Tonight on "Hardball with Chris Matthews"

[shira]

Originally posted by: Genx87
The burden was on Saddam to prove known stockpiles were destroyed. Soemthing he failed to do. It was on Saddam to allow unfettered access to his facilities, something he didnt do.

Prove something does NOT exist? That's a neat trick.

Please explain (for example) how you would prove that unicorns don't exist. What? You haven't seen any? All that shows is that they're well hidden. Like Saddam's WMDs. You know, the ones you STILL think are hidden in Syria.

The point is, when you're a looney-tunes righty, "proof" is just not possible.

Jesus and the WMDs will appear at the second coming, and NOTHING is going to shake THAT faith.

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: NeenerNeener
America being misled about the need for war in Iraq seemed self-evident before the DSM.

You dont believe we had legitimate concerns with a madman not allowing access to search his country for known WMD stockpiles after 9-11?

They did search. And they didn't find anything.

 

[Last Rezort]

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
I hate how people can be so easily spoonfed. For God's sake, Bush has changed his reason for invading Iraq, what, 3 times now? First it was the "Stockpiles of WMD's and Saddam's unwillingness to disarm (proven wrong)," then it was how "Iraq sponsored terrorists (al Qaida, specifically) were responsible for 9-11 (proven wrong)," now it's about how "we went to war because we were attacked... (again, NO LINK BETWEEN 9-11 AND SADDAM)" Do your opinions just magically change based on whatever mood Bush is in? I'm sure we'll have another 4 reasons or so that we invaded Iraq before his term ends. Quite honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if he just said because God told him to... which, apparently, 52% of you would believe.

ROFL
He has already said that.

 

[Crimson]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: chambersc
how can concerns develop after 9/11 of WMD stockpiles if a) you said they didn't magically appear and b) the policy was as such (no known threat nor stockpiles). if there was no concern prior to 9/11 how can there be one post?

Lets see
Terrorists hit us at home
Madman no complying with UN inspection treaty he signed
Terrorists are all from the Middle East.
Madman has said he wants to bring America down.

Connecting the dots yet?

Before 9-11 we were fine with lobbing a few cruise missiles his way. After getting slapped in the face we need to start thinking of the worst case scenarios and dealing with them before it happens.

Want a current example of this? Watch the US mexico border get dealt with after terrorists blast some urban area with a WMD.

You know, with an irrational mind like yours bush could justify exterminating the Eskimos after 9/11 and you'd be lapping it up. What part of, "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11" don't you understand. You can blind yourself, but you cannot blind the people responding to you in this thread. Your argument is rationalization and illogical crap.

If the eskimos were ramming planes into the skyscrapers in a city near you I might consider the idea.

There is nothing irrational with making sure WMD's that could fall into the hands of the very people who just killed 3000 of your citizens is dealt with.

We screwed around long enough with that security threat during the 1990s. Lobbing a few missiles and hoping he complies with the very treaty he signed is foolhardy.

Multiple choice for you Genx... who was behind the attrocities of Sept 11, 2001:

A) Osama Bin Laden and a gang of mostly Saudis and not one Iraqi.
B) Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi people.

So, would you support the invasion of Saudi Arabia?

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

Originally posted by: Crimson
So, would you support the invasion of Saudi Arabia?

For me? No. It's not like we need to give terrorists any more reasons to hate us. Besides, I doubt we have the manpower to do it.

How about you?

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: JustAnAverageGuy

Originally posted by: Crimson
So, would you support the invasion of Saudi Arabia?

For me? No. It's not like we need to give terrorists any more reasons to hate us. Besides, I doubt we have the manpower to do it.

How about you?

It is easier for them to murder a bunch of Moderate Iraqis and then build large military bases on their soil to launch future attacks against places like Iran and Syria

BushCo does way too much $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ business with the House of Saud to ever even think of attacking them

 

[arsbanned]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Which is unsurprising because the MSM in this country just loves to work with unverifiable sources.

Yeah, I've watched Fox News too.

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: NeenerNeener
America being misled about the need for war in Iraq seemed self-evident before the DSM.

You dont believe we had legitimate concerns with a madman not allowing access to search his country for known WMD stockpiles after 9-11?

We had total access. There were no WMD (according to the commission, according to the CIA, according to all knowledgeable sources). The Admin was hellbent on taking Iraq out to benefit the military-industrial complex. End of story.

Edit:
I'm sorry I'm frequently late to the party here, I've been working out of the office -but I have to respond to these inaccuracies in the record.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Multiple choice for you Genx... who was behind the attrocities of Sept 11, 2001:

A) Osama Bin Laden and a gang of mostly Saudis and not one Iraqi.
B) Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi people.

So, would you support the invasion of Saudi Arabia?

Why is that you and Bush respond to every foreign stimuli with an invasion?

