• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Challenging Accusations

Repub05

New member
Joined
May 4, 2005
Messages
36
Reaction score
0
Because liberal people have the tendency to not think through things before acting, I'd like to challenge some of their accusations of Bush and the Iraqi war that I frequently hear, being that I live in a liberal infested state:

One:
"The only reason Bush went to war was so he can get oil"

Yeah, ok- he convinced congress to go to war for oil, and pretending for a moment that that was the case, it's not like the oil would be in reserve for Bush for the rest of his life.

Two:
"But Bush said he went to war to find WMD's. But there were none."

OK, lets think about that for a moment. This could very well be what happened: You are Saddam, and the UN (with one of its members being the most powerful nation in the world) asks you if they can check out your country for WMDs. You say yes so as not to look suspicious. Then in between the time UN schedules to go in and the time you said yes, you start shipping your WMDs out somewhere (possibly your good friends, the Saudis). UN says 'OK we're coming in!' But you're not done, you need more time, so you tell them 'no'. Then in between the time you told UN to FO and the time Bush (congress too, some liberals including Kerry and Republicans voted for the war) you get the rest of your stuff out. No WMD's.

It could have also been played out like this (I'm exagerating a little but the point comes through):

You're some Iraqi soldier sitting in the desert making a sand castle or practicing your war cry, when you see Baghdad go up in mushroom clouds. Uh-Oh! US is bombing our ass! What do you do?

A. Wait for US marines to come kick your ass
B. Take your trucks of WMD's over the border and you're home free!

And if you think these are stupid then I challenge you and 89,999 of your liberal friends to search a hot desert country (which I hear smells bad) for WMDs that are probably already shiped out. And you get to use the weapon of your choice (flowers, and peace signs are aloud) and see how easy it is while in the meantime insurgents ambush you. Have fun!

Isn't there evidence from mass graves containing thousands of Saddams own people kind of give some clue that maybe they had to use WMDs to kill them all? No they took a thousand of them out back at a time and shot them one by one Even if they were shot down, I would consider someone who uses his power to kill thousands of his own people a weapon of mass destruction anyway.

Three:
"This war is not in the interests of the majority of Americans"

OK- explain to me then why Bush lost the pop. vote in 2000, only winning by electoral votes, then four years later, won the pop. vote when, if the war wasn't in the best interest of Americans, we could have just easily voted for the Kerry Fairy and gone home.
 
Last edited:

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
You weren't able to muster what was necessary to respond to my rebuttal previously. So, I thought I'd try again and see if you have anymore get-up-and-go these days.

Repub05 said:
Two:
"But Bush said he went to war to find WMD's. But there were none."

OK, lets think about that for a moment. This could very well be what happened:
It could very well be the Nessie And Bigfoot were in on the deal too.
The real question is "What do we have evidence of?"
The American Intelligence Community has found no reason to believe that there were banned weapons shipped out before the war. Have you got a more reliable source than this?

Repub05 said:
And if you think these are stupid then I challenge you and 89,999 of your liberal friends to search a hot desert country ... and see how easy it is while in the meantime insurgents ambush you. Have fun!
I guess you feel justified in belittling the job these people do and have done by saying that they failed to find these weapons even though they're there. I don't appreciate you badmouthing the US Armed Forces like this. You're welcome to your opinion that they're incompetent and incapable of finding these things; but, I don't have to appreciate it. I respect the views of our fine men and women in the services, military and intelligence. If the ISG says there were no weapons and there's no evidence that anything was shipped out, then I'm not the one to second guess them from my armchair.

Repub05 said:
Three:
"This war is not in the interests of the majority of Americans"

OK- explain to me then why Bush lost the pop. vote in 2000, only winning by electoral votes, then four years later, won the pop. vote when, if the war wasn't in the best interest of Americans, we could have just easily voted for the Kerry Fairy and gone home.
By way of an explanation, allow me to debunk the myth of sheeple and introduce you to The Greatest Threat To Our Republic- rational ignorance- all in one fell swoop.

Quick and Painless Primer on Rational Ignorance

Now, your turn to explain, (if you're up to it):
what exactly are the benefits to the US;
why do 57% of Americans say the invasion of Iraq was not worth it;
why do 50% of Americans say that Team Bush deliberately mislead the electorate[#18]?



As I ably demonstrated in this thread- Team Bush and "Best Info Available @ the Time" -Team Bush deliberately misrepresented the threat to the US from Iraq to sell the invasion to the electorate.
And as I pointed out in several places the invasion of Iraq has aided anti-American terrorist organizations and causes throughout the world by alienating not only moderates in the Muslim world but also those who were formerly our friends, by providing a new training grounds for untold numbers of terrorists to hone their skills and network connections.

