More like Bush OWE'S US ALL. He has changed the reason for attacking about a half a dozen times, which makes this even more ridiculous.Originally posted by Nevio
The Bush Administration said they where going to Iraq for WMD's!!!!!!!
Alas, there werent any so they changed the war motive to "Liberate Iraq"?
How the hell did they spin this? There is no way to spin this!
Pure logic people.
Yeah blame it the false CIA information, well if the information was false and we found no WMD's how the hell do you change the plan for a pre-emptive strike to a plan to liberate a country!!!!!!
This is the biggest B.s. ive seen in my short life, but really makes me mad is everyone seems to just take it with a grain of salt.
But alas BUSH OWNS US ALL!!! and theres no changin that.
This is no different than the 10 year olds we are torturing in front of their parents at Abu Grhaib right now.Originally posted by cnredd:
Ouote from George Bush:
Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained: by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape.
If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning.
Cite please.Billo_Really said:This is no different than the 10 year olds we are torturing in front of their parents at Abu Grhaib right now.
I agree that it wasn't the only reason provided. There was one study done that detailed 27 different reasons given for invading Iraq.cnredd said:The objective of "liberation" was not changed...If there are 5 reasons to do something, and then later find out one of them was wrong, that doesn't negate the other 4...
This is the ACTUAL transcript from the 2003 State of the Union speech...
If your accusation of "changing the motive" is true...we would've never have seen the term "liberation" previous to the war...
But alas...there it is in black and white...
Simon W. Moon said:I agree that it wasn't the only reason provided. There was one study done that detailed 27 different reasons given for invading Iraq.
I agree w/ Wolfowitz that the reason that sold the war to the electorate was the threat to the US from Iraq. W/o that, the invasion is nakedly a liberal, social-engineering experiment in a country halfway around the world.
That wouldn't fly.
Here's one from the Associated Press (re-posted by truthout.org).Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon:
Cite please
This is the one that is most disturbing. And is the story from which I referenced the 10 year old comment.Prisoners at Abu Ghraib Said Included Kids
By Matt Kelley The Associated Press
Friday 11 March 2005
Washington - A boy no older than 11 was among the children held by the Army at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison, the former U.S. commander of the facility told a general investigating abuses at the prison.
Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski did not say what happened to the boy or why he was imprisoned, according to a transcript of her interview with Maj. Gen. George Fay that was released by the American Civil Liberties Union.
The transcript of the May 2004 interview was among hundreds of pages of documents about Iraq prisoner abuses the group made public Thursday after getting them under the Freedom of Information Act.
Karpinski, who was in charge of Abu Ghraib from July to November 2003, said she often visited the prison's youngest inmates. One boy "looked like he was 8-years-old," Karpinski said.
"He told me he was almost 12," Karpinski said. "He told me his brother was there with him, but he really wanted to see his mother, could he please call his mother. He was crying."
Military officials have acknowledged that some juvenile prisoners had been held at Abu Ghraib, a massive prison built by Saddam Hussein's government outside Baghdad. But the transcript is the first documented evidence of a child no older than 11 being held prisoner.
Military officials have said that no juvenile prisoners were subject to the abuses captured in photographs from Abu Ghraib. But some of the men shown being stripped naked and humiliated had been accused of raping a 14-year-old prisoner.
The new documents offer rare details about the children whom the U.S. military has held in Iraq. Karpinski said the Army began holding women and children in a high-security cellblock at Abu Ghraib in the summer of 2003 because the facility was better than lockups in Baghdad where the youths had been held.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/031105I.shtml
Iraq's Child Prisoners
A Sunday Herald investigation has discovered that coalition forces are holding more than 100 children in jails such as Abu Ghraib. Witnesses claim that the detainees – some as young as 10 – are also being subjected to rape and torture By Neil Mackay
Proof of the widespread arrest and detention of children in Iraq by US and UK forces is contained in an internal Unicef report written in June. The report has – surprisingly – not been made public. A key section on child protection, headed “Children in Conflict with the Law or with Coalition Forces”, reads: “In July and August 2003, several meetings were conducted with CPA (Coalition Provisional Authority) … and Ministry of Justice to address issues related to juvenile justice and the situation of children detained by the coalition forces … Unicef is working through a variety of channels to try and learn more about conditions for children who are imprisoned or detained, and to ensure that their rights are respected.”
http://www.sundayherald.com/43796
Wouldn't have mattered if he did. It was the sanctions that contributed to their deaths.Originally posted by cnredd:
Now Saddam knew the UN buckled...the ball was in his court...
