YES! Hell yes, he thoroughly SUCKS as a president! However, that does NOTHING to remove the fact that there WERE and ARE terrorist groups in Iraq, that they WERE and ARE training there and now fighting there as well. To have ANY connection to those who committed the terrorist attacks on 9/11 is adequate reason for action.

If you don't want to deal with the facts of that scenario, at LEAST have the damn decency to acknowledge that the people of Iraq SUFFERED in hunger, squalor and FEAR under Saddam's regime and that they deserved our help in getting out of that scenario.

My god you are one arrogant, ignorant person!

Jason

There is no proof of any terrorist connection between Saddam and al Qaeda. Read the 9/11 Commission Report.

Wrong.

Hey, but at least you are consistent...consistently wrong.

We'll all take your word as gospel. Feel no need to provide proof. A "wrong" from you will suffice even in the face of the facts.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: SparkyJJO
I can't 100% believe this "report" because we have no idea where it came from. For all we know it could be just a scam by someone who hates Bush and just wants to spread lies about him. Typical of a liberal..... :roll:

Now if there were some more supporting evidence of this stuff then I'd be apt to believe it. But considering there isn't, well, enough said.

More supporting evidence 1

More supporting evidence 2

More supporting evidence 3

More supporting evidence 4

But what's the difference really? It's all been posted here before and you refuse to recognize the truth.

 

[Pohemi]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Iraq dismantled their WMD. All they had to do was tell us when, where, and how. They had 12 years to do so but did not. Saddam himself has said that the reason he refused is because he was more worried about an attack by Iran than an invasion by the US because he never thought the US would actually invade. Whoever wrote this article tries to pin the tail on Bush. He has clearly never read the UNMOVIC reports nor much other pertinent information. Instead, he waves his hands in an effort to defame Bush.

Obviously, people are trying to defame Bush. The funny thing is...I don't think anyone really needs to. He's a frickin baboon with about an eighth grade intelectual capacity. :laugh: /feeds fire

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Philippine Mango
Why do you guys give a sh!t anyways. EVEN if that is true, saddam is still a bad guy and he needed to be removed from power no matter what you little kids say. He tortured his own people AND FAMILY, he was a lunatic and needed to be removed. While that was the reason (front) bush used to get him out of power, it was really to finish the job his dad never completed in '91. You should be happy this horrible dictator is out of power, all the people bitching about this to death are extreme lefties. I'm not saying I'm a right winged guy either because I'm pro choice. I'm practically right smack dab in the middle and if you asked me what I should classify myself, I wouldn't be able to because I find it too difficult to associate myself with a group.

Here's why I care. We did the same thing to Iraq that they did to Kuwait.

If it was wrong for Saddam why is it right for us?

And what are the implications of a "free" society using false pretences to wage war against nations that don't pose a threat?

And what good is replacing one U.S. backed despot with another U.S. backed despot?

You can't do wrong in the name of right. It's hypocritical, people notice, and right becomes wrong when you do.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Pohemi420

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Iraq dismantled their WMD. All they had to do was tell us when, where, and how. They had 12 years to do so but did not. Saddam himself has said that the reason he refused is because he was more worried about an attack by Iran than an invasion by the US because he never thought the US would actually invade. Whoever wrote this article tries to pin the tail on Bush. He has clearly never read the UNMOVIC reports nor much other pertinent information. Instead, he waves his hands in an effort to defame Bush.

Obviously, people are trying to defame Bush. The funny thing is...I don't think anyone really needs to. He's a frickin baboon with about an eighth grade intelectual capacity. :laugh: /feeds fire

Has eighth grade intellect sunk that low???

 

[invalidiuser]

They gave Saddam several chances to get back to being the CIA's escape goat and he got tired of being a escape goat so they went after him.

Bin Laden agreed to go back to being an escape goat so that is why they can't seem to locate him. If he didn't agree, they would of captured him also already.

The End.....