Our erstwhile allies in Turkey have suddenly found more sympathy for aQ et al:
Extreme Anti-Americanism in Turkey

"It is difficult to detect the difference between what Osama bin Laden said in his 19 audio and videotapes since September 11, 2001, and what some Turkish journalists write. If anything, the Turks outvenom bin Laden.
This would be hilarious if not for the incontrovertible fact that it is believed not only by Islamist extremists but by countless millions of Muslim fundamentalists ...
Anti-Americanism is a relatively new phenomenon in Turkey. Throughout the 1990s in Turkey, 60 percent of the people had favorable views about the U.S. and its policies. The 2003 Iraq war closed many minds.

In Many Turks' Eyes, U.S. Remains the Enemy
Hostility Bodes Ill For Efforts to Boost Americans' Image

The latest survey, gathered in February by the private Metropoll organization, found that four in 10 Turks regard the United States as their country's "biggest enemy." That is more than double the number who named Greece, the ancient rival Turkey has come to the brink of war with three times in the last half-century.

Apparently, we're not seeing the results in our battle w/ extremist for the hearts and minds of moderate Muslims that one would hope for.


http://cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/s...y_02162005.html
Testimony of Director of Central Intelligence
Porter J. Goss
Before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
16 February 2005

Islamic extremists are exploiting the Iraqi conflict to recruit new anti-US jihadists.
These jihadists who survive will leave Iraq experienced in and focused on acts of urban terrorism. They represent a potential pool of contacts to build transnational terrorist cells, groups, and networks in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other countries.

http://www.foia.cia.gov/2020/2020.pdf


• Anti-globalization and opposition to
US policies could cement a greater
body of terrorist sympathizers,
financiers, and collaborators.
societies
.
• Iraq and other possible conflicts in
the future could provide recruitment,
training grounds, technical skills and
language proficiency for a new class
of terrorists who are “professionalized”
and for whom political
violence becomes an end in itself.
• Foreign jihadists—individuals ready
to fight anywhere they believe
Muslim lands are under attack by
what they see as “infidel invaders”—
enjoy a growing sense of support
from Muslims who are not
necessarily supporters of terrorism.


Lest the question be lost, let me reiterate the question, "What exactly are we getting out the deal, and why is it worth it?"


Why do you think Kerry would've gotten us "out of the war?"
Would you please be so kind yo rectify my ignorance with the relative links? Thanks in advance.

Simply,

Simon
 
Last edited:

Repub05

New member
Joined
May 4, 2005
Messages
36
Reaction score
0
I guess you feel justified in belittling the job these people do and have done by saying that they failed to find these weapons even though they're there. I don't appreciate you badmouthing the US Armed Forces like this. You're welcome to your opinion that they're incompetent and incapable of finding these things; but, I don't have to appreciate it. I respect the views of our fine men and women in the services, military and intelligence. If the ISG says there were no weapons and there's no evidence that anything was shipped out, then I'm not the one to second guess them from my armchair.

First off- I'm not badmouthing the armed forces, I'm saying its probably not easy to find WMD's (I'm defending them) , and making sure liberals know that. Of course there's no evidence that they shipped the WMD's out. how could there be? We can't go into Saudi Arabia, and its not likely there would be any evidence of the transport anyway. And it's not an armchair its a crappy metal one.

Now, your turn to explain, (if you're up to it):
what exactly are the benefits to the US;
why do 57% of Americans say the invasion of Iraq was not worth it;
why do 50% of Americans say that Team Bush deliberately mislead the electorate[#18]?


These polls are taken by liberal people, so chances are they target liberal people and do not acount for every US citizen that votes. My opinion? If you don't vote - you can't complain. What does it take anyway? 1/2 hour of your day?


"Lest the question be lost, let me reiterate the question, "What exactly are we getting out the deal, and why is it worth it?"


Evidence? How about mass graves containing thousands of dead Iraqis? Doesn't that kind of make you feel a little remorse for the Iraqi people? Don't you think we should help them? But you liberals never want to think about helping others in other countries you just want to think about your own country- and maybe that would be alright if we were poor and in trouble, but are we? We're the richest we're the most powerful, don't you think we should help others? Thats what we get out of the war. And don't you think that Sadam needed to have WMDs to kill thousands of kurds? I said it once and I'll say it again- even if there was no WMDs, Saddam's killing of thousands of people in its self makes him and his regime's power over the nation a weapon of mass destruction.

