This is interesting, yeah thats it, "Study: Wrong impressions helped support Iraq war"

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: phillyTIM

Originally posted by: Dari
Well, seeing that you agree with him, and knowing your history of making incredibly stupid and outrageously invalid statements, my statement seems all the more valid.

Actually its only according to YOU and your opinion that I have a "history of making incredibly stupid and outrageous invalid statements" only because YOU don't agree with me. That by no means gives me a history of this. Remember that.

BTW, I see you have no gumption about fixing problems before they arise. And the iraqi problem involved more than WMD. Read up more on it, then come back and we can have a debate.

You must be suffering from Alzheimer's Disease, Dari.

THE STATED RATIONALE FOR GOING INTO IRAQ WAS BECAUSE OF THE OVERWHELMING AMOUNTS OF WMD'S THAT HUSSEIN HAD STOCKPILED.

That is what Bush said each and every time he tried to sell us this bridge, and that's what this sham was for and based upon.

YOU REMEMBER THAT.

Anyone can have WMDs, but when that country is ran by an unstable lunatic like Hussein, he has to be rein in. When you have a country like Hussein's iraq, which ran around invading her neighbors, supported terrorism, and flaunting Article VII UN resolutions, it's a time for concern and a time for action.

And, PhyllisTim, you are the vilest person on this board.

Your erroneous charge of Iraq's support of terrorism WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN DENIED BY BUSH HIMSELF AFTER HE TOLD AMERICANS FOR OVER A YEAR THAT IRAQ WAS CONNECTED TO TERRORISTS AND 9/11 is a prime example of the damage the Bush administration has done in spreading this and other lies such as the one you parroted about WMD which doesn't exist.

But still you and people like you keep repeating the lies.

You have one hell of a nerve calling anyone vile. You support the vilest administration ever to lead America.

Wake up.

Iraq was not involved in terror.

Iraq was not involved in 9/11.

Iraq had no WMD.

Iraq was not an imminent threat to the US.

Iraq purchased NO nuclear material in Africa.

Iraq had NO drones ready to attack the US with chem/bio.

You are like a cult follower whose brainwashing hasn't been treated.

Again you show your ignorance. "Terrorism" isn't just Al qaeda. Iraq DID support terrorism - just *maybe* not Al qaeda. Do you keep forgetting payments to suicide bombers? Yeah - figured you had.

Now are you going to keep spouting this LIE, since you have been told repeatedly that your assessment was less than accurate?
Time will tell I guess - I won't hold my breath

CkG

 

[chess9]

Dari:

Sorry you feel that way. But, that's the beauty of America-you get to be a complete moron and no one is going to shoot you in the morning. ,

I have a lot of friends like you, so I take everything you say as though you were one of my right wing wacko friends.

On the other hand, I doubt you'd make those comments to my face.

-Robert

 

[LunarRay]

I don't know about you folks but, I was conflicted in the months leading up to the invasion. In fact, as I indicated earlier, I accepted any thing the Administration said about Iraq, Afghanistan and all of it. I guess it was Apoppin in the OT threads at the at the time who gave me another perspective... Their view of all this. It was compelling and even the attempt to see all this from the eye of the Iraqi and others in the area brought insight and a better understanding about why this could have been a sham invasion. Now that all this time has passed and Britain's Cook 'outing' Blair (so to speak) I can't see how Bush can continue to defend the Administration's lack of candor in any of the salient points.

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Again you show your ignorance. "Terrorism" isn't just Al qaeda. Iraq DID support terrorism - just *maybe* not Al qaeda. Do you keep forgetting payments to suicide bombers? Yeah - figured you had.

Suicide bombers that attacked the US? Or is this war supposed to be "for the world" that doesn't support said war?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: rjain

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Again you show your ignorance. "Terrorism" isn't just Al qaeda. Iraq DID support terrorism - just *maybe* not Al qaeda. Do you keep forgetting payments to suicide bombers? Yeah - figured you had.

Suicide bombers that attacked the US? Or is this war supposed to be "for the world" that doesn't support said war?

Read what my reply was about. BOBDN constantly says that Saddam didn't support terrorists - which is not true. Terrorists don't only strike the US which I'm sure you know

CkG

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: rjain

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Again you show your ignorance. "Terrorism" isn't just Al qaeda. Iraq DID support terrorism - just *maybe* not Al qaeda. Do you keep forgetting payments to suicide bombers? Yeah - figured you had.

Suicide bombers that attacked the US? Or is this war supposed to be "for the world" that doesn't support said war?

Read what my reply was about. BOBDN constantly says that Saddam didn't support terrorists - which is not true. Terrorists don't only strike the US which I'm sure you know

CkG

I belive Saddam gave money to families of every palestinian killed

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: rjain

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Again you show your ignorance. "Terrorism" isn't just Al qaeda. Iraq DID support terrorism - just *maybe* not Al qaeda. Do you keep forgetting payments to suicide bombers? Yeah - figured you had.

Suicide bombers that attacked the US? Or is this war supposed to be "for the world" that doesn't support said war?