Would you invade Venezuela? North Korea? China? France?

What nonsense.

 

[Sysbuilder05]

[Q}
There was zero role with Saddam and 9-11. But that has little effect on the reasons for going into Iraq. Saddam simply refused to adhere to the very treaty he signed at the end of the first Gulf War. As a country we could not take the risk the stockpiles he was known to have could end up in the wrong person hands.

The burden was on Saddam to prove known stockpiles were destroyed. Soemthing he failed to do. It was on Saddam to allow unfettered access to his facilities, something he didnt do.

[/quote]

Jesus,watch some REAL news OK?? INSPECTORS WERE IN IRAQ in 2003--THEY HAD TO BE REMOVED SO BUSH COULD START BOMBING. How do you prove that you've removed something you DIDN'T have?? This is the catch-22 that Bush used to start bombing Iraq,SH didn't remove WMD--No SH*T Sherlock,he DIDN'T have ANY WMD.

Under UN pressure the ENTIRE country of Iraq would have been open to any and all searches for WMD,of course that would take time and Bush knew they would find NOTHING so he told the inspectors(REMEMBER HANS BLIX?) to GET OUT so he could start killing innocent Iraqi's.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Sysbuilder05
[Q}
There was zero role with Saddam and 9-11. But that has little effect on the reasons for going into Iraq. Saddam simply refused to adhere to the very treaty he signed at the end of the first Gulf War. As a country we could not take the risk the stockpiles he was known to have could end up in the wrong person hands.

The burden was on Saddam to prove known stockpiles were destroyed. Soemthing he failed to do. It was on Saddam to allow unfettered access to his facilities, something he didnt do.

Jesus,watch some REAL news OK?? INSPECTORS WERE IN IRAQ in 2003--THEY HAD TO BE REMOVED SO BUSH COULD START BOMBING. How do you prove that you've removed something you DIDN'T have?? This is the catch-22 that Bush used to start bombing Iraq,SH didn't remove WMD--No SH*T Sherlock,he DIDN'T have ANY WMD.

Under UN pressure the ENTIRE country of Iraq would have been open to any and all searches for WMD,of course that would take time and Bush knew they would find NOTHING so he told the inspectors(REMEMBER HANS BLIX?) to GET OUT so he could start killing innocent Iraqi's.



[/quote]


I remember Collin Powell saying that we knew where some of Saddam's WMD's were, but if we told the INSPECTORS where to look that the Iraq's would move them before they could get there. The righties have become nothing more then a sorry lot of liars.

Lies within lies within lies.

 

[shurato]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: chambersc
how can concerns develop after 9/11 of WMD stockpiles if a) you said they didn't magically appear and b) the policy was as such (no known threat nor stockpiles). if there was no concern prior to 9/11 how can there be one post?

Lets see
Terrorists hit us at home
Madman no complying with UN inspection treaty he signed
Terrorists are all from the Middle East.
Madman has said he wants to bring America down.

Connecting the dots yet?

Before 9-11 we were fine with lobbing a few cruise missiles his way. After getting slapped in the face we need to start thinking of the worst case scenarios and dealing with them before it happens.

Want a current example of this? Watch the US mexico border get dealt with after terrorists blast some urban area with a WMD.

Yes, lets be use the dumbass neo-con mindset and start invading sovereign countries because i connected a few simple dots and can only see things in black and white much like a stupid dog.

 

[NeenerNeener]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Sysbuilder05
[Q}
There was zero role with Saddam and 9-11. But that has little effect on the reasons for going into Iraq. Saddam simply refused to adhere to the very treaty he signed at the end of the first Gulf War. As a country we could not take the risk the stockpiles he was known to have could end up in the wrong person hands.

The burden was on Saddam to prove known stockpiles were destroyed. Soemthing he failed to do. It was on Saddam to allow unfettered access to his facilities, something he didnt do.

Jesus,watch some REAL news OK?? INSPECTORS WERE IN IRAQ in 2003--THEY HAD TO BE REMOVED SO BUSH COULD START BOMBING. How do you prove that you've removed something you DIDN'T have?? This is the catch-22 that Bush used to start bombing Iraq,SH didn't remove WMD--No SH*T Sherlock,he DIDN'T have ANY WMD.

Under UN pressure the ENTIRE country of Iraq would have been open to any and all searches for WMD,of course that would take time and Bush knew they would find NOTHING so he told the inspectors(REMEMBER HANS BLIX?) to GET OUT so he could start killing innocent Iraqi's.

I remember Collin Powell saying that we knew where some of Saddam's WMD's were, but if we told the INSPECTORS where to look that the Iraq's would move them before they could get there. The righties have become nothing more then a sorry lot of liars.

Lies within lies within lies.[/quote]

Again my ED209 Robocop analogy. "Drop your weapons! You have ten seconds to comply!"