It could very well be the Nessie And Bigfoot were in on the deal too.
The real question is "What do we have evidence of?"
The American Intelligence Community has found no reason to believe that there were banned weapons shipped out before the war. Have you got a more reliable source than this?


OK, lets say that at the begining of the war, US armed forces go in and find WMD's right away, you don't think that we wouldn't be doing what were doing right now anyway? Do you think we would just leave and say "Good luck!"? No, we'd be doing this anyway hence the title of the operation "Iraqi Freedom" You're accusing me of not having evidence when in reality, nobody really knows yet, not you or me, even though we have mass graves as evidence, and just because we haven't found them yet because their probably not even in the country anymore.

The reason I created this thread was to challenge the common liberals thoughts, let them see the other side before they just assume what they say is right. Hell I might be wrong, but I look at the evidence that is there and I'm showing the other side.
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Repub05 said:
Hell I might be wrong, but I look at the evidence that is there and I'm showing the other side.
It looks like Simon W Moon offered a bunch of evidence proving your point wrong. Care you share your evidence to the contrary?
 

countmered33

New member
Joined
May 11, 2005
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Unbelievable...it seems to get harder and harder to talk to liberals about anything. Let us not forget that in the months leading up to the War in Iraq these are the same people who were urging us not to go into Iraq because we would have a huge casualty rate dew to Saddam's WMD's. Yet now you all change your mind and decide to accuse the president of "misleading" the nation to believe that that there were in fact WMD's in Iraq. However because all the politicians involved in the war effort were exposed to the same intelligence as president Bush was then it seems that the American people were being mislead by the Democrats as well. Fortunately for the democrats, they have the luxury of changing their stance to cover their backs. Now you democrats argue that there were never any WMD's in Iraq and that Iraq was never a threat to the U.S., when just a few short years a go that was your key reason for not invading the country. However if you liberals insist on sticking to your new notion that there were never any WMD's in Iraq, and that Iraq was never a threat to the U.S., then i will help out Repub05 and offer some information.

-First of all Repub05 had an excellent point in saying that the mass graves of the Kurds offer plenty of evidence to attest to the fact that Saddam had WMD's. It is common knowledge that Saddam killed the Kurds using chemical weaponry, and to dispute that fact is ludicrous.

-Secondly there have been areal photographs taken of convoys leaving Iraq into Syria and other countries in the two weeks preceding the invasion of Iraq. Now you could argue that there is no proof that WMD's were contained in these convoys, but unless Saddam was moving his most prised camels out of the country, I'm pretty sure there are few other reasons why huge groups of vehicles were hauling ass out of the country right before our boys moved in.

-We have also found mobile chemical weapon factories that were recently active in Iraq since we've entered the country.

What more could you ask for? Well liberals still insist that Iraq did not pose an imminent threat to the U.S. Democrats still argue that Saddam had no ties to terrorist groups. Once again liberals get to change their minds whenever they need to in order to support their arguments, its an advantage to having no morals. There is documented evidence proving that Saddam reached out to Osama Bin Laden in the 1990's in order to attempt to create a "friendship". Saddam called on Bin Laden to visit Iraq and to meet with him. Bin Laden did so and just months later American embassy's were bombed. Iraq is also known to have sheltered terrorists like Abbu Abbas. Somehow i cant find a reason to assume that Iraq had no Terrorist ties.

Now to answer the question of why is it worth it. I find it funny that whenever some Democratic humanitarian embarks on a military effort to free a nation from an evil dictator he is embraced as a wonderful leader, but when a republican president attempts to do the same he is publicly attacked. In the case of operation Iraqi freedom it is more of a question of what are the Iraqi people getting out of it. The Iraqi people deserve freedom, and they deserve to be freed from the terrors that Saddam Hussein has put them through during his reign. To say that this war in Iraq is uncalled for is to cay that the liberation of the Jews in WWII was uncalled for. It is to say that our effort to stop the killing fields in Cambodia were uncalled for. It is to say that our humanitarian efforts in Somalia and kosovo were uncalled for. It is to that any Humanitarian effort that the United States has ever embarked on was not worth it. I'm not willing to admit that. However helping out the Iraqi people is not that only reason that Iraq should have been invaded.

Saddam posed a threat to the free world and he needed to be taken out of power. Now as i have already mentioned the threat that he posed to the United States is clear, at least clear to me and other sane conservatives, but Saddam also posed a threat to the rest of the world. Saddam had long range ballistic missiles capable of reaching Israel, and since i already mentioned that he and the fundamentalist muslin terrorist Osama Bin Laden (who HATES Israel) were in cahoots, that seems like a viable threat. Now some of you might argue that Israel is none of our business and that we should worry about them. Well thats where your wrong because we created Israel and we pledged to defend it to our last man, so we kinda have to protect them from crazy dictators. Saddam Hussein was a hindrance to any type of peacemaking efforts in the middle east and he needed to be taken out.