Read what my reply was about. BOBDN constantly says that Saddam didn't support terrorists - which is not true. Terrorists don't only strike the US which I'm sure you know

CkG

I belive Saddam gave money to families of every palestinian killed

No, he gave money to familys of the suicide bombers.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: rjain

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Again you show your ignorance. "Terrorism" isn't just Al qaeda. Iraq DID support terrorism - just *maybe* not Al qaeda. Do you keep forgetting payments to suicide bombers? Yeah - figured you had.

Suicide bombers that attacked the US? Or is this war supposed to be "for the world" that doesn't support said war?

Read what my reply was about. BOBDN constantly says that Saddam didn't support terrorists - which is not true. Terrorists don't only strike the US which I'm sure you know

CkG

I belive Saddam gave money to families of every palestinian killed

No, he gave money to familys of the suicide bombers.

both that is, like I said families of every palestinian killed

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm

Saddam Hussein has paid out thousands of dollars to families of Palestinians killed in fighting with Israel.
Relatives of at least one suicide attacker as well as other militants and civilians gathered in a hall in Gaza City to receive cheques.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

US soldiers were deployed to Iraq for the purpose of killing Iraqi soldiers that were defending their country. Some call that war others call it premeditated murder.

This war was sold as payback for 9/11 or prevention of another 9/11. The former would be the equivalent of a pimp smacking a random attractive woman (Iraq) b/c one of his "employees" (Saudi Arabia) was getting out of line. The latter is even more ridiculous b/c the plots, plotters, and recruits for future attacks on America are in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria, Iran, North Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia, Senegal, Sudan, and then maybe Iraq. The best mode of prevention would have been a real coalition focused on removing thepolitical support for terrorist organizations. Financial support would dry up as these groups lose the cover of a cause to fight for. Once isolated from financial and political protection, a global coalition could then systematically sweep up the remnants. Even if their eradication was impossible (which is likely the case), a global coalition would certainly dramatically reduce the (reach and recruitment) of terrorist organizations.

I bet we could have done it for less than $250B . . . and the world would have loved us for it.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Well the French might not have loved it but they would have given a grudging chin up.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
US soldiers were deployed to Iraq for the purpose of killing Iraqi soldiers that were defending their country. Some call that war others call it premeditated murder.

This war was sold as payback for 9/11 or prevention of another 9/11. The former would be the equivalent of a pimp smacking a random attractive woman (Iraq) b/c one of his "employees" (Saudi Arabia) was getting out of line. The latter is even more ridiculous b/c the plots, plotters, and recruits for future attacks on America are in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria, Iran, North Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia, Senegal, Sudan, and then maybe Iraq. The best mode of prevention would have been a real coalition focused on removing thepolitical support for terrorist organizations. Financial support would dry up as these groups lose the cover of a cause to fight for. Once isolated from financial and political protection, a global coalition could then systematically sweep up the remnants. Even if their eradication was impossible (which is likely the case), a global coalition would certainly dramatically reduce the (reach and recruitment) of terrorist organizations.

I bet we could have done it for less than $250B . . . and the world would have loved us for it.

There you go again with many of your misinformations. I have an awards thread coming up, and I strongly believe you're a winner in multiple categories.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: Dari

There you go again with many of your misinformations. I have an awards thread coming up, and I strongly believe you're a winner in multiple categories.

What a fascist idea. An awards thread to advance your view. Instead of using conclusions based on researching facts you can threaten someone with the distinction of winning a booby prize in a contest of your own making.

Please. Don't go through all that trouble. Spare us your awards thread.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Please tell me what I'm misinformed about oh sage one.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
US soldiers were deployed to Iraq for the purpose of killing Iraqi soldiers that were defending their country. Some call that war others call it premeditated murder.

This war was sold as payback for 9/11 (BULLSH!T)or prevention of another 9/11. The former would be the equivalent of a pimp smacking a random attractive woman (Iraq) b/c one of his "employees" (Saudi Arabia) was getting out of line(BULLSH!T). The latter is even more ridiculous b/c the plots, plotters, and recruits for future attacks on America are in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria, Iran, North Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia, Senegal, Sudan, and then maybe Iraq. The best mode of prevention would have been a real coalition focused on removing thepolitical support for terrorist organizations(and the arabs would just rename the terrorists "resistance/freedom fighters). Financial support would dry up as these groups lose the cover of a cause to fight for(BULLSH!T). Once isolated from financial and political protection, a global coalition could then systematically sweep up the remnants(BULLSH!T). Even if their eradication was impossible (which is likely the case(BULLSH!T)), a global coalition would certainly dramatically reduce the (reach and recruitment) of terrorist organizations(BULLSH!T).

I bet we could have done it for less than $250B . . . and the world would have loved us for it.

And how come a similar coalition wasn't set up when arabs were terrorizing Israel in the late 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s? Who would agree to which interpretation? Would/could this be set up before a 9/11-like attack? Where did you get this fantasy notion?