 

[Pohemi]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Pohemi420

Obviously, people are trying to defame Bush. The funny thing is...I don't think anyone really needs to. He's a frickin baboon with about an eighth grade intelectual capacity. :laugh: /feeds fire

Has eighth grade intellect sunk that low???

Well...that's a conservative estimate of course...

 

[Pohemi]

Originally posted by: invalidiuser
They gave Saddam several chances to get back to being the CIA's escape goat and he got tired of being a escape goat so they went after him.

Bin Laden agreed to go back to being an escape goat so that is why they can't seem to locate him. If he didn't agree, they would of captured him also already.

The End.....

You mean scapegoat??

 

[Philippine Mango]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Philippine Mango
Why do you guys give a sh!t anyways. EVEN if that is true, saddam is still a bad guy and he needed to be removed from power no matter what you little kids say. He tortured his own people AND FAMILY, he was a lunatic and needed to be removed. While that was the reason (front) bush used to get him out of power, it was really to finish the job his dad never completed in '91. You should be happy this horrible dictator is out of power, all the people bitching about this to death are extreme lefties. I'm not saying I'm a right winged guy either because I'm pro choice. I'm practically right smack dab in the middle and if you asked me what I should classify myself, I wouldn't be able to because I find it too difficult to associate myself with a group.

Here's why I care. We did the same thing to Iraq that they did to Kuwait.

If it was wrong for Saddam why is it right for us?

And what are the implications of a "free" society using false pretences to wage war against nations that don't pose a threat?

And what good is replacing one U.S. backed despot with another U.S. backed despot?

You can't do wrong in the name of right. It's hypocritical, people notice, and right becomes wrong when you do.

Yes except were not killing kurds and other folk because they have conflicting religon/beliefs to ours. Saddam was a dictator who needed to be removed, we didn't monitor iraq when he was elected and then it turned into this. I'm surprised you could compare kuwait's invasion by iraq and our "invasion" of iraq in '91 and '03. We do not have a dictatorship and while what we do may piss people off and seem like were trying to piss people off, we have good intentions unlike saddam had.

 

[Philippine Mango]

Originally posted by: Pohemi420

Originally posted by: invalidiuser
They gave Saddam several chances to get back to being the CIA's escape goat and he got tired of being a escape goat so they went after him.

Bin Laden agreed to go back to being an escape goat so that is why they can't seem to locate him. If he didn't agree, they would of captured him also already.

The End.....

You mean scapegoat??

:thumbsup:

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Philippine Mango

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Philippine Mango
Why do you guys give a sh!t anyways. EVEN if that is true, saddam is still a bad guy and he needed to be removed from power no matter what you little kids say. He tortured his own people AND FAMILY, he was a lunatic and needed to be removed. While that was the reason (front) bush used to get him out of power, it was really to finish the job his dad never completed in '91. You should be happy this horrible dictator is out of power, all the people bitching about this to death are extreme lefties. I'm not saying I'm a right winged guy either because I'm pro choice. I'm practically right smack dab in the middle and if you asked me what I should classify myself, I wouldn't be able to because I find it too difficult to associate myself with a group.

Here's why I care. We did the same thing to Iraq that they did to Kuwait.

If it was wrong for Saddam why is it right for us?

And what are the implications of a "free" society using false pretences to wage war against nations that don't pose a threat?

And what good is replacing one U.S. backed despot with another U.S. backed despot?

You can't do wrong in the name of right. It's hypocritical, people notice, and right becomes wrong when you do.

Yes except were not killing kurds and other folk because they have conflicting religon/beliefs to ours. Saddam was a dictator who needed to be removed, we didn't monitor iraq when he was elected and then it turned into this. I'm surprised you could compare kuwait's invasion by iraq and our "invasion" of iraq in '91 and '03. We do not have a dictatorship and while what we do may piss people off and seem like were trying to piss people off, we have good intentions unlike saddam had.