Now there are still some of you who will doubtlessly argue that we should have reached out to our allies and waited for the U.N.'s help. That sounds like a great idea!. If you plan on creating a complete mess and screwing up the Middle east even more that it already is. Lets think of some other times we have acted with other countries for some guidance. At the end of WWII in Europe we cooperated with all of our allies to restore order to Europe, let's see how that turned out. Well after years of bickering over who got what we started a feud that ended up starting the cold war. In Europe because we enlisted the help of all our allies much of Europe was left in disarray while we started a conflict that would last close to 50 years...brilliant! Lets compare that to the pacific theater were the United States acted alone to create a democracy in Japan. Almost instantaneously there was a government in Japan consisting of a Bicameral Legislature and an independent Judiciary. And even after two of its biggest cities were destroyed by Atomic weapons we find Japan harbors almost no hostility toward the U.S. While over in the east we got militaristic Communists who threatened us with Nuclear annihilation for 45 years. But if thats not enough proof lets think back to Somalia where the U.N. helped to create an enormous fiasco. But no the idea of allowing the U.N, to step in and help out in Iraq still seems to appeal to Liberals. Lets think about how that would work out. Well for the military part we would probably have to go through the U.N. security council, headed up in part by China...how would that work out for us? and even if we now decide to enlist the help of the U.N. for the Humanitarian efforts we would probably be working with the U.N.'s Human Rights Commission. Guess who replaced the U.S. on the Human Rights Commission after we were kicked off by France. Sudan and China. Do those two countries sound like ones we need to be helping us restore freedom and peace in Iraq? I didn't think so.

So if you still think that there was a better way for us to go into Iraq then let me no cause i think that the president is doing an excellent job and we should all stop arguing over weather or not it is worth it, because we all know that if Bill Clinton had decided to into Iraq everyone would have cheered his name and hailed him as a great Humanitarian and a defender of the free world. Instead George Bush is being called a war monger and in Idiot...somehow that does not seem fair.

Sorry for rambling on a little but but i had a lot that i think needed to be said and since I'm new and I wont have much time to post I figured I would get it all out there right now while I have the time.
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
countmered33 said:
-First of all Repub05 had an excellent point in saying that the mass graves of the Kurds offer plenty of evidence to attest to the fact that Saddam had WMD's. It is common knowledge that Saddam killed the Kurds using chemical weaponry, and to dispute that fact is ludicrous.
Saddam gassed the Kurds in 1988. Three years prior to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and subsequent mandate to rid Iraq of WMDs. In the twelve years between 1991 and 2003, Iraq apparently followed the UN mandate and got rid of the WMDs. To dispute the timeline is ridiculous as well.

-Secondly there have been areal photographs taken of convoys leaving Iraq into Syria and other countries in the two weeks preceding the invasion of Iraq. Now you could argue that there is no proof that WMD's were contained in these convoys, but unless Saddam was moving his most prised camels out of the country, I'm pretty sure there are few other reasons why huge groups of vehicles were hauling ass out of the country right before our boys moved in.
The United States-led group that scoured Iraq for weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) has found no evidence Iraq hid such weapons in Syria before the US invasion in March 2003, a final report on the investigation says.

The 1700-member Iraq Survey Team also said it found no Iraqi officials with direct knowledge of a transfer of WMDs developed by former President Saddam Hussein.

The report is the final addendum to the investigators’ September report that concluded prewar Iraq had no stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons and that its nuclear programme had decayed before the invasion.
source
 

countmered33

New member
Joined
May 11, 2005
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
shuamort said:
The 1700-member Iraq Survey Team also said it found no Iraqi officials with direct knowledge of a transfer of WMDs developed by former President Saddam Hussein.
source
Yes but prior to the invasion multiple Iraqi defectors came forward exposing Saddam's unwillingness to submit to U.N. sanctions. So we do have knowledge that even after he was commanded to disband his weapons program he did not. In my opinion knowing that a man like Saddam Hussein was working on and had the capability to build WMD's and the fact that he had used them in the past completely justifies any pre-emptive strike. Another tactic would be too little too late. If we waited until we new saw Saddam's weapons it would be because they were headed for us or our allies.
 

countmered33

New member
Joined
May 11, 2005
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
shuamort said:
The 1700-member Iraq Survey Team also said it found no Iraqi officials with direct knowledge of a transfer of WMDs developed by former President Saddam Hussein.
source
I don't know when that final report was made, but there was evidence discovered in Oct. of 03 that disputes that claim that there was no evidence that Saddam transfered WMD's into Syria.