He'll get the sympathy vote from the Arab nations that the big,
bad UN had killed the little children. Not that he really cared.
UN has already stated 1441 was not an authorization to use military force. And it is their postion that this war is not in concert with the UN Charter.Originally posted by cnredd:
First, the UN would put on that "determined" look and ratify
Resolution 1441, which says, "Saddam's been screwing up; if he
continues to screw up, we might do something extreme." Saddam must've
hurt his abdomen laughing at that one...The only thing they've done
in ten years was put on sanctions, which he was getting around anyway...
What were they going to do next? Put up a billboard saying, "Saddam's
not a very good person"?
Can't have a shell game without a marble to hide.Originally posted by cnredd:
Meanwhile, the US said, you know what?...These sanctions aren't hurting
the regime...they're hurting the people...and if the UN is stupid enough
to keep this 3-card monte game up, we're gonna have to do this ourselves.
Because of DSM, this is all a moot point. He was going to attack, and he did attack. 9 months before receiving permission from Congress. Which is an impeachable offense.Originally posted by KevinWan:
WMD's were not the only reason we went into Iraq. Liberation, enforcing UN sanctions, ousting Saddam, etc. etc. were amongst the other reasons. I think many Americans don't care that the initial cause changed, because we are already there and need to finish the job. Not finishing it is a huge defeat to the US... an embarassing one at that. The failure of intelligence is also embarassing, but turning our back on the mess we would leave in Iraq if we leave, would be more embarassing.
Nevio said:The Bush Administration said they where going to Iraq for WMD's!!!!!!!
Alas, there werent any so they changed the war motive to "Liberate Iraq"?
How the hell did they spin this? There is no way to spin this!
Pure logic people.
Yeah blame it the false CIA information, well if the information was false and we found no WMD's how the hell do you change the plan for a pre-emptive strike to a plan to liberate a country!!!!!!
This is the biggest B.s. ive seen in my short life, but really makes me mad is everyone seems to just take it with a grain of salt.
But alas BUSH OWNS US ALL!!! and theres no changin that.
This is a debate forum. Not the "Pro-Bush Poster Society!"Originally Posted by theheartbreakkid13:
I am not that old but I am a big history fanatic and I know that when we went to war against Japan & Germany not everybody was behind Roosevelt. It happens in every presidential term, someone disagrees with either the cause of the war or just the war or even just the president of the United States. We all have our own opinions, thus the nature of this country. There is or was a connection between Iraq and 9/11, the Bush, Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, and Ashcroft testified in court that there was no connection. That is my opinion and I'll stick to it from now and always.
Because of DSM, this is all a moot point. He was going to attack, and he did attack. 9 months before receiving permission from Congress. Which is an impeachable offense.
[This is a debate forum. Not the "Pro-Bush Poster Society!"
/QUOTE]
Its not a bash President Bush forum either but you could never tell by your posts..........
theheartbreakkid13 said:I am not that old but I am a big history fanatic and I know that when we went to war against Japan & Germany not everybody was behind Roosevelt. It happens in every presidential term, someone disagrees with either the cause of the war or just the war or even just the president of the United States. We all have our own opinions, thus the nature of this country. There is or was a connection between Iraq and 9/11, the Bush, Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, and Ashcroft testified in court that there was no connection. That is my opinion and I'll stick to it from now and always.
Arch Enemy said:I do believe that Iraq's regime needed to go, but not in this manner and not at this time. I believe we should have aimed our efforts in other, more serious threats in general. Example, Sudan.. we should have taken Sudan out first, got the support for doing such a good deed, then liberated Iraq.