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Philippine Mango
Why do you guys give a sh!t anyways. EVEN if that is true, saddam is still a bad guy and he needed to be removed from power no matter what you little kids say. He tortured his own people AND FAMILY, he was a lunatic and needed to be removed. While that was the reason (front) bush used to get him out of power, it was really to finish the job his dad never completed in '91. You should be happy this horrible dictator is out of power, all the people bitching about this to death are extreme lefties. I'm not saying I'm a right winged guy either because I'm pro choice. I'm practically right smack dab in the middle and if you asked me what I should classify myself, I wouldn't be able to because I find it too difficult to associate myself with a group.

Here's why I care. We did the same thing to Iraq that they did to Kuwait.

LMAO. I love when you post. Most of the time it's so incredibly inane that I don't even need to bother disputing it.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: BBond
Here's why I care. We did the same thing to Iraq that they did to Kuwait.

LMAO. I love when you post. Most of the time it's so incredibly inane that I don't even need to bother disputing it.

How can you dispute the truth?

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: BBond

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

I think they should use overused and essentially useless sayings as the gravel to pave on top of

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: BBond
Here's why I care. We did the same thing to Iraq that they did to Kuwait.

LMAO. I love when you post. Most of the time it's so incredibly inane that I don't even need to bother disputing it.

How can you dispute the truth?

Pray tell, what is the reasoning you and BBond share regarding the invasion of Kuwait? This should be good.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: BBond
Here's why I care. We did the same thing to Iraq that they did to Kuwait.

LMAO. I love when you post. Most of the time it's so incredibly inane that I don't even need to bother disputing it.

How can you dispute the truth?

Pray tell, what is the reasoning you and BBond share regarding the invasion of Kuwait? This should be good.

From a couple of my posts in another thread:


http://www.globalpolicy.org/se...tack/2003/0105lies.htm

When Iraqi troops invaded Kuwait on Aug. 2, 1990, the first President Bush likened it to Nazi Germany's occupation of the Rhineland. ³If history teaches us anything, it is that we must resist aggression or it will destroy our freedoms,² he declared. The administration leaked reports that tens of thousands of Iraqi troops were massing on the border of Saudi Arabia in preparation for an invasion of the world's major oil fields. The globe's industrial economies would be held hostage if Iraq succeeded.

The reality was different. Two Soviet satellite photos obtained by the St. Petersburg Times raised questions about such a buildup of Iraqi troops. Neither the CIA nor the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency viewed an Iraqi attack on Saudi Arabia as probable. The administration's estimate of Iraqi troop strength was also grossly exaggerated. After the war, Newsday's Susan Sachs called Iraq the ³phantom enemy²: ³The bulk of the mighty Iraqi army, said to number more than 500,000 in Kuwait and southern Iraq, couldn't be found.²

Students of the Gulf War largely agree that Hussein's invasion of Kuwait was primarily motivated by specific historical grievances, not by Hitler-style ambitions. Like most Iraqi rulers before him, Hussein refused to accept borders drawn by Britain after World War I that virtually cut Iraq off from the Gulf. Iraq also chafed at Kuwait's demand that Iraq repay loans made to it during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s.

Administration officials seemed to understand all this. In July 1990, U.S. Ambassador to Baghdad April Glaspie told Hussein that Washington had ³no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait,² a statement she later regretted.

The National Security Council's first meeting after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was equally low key. As one participant reportedly put it, the attitude was, ³Hey, too bad about Kuwait, but it's just a gas station who cares whether the sign says Sinclair or Exxon?²

But administration hawks, led by Cheney, saw a huge opportunity to capitalize on Iraq's move against Kuwait. The elder Bush publicly pronounced, ³a line has been drawn in the sand,² and he called for a ³new world order ... free from the threat of terror.² His unstated premise, as noted by National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, was that the United States ³henceforth would be obligated to lead the world community to an unprecedented degree² as it attempted ³to pursue our national interests.²

Go do more research, then. I remember the runup to the war and one of the key justifications was the alleged threat to Saudi Arabia. Remember, bin Laden wanted the Saudis to let his Al Qaeda organization protect Mecca and Medina from Saddam but the Saudis opted to have the US military have a sizable presence. That incensed bin Laden and led to Al Qaeda focusing on the US in its attacks. But, I'm digressing a bit.