"U.S. intelligence agencies have obtained satellite photographs of truck convoys that were at several weapons sites in Iraq in the weeks before U.S. military operations were launched, defense officials said yesterday.
The photographs indicate that Iraq was moving arms and equipment from its known weapons sites, said officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
According to one official, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, known as NGA, "documented the movement of long convoys of trucks from various areas around Baghdad to the Syrian border."
Source

If you read this article there is a large amount of information disputing the claim that there was no evidence suggesting that Saddam moved his WMD's into Syria.

Regardless prior to the invasion multiple Iraqi defectors came forward exposing Saddam's unwillingness to submit to U.N. sanctions. So we do have knowledge that even after he was commanded to disband his weapons program he did not. In my opinion knowing that a man like Saddam Hussein was working on and had the capability to build WMD's and the fact that he had used them in the past completely justifies any pre-emptive strike. Another tactic would be too little too late. If we waited until we new saw Saddam's weapons it would be because they were headed for us or our allies.
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Repub05 said:
First off- I'm not badmouthing the armed forces, I'm saying its probably not easy to find WMD's (I'm defending them) , and making sure liberals know that.
The search has ended. The ISG has quit and gone home. To say that these weapons are really there when the ISG et al have said that they aren't seems an odd way of defending them.

Repub05 said:
Of course there's no evidence that they shipped the WMD's out. how could there be?
If there were such a transfer that would mean that there were people who drove the forklifts, filed the disposition papers, issued the orders for such things to take place, drove the trucks etc. I wouldn't've been the actions of Hussein alone. There're many ways that there would've been an evidence trail. I'm sure that the men and women we selected to conduct the search for evidence looked at quite a number of possibilities.

Repub05 said:
And it's not an armchair its a crappy metal one.
You have my earnest and sincere sympathy. As one gets older, the true value of a good chair, particularly for contemplative pursuits, impinges on your consciousness more and more. Take my advice and splurge a little. Even if you can only go to a second hand store, the money will be well spent.

Repub05 said:
Now, your turn to explain, (if you're up to it):
what exactly are the benefits to the US;
why do 57% of Americans say the invasion of Iraq was not worth it;
why do 50% of Americans say that Team Bush deliberately mislead the electorate[#18]?


These polls are taken by liberal people, so chances are they target liberal people and do not acount for every US citizen that votes.
The entirety of your rebuttal depends on the Gallup organization not knowing how to conduct accurate polls and surveys. It's easy for this rebuttal to be misinterpreted as a drowning man's clutch at a straw. I'm open to persuasion. What evidence would you like to present that the Gallup organization doesn't know how to conduct accurate polls and surveys?

Repub05 said:
My opinion? If you don't vote - you can't complain. What does it take anyway? 1/2 hour of your day?
Depends on where you live. Many of our fellow Americans waited for hours in lines that snaked through high school parking lots. Myself, I had to vote absentee as I was out of pocket come election season.

Repub05 said:
"Lest the question be lost, let me reiterate the question, "What exactly are we getting out the deal, and why is it worth it?"

Evidence? How about mass graves containing thousands of dead Iraqis? Doesn't that kind of make you feel a little remorse for the Iraqi people?
I find the affair horrific, yet I find no guilt in myself over the affair. So, I can't say that I feel remorse per se.

Repub05 said:
Don't you think we should help them? <snip> We're the richest we're the most powerful, don't you think we should help others?
Sure, but why should help come in the form of a full scale invasion with the associated costs of hundreds of billions of dollars and tens of thousands of dead and wounded? Why should we put our men and women at risk (to quote Mr. Wolfowitz) "on the scale we did"?
There're other ways to help besides launching a full-scale invasion.

Repub05 said:
But you liberals...
How about you debate me? No more debating this "you liberals" crap. First off, I'm not a liberal. Second, liberals are no more homogenous a group than conservatives. It's generally meaningless to assign responsibility to one person for the actions of others in the manner in which this technique attempts to do.
So how 'bout you debate me instead of some vague and ethereal group of "you liberals"?

Repub05 said:
But you liberals never want to think about helping others in other countries you just want to think about your own country...
Ah yes, liberals like Henry Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft, Pat Buchanan and James Baker.
This generalization is roundly inaccurate, all but content free, irrelevant to the issue at hand, and an avoidance of the question.