I am not for the Iraqi War because we rushed into it. It's terribly stupid to rush into a country and engage war without an escape or "exit" plan. I wish George W. Bush would quit treating the populace as kids, we need to be told more then "we'll be done when we're done" or "we'll leave as soon as the mission is finished", I am sick and tired of these comments.. if he really knows what he's doing he should take the time to explain more in-depth. Instead of telling us these repeated quotes.
Post #320 on the Bush is a War Criminal thread has the link.Originally posted by Navy Pride:
A link please, and not moveon.org or the New York
Times.........Thanks...........
Originally posted by billo:
This is a debate forum. Not the "Pro-Bush Poster Society!"
Originally posted by Navy Pride:
Its not a bash President Bush forum either but you could never tell by your posts..........
Nevio said:The Bush Administration said they where going to Iraq for WMD's!!!!!!!
Alas, there werent any so they changed the war motive to "Liberate Iraq"?
How the hell did they spin this? There is no way to spin this!
Pure logic people.
Yeah blame it the false CIA information, well if the information was false and we found no WMD's how the hell do you change the plan for a pre-emptive strike to a plan to liberate a country!!!!!!
This is the biggest B.s. ive seen in my short life, but really makes me mad is everyone seems to just take it with a grain of salt.
But alas BUSH OWNS US ALL!!! and theres no changin that.
Arch Enemy said:I understand your worries and I'm sorry for your 6 friends. But let's not forget, most Republicans don't want this war to be compared to Vietnam. I doubt it'll turn out like Vietnam, not matter what happens. We're fighting terrorism, terrorism cannot be beaten.. it can only be fought. No matter how many people we have to kill, terrorism will live on and on and on.
This war has NO comparison to Normandy. Normandy was a one-day affair.. this has been going on for years. In Normandy, they couldn't create a plan on the run.. they had to fight and fight somemore. But with this war in Iraq, we've had time to create a back-up plan and we've yet to even see this so-called plan we've got.
You may not have been blessed with those fiendish things, some people like to call "kids". But I picture this war like it was this kids first time riding a bike. You've got to hold on to the kid so that it won't lose control and hurt itself. But you've also got to pick the time that this kid has a control of this, you've got to do this at an early stage of the development process and you've got to let the kid go. If you hold your kid too long, it'll be dependent on you and could possibly never be able to ride the bike on its own. But if you let go of the kid too early it'll fall down and may not want to rise up again.
I believe it's time for us to let go of this new government, before they become totally dependent on us.
They'll have a civil war, I'll garauntee you that! They'll also have wars, but that's just becasue that's what nations do.. we cannot grieve and feel terrible if these people start their own battles, it's just the nature of the beast.
My Grandfather's brother was killed on D-Day at Normandy, by a mortar shell.. as soon as he left the landing craft.
I've got faith in the new Iraqi Government, they're big boys.. they can handle theirselves.
Do you not believe we should hold our elected officials accountable for their actions? If yes, how, when and under what conditions, does this occur? I would like to know your thoughts on this.Originally posted by Navy Pride:
You are young......All you know about Nam is what your liberal teachers have told you........Every other year I go to DC and go to the wall and get down on my knees and cry for the loss of my friends.......They died for absolutely nothing because of Liberals like Kerry and Fonda..........We won every battle but lost the war..........As I said before the terrorists can not beat us in Iraq....The only thing that can beat us is Liberals back here in the states who have no stomach for finishing the job.......I hope your not like that.........
I don't know what is going to happen in Iraq...Nobody does.......My friends who are in the military tell me that it is nothing like the liberal media paints it to be.............Thirteen of the 16 provinces are free of violenc.........Only the ones in the Sunni triangle are a problem......They tell me the Iraqis want us there and are grateful that we freed them from Saddam...........They only want a chance to live and prosper as free men and we are giving them that chance.......They might blow it...who knows but they deserve the chance.......
One thing i can tell you for sure Iraq is nothing like Vietnam............
Billo_Really said:Do you not believe we should hold our elected officials accountable for their actions? If yes, how, when and under what conditions, does this occur? I would like to know your thoughts on this.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?