Go search. The satellite photos were faked. Glaspie made that remark. Saddam was, essentially, given a green light by the US to do whatever he wanted. Although, Saddam might have taken things a bit further.

http://www.wrmea.com/archives/august2002/0208049.html


And

The Fifth Estate: The Unauthorized Biography of Dick Cheney
http://news.globalfreepress.co...zedCheneyBiography.mov
Note: This video also shows the LIE involved in justifying the Gulf War in 1991 wherein the U.S. gave fake satellite photos to the Saudis to get them to invite our military into their country. They (the CBC) obtained Russian sat. photos from the same day that did not show Iraqi troops and tanks amassing on the Kuwait/Saudi border. The St. Petersburg Times (FL) and the Christian Science Monitor also have articles discussing these faked satellite photos.

This film also uncovers what was going on in the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans (OSP). They interview Seymour Hersh who wrote Selective Intelligence and also The Stovepipe and they interview Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski who wrote The New Pentagon Papers and worked in the OSP run by Wolfowitz/Feith.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: BBond
Here's why I care. We did the same thing to Iraq that they did to Kuwait.

LMAO. I love when you post. Most of the time it's so incredibly inane that I don't even need to bother disputing it.

How can you dispute the truth?

Pray tell, what is the reasoning you and BBond share regarding the invasion of Kuwait? This should be good.

From a couple of my posts in another thread:

...

Hello topic evasion. I'm not concerned with Desert Shield, although why anyone would be against the massing up of troops in a friendly country (where like it or not, the U.S.'s critical interests lie) to protect it against a proven expansionist regime is beyond me. I don't care that the U.S. had to nudge the Saudis into cooperating so it could be used as a base of ops for the free Kuwait campaign. No, this is what we are talking about:

We did the same thing to Iraq that they did to Kuwait.

What did Iraq do to Kuwait that is identical to what was done to Iraq? From this, I assume you apparently feel that Iraq was justified in its invasion and that the West should have done nothing?

 

[conjur]

Invaded and occupied it. Killed innocent civilians.

And, what I posted was not topic evasion no matter how loudly you say it. You wanted proof, I gave it to you.

 

[newParadigm]

Between bush and kerry it was the lesser of two evils.

Bush changed the facts to match his story, kerry changed his story to match the facts.


~new

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: conjur
Invaded and occupied it. Killed innocent civilians.

And, what I posted was not topic evasion no matter how loudly you say it. You wanted proof, I gave it to you.

They are in a state of self-induced hypnosis. They cannot recognize the truth in this state.

Even when you post the facts for them to read in black and white. They are lost to reason, Conjur. But don't ever stop trying or their version of reality might somehow wind up in the history books.

 

[Pohemi]

Originally posted by: yllus

What did Iraq do to Kuwait that is identical to what was done to Iraq? From this, I assume you apparently feel that Iraq was justified in its invasion and that the West should have done nothing?

Either you missed the point, or you just refuse to see facts when they are presented. The point is that Iraq was NOT justified in it's invasion of Kuwait in 1991, just as the U.S. was NOT justified in it's invasion of Iraq in 2003. Jesus Tap-dancing Christ man...open your eyes instead of twisting other people's words.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: BBond

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

I think they should use overused and essentially useless sayings as the gravel to pave on top of

They would be a better foundation than the lies we're building on now.

 

[GrGr]

Not that I necessarily think that it justified the invasion but if Iraq's claims that Kuwait were slant drilling are true, Iraq did in fact have more valid reasons to defend itself from foreign aggression than did the US (Dubya) to invade Iraq