Repub05 said:
Thats what we get out of the war.
We're expending the lives of soldiers so we can have a warm, fuzzy feeling? Warm, fuzzy feelings are not compelling national interests.

Repub05 said:
And don't you think that Saddam needed to have WMDs to kill thousands of kurds?
If you care to note, these atrocities occurred before Hussein was disarmed. At issue for this most recent invasion of Iraq was the ostensible threat from weapons that were in his possession just prior to and at the time of the invasion, not those that were in his possession during the Reagan Admin more than a decade earlier.


Repub05 said:
I said it once and I'll say it again- even if there was no WMDs, Saddam's killing of thousands of people in its self makes him and his regime's power over the nation a weapon of mass destruction.
This stretching and blurring of definition beyond recognition may be all well and good for you in your metal chair, but it's empty rhetoric.

Repub05 said:
It could very well be the Nessie And Bigfoot were in on the deal too.
The real question is "What do we have evidence of?"
The American Intelligence Community has found no reason to believe that there were banned weapons shipped out before the war. Have you got a more reliable source than this?

OK, lets say that at the begining of the war, US armed forces go in and find WMD's right away, you don't think that we wouldn't be doing what were doing right now anyway?
I'm unclear as to which 'what' you are referring.

Repub05 said:
You're accusing me of not having evidence when in reality, nobody really knows yet, not you or me, even though we have mass graves as evidence, and just because we haven't found them yet because their probably not even in the country anymore.
I'm not accusing you, I'm asking you if you have any evidence. Our brave men and women who were charged with the task of finding these banned weapons have stopped looking and said, "There ain't none." You seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that a search is still ongoing, but it's not. It's over.
I'm asking what your basis for gainsaying the ISG is.
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
countmered33 said:
Now you democrats argue that there were never any WMD's in Iraq and that Iraq was never a threat to the U.S., when just a few short years a go that was your key reason for not invading the country.
I've been a registered Republican for twenty years now, however, I'd like to address some of this. First off, that the Democrats did it too is a very poor way to gauge the appropriateness of one's actions. Second, when it comes to the threat presented to the US by Iraq the best intelligence information available at that time said that Iraq was unlikely to initiate and attack on the US either directly or by proxy for the foreseeable future. There's no way to reconcile the definition of pre-emptive war with an attack on a country that's unlikely to attack. I go into the issue in more detail here, Team Bush and "Best Info Available @ the Time" if you feel up to debating it. Please note that 'threat' is related to, but identical with 'WMD'.
Second, you're debating would be well served by debating the individuals at hand who are actually debating you. Using the various "you people" groups as targets of a debate is a cop-out. You'd have a much stronger case if you could show that those who you are actually debating actually made any of the statements you're attempting to attribute to them. Otherwise, your putting unwelcome words in someone else's mouth. There's a more precise term for constructing a deliberately flawed argument and attributing it to your opponent in a debate. Perhaps you're familiar with it?

countmered33 said:
However if you liberals insist on sticking to your new notion that there were never any WMD's in Iraq, and that Iraq was never a threat to the U.S., then i will help out Repub05 and offer some information.

countmered33 said:
-First of all Repub05 had an excellent point in saying that the mass graves of the Kurds offer plenty of evidence to attest to the fact that Saddam had WMD's. It is common knowledge that Saddam killed the Kurds using chemical weaponry, and to dispute that fact is ludicrous.
AFAICT, this fact was only disputed by the Reagan Whitehouse which issued reports that the Iranians may have done it. In any case it's irrelevant to the issue at hand for this most recent invasion of Iraq which revolved around the banned weapons that Iraq was said to have since it was disarmed after the Gulf War. At issue were the weapons that Iraq was supposed to've had just prior to and at the time of the invasion, not those that were in his possession during the Reagan Admin more than a decade earlier.

countmered33 said:
-Secondly there have been areal photographs taken of convoys leaving Iraq into Syria and other countries in the two weeks preceding the invasion of Iraq. Now you could argue that there is no proof that WMD's were contained in these convoys, but unless Saddam was moving his most prised camels out of the country, I'm pretty sure there are few other reasons why huge groups of vehicles were hauling ass out of the country right before our boys moved in.
Is your contention that the CIA, ISG et al don't know about these photos? Or that they are incapable of properly analyzing and evaluating these photos as well as you can? Or what?
It seems safe to assume that these things that have seen such wide spread news coverage have reached the desks of the people we assigned to examine these issues. They have examined them and reached teh conclusion that they reached which was that they found no evidence of such a transfer.
If you're worried that they remain ignorant of these photos or that they are not as competent in their analysis of the photos as yourself or whatever commentator or journalist who brought them to your attention then you have an obligation as an American to offer you expert advice. Sadly the ISG is has already completed its mission, but you're still able to contact the CIA with you insight.


countmered33 said:
-We have also found mobile chemical weapon factories that were recently active in Iraq since we've entered the country.
Please share the source of this information. I'd like to look at the same source that you did.

countmered33 said:
Well liberals still insist that Iraq did not pose an imminent threat to the U.S. ...
It bears noting that the American Intelligence community shared this pov as well.

countmered33 said:
...Democrats still argue that Saddam had no ties to terrorist groups.
Are you sure that this was a widely held belief? Perhaps you're conflating this with the idea that Hussein had no meaningful ties to al Qaeda.
In any case, the main international terrorist group that Hussein supported was the Mojahedin-e-Khalq. The groups was involved in the Oil4Food scandal, supported the taking of Iranian hostages when the Ayatollah took power in 79, killed several Americans, were involved in the brutal repression of the Kurdish rebellion following the Gulf War, fought along side Iraqi troops against US soldiers in this most recent invasion, and most recently, have received fund raising support from GWB presidential advisors.
I've yet to come across an Attack-Iraq-Bush-backer who will acknowledge this let alone wants to talk about it. So, I'll understand if you never refer to this again.
I suspect that you have conflated the idea that Hussein had no meaningful ties to al Qaeda with "Saddam had no ties to terrorist groups."

countmered33 said:
There is documented evidence proving that Saddam reached out to Osama Bin Laden in the 1990's in order to attempt to create a "friendship". Saddam called on Bin Laden to visit Iraq and to meet with him.
There were more than a decade's worth of failed attempts to broker a mutually acceptable deal.

countmered33 said:
Bin Laden did so...
I'd like to see your source for this assertion that UbL himself met with Hussein. Will you share?

countmered33 said:
In the case of operation Iraqi freedom it is more of a question of what are the Iraqi people getting out of it.
It may be the case for Iraqis that it's more of a question what the Iraqi people are getting out of it, but as for me, I'm an American- I want to know what the Us is getting out of our huge expense and commitment.

countmered33 said:
To say that this war in Iraq is uncalled for is to cay that the liberation of the Jews in WWII was uncalled for. It is to say that our effort to stop the killing fields in Cambodia were uncalled for. It is to say that our humanitarian efforts in Somalia and kosovo were uncalled for. It is to that any Humanitarian effort that the United States has ever embarked on was not worth it.
No, it's not.

countmered33 said:
Saddam posed a threat to the free world and he needed to be taken out of power. Now as i have already mentioned the threat that he posed to the United States is clear, at least clear to me and other sane conservatives, but Saddam also posed a threat to the rest of the world.
Based on what intelligence? The best information available at the time showed that Hussein was not going to attack the US- largely because he feared what Dr. Rice called "national obliteration", what Baker referred to as as "resounding silence" in the Iraqi desert.
Please provide the intelligence estimates that you used to reach the conclusion that Hussein posed a "clear" threat to the US.

countmered33 said:
Saddam had long range ballistic missiles capable of reaching Israel, and since i already mentioned that he and the fundamentalist muslin terrorist Osama Bin Laden (who HATES Israel) were in cahoots...
If one is very liberal with the definition of "in cahoots" then this statement could be construed as truthful. However, for those of us who choose to use the more traditional and conservative definition of "in cahoots" this is not true.

countmered33 said:
... we created Israel and we pledged to defend it to our last man...
I went to school in Arkansas where the educational system's 49th out of 50 and I don't think that they covered the part where the US created Israel or where we pledged to defend Israel even if it were to cost us all of our men. So, I'd be much obliged if you could please point me to the historical references for these assertions.

countmered33 said:
...because we all know that if Bill Clinton had decided to into Iraq everyone would have cheered his name and hailed him as a great Humanitarian and a defender of the free world.
I'm not sure which 'we' you're talking about who knows this. If you attempting to include me into this we then I'll have to call BS on this assertion. For the life of me I don't understand why Clinton has to drug out as some sort of example every time there's criticism of GWB. I was sick of Clinton's crap before most any of you ever even heard of him.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Part 2

countmered33 said:
Saddam posed a threat to the free world and he needed to be taken out of power. Now as i have already mentioned the threat that he posed to the United States is clear, at least clear to me and other sane conservatives, but Saddam also posed a threat to the rest of the world.
Based on what intelligence? The best information available at the time showed that Hussein was not going to attack the US- largely because he feared what Dr. Rice called "national obliteration", what Baker referred to as as "resounding silence" in the Iraqi desert.
Please provide the intelligence estimates that you used to reach the conclusion that Hussein posed a "clear" threat to the US.

countmered33 said:
Saddam had long range ballistic missiles capable of reaching Israel, and since i already mentioned that he and the fundamentalist muslin terrorist Osama Bin Laden (who HATES Israel) were in cahoots...
If one is very liberal with the definition of "in cahoots" then this statement could be construed as truthful. However, for those of us who choose to use the more traditional and conservative definition of "in cahoots" this is not true.

countmered33 said:
... we created Israel and we pledged to defend it to our last man...
I went to school in Arkansas where the educational system's 49th out of 50 and I don't think that they covered the part where the US created Israel or where we pledged to defend Israel even if it were to cost us all of our men. So, I'd be much obliged if you could please point me to the historical references for these assertions.

countmered33 said:
...because we all know that if Bill Clinton had decided to into Iraq everyone would have cheered his name and hailed him as a great Humanitarian and a defender of the free world.
I'm not sure which 'we' you're talking about who knows this. If you attempting to include me into this we then I'll have to call BS on this assertion. For the life of me I don't understand why Clinton has to drug out as some sort of example every time there's criticism of GWB. I was sick of Clinton's crap before most any of you ever even heard of him.
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
countmered33 said:
Yes but prior to the invasion multiple Iraqi defectors came forward exposing Saddam's unwillingness to submit to U.N. sanctions.
Much information re these defectors was stripped of context and the US Intel Community's analysis before it was passed along to us in the electorate. Not all of what was reported by these folks was accurate. There were defectors like Curveball who General Powel described as "inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading."

countmered33 said:
...completely justifies any pre-emptive strike.
While it may be seen to justify a strike it, by definition, it would not be a pre-emptive one if these were the sole justifications. Pre-emptive refers to a quick-draw type of situation where an opponent is about to launch an attack. Pre-emptive war has been seen as a legitimate and just war for centuries. As an aside according to UN charter, pre-emptive wars don't require any consultation with the UN, let alone approval.
Perhaps thinking of a preventive war.

When there is an imminent threat then a war is not an aggressive war. It is part of a long sanctioned tradition of "preemption." "Upon detecting evidence that an opponent is about to attack, one beats the opponent to the punch and attacks first to blunt the impending strike."

Without an imminent threat a war is a "preventive war". Preventive war is based on the concept that war is inevitable and that it is better to fight now while the costs are low rather than later when the costs are high. It is a deliberate decision to begin a war."

As Confucius analected, “If language is not correct, then what is said is not what is meant; if what is said is not what is meant, then ... morals and art will deteriorate [and justice will go] astray ... Hence there must be no arbitrariness in what is said. This matters above everything.”

Or as Rush Limbaugh says, "Words mean things."
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
countmered33 said:
I don't know when that final report was made, but there was evidence discovered in Oct. of 03 that disputes that claim that there was no evidence that Saddam transfered WMD's into Syria.
What? You're unfamiliar with the report? Yet you're still willing debate it's findings. How very...um...brave of you.

FYI, the report was finished in Sept 2004 and the latest addendum came out in March of this year.

countmered33 said:
If you read this article there is a large amount of information disputing the claim that there was no evidence suggesting that Saddam moved his WMD's into Syria.
No, actually it doesn't dispute it at all.
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
countmered33 said:
-We have also found mobile chemical weapon factories that were recently active in Iraq since we've entered the country.
I'd genuinely love to know where this knowledge comes from. Would you please share?
 

countmered33

New member
Joined
May 11, 2005
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Sorry i don't have a lot of time to post any replies as i am quite busy between school and lacrosse. Here is a site about the Weapons laboratories maybe i will write a longer response later.

Biological Weapons Stations
 

akyron

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
10,345
Reaction score
2,433
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
countmered33 said:
Sorry i don't have a lot of time to post any replies as i am quite busy between school and lacrosse. Here is a site about the Weapons laboratories maybe i will write a longer response later.

Biological Weapons Stations


Neat. Just in case you need fertilizer today and a bioweapon tomorrow.
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
countmered33 said:
Sorry i don't have a lot of time to post any replies as i am quite busy between school and lacrosse. Here is a site about the Weapons laboratories maybe i will write a longer response later.

Biological Weapons Stations
I thought you said recently. This is two years old. These were debunked back at the time. These were not bio-weapons labs.

All of the best info in the ISG's final report. It's publicly available now. If you're genuinely interested in the truth I'd be happy to supply a link. If you'd rather cling to fanatsy, then I'm not needed

You got me all excited for nothing.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom